We feel that if the data here is accurate, Arab business is rather looking for new talent in the new world. We believe that most young recruits to businesses in North Africa and the Middle East are returning young talent and that this positions well these business companies for the changing global atmosphere. It is rather that then looking to hire on the cheap. The business slow down has just helped refresh the human capital of MENA (The Middle East – North Africa Arab region).

—————
 http://www.arabianbusiness.com/595422-me…

MENA firms hire new graduates to cut costs – poll

by

Elsa Baxter,  Sunday, 22 August 2010.

GRADUATES: 37.6 percent of people said their employers preferred to hire fresh graduates post recession. (Getty Images)

Almost 40 percent of Middle East and North African (MENA) employees said their company was more interested in hiring new university graduates since the global recession, according to the latest poll by Bayt.com.

The survey, which consulted 13,197 respondents from across the region, found that 37.6 percent of people said their employers preferred to hire fresh graduates, while 26.4 percent said they were less inclined to do so. A further 19.2 percent of respondents said things were unchanged.

More than half (51.7 percent) of participants said the number one motivation behind the hiring was financial because new graduates command lower salaries and fewer benefits, while 12.7 percent said it was because they would have more passion for the job.

A further 10.4 percent it was because new graduates would have more creativity, 8.4 percent said it was due to their fresh analytical thinking, and 5.1 percent cited better communication skills. {our math says this is 37.6% or that one out of 2,9 respondents was honest about the motives. The others belong to the commonly held  idea that age makes people wiser while we rather think that today ag makes most people more obsolete}

“The results of our most recent poll show that in times of economic strife employers are perceived as more likely to hire fresh graduates mostly due to the fact that they accept a lower salary and require fewer benefits,” said Amer Zureikat, vice president of sales, Bayt.com.

It is easy to sum up the situation in regard to Muslims being believed that they intend to lead a healing attempt while creating a furor that can only result in a new heating up of deep sentiments. If the intent was by some to build a Mosque at the place of victory over the infidel, but the Muslim majority was – or was not – part of that intent – is now irrelevant. The way out can be by moving the new Islamic Center to some place – “in eye contact” – across the water – Brooklyn, Staten Island, New Jersey – and dedicate it as originally stated  to a CORDOBA HOUSE – rather then the limping  Park 51 Project.

We want also to point at the clearly sluggish pace of donations to Pakistan as another outcome from this last stand taken by Muslims in America – and the threat hanging over America’s head that 100 million young Pakistani Muslims, helped by extremists at their moment of physical constraints, rather then by their own government, nor by the Western cultures, as nothing less then the evolution of Bin Laden because of his fight against the America propped up Saudi regime.

The reality is that internal disagreements in the Islamic world are being projected against US Administrations that support out of convenience the existing regimes in these Islamic countries, and the extremists stood up in efforts to oppose their own leaders, and only secondly, took upon themselves to fight the protectors of the hated regimes.

The US people are not supposed to understand all of that when faced with a 9/11 and are not to be stepped upon even in a case where the superficial right as well as the deep meaning of American Democracy is on their side. Clever Arab States will try – like the Obama Administration is trying – to build bridges rather then burrowing in the trenches of the small print. Go ahead and show magnanimity.

By the way, could little Kuwait that offered $5 million to Pakistan, without ever having been involved in the dismantling of that country, or the UAE at $1.5 million, tell the much larger Saudi Arabia, that shipped its own Jihadists to Pakistan being part of the internal fracas there, that according to UN listings offered now peanuts to Pakistan – could they do some more when compared with the US offer of $150 million. Actually – just remember those two planes of Bin Laden family being shipped out from a US under air embargo by the Bush family, those days immediately following 9/11. There are very good reasons for Americans to be mad and for Arabs to take the low road that we suggest can be in this case the real high road.

———————

From all that sea of articles in the press of today – I pick the following as it is the easiest – it is from aol:

NATION
Construction Workers Oppose Mosque Near Ground Zero

by Hugh Collins, Contributor to aol News.

NEW YORK (Aug. 20) — The proposed Islamic center near ground zero is facing stiff opposition from a group that will be vital if the plan is to be realized: the New York City building industry.

Construction worker Andy Sullivan has set up a “Hard Hat Pledge” on his website, calling on construction workers to vow not to do work on the Park51 community center and mosque, the New York Daily News said.

Diane Bondareff, MCT
Mosque opponent Andy Sullivan stands outside the site of the proposed mosque and Islamic center on Park Place near lower Manhattan’s ground zero on Thursday.

Sullivan is not alone. Several New York construction workers interviewed by AOL News declared their opposition to the project.

“It doesn’t make any sense to be there,” said Eduard Nika, a marble worker. “The mentality these people have, it’s not anything to do with religion.”

The planned mosque and community center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 people has spiraled from a local zoning issue into a national political debate.

Public figures such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have blasted the plan, saying it is an insult to the families of the victims. The Anti-Defamation League, whose mission statement says it exists to fight “all forms of bigotry,” has said the center should be built at another location.

Others, such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Barack Obama, have said that while they understand the strong resentment the project arouses, any effort to block the Islamic center would infringe on American values of freedom.

Handyman Frank Rivera, who said three of his relatives were in the World Trade Center at the time of the attack but survived, believes the project would be bad for New York City and an insult to the families of victims.

“It shouldn’t be there. It’s a slap in the face,” Rivera said.

Like Nika, he said he would sooner quit his job than work on the project.

But not everyone is opposed to the Islamic center. Mike Bakovic, who works in interior construction and painting, said he’d work on the project — even if he didn’t get paid.

“Muslim people have the freedom or religion, same as everyone else, the Jew, the Catholic, everyone else,” Bakovic said. “Islam is peaceable, like every other religion. “

Louis Coletti, president of the Building Trades Employers Association, told the Daily News that labor unions had not taken a “formal position” on the plan. Still, he said it was ” a very difficult dilemma for the contractors and organized labor force.”

State Dept. sponsors trip for imam connected to N.Y. mosque project

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Park51 Muslim community center and mosque proposed on a site near New York’s Ground Zero, leaves this week for a three-nation Middle East tour on behalf of the State Department, during which he is expected to speak about the controversy surrounding his project.

Rauf will leave New York and travel to Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, a State Department official tells The Cable. The cost of the trip is $16,000.

The State Department has no knowledge or control of the specifics of what Rauf will talk about as he tours the region, but officials note that his agenda could not be more directly related to the backlash against his project, still slated to be built in Lower Manhattan.

“His program is about religious diversity and tolerance in America. Will he relate that to his personal situation? Probably,” another State Department official said.

The State Department has been shy about talking about Rauf and the trip, ostensibly to avoid wading into the controversy over the community center. But that didn’t stop officials from posting New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s impassioned defense of the project on the State Department-run Web site America.gov. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that because the site is directed at foreign audiences, State was not violating the Smith-Mundt Act, which prohibits the U.S. government from spreading propaganda inside American borders.

Rauf’s trip is organized by the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs and will not include any fundraising. This is his third trip with the State Department; the first was in 2007 under the George W. Bush administration. Rauf also visited Egypt in January.

A push to assist Iraqis who aided U.S.

As the drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq accelerates, the thousands of Iraqi citizens who have worked with the U.S. military since the 2003 invasion face an even more uncertain future. Members of Congress are calling on the administration to devise a new plan to help them.

In 2008, a shocking article in the New York Post, written by U.S. Marine Owen West, described the harrowing experience of translators and aides to U.S. troops in Iraq as they tried to escape the threats on their lives and transition to a better life in America. It was an excruciatingly long process full of bureaucratic hurdles.

Those who have made it the United States — more than 35,000 Iraqi refugees have arrived since 2003 — face another set of near-insurmountable challenges. Eligible for one-time grants ranging from $900 to $1,800, most have trouble finding work and are still fighting with the State Department for permanent resident status.

Congress held hearings and eventually passed legislation in 2008 to expand services for Iraqis who had worked with the U.S. military. But now, as the U.S. military leaves Iraq, Congress members are calling on the administration to do more.

Twenty-two senators and representatives wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently to demand that the administration come up with a comprehensive plan to support the thousands of Iraqis who have worked for the U.S. military.

“The United States has a moral obligation to stand by those Iraqis who have risked their lives — and the lives of their families — to stand by us in Iraq for the past seven years,” the lawmakers wrote.

Senator contests pick for ambassador to Turkey

The GOP is holding up the nomination of Frank Ricciardone to be the next U.S. ambassador to Turkey. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday explaining his objections to the nomination.

Brownback, who will retire from the Senate at the end of this year, has long been critical of Ricciardone, dating to the nominee’s time as ambassador to Egypt during the Bush administration and as one of the key officials chosen to strengthen Iraqi opposition groups in early 2003. Brownback states in his letter that Ricciardone “downplayed” the Bush administration’s pro-democracy efforts in Egypt and “did not favor” a strong effort to work with Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the invasion.

“From the latter days of the Bush administration to today, opposition groups from Africa to the Middle East to Asia have been questioning the U.S. commitment to democracy and human rights. Given these questions, I am not convinced that Ambassador Ricciardone is the right ambassador for Turkey at this time — despite his extensive diplomatic experience,” Brownback wrote.

To UN Women, $100 M Offer by Qatar for HQ, But UNFPA Inks 15 Yr NYC Lease.

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 — Less than two weeks after the formation of “UN Women,” to consolidate the UN’s agencies working on the issue, one of the agencies has gone forward with a major lease of real estate in Manhattan.

The UN Population Fund, UNFPA, has just reportedly signed a 15 year lease for three floors (131,000 square feet) at 605 Third Avenue in midtown Manhattan.

Meanwhile, multiple sources tell Inner City Press that during the negotiations to form UN Women, Qatar offered $100 million if it the headquarters would be put in Qatar.

But as Inner City Press reported earlier this month, Qatar is one of only three countries which has never sent a female athlete to the Olympic Games, along with Brunei and Saudi Arabia.

So now matter how much money is offered, some ask how could the headquarters of UN Women be in Qatar?

UN’s Ban and Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned, $100 M not shown

————————————————————————————————————————————–

A Group of 77 source complained, as to UN agency headquarters, that an effect of the European Union’s push to form a UN Environment agency would be to undermine the status of Nairobi, where the current UN Environment Program is headquartered.

But maybe if UNEP stepped out and signed a big long term lease for more Kenyan real estate…

———–

At UN, As Rudd Meets Ban for 50 Minutes, Pasztor Is Present, Job for Climate Change in Air?

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 — When Kevin Rudd, just ousted as Australia’s prime minister, met late July 14 with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, there was one attendee rarely as such meetings: Janos Pasztor, the head of the UN’s climate change unit.

This came a day after Inner City Press reported that the UN is being urged by the Obama Administration to give Rudd a climate change job.

Inconveniently, the IPCCC top post was recently awarded to Christina Figueres of Costa Rica. (Pasztor competed for the job, temporarily and partially recusing himself from his past and current job, but lost out.)

Now, while the U.S. wishes the IPCCC post were open, it appears that a new special envoy on global warming post would have to be created. One wonders what Pasztor thinks. Also present in the meeting were Ban’s chief of staff Vijay Nambiar and his deputy, but most senior advisor, Kim Won-soo.

UN’s Ban and Rudd

Prior to meeting Rudd, Ban had an audience with representatives of the Korean Red Cross. They bought a gift, which was waiting by the elevator. Moments before Rudd came in, Ban emerged from his office and began walking to his spot at the table.

Moments later, Pasztor joins

Then he stopped, remembering – he had forgotten to put on his glasses. He went back and got them. Then Rudd entered, then Pasztor. The photos were taken, and the photographers hustled out.

But Rudd did not leave until 6:20 p.m. — 50 minutes later….

www.arabianbusiness.com suggests that modern advanced thinking about energy might someday find its way to the oil countries – that is when they run out of gas, but we wonder why they needed the regional grid anyway and why they do not think of the sun and the wind in their energy planning.

———————-

Gulf power grid to meet demand for extra 55,000MW

by Neeraj Gangal

Saturday, 26 June 2010.

POWER DEMAND: The first phase of the grid, which was launched during the second half of 2009, has already been completed. (Getty Images)

The regional electricity network currently servicing the four GCC countries of Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, will play a key role in meeting demand for an additional 55,000 MW of power through 2015, according to a report on Friday.

The first phase of the grid, which was launched during the second half of 2009, has already been completed, Oman Daily Observer said.

The UAE could be added to the network within 2010, it added.

“The transnational system might still not be enough to keep pace with the Gulf’s rapidly growing power consumption. Although ongoing regional capacity is at around 75,000 MW, a projected 9.5 percent growth in annual demand will require more electricity and energy projects,” the Oman Daily Observer report noted.

GCC Power 2010, the 8th Regional Conference for National Committees of CIGRE (the International Council on Large Electric Systems) in the Arab Countries to be held from October 18 to 20, 2010 in Doha, Qatar, will reveal business and partnership opportunities driven by the region’s huge power demand, it said.

