Foreign Policy Magazine: The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers of 2011

Foreign Policy, the most highest American magazine about geopolitics and foreign policy, published its yearly Top 100 Global Thinkers of 2011.

For the second year in a row, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei is featured on the list (as if suddenly they discovered how brilliant el Baradei is) but this year he shares the 1st position with a list of 14 persons, whom FP calls “The Arab Revolutionaries”, the list includes:

Alaa Al Aswany
Mohamed ElBaradei
Wael Ghonim
Rached Ghannouchi
Tawakkol Karman

but more interestingly, The Arab Revolutionaries list includes Otpor‘s Srdja Popovic and AIE’s Gene Sharp!!!

Other dignitaries among the other”Top” 100 thinkers on the FP list include:
Barack Obama (11)
Dick Cheney (12)
Condoleezza Rice (12)
Mark Zuckerberg (17)
Hillary Clinton (20)
Nicolas Sarkozy (21)
Bernard-Henri Lévy (22)
Samantha Power (53)
Jared Cohen (83)

Quite a list! Seems like the list of Top American Imperialism Advancers, not Top Thinkers!

Notable to mention is that until the end of 2008, FP was owned by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in September 29, 2008, The Washington Post Company bought it.

Cooptation of April6 Youth & Opposition Leaders

by Michel Chossudovsky 

The cooptation of the leaders of major opposition parties and civil society organizations in anticipation of the collapse of an authoritarian puppet government is part of Washington’s design, applied in different regions of the World.

The process of cooptation is implemented and financed by US based foundations including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and  Freedom House (FH). Both FH and the NED have links to the US Congress. the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the US business establishment. Both the NED and FH are known to have ties to the CIA.

The NED is actively involved in Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria. Freedom House supports several civil society organizations in Egypt.

“The NED was established by the Reagan administration after the CIA’s role in covertly funding efforts to overthrow foreign governments was brought to light, leading to the discrediting of the parties, movements, journals, books, newspapers and individuals that received CIA funding. … As a bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as well as the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the rubric of “democracy promotion.” (Stephen Gowans, January « 2011 “What’s left“)

While the US has supported the Mubarak government for the last thirty years, US foundations with ties to the US State department and the Pentagon have actively supported the political opposition including the civil society movement.  According to Freedom House: “Egyptian civil society is both vibrant and constrained. There are hundreds of non-governmental organizations devoted to expanding civil and political rights in the country, operating in a highly regulated environment.”

In a bitter irony, Washington supports the Mubarak dictatorship, including its atrocities, while also backing and financing its detractors, through the activities of FH, the NED, among others.

Freedom House: Freedom Maps & meddling with the Middle East

Freedom House publishes an annual report assessing the degree of perceived democratic freedoms in each country.

Freedom House is supposedly an international non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Washington, D.C. which conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights, but it is accused by a lot of analysts and activists to be a front for the American Council on Foreign Relations and its British counterpart the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Noam Chomsky has criticized Freedom House for receiving funding from and allegedly furthering the interests of the U.S. government.

In it’s annual report, titled “Freedom in the World”, Freedom House claims to evaluate  the state of global freedom. The report is published with illustrated maps, titled the “Freedom Maps”.

Here are the maps of the last 3 years alongside their charts:

As you can see from the maps above and charts below, according to “Freedom House” most of the Middle East countries are labeled as NOT FREE, while three countries only (Morocco, Lebanon and Kuwait) are labeled as PARTLY FREE, and ONE Country only is FREE, and that’s ISRAEL!

Freedom House

Freedom House is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Washington, D.C. that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights. It publishes an annual report assessing the degree of perceived democratic freedoms in each country, which is used in political science research.

The organization was founded in October 1941, and Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt served as its first honorary chairpersons. Freedom House describes itself as “a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world.” The group states “American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom” and that this can primarily be achieved through the group’s “analysis, advocacy, and action”.