George Ayache, General Manager, IFP Qatar, organiser of GCC Power 2010 said, “GCC Power 2010 is the only event capable of providing a comprehensive view of the latest developments in electricity and energy affecting the Gulf region.”

The event will combine panel and technical sessions with international exhibitions to offer a full range of information and options to industry and government decision makers.

The event will also share valuable insights on Qatar’s thriving energy business, which has emerged as one of the country’s primary growth sectors, George Ayache said.

The GCC Power 2010 Conference will discuss development, technologies and techniques in system operation and control, system planning, development and technical studies, substations, power transformers and reactors, switchgear and hv equipment, transmission lines and cables, hvdc and power electronics, and emerging technologies, according to the Oman Daily Observer.

Last year’s edition gathered around 500 international delegates to discuss more than 50 papers on electricity and energy. GCC Power 2010 is owned by CIGRE, the GCC regional committee for large electricity systems, it added.

————————–
 http://www.arabianbusiness.com/591436-gu…

READERS’ COMMENTS

Disclaimer: The views expressed here by our readers are not necessarily shared by  ArabianBusiness.com or its employees.

—-   —-  —-

Waste to Energy
Posted by scorp2x, Abu Dhabi, UAE on Sunday 27 June 2010 at 17:29 UAE time

There are other options for creating power as well. My own company are trying to establish an excellent ‘waste to energy’ facility in the UAE and other Gulf States. Such a facility can produce power by converting all kinds of waste into usable energy and with almost zero emissions and no harmful waste product at all. In fact, any waste by product is all usable in either the steel industry of the building industry. This is a truly green project and we hope to win support for this very soon.

– — –

Energy is saved is equal to energy produced.
Posted by Dastagir, Trichur, India on Saturday 26 June 2010 at 19:22 UAE time

One important thing that I noticed during my 3 months in stay in Dubai is the misuse of electricity. Almost all the buildings there are power hungry, especially the malls,exhibition halls,flats etc… The excessive height, over usage of glass,lack of ceiling fans in some flats,some types of light fittings, etc… are some reasons for the huge conception of electricity. It is already been to late to enter the green electricity concept like solar power at least to some areas like public parks,traffic lights,etc.. Nuclear power is also a option if it is built and operated safely. Let us not forget nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and the after effects of a accident.

 http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowP…

|  Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Home |
JCPA, Beit Milken, 13 Tel Hai St., Jerusalem 92107, Israel, Tel: 972-2-5619281 Fax: 972-2-5619112, jcpa@netvision.net.il

April 22, 2010 – EARTH DAY.
 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americ…

Bolivian climate summit gets UN nod. Delegates from over 130 countries are attending the alternative climate summit in Bolivia [Reuters] The Untied Nations has backed a Bolivian sponsored summit on climate change, with a representative saying that the gathering was a “great opportunity for the UN”. “Sometimes at the global level, as with what happened with the recent climate change debate, many groups felt excluded and I think it is right to address this,” Alicia Barcena, representative of UN secretary-general Ban Ki Moon, said on Wednesday. “The United Nations secretary general is trying to send a message that we’re completely open to dialogue.” The three-day summit, dubbed the “World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth”, is being hosted by Evo Morales, the Bolivian president. Nearly 130 countries, including many of the world’s poorest, are being represented at the meeting in a stadium in the central Bolivian city of Cochabamba. Morales was fiercely opposed to last December’s Copenhagen Accord calling it non-binding. New approaches Instead of gathering top diplomats and world leaders, the Bolivian alternative summit is made up of indigenous groups, scientists, activists and delegations from lower income countries. The Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) said that the summit would look at new approaches to climate change. “I believe that the international community is putting in all efforts to reach a global agreement on climate change,” Juan Pablo Bonilla, head of the IADB, said from Washington. “Different areas will be discussed in Bolivia, such as adaptation and the transfer of technology, which of course will result in some important input on the issue.” Opening the summit the Bolivian president said that poor countries would likely bear the brunt of climate change and that all countries should be held accountable for their actions. Morales also called for the death of careless capitalism so that the Earth can live. “Either capitalism dies, or it will be Mother Earth,” he said to around 20,000 people at the summit. “We’re here because industrialised countries have not honoured their promises.” ———- Copenhagen not clear Critics say the Copenhagen Accord which seeks to limit a rise in average world temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times does not specify how this goal will be reached. Developing nations have resisted a legally binding climate treaty, arguing that wealthy nations must bear the primary responsibility for climate change. The Bolivia summit comes after a preparatory meeting between representatives from the world’s leading economies in Washington ahead of the December UN summit in Cancun, Mexico. The US-led Major Economies Forum comprises 17 countries responsible for the bulk of global emissions, but excludes smaller and poorer nations. Morales is planning to propose a world referendum this week to ask up to two billion people how they think governments should tackle climate change, and organisers plan to take the final text drafted at the summit to Cancun. The end of the summit is planned to coincide with Earth Day which is marked throughout most of the world on Friday, April 22.

 http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/when-t…

Earlier this year a Chinese lovesick university student jumped a checkpoint at Newark International Airport to kiss his girlfriend goodbye. The security breach brought airport operations screeching to a halt for several hours while stranding thousands of passengers. Officials have been reluctant to say just how expensive the Newark incident was, but analysts believe hundreds of thousands of dollars, at a minimum, were lost.

“Once you shut down the airport, you’ve got all sorts of costs,” says Maclyn Clouse, professor of finance at the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business. “You have canceled flights, more missed connections, dollars incurred by the consumers. I would say [the cost of] shutting the airport down for a day, or hours like that, could be up in the six figures.”

And then there was the situation just recently, when a Qatari diplomat was confronted by air marshals after he was discovered smoking in the lavatory of a United Airlines (UA) plane flying out of Washington D.C. As a precaution, officials from the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, scrambled two F-16 fighter jets to escort the United flight into the Denver International Airport. The airport remained opened during the incident and had no impact on its operations, airport officials said.

But it costs about $7,500 per hour, including fuel and maintenance expenses, to put each of those F-16s into the air, according to NORAD spokesperson Lt. Commander Gary Ross. The aircraft were airborne for about 40 minutes, which would put the total cost of intercepting the United jet around $12,000.

That may not sound like much, but Ross says NORAD scrambles jets about 200 times each year in response to possible aviation security threats, such as potentially dangerous or unruly passengers (like in that last example), airplanes that lose radio contact with the Federal Aviation Administration or aircraft that stray into restricted airspace. “It’s better to side on precaution, to send fighters up to have eyes on the aircraft,” he says.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/bynuHX

The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, sources suggest to the BBC.

Israel considers areas within the Jerusalem municipality as its territory.

The possibility surfaced at talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar’s foreign minister.

The official said the US would “seriously consider abstaining” if the issue of Israeli settlements was put to the vote, a diplomat told the BBC.

US officials in Washington have not confirmed the report.

There are no concrete plans at present to table such a resolution at the UN.

But it is likely that the US is considering how to maintain pressure, and a UN resolution would be one way, says BBC state department correspondent Kim Ghattas.

The US usually blocks Security Council resolutions criticizing Israel.

But relations between the allies have been severely strained by the announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement, Ramat Schlomo, during a recent visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden.

The move prompted the Palestinians to pull out of the US-brokered indirect “proximity talks” that had only just been agreed in a bid to revive the peace process, which has been stalled for more than a year.

Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are held to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Guarantee sought

The reported exchange between the US official and Qatar’s foreign minister came to light during a meeting at an Arab League summit in the Libyan town of Sirte.

A diplomatic source told the BBC that Qatar’s Foreign Minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jasim Al Thani – who is also the prime minister – had recently met an official high up in the Obama administration during a visit to France.

Sheikh Hamad Al Thani was in Paris last week for an economic forum

During their talks, Sheikh Hamad asked the US official whether Washington would guarantee not to veto a UN Security Council resolution that was critical of Israel’s ongoing settlement construction in East Jerusalem.

The diplomat said the US official had replied that the current feeling in Washington was that they would “seriously consider abstention”.

An Egyptian official is said to have confirmed his knowledge of the US position during a meeting at the Arab League summit, which was held behind closed doors.

The US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, was in Paris last week to hold talks with Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas.

The US is one of five permanent members of the Security Council with veto power and has a history of blocking any resolution condemning Israel.

The BBC’s Rana Jawad, in Sirte, says that many people will see the comments as yet another sign of Washington’s recent dispute with Israel.

In November, Israel announced a 10-month suspension of new building in the West Bank. But it considers areas within the Jerusalem municipality as its territory and thus not subject to the restrictions.

This week, The Columbia University and The Earth Institute’s STATE OF THE PLANET 2010 Conference brought to New York, and to all these other locations of the meeting, a feel for ALJAZEERA or Al Jazeera English. This was good!

As we noted in the previous article http://www.sustainabilitank.info/#14015 – we think that the most innovative step at the STATE OF THE PLANET 2010 event was the fact that the Master of Ceremonies, and sometime moderator, was Rizwan “Riz” Khan from Al Jazeera English, an important media network headquartered in Qatar which is a Middle East fossil fuel exporting State. Though without any footing in the program itself, Middle East oil producers got nevertheless a stake in the discussion, and we never said that oil and oil money should not be part of the effort of finding replacement for the addiction to oil.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Khan

Rizwan “Riz” Khan (born April 1962) is a Yemeni-born British television news reporter and interviewer, who first rose to prominence while working for the BBC and CNN. He currently hosts his own television show on Al Jazeera English.

Khan was born in Aden to a Punjabi father and Yemeni mother. His mother’s roots go back to Kutch in the Indian state of Gujarat, while father’s roots hail from Kashmir. Khan moved with his family to London, England, at the age of four. He attended Wood Green High School and joined the Air Training Corps, graduated with a Bachelor of Science with Honours in Medical Physiology from the University of Wales, and then completed a postgraduate course in Radio Journalism at the University of Portsmouth.

In 1987 he was selected for the BBC News Trainee scheme – a two year BBC training system, usually taking only 6 people per course. Khan progressed to jobs as a BBC Reporter, Producer, and Writer, working in both television and radio, and would later become one of the founding News Presenters on BBC World Service Television News. He hosted the news bulletin that launched BBC World Service Television News in 1991.

In 1993, he moved to CNN International, where he became a senior anchor for the network’s global news shows. Events he covered included the 1996 and 1999 elections in India; the 1997 historic election in Britain; and in April 1998 the unprecedented live coverage from the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, the Hajj.
In 1996 he launched his interactive interview show CNN: Q&A with Riz Khan, and he has conducted interviews with guests including former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former US Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela, and genomic scientist J. Craig Venter. Khan also secured the world exclusive with Pakistan’s General Pervez Musharraf following his coup in October 1999. Khan also hosted Q&A-Asia with Riz Khan. These interactive shows put world newsmakers and celebrities up for viewer questions live by phone, e-mail, video-mail and fax, along with questions and comments taken from the real-time chatroom that opens half-an-hour before each show.

Khan currently hosts the Riz Khan Show on Al Jazeera English. On his show, Khan interviews analysts and policy makers and allows viewers to interact with them via phone, email, SMS messages or fax.

Khan speaks Urdu and Hindi, the national language of Pakistan and the official language of India respectively, and understands other South Asian languages such as Punjabi and Kutchi. He has studied French, and can understand some other European languages, including Swedish.

In 2005 he authored his first book, Al-Waleed: Businessman Billionaire Prince, published by Harper Collins.

When asked by CNN’s Frank Sesno “Is Hamas a terrorist organization?”, Khan replied “I’m not one to judge.” When then asked “Is Hezbollah a terrorist organization?”, he said, “Same thing, you know, I’m not going to judge.” Khan’s statements led to strong criticism from American conservative media analyst L. Brent Bozell III.  Many of the world’s major leading media organizations ask their staff to avoid the word ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism,’ viewing it to be a barrier to understanding.

March 26, 2010, the day after the Columbia University meeting, out of Washington, the Riz Khan program ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhhwnoK3R9… – “Riz Khan – War and peace in Quran and Bible” – dealt with – “We examine what role the Bible and the Quran played in inciting violence through the ages.”

————————————————————–

Riz Khan was selected for the role he played in the March 26, 2010 because of his clear talent for doing this sort of thing – being a Master of Ceremony at a public meeting or TV program, and for the fast wit needed to ask prodding questions and tell humorous short stories.  But we kept in mind also an ulterior motive. That became clear to us as there was also a second event – Wednesday, March 24, 2010, the previous day in the afternoon, when Professor Peter J. Awn, Director of the Columbia University Middle East Institute, in co-sponsorship with The Columbia School of Journalism, had over Mr. Kahn’s boss – no other then the Director General of all ALJAZEERA Network, Mr. Waddah Khanfar, who after having been afraid to come to the US during the G.W. Bush Presidency years, is effectively investigating now, in the days of the Obama Presidency, the possibility of linking up with US TV networks. As we learned from him, besides reaching Al Jazeera English on the internet, it is already possible to see Al Jazeera News on TV in the Washington DC area.

He is investigating with New York area TV and many other US markets, the possibility of similar arrangements. We clearly believe in the right to a free press and as such we did not mind that the two presentable gentlemen appearances might have had ulterior motives. We say, as it happened, the stage for the Riza performance of Thursday was actually set at Columbia University already on Wednesday, as we do not believe in mere coincidences. But we also say that opening the US door to Al Jazeera English will benefit the US by allowing flow of information into the US that has a more Middle East flavor, while also allowing flow of information from the US to the Middle East as seen by someone with Middle East perspective. If Israel allows this already for several years without fear, so should the US allow it now.

————————————————————-

Media Revolution in the Middle East.

Wednesday, March 24, 12:30-2pm

International Affairs Building, Room 1512

420 West 118th St.

A discussion with Al Jazeera Director General, Wadah Khanfar, who
transformed the single channel into a media network with multiple
properties including Al Jazeera English. Ranked as one of the most
“Powerful People in the World” by Forbes Magazine, Khanfar began
his career as a news correspondent in South Africa and later reported
on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of his first mandates as
managing director was to launch the Al Jazeera Code of Ethics and Code
of Conduct in July 2004 at the First Al Jazeera International Forum.

Co-sponsored with the Middle East Institute and Columbia’s School of
Journalism.

———————————————————-

Ranked as one of the most “Powerful People in the World” by Forbes Magazine, named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (Davos), recognized as the 3rd (another source says 8th) most influential Arab in the world by Arabian Business, and one of the most influential Muslims in the world (Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre), Wadah Khanfar is the Director General of the Al Jazeera Network. During his tenure Al Jazeera went from a single channel to a media network with multiple properties including the Al Jazeera Arabic channel, Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Documentary , Al Jazeera Sport, Al Jazeera’s news websites, the Al Jazeera Media Training and Development Center, the Al Jazeera Center for Studies, Al Jazeera Mubasher (live), and Al Jazeera Mobile.

Khanfar started his career with Al Jazeera in 1997 covering some of the world’s key political zones. Khanfar’s first role in the organization was as an analyst correspondent in South Africa. In 2001/2002 he was a war correspondent in Afghanistan and during the war in Iraq, he reported from Kurdish-controlled territory in the North. Later, he was appointed as the Chief of the Baghad Bureau. Khanfar became Managing Director of the Al Jazeera Channel in 2003 and Director General of the Al Jazeera Network in 2006. One of his first mandates as managing director was to launch the Al Jazeera Code of Ethics and Al Jazeera’s Code of Conduct in July 2004 at the First Al Jazeera International Forum.

Khanfar has addressed leading political and media think tanks including the Middle East Institute, New America Foundation, Council on Foreign Relations, and George Washington University. He has appeared on the Charlie Rose Show, NPR’s Diane Rheem show, and presented at the Paley Center for Media. In 2009 Khanfar met with senior officials and advisors at the White House, State Department, and the Pentagon.

The day before the Columbia University meeting, March 23, 2010, Mr. Khanfar was the Keynote Speaker at the 2010 annual symposium of the Georgetown University, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS), that is housed in the Rafic A.Hariri Building.  The topic was the basic “Information Evolution in the Arab World.”

——————————————————–

“LectureHop: A Golden Nugget for Wadah Khanfar” – as per BWOG – the blog incarnation of The Blue and White, Columbia University’s monthly undergraduate magazine.
After nearly suffering a nose bleed from the 11 floor climb through IAB to hear Director General Wadah Khanfar speak on “Media Revolution in the Middle East,” Sarah Camiscoli was both star-struck by Wadah Khanfar’s presence and impressed by his thoughts on current US Policy in the Middle East, his opinions on reclaiming the responsibility and the ethnics of journalism, and his genuine humility as he spoke to what seemed like the closest thing one could get to groupies.

Peter Awn introduced Wadah Khanfar with much excitement as one of the most Powerful People in the World by Forbes Magazine, a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (Davos), the third most influential Arab in the world by Arabian Business, and one of the most influential Muslims in the world.  To this, Khanfar ironically replied, “Thank you for pronouncing my name correctly.” Awn snickered. He was flattered.

While Khanfar was equally as pleased by Awn’s enthusiasm and the camera phones that subversively emerged from the crowd, Khanfar tried to change up the tone by starting with, “I do not have many answers to the issues of the media.  However, I will just share with you some thoughts and ideas.”

The first “thought” breached by Khanfar was his fear that news reporting is “drifting away from putting human being[s] at [the] center to putting centers of power and commercial at [the] center.”  To speak to “the voices that may not be able to express themselves,” Khanfar told a story from his experience covering the war in Kabul. The depth of this problem became even more haunting to Khanfar after paying the bill for tea he and several young Arab men shared over a casual conversation about their perspectives on the war.  When one of the young men realized that Khanfar had paid for the tea, he chased him down, scolded him for his insult of paying as the “guest” and had “tears in his eyes” as he begged him to allow him to take the bill—it was a tradition that he should not.  Khanfar emphasized how the tradition, culture, and marginal voices that are often seen as outside of politics must be reclaimed as another center for reporters and policymakers.

After speaking passionately against a US policy in Afghanistan that “plan[ned] a strategy in 10 days to replace… three and a half thousand years of government,” Khanfar spoke about how to handle centers of power while also acting as an agency that challenges the “tyranny of the state.” Quoting an interview with Edward Said, who advocated “speaking truth to power,” Khanfar revealed that “if you go to AlJazeera you will see that slogan on the wall—Al Jazeera speaks true to power.”  With this philosophy, Al Jazeera operates under the belief that there is “always a way where power and journalism can benefit, but… power can overtake.”

To illustrate how Al Jazeera “speaks true,” Khanfar explained how the agency is reconciling relations with the United States after suffering the arrest of several journalists for alleged ties to the Taliban, having one sent to Abu Ghraib and recovering after two headquarters were “bombed to the ground” by the US military. In order to pacify tensions with the US while still “empowering [their viewers] with comprehensive knowledge,” Al Jazeera has hosted interviews with leaders such as Joe Biden, and Khanfar visited the Whitehouse personally to get “some answers” as to who bombed the headquarters and who can take responsibility for such acts so they can “move towards the future.”  While relations may be somewhat amended with Al Jazeera, Khanfar was sure to note that “nothing has been achieved after that magnificent speech” that President Obama gave in Egypt in 2009 with regard to US policy.

As time came to a close, Khanfar made sure to squeeze in a few heavy one-liners to sum up his most poignant thoughts.  Warning that, “Words can kill,” Khanfar spoke about his discontent with the media he’s been exposed to during his stay in the US.  He stated, “I have seen a lot of acting.  It is not what I respect… News, the news… News should not be a commodity. This should be a news for people—not for particular party, religion, group, but for the human being.  Once we develop ways to create relationships with centers of power, we will get back on track.”

While Khanfar’s glorification of Al Jazeera can most definitely be challenged now that the celebrity has left the IAB  – The International Affairs building at Columbia University – the overall appreciation for his presence, thoughts and accomplishments was undeniable. For his ability to speak charismatically, candidly and humbly your correspondent gives the man a Golden Nugget.

——————————————————

Wadah Khanfar was born 1968 in the Palestinian (West Bank) city of Jinin. He studied Engineering between 1985 to 1990 at the University of Jordan and went on to post-graduate studies in Philosophy, African Studies, and International Politics. During this time, Khanfar started a Student Union with a group of students and colleagues and started an inter-university dialogue group amongst students constituted from a range of political backgrounds. In 1989/1990, he helped to organize forums, protests, festivals and demonstrations for student rights.

Khanfar has covered some of the world’s key political zones for the Al Jazeera Channel since 1997. Khanfar’s first role in the organisation was as a correspondent in South Africa. In 2001/2002 he was a war correspondent in Afghanistan and during the war in Iraq, he reported from Kurdish-controlled territory in the North. Later, he was appointed as the Chief of the Baghdad Bureau – the biggest operation for Al Jazeera outside Al Jazeera’s Qatar headquarters – and was the biggest media operation inside Iraq. Al Jazeera at that time became the first TV station to cover the developments inside Baghdad, inside Iraq, and became the main source of information about the early military attacks against the Americans. During this time, Khanfar wrote a letter to U.S. Administrator Paul Bremer asking the U.S. to stop what was described as an intimidation campaign against Al Jazeera’s journalists. Khanfar became Managing Director of the Al Jazeera Channel in 2003 and Director General of the Al Jazeera Network in 2006. As a managing director, he launched the Al Jazeera Code of Ethics and Al Jazeera’s Code of Conduct in July 2004 at the First Al Jazeera International Forum. The Code stated that professional standards and balanced and fair coverage should govern and guide the Channel’s newsroom rather than political or diplomatic interference. He is based now in Ad Doha, Qatar.

Khanfar initiated a concept called ‘Journalism of Depth’ which is the framework for Al Jazeera’s approach to journalism. The concept refers to the idea that to properly convey the meaning of facts and figures journalists need to contextualize events in the social, cultural, historical, and political context from which they emerge. Khanfar contrasts this to ‘headline culture’ which may convey the immediacy of an event but conveys very little understanding. The background to journalism of depth is that contemporary news media are in a crisis and are suffering from a range of critical problems including reductionism, media elitism, and dissociation from context resulting in news that is fragmentary and chaotic rather than being informative and explanatory.

While Khanfar was leading the Al Jazeera Baghdad Bureau – the US made demands on the Channel to change its coverage of Iraq. This led to tension for the Channel’s many journalists and crew resulting in Khanfar sending a letter to Paul Bremer asking the US to stop the intimidation campaign against Al Jazeera’s journalists. Al Jazeera journalists and crew were at that time detained for months at the Abu Ghraib prison where some of them were tortured. In an earlier incident in 2003 a US bombardment of the Channel’s offices led to the death of one its journalist’s Tareq Ayyoub.

During the war American and British accusations against Al Jazeera intensified and Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush started to publicly criticize and blame Al Jazeera for America’s failure to restore order in Iraq. It later came to the attention of the Daily Mirror in the UK that a leaked memo documented a private discussion between George Bush and Tony Blair on bombing Al Jazeera headquarters, supposedly immediately before the attack on Fallujah in April, 2004. A Freedom of Information request was made by Al Jazeera for disclosure on the memo but no information was ever released. The public servants who leaked the memo were later sentenced by the British government.

First visit to the United States: In July 2009, Khanfar was invited to the United States by leading political and media think tanks including the Middle East Institute, New America Foundation, Council on Foreign Relations, and George Washington University. This was the first time that a Director General from Al Jazeera has visited the US. During the visit Khanfar also met with senior officials and advisors at the White House, United States Department of State and the Pentagon, and perhaps signals a change in the inner circles of the government to dialogue with Al Jazeera under the new administration of President Barack Obama. On the visit to the US, Khanfar appeared on the Charlie Rose Show, NPR’s Diane Rehm show, and presented at the Paley Center for Media.

——————————————————-

We also received information from the Carnegie Council in new York City about a March 10, 2010 foray ALJAZEERA made to New York – that is outside the UN where Al Jazeera is present already for years.

Press Freedom in the Arab World.
By Khaled Dawoud, correspondent of Al Jazeera in New York covering the United Nations and any other significant events going on in the United States.
 http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/m…

March 10, 2010

DEVIN STEWART: I’m Devin Stewart from the Carnegie Council. Welcome to another excellent innovative program of the Carnegie New Leaders.

I’m going to turn it over to Robin van Puyenbroeck. Robin is one of our leading Carnegie New Leaders. He is on the newly formed steering committee. Robin really took the initiative, like some others have—and I encourage you to do the same—and put this all together for us today. So I’m going to turn it over to Robin.

Please think of this when you are thinking of programs to follow up, programs that you can put together like Robin has today. So, Robin, thanks so much and welcome.

ROBIN VAN PUYENBROECK: Thank you, Devin. Good evening, everybody. It’s my distinct pleasure to introduce Khaled Dawoud. Khaled is the correspondent of Al Jazeera in New York covering the United Nations and any other significant events going on in the United States.

He will talk for about 20 minutes, half an hour, about Al Jazeera— its history, what is it like to work at Al Jazeera as a journalist, who are the constituents of Al Jazeera, who is the audience, and how does the Arabic world views of Al Jazeera see the current events of today.

Interestingly, the topic “Freedom of the Press in the Arab World” I found very touching, because we all seem to know somehow the brand Al Jazeera, but we cannot watch it in the United States. It’s not on cable at least. It is available online— the English edition— but it is for various reasons not yet available on cable.

So I’ll pass on to Khaled, and then we will open it up for questions.

KHALED DAWOUD: Thank you very much, Robin, for this introduction. It is a great pleasure to see you again. Actually, I met Robin at one of these lectures before. I feel sorry that he may hear the same stuff all over again.