Human Rights activists have denounced Freedom House for being a political instrument used by hawkish circles in the United States to put pressure on countries that do not behave according to their standards.

The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organizations selected by the State Department to receive funding for ‘clandestine activities’ inside Iran.

On June 8, 2006, the vice-chairman of Freedom House’s board of trustees asked the U.S. Senate to increase the share of NGO funding aimed at helping support non-violent foreign democratic activists organize for potential overthrows of their non-democratic governments. Palmer argued in favor of shifting funding away from NGOs working in already democratic nations to fund this effort.

On December 7, 2004, U.S. House Representative Ron Paul criticized Freedom House for allegedly administering a U.S.-funded program in Ukraine where “much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate.” Paul said that:

“one part that we do know thus far is that the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House. PAUCI then sent U.S. Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko.”

US embassy cables: Ayman Nour requested US intervention for his Release in 2006

AYMAN NOUR REQUESTS THE SECRETARY PUSH GOE FOR AN

Ref ID: 06CAIRO6171
Date: 2006-10-02 15:55
Origin: Embassy Cairo
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL

Header:

VZCZCXRO6920
OO RUEHBC RUEHDE RUEHKUK
DE RUEHEG #6171/01 2751555
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 021555Z OCT 06
FM AMEMBASSY CAIRO
TO RUEHJI/AMCONSUL JEDDAH IMMEDIATE 0206
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1781
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHEE/ARAB LEAGUE COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 CAIRO 006171

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

JEDDAH FOR THE SECRETARY’S TRAVELING PARTY, NEA A/S WELCH,
AND NSC SENIOR DIRECTOR MIKE DORAN; NSC FOR RICK WATERS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/02/2016
TAGS: PGOV PHUM KDEM EG
SUBJECT: AYMAN NOUR REQUESTS THE SECRETARY PUSH GOE FOR AN
OCTOBER 6 AMNESTY

REF: CAIRO 6105

Classified By: Minister Counselor for Economic and Political Affairs
William R. Stewart, for reasons 1.5 (b) and (d).

1. (C) Summary:  In a letter to the Secretary, imprisoned Al Ghad Party leader Ayman Nour requests that during her upcoming visit to Cairo, the Secretary advocate for his release as part of the traditional prisoner amnesty granted by President Mubarak on the October 6 national holiday.  He notes his hope to be granted clemency by President Mubarak under constitutional Article 149, under which Mubarak could exempt Nour from the lengthy ban on political activities that would otherwise be in force following a release from prison. In an October 1 meeting, Gameela Ismail (Nour’s wife) told poloff that, while Nour would prefer to be pardoned under Article 149, he would not turn down a health-based amnesty (as some in the GOE have alleged). End

Summary.

2. (C) In an October 1 meeting, poloff queried Gameela Ismail about Nour’s willingness to accept a health-based pardon, versus amnesty granted by President Mubarak under constitutional Article 149. (Note: As reported reftel, with amnesty under Article 149, Nour could potentially be exempted from a ban on political activities that will otherwise be in place following his release.  End Note).  Ayman Qaffas, the new State Information Service chief (and son-in-law of EGIS director Omar Soliman), had alleged to Ambassador on September 28 that Nour refused to sign a petition for clemency based on his poor health.  Ismail denied that claim, and asserted that just the opposite has occurred ) over the past few months, Nour’s lawyer has reportedly filed three separate health-based pardon requests, at Nour,s urging, to
President Mubarak, the Prosecutor-General, and the Tora Prison doctor (the three officials who reportedly have the right to grant such a pardon).  Ismail noted that, while “of course” Nour would prefer a full pardon under Article 149, to include a provision for him to continue his political activities upon his release, he would still “most definitely” accept a pardon based on his poor health, or any other basis.

3. (C) Ismail said that the “Committee for Forensic Medicine” (under the Prosecutor-General’s Office) had visited Nour a month ago, in response to his request for a health-based pardon.  They reportedly did not conduct a medical exam during their visit ) “just spoke to him for 5 minutes” ) and Nour subsequently sent a complaint to the Prosecutor-General about the lack of a rigorous medical check.  The Prosecutor-General agreed to send the committee to Tora Prison again; the new exam is scheduled for October 5.  Nour and Ismail are hopeful that Nour might be released on the October 6 national holiday (when the President traditionally grants many prisoners amnesty).

4. (C) Ismail gave poloff a letter from Nour to the Secretary (text of Embassy translation at para 6), in which he requests the Secretary advocate for his release (under constitutional Article 149) as part of the October 6 prisoner amnesty. Ismail visited Nour on September 30, and told poloff that he asked Ismail to seek a meeting with the Secretary during her visit to Cairo.  Ismail said, after “serious deliberation,” she has chosen not to do so, because she is afraid that such a meeting, which would inevitably become public, would be more harmful than helpful.

Jared Cohen

Jared Cohen, an American Jew, (born November 24, 1981 in Weston, Connecticut) is the Director of Google Ideas, an Adjunct Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Previously he served as a member of the Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff and a close advisor to both Condoleezza Rice and later Hillary Clinton. Initially brought in by Condoleezza Rice as the youngest member in history, he was one of the few people kept on under Hillary Clinton. In this capacity, he focused on counter-terrorism, counter-radicalization, Middle East/South Asia, Youth, and Technology.

According to New York Times Magazine, Cohen was one of the principal architects of what became known as “21st century statecraft.” Prior to his work at the State Department, Cohen received his BA from Stanford University and his M.Phil in International Relations from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar.

Condoleezza’s New Middle East is at hand

By Elias A. Shaaya, February 18, 2011

An international relations theory professor once compared President Woodrow Wilson’s approach to democracy with that of President George W. Bush. Post-World War I, Wilson advocated for the self-governance of the peoples that were liberated from Ottoman rule. His approach could be compared to planting a tree:  You introduce the seed of democracy, nurture it, and then watch it flourish. On the other hand, Bush’s post-9/11 approach to democracy was to remove any existing autocratic governing system that harbored hostility toward the U.S.—using force if needed—and replace it with a democracy. This is analogous to digging a hole and then planting a full-grown tree in it. Recent events in Tunis and Egypt, however, show how much better Wilson’s approach to instating democracy was Bush’s approach. Although the damage in Iraq and Afghanistan has been done, there still needs to be a change in policy concerning other autocratic regimes in the area.American foreign policy had little to do with the Jasmine revolution in Egypt. In fact, the American government was caught off guard and had barely any time to assess the situation. Joe Biden first expressed that he wouldn’t call Mubarak a dictator, but an ally;he later called Mubarak’s resignation a pivotal moment in history. The ambivalence of the American position might just have been the best thing that happened to the revolution. The movement was relatively peaceful—except for violent stunts instigated by Mubarak’s henchmen—and showcased the power of the people to initiate change.As with Tunisia, the events in Egypt are inciting other grassroots movements toward democracy in the Arab world, and the American government should welcome that. Demonstrations are taking place in Jordan, Bahrain, and Yemen, just to name a few. The State Department should pressure its autocratic allies into instituting fundamental changes to their oppressive regimes. If true democracy were to flourish in the Middle East, U.S.-friendly dictators cannot count on their Western allies to keep them in power, but need to become responsible toward their people.

The main excuse that kept Mubarak—and countless others—in power for three decades was that he was the lesser of two evils. Americans feared the rise of an Islamist fundamentalist regime in Egypt that would undermine the Camp David Accords. Although the U.S. did lose a major ally in the region, there are no indications that any democratically elected government would be hostile toward the U.S. Even the widely feared “Muslim Brotherhood” has worked to alleviate such fears by announcing that it will not field a candidate for presidency. The Brotherhood, a non-violent conservative Islamist movement, aims to create an Islamist state, but whether it has enough popular support has yet to be determined. If all goes well, Egypt should have a democratically elected government within six months.