Anyway, as Robin explained, I came here to the United States eight years ago basically as a correspondent for an Egyptian newspaper, called Al-Ahram, which is the largest newspaper we have in Egypt, and it’s the oldest as well, and then four years later I came here to New York to work for Al Jazeera, the Arabic one, not the English one— the one that you cannot see here in the United States.

Mainly I cover the United Nations. Our office is inside the United Nations. So that basically makes us cover a lot of the UN—that’s in case the UN is doing a lot, but sometimes it’s not—and also New York itself, mainly related stories, like political stories; economic stories recently of course were a major important issue.

I’m always asked about Al Jazeera. There are lots of stereotypes about Al Jazeera, especially here in the United States—it’s different—and more in New York actually than even compared to Washington, D.C.

I always start these kinds of talks about Al Jazeera by stating definitely that I don’t know where bin Laden is, that I have no relation to him, and that I am just a reporter basically, and I now happen to be working for Al Jazeera. I take it as a job more than anything else. That’s really the claim of professionalim that we all make as reporters who work for Al Jazeera, that we don’t have that much of a political agenda, as some people, particularly in the United States, think to be the case.

I actually chose the issue of the freedom of the press and Al Jazeera’s contribution to it because that’s really how I see Al Jazeera personally as a reporter.

I have been working as a reporter for slightly over 20 years right now. I come from Egypt, as I stated, I witnessed the years of the introduction of Al Jazeera as a new channel in the Arab world, and why it was important and how it did affect our political reality—our media reality. A lot of things changed in the Arab world with the introduction of Al Jazeera, even more than what happened later, after 9/11 and what happened in Afghanistan.

Originally, as a reporter myself, the main reason why Al Jazeera was important is the context in which it came out from—I assume I don’t need to go through a lot of history.

In the Arab world—most of the Arab world—we were under occupation, whether French occupation or British occupation in Egypt’s case. In the 1950s and the 1960s of the past century, we started having these nationalist movements, gaining our independence.

It just happened that in many of the Arab countries, whether in Egypt or in Syria or in Iraq or in Algeria even later, it always happened that it was the army which led the process of change or the process of independence or whatever you want to call it. Of course, in the case of Egypt and in many other Arab countries, when the army takes over, it becomes an experience that was repeated and done similarly in several other Arab countries.

One of the first things that happened is that, for example, in the case of Egypt, a few years after the late President Nasser did his revolt, was that basically he nationalized the press. So all the newspapers, all the media, all the radio, all the television became basically government property.

It’s important to consider that because it affects, of course, the nature of the relation between the media in our countries and our audience, which are the people that we reach, when they know that we’re mainly government spokesmen or basically reproducing what the government wants us to say.

So that was the reality that existed in almost all Arab countries: that you had a very strong authoritarian government, which basically sees the press as a tool to tell the people what the government wants the people to know, rather than the case here. For example, in the United States, with all the limitations, or in Europe, the media or the press is a watchdog, someone to watch what the government is doing and report it and create issues and investigate matters. You know, all these concepts did not really exist in our case in Egypt and in the Arab world when the press started and when it was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s and at the later stage.

More important than even the press itself, such as print media, like newspapers and magazines, was television, of course. In all Arab countries the illiteracy rates are very high, ranging from 50 percent in some places to up to 80 percent in some other Arab countries. So with this illiteracy rate, television becomes the most important means of communication. If you want to control what the people see and watch and hear, you have to control television. So the television is government-owned, the radio is government-owned, the newspapers are government-owned.

It is not a means of communication in that case, or one way in which we inform people of the situation, how it is, or how the reality is. But we have a little bit, not dissimilar to the culture of the former Soviet Union and this kind of controlled media whereby the news has a certain order: we have to start with the news of the president, followed by the news of the prime minister, followed by the news of the other ministers. Usually, the picture is very rosy, “everything is fine, we have no problems, everybody is happy.” You know, that’s the kind of general atmosphere.

As I say, even for people who are experts on our part of the world, it even becomes a sign if you want to know how the government is doing. I mean is the president appearing on TV four or five times a week? If he is not, if he disappears for a couple of weeks, is he sick, is there something, is there a coup? So because there is really little information that is available, you become accustomed to a certain reading between the lines.

I remember very well growing up and reading the official newspapers that came out in Egypt. Sometimes you would see a very small news item made up of maybe 30-40 words, like you would never see anywhere else, about a certain government decision that was taken about someone you don’t know. But then it is in the newspaper, and then that becomes the beginning of the story—how did it happen, who died, where did it come from? But nothing is really said that is a real reflection of what our reality is, or what our problems are in the region, or what are our needs, which are no different from the needs of any other country.

People in my part of the world, of course, they want a government that is not corrupt, they want a government that respects their basic rights and freedoms—all these issues. But of course, these were taboo, things that were not to be spoken about.

And of course, it’s not only the government issues that I want to really make an issue about. It’s also even our own social problems. Because of the controlled nature of the media, even problems in every country—like, say, for example, in Egypt we have a Christian minority, and we know that there are problems beneath the beautiful surface; the president receives the patriarch and they shake hands and supposedly that’s the sign that everything is good. But then you know that there are problems, but you are not really talking about them in the official media because that goes against the general rosy picture that you are supposed to have in general.

Or like, say, in Jordan, for example, where there are ruling Jordanian people from the country itself and then there are Palestinians. There are always questions. Everybody talks about it in the streets—like what is the relation between the Palestinians and the Jordanians, what are the problems that are existing—but nobody really writes about them or speaks about them in the media because, again, that’s a taboo.

And you can mention many other things—the status of women, the issues of human rights. I mean all these topics were not issues that we were able to discuss openly until maybe the mid-1980s, early 1990s, when we started a little bit of opening here and there. Like in Egypt, for example, after many years of having government-controlled press, you start having the government—because the president felt like it, because former president Sadat wanted to have a good relation with the United States, so he said, “Okay, now I will have three opposition parties with three opposition newspapers.”

And then the experiment goes on. Besides the government papers, you have the three opposition papers. But then, when the opposition papers go so far, he closes them down in one night, arrests 1,000 people, and the experience is over. So that was the nature of the thing.

And being Al Jazeera, being TV—I think of even CNN as a kind of a new form of media, where you follow live news and going out—the classic form of news that we have had for many years only came out, again, I think, maybe in the early 1980s, or around that time.

So we have never had something like that in the Arab world. We have never had live news coverage, talk shows where people discuss their topics openly and debate them and all these kinds of things.

The BBC Arabic Service has had a very long history in the Arab world. Bearing in mind all I told you about the government-controlled media and attempts to limit what we listened to, I remember growing up that my main source for outside media information, even about my own country, was from the BBC. So everybody would have a radio at home, and you would really try hard with your shortwave, turning left and turning right, until you got a little bit, to know that there was a demonstration in Cairo, the same city that you are living in, or in Jordan, and that maybe ten of your friends were arrested or something. But you really don’t get to know it from your own local media, you get to know it from these sources of information.

The BBC had this long tradition of being one of the sources of information which a lot of people really trusted—I think maybe relatively until today. But they had a good name, and they did offer this kind of alternative source of information. But they decided to do TV. They said, after maybe 60 years or 55 years at that time of doing radio in Arabic, “We want to do TV in Arabic too.”

But of course, as you guys know, TV is an expensive business, really very expensive. It’s different from having a newspaper. The technology is very expensive. Maybe now it’s becoming a little bit cheaper, but originally it was a very expensive operation, with the logistics, the travel, many things.

So the BBC, as far as the story at that time went, had to have a partner, they had to have someone to pay for that project basically, and that came through the Saudi government. Maybe I didn’t mention Saudi, because I’m mentioning the Arab countries that are non-oil-rich nations, but the situation in even the oil countries as well is not any different from the rest of the Arab world. The media’s job is to cover the government, the government always has the high priority, and don’t talk about the bad issues that make the government look negative, or something like that.

So the Saudis decided to put some money with the BBC and to have BBC television in Arabic. At that time, all those who were working in the media had the basic question “Is this experiment going to succeed?” because we all knew the Saudi limitations and the BBC’s claim or desire to maintain a certain level of objectivity. The question was: What will happen when some negative news comes out about Saudi Arabia; how will the BBC cover this story? That was what everybody was waiting for.

You know what basically happened is that this day came. The BBC—because everybody was saying, “Oh, okay, you’re over-covering Saudi, you’re not covering Saudi”—and then they did a one-hour documentary, I think, about human rights in Saudi Arabia or something like that.

Unfortunately, the experiment was very short-lived and the BBC Arabic TV didn’t last more than a year, a year and a half, and they pulled out. Then, suddenly, you had 100, or over 100, very good journalists, very well trained, who were basically jobless.

At that time comes Qatar, Doha. There was a change in government there. The ruler of Qatar was Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani, and then came the political changes there with his son; he took over the power from his father.

A lot of people asked the question about “Why Qatar?” [Al Jazeera's headquarters are in Qatar.] I mean Qatar is such a small country in the Gulf region.

But, I guess, people are entitled to think of ways to make their name known, to put their fingerprint on regional politics and world politics. It seems that the Emir of Qatar at that time, the present ruler, he thought that one of the contributions that he can make and make his country known through is to have a channel like Al Jazeera in Qatar itself presenting this alternative media instead of the government-controlled television channels.

So he basically decided to take all the guys who worked for the BBC Arabic Service, this new television project, and told them: “Okay, guys, you all come to Doha and do the project that you were presumably supposed to do but do it from Qatar itself.” That’s basically how Al Jazeera started.

One of the first slogans or mottos, whatever you want to call them, of Al Jazeera was “the opinion and the counter-opinion”. That is one of the concepts that might seem like an ipso facto, like something easy for you to take—of course, each story has two sides —but it was not always the case for us in the Arab world, as I tried to explain, and that’s why it was an important motto, to have an opinion and to have a counter-opinion.

Al Jazeera came in with that perspective—on the one hand, that this is a channel that has reasonable funding, funding from a relatively oil-rich Gulf country; and at the same time, they have the experience and they have a message, which is that “we are not going to be like the official government-owned TV, whether in Egypt, in Syria, in Iraq, or in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, and we are going to try to present something different.”

Another thing that’s really a contribution for Al Jazeera, for us, besides having this live news coverage and keeping people informed about what’s happening in the world and setting the agenda of what people would expect to see in the news—I mean if there is something important for us, we don’t have to start with the government news if there is something more important than the government news. So that was the most important thing: try to know who your audience is and try to think, like they do in old news rooms, about what are going to be the most important issues that your readers or audience want to listen to today.

And then the talk shows; that was another important contribution that Al Jazeera made to the media scene in the Arab world. Again, I use Egypt always because that’s where I come from, but for the first time for us Egyptians—or Iraqis or Algerians or Jordanians—you would see a government official sitting with an opposition figure. First of all, we would not see opposition figures on our TVs—that was out of the question—for many, many, many years.

So you have like: Oh my God, this government guy sitting with the opposition guy, and the opposition guy telling the government guy openly, “You are torturing people in prison, you are oppressing this, you are not allowing us freedom of expression,” and bringing the taboos—the unspoken—to the surface. Now we are talking about them—the treatment of women; is it like oppressive societies—many things, many things, but in each and every Arab country.

And of course, the result was that most Arab governments basically were not very happy with Al Jazeera. But that’s where it started from.

It’s a very strange twist actually, because when Al Jazeera became a big name in the first early years, I think that the reaction in Washington and the United States was a very positive one. It was like “Oh, this is the new media that we want to encourage, Al Jazeera is really good,” if you go back to the years of 1997–1998, until 9/11 happened. So at that time it was seen as something positive.

Then another change again puts Al Jazeera in a very peculiar position. I don’t want to jump to the post-9/11 era. But, of course, right now we are seen as the channel that supports Palestinian radicalism, this is the channel that backs fundamentalists, blah, blah, blah, all that kind of stuff.

But then, in the Arab world, strangely enough, a lot of people see Al Jazeera as being the first channel that introduced Israeli speakers to Arab households. Again, with all the Arab TV stations, with all the Arab-Israeli conflict business that we were in for the past 60 years in our part of the world—but for us, the Arab audience, when I watched my Egypt TV, Iraq IV, Algeria TV, Saudi TV, I would never see an Israeli official. I would never hear from them about what they say, how they think, what their arguments are. Al Jazeera broke this taboo. This was a real taboo, to have an interview with an Israeli foreign minister, to have an interview with Sharon; they had an interview with Peres—many interviews with Peres actually because he has been around for so many years as well.

But this was again another thing that made a lot of people think, “Oh, you are an American tool because you are introducing Israelis to our households and you are making us get to know what the enemy wants to hear” and stuff like that.

So on one hand, you have here in the United States all this reputation about “you’re being pro-radical and pro all those kind of things,” and in the Arab world you would be very strange. I mean I would be very, very amazed coming from here in the States to Cairo streets.