Such apprehensions should not stop the U.S. from pushing toward reforms in other Arab nations that are witnessing peaceful protests calling for reforms. Arabs are calling for legitimate rights that include freedom of speech, better standards of life, and a fair judicial system. If the U.S. genuinely wants to spread democracy in the world, it should start by pressuring their allies into making concessions to their oppressed peoples as a first step to long-term change.

Condoleezza Rice once explained to Arabs that “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” was Israel’s anti-Hezbollah war on Lebanon. However, the 2006 war failed to change the status quo between the two countries, and her “new Middle East” was stillborn. New birth pangs now seem to have hit that region, but they don’t include missiles, bombs, and tanks. They are the dead and injured of Tahrir Square, Pearl Square, and all pro-democracy protests, and they will bring in the birth of a new Middle East.

Source: The Harvard Crimson

Bush’s New Middle East

By MIKE WHITNEY, May 29, 2007

” … under the sky
without hope
the self inside me dies …

I will always be from nowhere
Without a face, without a history
from nowhere.”

“Traveler without Luggage” by Abdul-Wahab Al-Bayyati

It’s hard to know what Bush hopes to accomplish by backing the bloody siege of the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, but one thing is certain; things are never as they seem. In an interview on Democracy Now last week, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh stated that, Fatah al-Islam—the group of Sunni extremists inside the camp–were getting material support from the Saudis, the Bush administration and members of the Lebanese political establishment.

So, the Bush administration is supporting terrorism???

That’s right. Sy Hersh put it like this:

“The idea was to provide them (Fatah al-Islam) with some arms and some money and some basic equipment so — these are small units, a couple hundred people. There were three or four around the country given the same help covertly, the goal being they would be potential enemies of Hezbollah in case of warfare”.

But if Fatah-al-Islam is an American-Saudi creation than why is the Bush administration shipping weapons to Lebanon to help kill them? Is this is another example of “blowback”—the unintended consequences of a misguided foreign policy?

Yes and no.

Israel’s New Middle East

By TANYA REINHART, July 27, 2006

Burning Lebanon

Beirut is burning, hundreds of Lebanese die, hundreds of thousands lose all they ever owned and become refugees, and all the world is doing is rescuing the “foreign passport” residents of what was just two weeks ago “the Paris of the Middle East”. Lebanon must die now, because “Israel has the right to defend itself”, so goes the U.S. mantra, used to block any international attempt to impose a cease fire.

Israel, backed by the U.S., portrays its war on Lebanon as a war of self defense. It is easy to sell this message to mainstream media, because the residents of the North of Israel are also in shelters, bombarded and endangered. Israel’s claim that no country would let such an attack on its residents unanswered, finds many sympathetic ears. But let us reconstruct exactly how it all started.

On Wednesday, July 12, a Hezbollah uni! t attacked two armored Jeeps of the Israeli army, patrolling along Israel’s border with Lebanon. Three Israeli soldiers were killed in the attack and two were taken hostage. In a news conference held in Beirut a couple of hours later, Hezbollah’s leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah explained that their aim was to reach a prisoner exchange, where in return for the two captured Israeli soldiers, Israel would return three Lebanese prisoners it had refused to release in a previous prisoner exchange. Nasrallah declared that “he did not want to drag the region into war”, but added that “our current restraint is not due to weakness … if they [Israel] choose to confront us, they must be prepared for surprises.” [1]

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”

The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”

This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of  the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon.

This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the  planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.

New Middle East Map

Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that “[w]hat we’re seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.”¹ Secretary Rice was immediately criticized for her statements both within Lebanon and internationally for expressing indifference to the suffering of an entire nation, which was being bombed  indiscriminately by the Israeli Air Force.