I would go in a cab and the driver would tell me, “Oh, you work for a Zionist channel.”

I said, “What? I work for a Zionist channel?”

He would say, “Yes, because I see all the Israelis on your TV.”

“Okay, fine.”

But that kind of makes me mad, because here it’s like “you are supporters” and “where is Osama bin Laden?” and there it’s like “you’re a Zionist,” whatever. So it kind of makes you feel, “Okay, maybe I’m okay. Like everybody’s so mad, so maybe.…”

But that was how Al Jazeera first started and how it caused a lot of controversy back in the Arab world in the late 1980s. They started in 1996 exactly, so that’s 14 years ago. So it’s not too old, but a reasonable number of years to be around.

And then, of course, I switch to the 9/11 period, because, of course, that changed a lot of things about how Al Jazeera is seen and how Al Jazeera is perceived, especially here in the United States and in the West. That was a different story.

Because 9/11 occurred, this terrorist attack, it shook the lives of everybody all over the world. Still today, personally, as an Arab and a Muslim, I am bearing the consequences. This subject did not disappear, even though it’s eight or nine years later.

So 9/11 came, and came the so-called bin Laden tapes issue, which is again another very strange situation that we found ourselves in. After bin Laden did the 1998 bombing of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, almost every single American channel did interviews with bin Laden. That was the hit of ABC, CBS, CNN—you name it. Everybody did bin Laden interviews. They would go for him, really. There was no question about this.

And then 9/11 occurred, and this man, this group, is claiming responsibility. You are a news channel, you are one of the most widely watched—in the Arab world at least, and actually became all over the world—because people know that you present a different kind of news and a different view about the Arab world that people don’t usually see, so you receive a tape from bin Laden and he’s claiming certain things after 9/11. So the question becomes: Are you going to air this tape or are you not going to air this tape?

My background originally was working for news agencies like Reuters and AP. That’s where I worked after I graduated from the American University in Cairo. I would always find myself in this situation. I was working in the office in Cairo in the period of 1995-1998, where there were almost daily terror attacks in Egypt, and you would receive statements from terrorist groups and all this kind of stuff. We used to report them. We used to report what these guys were saying and we used to report what the government was saying. That’s part of what we see, what I was told by my American professors, the two sides of the story.

The issue is: what would any other agency do about this issue—such a hot topic, such a big event—and you have this guy providing you with tapes and saying “This is what we did and this is what’s happening and this and this and this?”

But it just happened that way, because that became—at least, again, here now I’m speaking on the basis of my experience of living here in this country—it became this association, that “this is Al Jazeera that runs the bin Laden tapes.”

So when I first arrived here and moved to New York, I go to Crate and Barrel to buy some stuff, and I meet this nice young lady there, 19 years old. She does not know how to spell my name, Khalid Halid Khaled. So I give my card and it has Al Jazeera on it. She turns blue and she says, “You’re the bin Laden channel.” I said, “Oh my God, even here.”

This is maybe part of the topic: how is my job here, how is my work here in the United States, working for Al Jazeera?

So it’s an issue we can always debate really. I mean how are you going to handle this kind of thing? We debated. We debated within Al Jazeera, we debated among ourselves, as journalists, how you handle this kind of material, information, coming from groups that are charged and accused and involved in terrorist acts; how are you going to handle these kinds of things?

But I don’t really think—like in Arabic we say those who convey the heresy or the bad news are not necessarily the ones who made the bad news. I’m just reporting the bad news, so I shouldn’t be really blamed for that.

VOICE: Don’t shoot the messenger.

KHALED DAWOUD: Exactly, don’t shoot the messenger. Maybe that’s a better way to put it.

That’s really my point of view about it. But again, we have to be real in my opinion, you have to put things into context, as we say, which is that we were also dealing with an administration, the former Bush Administration, that basically also didn’t like controversy. It was one of the main criticisms that was directed against President Bush when I was reporting on the White House almost on a daily basis, that he only listened to people who agreed with him.

Even in the lead-up to the Iraq war, when this was a very important decision, who was the person he was meeting with all the time? Mr. Blair, 90 times. But is he meeting with any other world leaders who have a different point of view? Is he meeting with the French? Is he meeting with the Germans? So that was another thing with the previous administration, again, being a reporter at the White House myself, how difficult it was; any reporter who’s kind of guaranteed that he’s going to ask a positive question was given a question.

Even in former President Bush interviews, and again of course with Mr. Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, and Mr. Cheney, coming out all the time, “Al Jazeera did this, Al Jazeera does that.” Of course, this doesn’t really help in creating a positive image about the place that you work for. And again, really not on the basis of real charges.

I don’t think that—again, when we report what’s happening—and this is really part of my job as a reporter, and I think I owe it to the people who watch and read our material. When the United States is launching a war against Afghanistan or launching a war against Iraq—I mean okay, fine, this is war. I see there are some reporters who are here attending with us, and they can tell you as well. I mean covering war is not an easy issue, sacrificing your own life. When you have a war, you have to be one way or the other definitely embedded. But you have to be embedded with both sides; you can’t be embedded with one side only. That’s the problem that was faced, whether the Afghanistan war or the Iraq war.

I mean it was seen in the aftermath of 9/11 as nationalist feelings, “let’s take revenge.” I think even here in the American press, after the Iraq war in particular, they did a lot of self-criticism about how we didn’t really do our job as reporters, because it was becoming non-national behavior or anti-American behavior to question anything at that time about President Bush’s policies— about his decision to go to war in Afghanistan or his decision to go, more important later, to war in Iraq.

That is, again, really my interpretation of why. Of course, during the Bush years it wasn’t easy for us, even Al Jazeera, here in America. In the Arab world, as I was explaining in the beginning, it’s more about lack of information, the blackout on behalf of the government, not letting you get to know anything. But here in America there is a lot of information, but there is also access. Access is very important.

So if you are on bad terms with the administration, the George Bush Administration, you don’t get access. You don’t get interviews with the White House people, you don’t get interviews with the State Department people, of course no interviews with Pentagon people under Mr. Rumsfeld. That was out of the question. So of course, that doesn’t help you do your job.

In the Afghanistan war, we were the only channel that was present on the ground in Afghanistan because the former Taliban regime only allowed Al Jazeera to be there at that time. You know what I mean? So when the war started, we were the only crew there, and it just happened that we showed at that time the effect of the war.

I was on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border at that time as a reporter myself. You could see the airplanes bombing and hitting here and hitting there and doing all this stuff. But then nobody’s really showing where these bombs are falling. Were they falling on civilian houses? Were they falling on military targets? Someone has to report this. That’s what I mean by “we owe it to the audience to give them a full picture.”

In war, like anything else, there are two sides in the war. Whether you think there is one right side and one wrong side, but it’s a war. At the end of the day—that’s the way I see it personally—it’s human beings who pay the price for the war, and we should not show it as something easy, that it’s like a cakewalk, that an occupier is going to be received as a liberator with flowers and stuff like that.

If you take part in this, if I take part in this, I’m not doing my job and I’m deceiving the people. My job is—you know, again, after all of these years of working in the business, we can all talk about objectivity. But if I achieve like 60–70 percent objectivity, I think I’ll be happy and I will feel satisfied relatively, because it’s impossible to be 100 percent objective.

That is why we are privileged these days, in this time and age that we are living in, that we have this diversity in all these media. So you have Al Jazeera, but you have others, you have CNN, you have CNBC, you have Fox.

So it is also your job, as people who are receiving news, to try to form a balanced picture out of all these little things here and there. But there has to be something or someone that reports the two sides of the story.

As much as Al Jazeera was accused of supporting a certain radical antiwar point of view, we were also the channel that gave a lot of space for the American officials during the peak of the Iraq war to speak on our channel all the time. But the problem is that that administration, it just reminded me sometimes of the governments back home, which is that they only want to listen to their point of view, and if you get someone else to have a different point of view, they consider this to be like crossing the lines.

So in the Afghanistan war when you show civilians getting killed, that’s like you’re a bad boy. And then in the Iraq war, when you’re not embedded and you also try to show how the war is affecting negatively, how the war is basically destroying the lives of the Iraqis there, you’re not on good terms of course.

I don’t know. But it just surprises me, let us put it this way, that at the end of the Afghanistan war the last act of the war was the bombing of the Al Jazeera office in Afghanistan.

And then came the Iraq war. In the Iraq war—and I know this from my bosses and people who worked at that time—they were very specific in going to the U.S. Army and saying, “This is our position, this is our location, we are airing from here, this is our satellite position, please don’t bomb us.” That was very clear.

And then the war ends. April 9th, the last day of war, the Al Jazeera headquarters get bombed in Baghdad and a colleague of mine gets killed, Tarek Ayoub. They say it’s a mistake. But again, that is all that I can say, because nobody has evidence about that. But it raises questions, let’s put it this way, to be objective, to try to be.

There is another thing that I’d like to note. It’s not out of the creativity of my imagination. This story that emerged about one of the aides of Mr. Tony Blair who leaked a memo, basically a transcript of one of the meetings between former President Bush and former Prime Minister Blair, in which the president openly—he was very mad at Al Jazeera’s coverage of the Iraq war, especially during the Fallujah days—he discussed openly bombing of Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha. This civil servant who leaked that memo is out of jail by now, but he got a jail term for about a year.

So that’s another side of the story that maybe a lot of people don’t really get to know about, that it’s not only words, there is action as well.

And then, of course, there is my colleague who has only been recently released. His name is Sami al-Haj. He’s a Sudanese guy. He’s a cameraman for Al Jazeera. He was there in Afghanistan. Basically, it was charged that he filmed one of the interviews with bin Laden. He spent more than six years in Guantanamo. He was released, like many others who were released, from that place.

So that’s the background. Unfortunately, as I said, on one hand, our governments were not happy at all with Al Jazeera. We got our offices closed in many countries. Let me try to think. Some Arab countries either closed us totally or open-and-close, or sometimes taking a reporter to prison for a while and then releasing him. So it’s a variety of different degrees of treatment.

And of course, some countries banned us from working immediately—Iraq, for example, we were banned from covering there immediately after the liberation of Iraq or the overthrowing of the regime. It’s a very difficult job.

It’s really a very difficult job, especially within the goals that you’re really trying to work. It’s impossible to make everybody happy, but it just happens. For many years we were not allowed to work in Saudi Arabia at all, and only recently they allowed us to go cover the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage. I think our office was being closed in Algeria for a while, on and off. In Tunis we are not allowed to operate. In Morocco we used to air for about an hour a day live from there, but then Al Jazeera heard a report about some demonstration that took place in Morocco, and the government wasn’t happy, so they closed the operation.

I’m just saying that we work in a very tough environment. We are trying to do our best. We are working in an environment in which we are still even trying to find our steps as you might say, because 13–14 years of a new tradition, of a new experiment, I think is not really that long.

As I said, even on issues like the bin Laden tapes, for example, we made a lot of reviews. We even thought about them. It’s like when some people in the previous U.S. administration said, “These might be some coded passages. Maybe he’s sending orders to federal terrorists to do certain things by putting words in a certain order.” Well, it makes sense. So then there is that kind of cooperation that occurred. Okay, fine, get the speech and listen to it and see if it’s coded or not coded, and then we pick out the parts that we are going to air.

After that, this entire tape business basically came to an end in my opinion, with the Internet posting thing, the bin Laden and company, and Zarqawi, and I don’t know what, and all these big names that we all know about. They don’t need us anymore, they don’t need the TV channels, because basically now you can record yourself with a webcam and post it on the Internet on some of these websites and everybody has it basically.

But, unfortunately, it really kind of annoys me sometimes that when people want to speak about bin Laden on any American channel they use the pictures of 2001–2002 with the Al Jazeera logo on it. So it’s like something that never goes away.

But it changes, even on the practical level it changes, and we are trying to change as well.

I don’t want to take a lot of your time, but Robin asked me quickly to speak—maybe we met a few months ago when the Obama Administration had just taken office, and also because I spoke a lot about the former Bush Administration and our experience with it, which was not a very positive one. But again, I assure you, it was not only us.

At the time I was covering the Obama election, I was in Virginia, which is of course a very Republican state, as those of you who follow the news know. Even as journalists, at that time a lot of questions would come: “Which one would you support? Would you support McCain or would you support Obama?”

Of course, being Al Jazeera, I had to do a very shy behavior of hiding my feelings and truth. Of course I said, “I don’t know. I have no opinion. What are your feelings?”

If you say, “I like Obama, I want Obama to win,” this becomes “Al Jazeera reporter supports Obama.” So Obama is gone because an Al Jazeera reporter did this or did that.

So I have to think about it in those terms. It’s like that day when the spokesman for Hamas said, “Well, maybe we think if Obama wins it will become a positive development.” Of course the next day there were all the ads, the anti-Obama things. So I could just envision myself in such a situation, and I decided to shut up.

But, of course, I’m just saying this because I assume it’s no surprise for you that the outside world at least—I’m not going to talk about America, because maybe, after living here for eight years—Americans can be self-critical of themselves, but when it comes from an outsider it’s a different story.

So let’s speak about the rest of the world. The rest of the world loves us, I think, whether in Europe or—and that’s another thing, that really I think you know me a lot as a person, as an Arab and Muslim, which is this business that during the Bush years about “the Arabs and the Muslims hate us, they hate our lifestyle, they hate us because they don’t like democracy”—all these kinds of big slogans that were basically making things worse in my opinion, not even helping at all in any way in making things better, even after this terrible terrorist attack that took place on 9/11.

But anyway, when Obama came there was this feeling of relief in a lot of parts of the world, because during the Bush years those who opposed the Iraq war were not only the Arabs and Muslims. This was one fact which the U.S. media always used to kind of ignore in this regard, that it was not only the Arabs and Muslims who were against the war, but I think people in Latin America were against the war, people in Europe were against the war, people in Asia were against the war. But of course it helped ideologically at that time to put it that way.

So there were a lot of positive feelings, a lot of hopes, that when President Obama comes things will change. There are a lot of reasons to be optimistic. This is an open-minded person, he has traveled, he is intellectual, he listens, he doesn’t depend on his guts, he doesn’t look someone in the eyes and see whether he likes him or not, and that becomes the basis of taking decisions. It’s like a totally different story.

Maybe now comes the problem, which is that he made a lot of promises, and now, maybe one year later—again, I was personally very reserved about expressing any opinions. Of course, people back in Egypt, back in Palestine, where a very bad situation exists on the ground, whether in Gaza or on the West Bank and Jerusalem, the occupied East Jerusalem—but nevertheless there was a lot of hope that when he comes, things could relatively change, so let’s give him time.

But people were impatient. Of course, already eight years of the former administration, a lot of war, a lot of people getting killed, threats of new wars all the time, very tough language—”smoke them out” and “you’re either with us or against us.”

I think everybody wanted to calm down relatively at the international level. And even here in America itself, I think people were starting to recognize that the picture is not as rosy as it was supposed to be. I’m not going to speak about no weapons of mass destruction, but also a lot of the rest that came with that.

So I was very reserved about expressing any opinions. But then a year has gone by and people maybe are entitled to start to raise questions.

Of course, President Obama, when he first came, one of the first things was he appointed Senator George Mitchell as his special envoy to the Middle East. That was a very good move. A lot of people have a lot of respect for Senator Mitchell worldwide because of his role in mediating the peace agreement in Ireland. He’s an honest guy. More important than the character of Senator Mitchell himself, how immediately this came, that it was one of the things that he did right away, which was a sign of concern, that he wants things to change.

But now a lot of time has passed and a lot of the promises that the President has made seem to be not coming true. Even worse, there seems to be a kind of a retreat from those original promises, which makes people a little bit worried.

But it’s my role as a reporter here, like throughout all media, to present to people back home how complicated the situation is here in the United States and how a lot of domestic challenges face the President and how he also made a lot of promises on the domestic level as well.

What I’m trying to say is that President Obama raised a lot of high expectations, and that’s my worry right now, that when you raise so many expectations—that you’re going to work on ending the Iraq war and you’re going to find a solution for Iran and you are going to finish the Afghanistan war and you are going to make peace between Arabs and Israelis. So a lot of topics on the agenda within a very difficult environment.

So we are still waiting and seeing, but I am seeing signs here and there of people saying, “When is this change really coming?”

Questions and Answers

QUESTION: Because you were mentioning at the beginning that we don’t really have access to the broadcast media that comes out of Al Jazeera here, this is literally just a question that I’d like you to comment on, not coming from anything that I have seen.

I saw a documentary a few years ago, called Control Room, that’s main point was that in Al Jazeera’s attempt to show the opinion and counter-opinion there’s a lot of sensationalism involved.

The reason I prefaced my question the way I did was because I don’t think the American media does things any better. But I was just wondering if you could comment on a little bit if you thought that Al Jazeera was more or less sensationalist, if that’s necessarily a bad thing, and just your general views on that.

KHALED DAWOUD: It’s in the eye of the beholder what’s sensational. That’s the issue. Al Jazeera has a lot of interest, for example, in covering the Palestinian-Israeli topic because the Palestinian-Israeli topic is very popular back home. I mean some people would say, “Oh, this is a lot of sensationalism. You show a lot of pictures of children that are getting killed or people who are dying.” But someone has to show this. You know what I mean?

But again, everybody makes mistakes sometimes. Maybe in certain incidents we went through the sensational line. People always like to satisfy their viewers. You always think about “What does my audience want to see?” Maybe we fall into these mistakes sometimes. But you always try to—

Personally, I don’t think we are like that, of course, I don’t think we’re sensational. I think we are, first of all, presenting a picture that nobody else wants to show, again like when you have a war going on in Somalia. We also try to take care of cases that nobody is talking about, places like in Sudan, like in Somalia, like in Yemen, even in other areas that nobody covers. We also want to show some problems that are happening in certain places that nobody speaks about, not even here in the American media. I think that the international audience deserves that.

I think even the American audience actually deserves much better than they are getting right now in terms of international news. I watch CNN local here or I watch Fox local or any of the locals. As an international journalist or someone, I feel like, “Oh my God, I can never get information out of this if I have to spend my entire day watching seven or eight days of continuous coverage of Michael Jackson, as if nothing else existed in the world, or Anna Nicole Smith, or the kid in the balloon, or all that stuff.”

Is this sensational? What is this? I don’t know. So I cover political news. I show tough stuff. I show some bad pictures that nobody else wants to see. But others I don’t think are doing a good job for their audience by setting a different agenda for reasons that are also very political in my view.

QUESTION: You said that you were a journalist at the White House during the previous administration.

KHALED DAWOUD: Yes.

QUESTIONER: Are you still there with this new administration; or, if not, what have you heard from your colleague about how has it changed? What’s the mood? Does the president feel more accessible, and in what way? So it’s more than one question.

ROBIN VAN PUYENBROECK: You work for Fox?

QUESTIONER: No, I work for Bloomberg.

KHALED DAWOUD: He’s my neighbor at the UN, so we’re on good terms. Actually, I moved to New York four years ago. I stopped covering the White House four years ago. The situation now is much better. Even I can feel it here at the United Nations. I get interviews with the UN ambassador, Ambassador Susan Rice. She gives me interviews. Actually they approach us.

My bureau chief, who is in Washington—our main office is in Washington—got an interview maybe twice with Hillary Clinton. He got an interview with Defense Secretary Gates. So of course we are having better access.

We didn’t get the White House yet. We didn’t get Mr. Obama. He gave it to al-Arabiya, which is our main competition, when he first took office. Maybe soon, hopefully. It’s like a little bit too much maybe, like taking office and three days later giving an interview to Al Jazeera.

QUESTION: In Washington have you seen any noticeable impact on how other channels cover the Middle East or the region based on Al Jazeera’s approach—and maybe not just the big ones, like CNN and BBC, but maybe the influence that Al Jazeera may have in other less covered regions, like Latin America or South Asia?

KHALED DAWOUD: Yes. If you talk about Latin America and South Asia, that falls more into the Al Jazeera English influence, because Al Jazeera [inaudible] before speaking. Al Jazeera English does cover very well, I think, those parts of the world, Latin America and Asia.

But for us in the Arab world, if I can just mention the effect of Al Jazeera, when it first came out in 1996, maybe there were two or three satellite channels like Al Jazeera. Right now there are about 200–300 satellite channels and each country wants to have its own satellite channels. So it has basically opened the door to an entire new market of people trying to present various points of views.

I think this is also one of the main important, positive effects of Al Jazeera itself, in my opinion, in terms of its effect on other media. It means opening the debate and opening, as I said, different models for people to see and to judge and to have different sources of information and reach their own conclusions.

ROBIN VAN PUYENBROECK: Thank you, on behalf of Carnegie, for joining us tonight. Khaled is flying off home for Egypt tomorrow, so we just got him right in time. It shows again how important it is to understand how other people in the world see the world we live in. So thank you again.

KHALED DAWOUD: Thank you.

————————–

The following is an interview given even before that by Mr. Wadah Khanfar and it says basically very similar things though obviously not emphasizing Egypt. It is an added witness to the ALJAZEERA effort in the US.
 http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/storie…

————————

a www.SustainabiliTank.info previous posting quoting Al Jazeera was: http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

and in full:

Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, Chevron Oil, Remind us of Climate Change By Quoting From Cairo Osama Bin Laden Saying That The World Should Boycott American Goods And The US Dollar Because Of Liabilities On Global Warming. YOU BET – THIS IS INTENDED TO DISCREDIT FURTHER THE ISSUE! THANKS – WE DO NOT NEED FRIENDS LIKE BIN LADENS.

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 29th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

News Alert: Bin Laden blasts U.S. for climate change
06:49 AM EST Friday, January 29, 2010
——————–

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has called in a new audiotape for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming. In the tape, aired in part on Al-Jazeera television Friday, bin Laden warns of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring “the wheels of the American economy” to a halt

This information we picked up on a page of The Washington Post that includes a large advertisement from CHEVRON Oil Company:

“HUMAN ENERGY” “Every day Chevron invests $59 million in People. In ideas. In progress – Learn more”
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

Bin Laden blasts US for climate change.

Includes also a photo from the FILE – “This is an undated photo of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden issued a new audio message claiming responsibility for the Christmas day bombing attempt in Detroit and vowed further attacks. (Anonymous – AP)

The Associated Press
Friday, January 29, 2010; 6:52 AM
CAIRO — Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called in a new audiotape for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming.

In the tape, aired in part on Al-Jazeera television Friday, bin Laden warns of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring “the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.

He says the world should “stop consuming American products” and “refrain from using the dollar,” according to a transcript on
Al-Jazeera’s Web site.

The new message, whose authenticity could not immediately be confirmed, comes after a bin Laden tape released last week in which he endorsed a failed attempt to blow up an American airliner on Christmas Day.

UNFCCC should take notice of this when next time Saudi Arabia will claim to be paid US Dollars for the losses that it will incur when the world will finally decide to use less oil – their hidden treasure under the desert sand. Whatever we think of Bin Laden – we know that it is the US dollars paid for oil that fuelled both – the monarchy of The House of Saud and the Bin Laden family complaints that these dollars corrupted the purity of the faith as they see it. Now – that is why we post the piece also on our “cartoons” column – not really because of our disbelief in the Chevron statement or the actual content of what is attributed to Osama.

We are afraid that some narrow minded people might actually say that because Osama says that the US is to be blamed for Global Warming – it is obvious that Global Warming is a non-issue – and US CATO will thus bless on Bin Laden – so The Heartland Institute can put him up im its Gallery of Fame. Crazy – I told you so.

The six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreed in 2001 to create a shared currency to help them integrate economies and pursue a monetary policy more independently of the US.

All of the council’s members except Kuwait peg their currencies to the dollar.

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar on December 15 announced the creation of a Monetary Council, a step toward establishing a shared currency. The board of the council, which will set a timetable for establishing a joint central bank and choose a currency regime, will meet for the first time on March 30.

Oman opted out in 2007. The UAE, the second-biggest Arab economy, withdrew from the currency project in May 2009 after the Saudi capital, Riyadh was selected as the location for the Monetary Council, the future central bank.

The UAE has no plans to rejoin the union project, said January 6, 2010 central bank Governor Sultan bin Nasser al-Suwaidi.Today, in Abu Dhabi, he said that the UAE remains committed to the concept of a single currency, though free trade in the region must come first. That is the reason for a Bloomberg new report on the topic.

UNEP NEWS: John Scanlon appointed as New Secretary-General of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES)

Geneva (Switzerland)/Nairobi (Kenya), 13 March 2010 –

John Scanlon, a top advisor at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has been named as the new Secretary-General of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). Mr. Scanlon was selected after a global search and selection process yielding close to 200 applicants and will assume his new position in May 2010.

Mr. Scanlon, an Australian national, joined UNEP in 2007 as the Principal Advisor on Policy and Programme to Executive Director Achim Steiner, in which capacity he also led the UNEP internal reform team.

A lawyer by training, he has had a long and distinguished career in environmental law, policy and management at national and international levels.

Among other roles, he was Australia’s first independent Commissioner on the Murray Darling Basin Commission, he held the position of Strategic Advisor to the World Commission on Dams in Cape Town (South Africa), and headed the Environmental Law Programme (Bonn, Germany) at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

He also served as Chief Executive of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs in South Australia and held several senior roles in New South Wales including as Deputy Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.

CITES is an international agreement between Governments that was adopted in 1973 in order to ensure that international trade of wild animals and plans does not threaten their survival.

With some 175 Parties, the Convention is one of the world’s most important agreements on species conservation and the sustainable use of wildlife.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNEP, said: “John Scanlon is a highly qualified and accomplished professional in the fields of environmental law, international policy and governance. His extensive management experience in public institutions and the strategic role he played in UNEP’s recent reform programme make him an outstanding candidate for leading the CITES Secretariat at this critical juncture when the efficacy of environmental governance instruments is under scrutiny.”

CITES is currently holding its fifteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties in Doha, Qatar, from 13 to 25 March. Over 42 proposals are on the table, reflecting growing international concern about the accelerating destruction of the world’s marine and forest ecosystems through overfishing and excessive logging, and the potential impacts of climate change on the biological resources of the planet.

A growing number of commercially exploited fish have come under CITES controls in recent years. For instance, basking and whale sharks were included in Appendix II in 2002, the great white shark and the humphead wrasse in 2004, and the European eel and sawfishes in 2007.

2010 marks the International Year of Biodiversity and the role of CITES in regulating the global trade in plant and animal species is widely regarded as central to promoting the dual objectives of conservation and sustainable use.

Mr. Scanlon succeeds Mr. Willem Wijnstekers who served the CITES Convention as Secretary-General since 1999 and will retire on 1st May 2010.

For more information, please contact
Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson/Head of Media, on Mobile: +254 733 632755 or +41 795965737, or Email:  nick.nuttall at unep.org

————–

CITES world conference opens with call for new wildlife trade rules Decisions on the budget will show how seriously 175 member States take new measures to conserve and manage natural riches of the planet.

Doha, 13 March 2010 – Some 1,500 delegates representing more than 170 governments, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations and businesses are attending the triennial world conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Bluefin tuna, elephant populations and a wide range of sharks, corals, polar bears, reptiles, insects and plants are top of the agenda for the two-week meeting.

CITES Secretary-General Willem Wijnstekers thanked Qatar for hosting the meeting and noted that existing and new challenges require increased political support for the 35-year old treaty to match present day demands. Mr Wijnstekers congratulated the member States for the many conservation successes during these years but warned that more needs to be done.  “We do not want to risk letting down the developing world in its struggle to ensure that trade in wild fauna and flora is conducted legally and sustainably”, he said.

Many of the 42 proposals on the table reflect growing international concern about the accelerating destruction of the world’s marine and forest ecosystems through overfishing and excessive logging, and the potential impacts of climate change on the biological resources of the planet. The UN General Assembly has declared 2010 the international year of biodiversity and the CITES Conference will be one of the key occasions governments have this year to take action to protect biodiversity. Member States will decide by consensus or a two-thirds majority vote for measures to conserve and manage species on the agenda.

“2010 is a key year for biological diversity. By ensuring that the international trade in wildlife is properly regulated, CITES can assist in conserving the planet’s wild fauna and flora from overexploitation and thus contribute to the improved management of these key natural assets for sustainable development”, said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, which administers the CITES Secretariat.

Other issues on the agenda include the adoption of urgent measures to tackle illegal trade of tiger products, rhinos and other species that are on the brink of extinction. It will also address the potential impacts of CITES measures on the livelihoods of the rural poor, those on the frontlines of using and managing wildlife.

For more information on CITES, see www.cites.org.
Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
 info at nyo.unep.org
www.nyo.unep.org

This website participates in Inter-religious dialogue as a way to mutual understanding by religions that agree beforehand to live in peace with one-another. This includes Imams in the US and wherever else – that are ready to enter this larger tent.

The following new leaders in Islam are welcome to the above tent – but as a new breed – not as apologists for the “is” – the problem is not the “Misperception” but the hurt from the effect of on-going actions.

The a-priory perception is that Muslims that come to live in the west have done so in order to avoid oppression in their lands of origin – this like all those that moved to the West before them and came from other religious backgrounds. Some came because they were oppressed, others because they did not agree with the oppression – both groups created new harmonies here – that is the melting pot that has to be understood and cherished.

We wish all the best to those interviewed in the following article, and those that go to meetings like the one in Doha, Qatar, mentioned in the article. We hope they change the leadership of Islam, the relationship to their women, the material learned in the madrassas, the perception of the infidel, etc. That does not mean a castration of their culture, but the bringing out to the forefront of the postive in their culture that we can easily admire also. The venom is what has to be removed internally before an attempt to claim misperception. Westerners are ready to accept the idea that the venom is not the juice of the pure religion it claims to be the guardian thereoff.

————-

Young Western Muslims Fight Misperceptions.
writes Liza Jansen of the IPS, February 16, 2010.

NEW YORK, Feb 15 (IPS) – Islamophobia is rising in the West, and sectarian clashes have undermined unity in the Muslim world, but there is hope from “within”, says a group of young Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow (MLTs) working to address these problems. “There is a lot of misinformation out there about our face, and there are many obstacles to getting the right information out,” Asim Rehman, a member of MLT in the United States, told IPS.

Rehman is also president of the Muslim Bar Association of New York, a professional grouping of Muslim lawyers, law students, and legal professionals. “When you see a 10-second clip of an angry young Muslim but there is no context to it, it disheartens and saddens me that this particular part of the faith has been given priority,” added member Rusha Majeed.

Majeed, also based in New York City, is dedicated to bridging the gap between the wider public and the Muslim community through dialogue, culture, arts, academia and current affairs.

Muslims are currently living in a pivotal period of enormous challenge and transformation, they said, and Muslims seeking positive Islamic solutions must directly tackle this situation.

The MLT programme brings together diverse young Muslims from around the world who are committed to fostering healthy Muslim identities, and working as agents of change in their communities.

In only six years, the network has expanded from 25 countries in Western Europe to about 75 countries all over the world, ranging from Somalia to Iraq to Kosovo, and coming from diverse schools of thought and myriad ethnic, cultural, socio-economic and professional backgrounds.

Rehman says the group’s biggest challenge in the U.S. is undoing the negative perception of Islam. The diverse Muslim community here is an asset in this effort, he said, since “Americans see greater potential for intra- and inter-religious harmony in the U.S. than we do in other countries, because of the melting pot model.”

MLT’s focus for the Muslim community in the U.S. is on interfaith work, building coalitions with different religious communities, and a balanced portrayal of Islam in the media, which is “crucial and critical and a big challenge to keep the conversation going”, according to Majeed.

At the MLT convention in Doha, Qatar, last January, the MLT global network was launched to tackle thorny issues such as violent extremism, competing values, and strained relations with the West.

One of the outcomes was that 86 percent of participants said Muslims face a crisis in religious authority.

“There are competing voices for that space and traditionally there is the Ulema – the educated class of Muslim legal scholars – where people go to,” Majeed explained.

However, many young Muslims don’t know who to turn to if they have questions about Islam, she said, and there is confusion about who is the “right” authority to consult – ranging from the local imam to the popular search engine Google.

“I truly feel that if non-Muslims just knew a little bit more about their Muslim neighbours, and if Muslims themselves were to be a little more open to embrace both non-Muslims and the diversity within Islam, we’d all be in a much better place,” Rehman said.

There are a lot of unqualified Muslim imams in the world, and others blindly follow them, he added.

The MLT programme is the largest of its kind, with 300 young civic-minded Muslim leaders from diverse backgrounds stepping up around the globe as spokespersons, journalists, religious leaders, activists for peace and tolerance, leaders of NGOs, writers and academics.

One Dutch MLT works to affect change by playing music. An Italian MLT and a local imam are working to promote interfaith harmony. And an MLT from Pakistan is involved in reform of the madrasah, the schools of Islamic theology and religious law.

Although the MLT programme does not have an explicit focus on women, the number of female MLTs is remarkable, since many interpretations of Islam oppose women taking leadership roles.

“We aim to keep the group diverse and representative, which includes encouraging women to participate,” said Majeed.

Majeed joined the network two years ago, and says it has provided her with the opportunity to meet a fascinating group of people.

“The MLT programme has done an amazing job in connecting young Muslim leaders around the world,” agreed Rehman. “These are people I can reach out to in participation. It is very inspiring to see people doing the work that they are doing.”

“The MLT network helps building a tremendous confidence for people in their own work. You need a level of pride in order to really make a change for communities,” he concluded.

The title may look strange, and indeed nobody put the three meetings I attended Friday, November 20, 2009, in direct contact with each other – but then my imagination was busy telling me – what if those people would indeed sit in the same room and plan together for a better functioning world?

First – the Solar Tower Technology:

An experimental smaller tower I saw years ago in Israel, but in the 1980s a German firm built a 50 kw prototype tower in Spain and operated it for 8 years collecting data. That tower was 650 feet tall and 33 feet wide, and the collector was about 1000 feet wide. The technology combines wind and solar technologies to produce electricity without emissions, without using up water, and at a price competitive with fossil fuels. The Solar Tower uses solar insolation and radiation to heat air beneath a large translucent collector (greenhouse) that creates a constant flow of air to drive electricity-generating turbines. The turbines are located at the base of the tower in a shape like an orange cut in a half. There is an updraft of air in the tower. There is also a capability to store heat so the system works also at night and electricity is delivered 24/7.
For more information look please at - www.enviromission.com.au

A 200MV Tower is planned for the Mohave desert in Arizona. The tower will reach 2400 feet height and the inside temperature will be 180 degrees. The location was picked so that it will supply electricity to a market in California.

The information was presented by Mr. Christopher Davey, President, EnviroMission (USA), Inc. and hosted by Mark Townsend Cox, Managing Partner of New Energy Fund www.newenergyfundlp.com with further backing from Raymond James & Associates, Inc., members of the New York Stock Exchange.

Second – the financial meeting was billed as The Middle East Leaders Forum 2009 and was hosted by DLA Piper a law firm with pan-Gulf presence www.dlapiper.com  I www.MiddleEastLeadersForum.com was organized with the help of Edgar Perez, CEO of Golden Networking who chaired the event. www.goldennetworking.com DLA has 3,500 lawyers in 29 countries throughout Europe, the Middle East, Egypt, the US, South Asia, and Asia in general.

The panels dealt with -
Evolution of Capital Markets in the Middle East;
Alternative Approaches for Private Equity Investing in the Gulf;
Tapping into the World’s Richest Sovereign Wealth Funds;
Retaining Talent and Focusing Teams in the Middle East.

The speakers ranged from the Thompson Reuters Head of Islamic Finance to various International Investment Groups – management and strategy heads. What I came away with is the clear understanding that there is a lot of private money out there – even if much of it is held by individuals in the name of Sovereign entities. This money will not want to buy US treasuries. Places like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar – the smaller members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – have turned into Financial Centers and one of the speakers called the GCC the biggest bank in the world. Sure, there was a lot of talk of outside investments potential in the GCC States, also about income from oil, but now the ruling families are rather interested in being seen as investors and manager of finances then oil producers. So, here is my angle – why not invest in the technologies of the future – like the Solar Tower I mentioned above? There is also the angle of Islamic Finances that do not have as a target gains from interest – so why not turn this into investments instead?

There is a lot of sun in the desert, but no water – so these towers could do a lot of good for the development of the GCC region itself. They could also invest in the production of electricity in Sahara and sell it in Europe. Cables will be the new energy pipelines. They could start by participating already in the first development of the technology in Arizona. This could also improve the image of states that seem to be pushing only for sales of oil – something they can start being less dependent on because of their new standing as financial centers. The technology could also be related to desalination projects …

Third – the Friendship Ambassadors Foundation that since 1973 facilitates cultural exchange programs that promote mutual understanding and peace. The foundation brings volunteers and NGOs for meaningful exchanges that also focus on sustainable development. These are the people that could through example facilitate thinking that there is a common good in helping bring about change when change is needed – and today doing something about decreasing a potential runaway of climate change is the order of the day. Patrick Sciarratta, is the Executive Director of the Ambassadors – they could try to promote a common ground between those that have the money they could use to work out needed answers to the stalled Copenhagen process, and the technology people that have the know-how. www.FAF.org

One not so trivia I learned about the Friendship Ambassadors last evening was the fact that among the many young people they brought from the Developing world to the United States were Kofi Annan and Shashi Tharoor, when they were still young students – they later became among the most successful, low key, public servants in UN history. Kofi Annan as perhaps the only other Secretary General, besides Dag Hammarskjold, that left a positive imprint on the organization, and Shashi Tharoor, author of many books of thought, the highest intellectual Under-Secretary General in charge of Communications, who tried to be Annan’s successor, but was seemingly too much for the G.W. Bush Administration for that job. I mention this here as it seems that this youth-Ambassador NGO, that was funded originally from the Readers Digest fortune, has indeed had the penchant of picking right people – specially among the young – to promote global understanding for right causes.

My conclusions for the day – there is hope if the right people will provide the links between the different elements that are in place already, rather then allow these elements to fester in their solitude and pursue a detrimental future unconnected.

Exclusive report by Robert Fisk for The Independent of London.
The demise of the dollar

In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading

By Robert Fisk
Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Iran announced late last month that its foreign currency reserves would henceforth be held in euros rather than dollars.

China Threatens Dollar
Find out why China is deliberatelydestroying the Dollar. Free Report
MoneyMorning.com/dollar_china

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.

Musicians from Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Norway, and the United States, joined together to promote Middle East peace.

Itamar Eichner in Yedioth Ahronoth, June 29, 2009.
 http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/mu…

In a pastoral farm near Oslo, capital of Norway-far from the eyes of the media-a group of Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian musicians gathered this past week, and tried to make music together for the sake of peace.

Behind this initiative stands a Norwegian peace activist.   He invited musicians from the region for a joint 10-day workshop.   Participants from Israel included Kobi Oz, Aya Korem, Ohad Hitman and Mika Sadeh.

Three musicians came from the Palestinian Authority, and four arrived from Jordan.   They were joined by Norwegian and American musicians.

For 10 days, the musicians wrote songs together.   The Israelis learned to sing in Arabic, the Palestinians and Jordanians learned to sing in Hebrew.   They are slated to present the result on Saturday night [June 27] in a concert to be held in Oslo with the participation of about 1,000 people.

“Peace in the Middle East is important to us, and we think that musicians in the region have a great responsibility to promote peace.   After all, young people listen much more to musicians than to politicians,” he added.

Energy Risk USA, Houston – Next week!

From: Mustafah Abdullah

Dear Pincas,

If you can only attend one event this year and haven’t booked on Energy Risk USA, here’s what you are missing out on……

United Nations Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC) comes onboard the conference for an exclusive keynote update on the carbon regime post-2012, and how you will be affected.

John Kilani, Director of the Sustainable Development Mechanisms (SDM) Programme at the UNFCCC brings with him a unique perspective combining his regulatory role and his extensive senior management experience in Qatar Petroleum.   He will outline how different carbon policies will impact your business and shed new light on the regulation versus legislation debate.

Investing in renewable energy – bang for your buck?

Complimenting this keynote, we present you sessions discussing:

• The worth of investing in renewable energy at the current prices
• Operational considerations you need to factor in
• Impact of carbon prices on your asset values

Silent assassins – Don’t let moral hazards eat into your profits

An extended panel on the pitfalls of moral hazards and how you can decrease rogue activities at no cost.   Our speakers from Labhart Risk Advisors, Entergy Services, and International Commerce tell you how you can instil a self-correcting risk culture.

PLUS new speakers from GOLDMAN SACHS, CITIGROUP COMMODITIES, SEQUENT ENERGY, SARACEN, MACQUARIE COOK POWER, HESS, BP

PLUS all your traditional risk issues addressed in a fully interactive and concise CRO roundtable led by the Committee of Chief Risk Officers:

Credit risk                   Regulatory risk                             Operational risk                           Market risk

For the event guide click here

Energy Risk USA is the most anticipated event of year in the energy industry.   Make this your most astute time out of the office.

Book now to secure your place

See you in Houston!

Mustafah Abdullah
Conference Producer – Risk Events
Incisive Media

  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Arab Asia, Future Events, Qatar, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, Reporting from Washington DC, Texas

Discuss this article

For the first time, Christians in Qatar worship in church

By Caryle Murphy – The Christian Science Monitor
From the February 9, 2009 edition

The move is seen as part of an effort to modernize the emirate and demonstrate traditional Islam’s tolerance.

DOHA, Qatar – When the Rev. Tomasito Veneracion arrived in this Muslim nation seven years ago, his Roman Catholic parishioners prayed in small groups scattered in apartments, schools, and one tiny makeshift chapel. At Easter, Indian Catholics gathered in one place, Filipinos in another, Arabs in yet another.

But with last year’s opening of Our Lady of the Rosary Church, his congregants for the first time had a recognized, central place to worship. On Christmas Eve, 15,000 attended a midnight mass, with those who couldn’t cram into the 2,700-seat church watching on video screens outside.

“When I first came here, the church was not recognized. But now we are enjoying this gift,” Father Veneracion says. “It’s a tremendous feeling of relief that we can breathe, worship, and pray in a place without fear and without disturbance.”

The decision to permit church building is widely seen as part of an effort by Qatar’s leader, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, to modernize the tiny emirate, made wealthy by its natural-gas reserves, and demonstrate traditional Islam’s flexibility and tolerance.

“It’s showing the world they are open to new ideas, and I guess it’s part of growing up as a nation,” said Veneracion.

Our Lady of the Rosary will soon be joined by several churches under construction in what is informally known as “Church City,” a 99-acre site leased to Christian denominations by the Qatar government.

Qatar’s Christians, estimated at 70,000 to 80,000, are almost entirely expatriate workers, principally from India and the Philippines.

The move gave Qatar its first church since Islam took root here in the 7th century. It also brought Qatar into line with most of its Gulf neighbors, which have all had at least one church for decades. The one exception is Saudi Arabia, whose inflexible strain of Islam still bans worship of another faith.

Diplomats in Riyadh say, however, that a more relaxed atmosphere has emerged in recent years. Private services in homes are disrupted far less often, and fewer Christians are arrested, diplomats report. Customs agents no longer confiscate Bibles and crucifixes from arriving foreigners.

Though Qatar is not a pioneer in permitting an open Christian presence in the Gulf, it is bucking a massive ultraconservative drift in contemporary Islam around the world that rejects cooperation with other faiths. Al Qaeda spokesmen have berated Qatar for authorizing church construction.

Qatar’s 200,000 citizens, who enjoyed the world’s highest per capita income as of 2007, adhere to the same Islamic legal tradition as Saudi Arabians. But they differ in practice, being far more relaxed about publicly enforcing a strict social and moral code.

Most Qataris “are happy with what we’re doing because they are devout Muslims and they want their Christian employees to be able to pray,” said the Rev. Canon Bill Schwartz, Anglican rector of Doha’s Church of the Epiphany.

Mr. Schwartz is overseeing construction of the Anglican church complex going up next door to the Catholic compound. Under an agreement with the government, the facility will also be used by several other Protestant and Evangelical denominations. Schwartz anticipates that it will serve 20,000 worshipers in any given week.

The complex, likely to cost around $12 million and take years to complete, is being built in stages. Schwartz is hopeful the first phase can be ready for use by the end of 2009. “We’re asking for money from anybody who’ll give it to us,” he says. “It is very much a work of faith, including on the part of the contractor.”
Schwartz ministers to a dispersed congregation of about 30 nationalities. On Fridays, the day of worship for all faiths in Qatar, he presides at services in a school gym. But scores of other services are held in villas, hotels, and restaurants, he says.

Besides the Anglican and Roman Catholic compounds, buildings are also under construction for Copts, Greek Orthodox, and Indian Protestants at the leased site about eight miles from downtown Doha.

The government’s move to permit church building, which began to surface after it established diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 2002, was controversial among Qataris. A final decision was taken only after a 2003 referendum approving the country’s new Constitution, which guarantees freedom of worship.

Also, Qatar-based Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has wide influence in the Middle East, ruled that Christians have a right to build a church in Muslim lands, just as Muslims are permitted to construct mosques in non-Muslim countries.

Both Schwartz and Veneracion, who wear their clerical collars when visiting government offices, but not elsewhere, say that they have not encountered hostility.

“The government asks us to be discreet,” says Schwartz, which is why none of the churches have exterior bells or crosses. Christian proselytizing is forbidden.

Veneracion said that Qatar’s prime minister attended last March’s ribbon-cutting ceremony at his church, whose $15 million cost was financed mostly by Catholics living in the Gulf states.

The next day’s consecration of the building was attended by six bishops, 40 priests, and congregants from 67 nations, who carried their flags in a parade.

“We have 16 masses on Friday alone” with an average attendance of about 8,000, said Veneracion, who is Filipino and has a staff of five other priests. Masses are said in Konkani, English, Tagalog, Sinhala, Arabic, Malayalan, Urdu, Tamil, French, and Italian.

During a recent visit to the church, a police car was stationed outside. It is there 24 hours a day, Veneracion says, to protect against any untoward incident.

A group of young Lebanese Catholics socializing in the sun-filled plaza said they were thrilled to have a worship place of their own.

“You know, the church is first a community before being a stone place,” said Maroun Nassar, an electrical engineer who runs the Arabic catechism classes. “But now, we can gather officially without offending the Qataris.”

The next day, Indonesian Catholics gathered in one of the small church halls for a belated Christmas service. There were two decorated trees, and the choir, accompanied by an electric keyboard, sang “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear.”

“You cannot imagine,” said engineer Adi Dwinanto when asked how he felt about the new church. “It’s just amazing, that here in this country we can do this freely…. All of us are happy, for sure.”

________________________________________________________________
This and all “other news” issues can be found at http://www.other-net.info/index.php

The international news station, Al Arabiya, is based in Dubai Media City, United Arab Emirates, and is partly owned by the Saudi-controlled broadcaster Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC).

Actually, the original investment in Al Arabiya was $300 million by MBC, with Lebanon‘s Hariri Group, and other investors from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, so, in reality this is as well a Lebanese company – with connection to other Hariri investments in media and air traffic. The Middle East in the name of the company standing indeed for Lebanon.

Al Arabiya broadcasts 24 hours a day with news updated at the top of the hour. The free-to-air channel carries news, current affairs, business and financial markets, sports, talk shows, and documentaries. It is consistently rated among the top pan-Arab stations by Middle East audiences.

On January 26, 2009 President of the United States Barack Obama gave his first formal interview as president to the television channel to Hisham Melhem, the Washington based head of Al Arabiya.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2009

MIDEAST: A Tale of Two Summits.

Analysis by Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani for IPS.

CAIRO, Jan 27, 2009 – Despite declarations of Arab unity at a recent economic summit, Egyptian commentators say that fundamental differences between rival Arab camps – especially over the issue of Palestine – are far from over. “The deep divisions currently plaguing the Arab world cannot be solved over the course of an official state luncheon,” Mohamed Abu Al-Hadid, political analyst and chairman of the board of the state-owned Dar Al-Tahrir publishing house wrote in official daily Al-Gomhouriya Thursday (Jan. 22).

On Jan. 16, leaders and representatives of 12 Arab League (AL) member states attended a meeting in Doha, Qatar to discuss the carnage then taking place in the Gaza Strip through Israel’s military campaign. The meeting followed repeated calls by Qatar for an emergency AL summit in hope of forging a common Arab stance against ongoing Israeli aggression.

Regional heavyweights Egypt and Saudi Arabia, however, declined to attend. Instead, they announced their intention to discuss the crisis at a scheduled Arab economic summit in Kuwait three days later. The move highlighted the longstanding divide among AL members, which pits Washington’s “moderate” Arab allies – including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan – against those opposed to U.S. policy in the region.

The differences between the two blocs are defined largely by their respective positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict. While the former grouping backs U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, the latter supports resistance against Israel led by Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas.

Abbas recognises Israel and insists on holding U.S.-sponsored negotiations with Israeli counterparts, despite the abject failure of talks to realise even modest Palestinian demands. By contrast, Hamas – democratically elected in 2006 – rejects Israel’s legitimacy, cleaving instead to a strategy of armed resistance.

Israel’s 2006 war on southern Lebanon fostered similar divisions, with Washington’s Arab allies supporting the U.S.-backed Beirut government against Lebanese resistance faction Hizbullah. Israel’s recent war on the Gaza Strip – which lasted from Dec. 27 to Jan. 17 and resulted in more than 1,300 Palestinian deaths – aggravated the longstanding rift.

According to Nabil Abdel Fattah, assistant director at the semi-official Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, the decision by Egypt and Saudi Arabia to avoid Doha reflected “conflicts over how to deal with the crisis” then playing out in Gaza.

Notably, for the first time ever at a high-level Arab political meeting, the Palestinian people were represented by Hamas, not – as has always been the case at AL meetings – by the PA. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal used the opportunity to reiterate Hamas’s rejection of any ceasefire proposal that did not include the permanent reopening of the Gaza Strip’s borders.

According to Abdel Fattah, the decision by Egypt and Saudi Arabia to spurn the event was also partially aimed at Qatar. Despite its tiny size, Qatar has recently reinvented itself as a regional power broker, straddling the fence between rival camps.

“Qatar has tried to take a leading role in the region, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia see this as an infringement on their own diplomatic roles,” he said. “Egypt also fears that Qatar might be acting as a mask for Iranian and Syrian influence.”

In an editorial, Abu Al-Hadid reminded readers that Qatar – despite its pretensions – represented no less of a U.S. ally than states of the “moderate” axis. “Let’s not forget that Qatar, while trumpeting a tough stand against Israel, plays host to the biggest U.S. airbase in the region,” he wrote.

Nevertheless, discord appeared to give way to unity when Arab leaders gathered in Kuwait for the economic summit on Jan. 19 and 20. Although initially intended to focus on Arab economic, social and development issues, the meeting was dominated by ongoing violence in Gaza.

He added: “This, of course, is because the U.S. is in the region expressly to protect these regimes.”