12.29.2008

Censorship: Aggression against Civilization

To understand the censorship system, we should understand the totalitarian and authoritarian systems, and the essential association between the censorship system and non-democratic systems.

In the authoritarian system, the authority represented by the ruling regime cannot be contested (including its opinions) even at the intellectual and theoretical levels, and here is the rule of censorship.

The totalitarian system, the most dangerous and brutal of all governing systems, there, definitely, is one ideology serving as the base for every single part the state's structure that is imposed on the society, including a total system of values. There should be one rhetoric and one truth are represented by the de facto ruling regime, mostly the dictator.

Therefore, the censorship here is an indispensable means for the regime, which excludes, and sometimes executes, any other views or discourse on politics, economics, society and even culture. Some main examples of the totalitarian system are North Korea, Iran and the former Soviet Union.

Although the political base of the censorship system, there are other aspects of this system of crucial importance. The political dimension here is obvious by itself as all non-democratic systems. In addition, there is no need to argue about the fact that censorship, in itself, is an aggression against human freedom. Nevertheless, the other dimensions of the censorship system are also of great importance and have disastrous consequences. These dimension I want to spotlight here.

The main application of the censorship system is the exclusiveness of discourse, fact, thought and even values as adopted by the regime that exerting censorship. Therefore, censorship eliminates diversity and all sides of intellectual and cultural communication and interaction, which are the base for human development and, consequently, the human civilization. There was no civilization without diversity and such interaction, and this is well known in the historical studies.

Then, censorship is a very dangerous question at the human level. It is not just prevents society from enabling its individuals of their political rights and public freedoms, it also kills their human development prospects and, consequently, their prospect prosperity and welfare. And excludes entire societies from interacting and integrating with the rest of the world and the universal civilization. Hence, the censorship system is an aggression against civilization.

Here, we just need to remember how are backward and underdeveloped the countries inflicted with censorship systems. The Middle East serves as a very good example, especially as it has some of the most censored countries in the world.

Hence, every civilized country, organization or any party should fight censorship. Leading international powers should pressure censorship regimes and dictators to achieve the goal of free human exchange, communication and interaction in a censorship-free world to eliminate this aggression against human civilization.

Labels: ,

12.21.2008

International Financial Crisis and Syria

Many experts, organizations and even countries tried to work out the international financial crisis blowing world's financial markets, but neither succeeded.

One party in the world has the solution to this serious crisis. Yes, it is one party is the 'last Baath' located in Syria for ruling it.

So, our Baath geniuses appeared on our revolutionary TV and with a huge dose of confidence and pride announced that Syria was not affected by the international financial crisis, simply, because there is no financial market in Syria. And problem is solved, actually, there is no problem to solve because there is no financial market at first. The revolution (Baath's revolution) always has the solution, and most of times, if not always, a preemptive solution.

And here is the success story, the blessed revolution of Baath group extended its achievements to the financial market in Syria by eliminating it and relieving Syria from such huge and serious problems coming from colonial evil powers, and added another achievement to the long list of achievements.

Hence, the entire world is asked and urged to take from the genius Baath approach and its blessed genius revolution, and to apply them for elimination the world's problems. So, according to our genius Baath, the financial markets are at crisis, ok, get rid of them and the crisis would go away!

But the problem of the world, especially the free democratic world, is that it is stupid enough not to understand the Baath nature and letting it isolated in its last castle of resistance feeling lonely. (Except Israeli regime and Sarkozy of course)

Let's back to Syria and the international financial crisis, and congratulate the Syrian people for having such genius Baathist regime, which preempted the crisis and eliminated and banned Syrian financial market, bourse (stock market), real banks, credit cards and finally pre-paid cards, and recently they apparently banned jobs because no graduate can fined a job now in Syria after 16 years of study. By the way, can you believe that I don't have a credit or even pre-paid card to buy some stuff online or to pay for magazines and books?

Finally, if have such case, you should know that you are even in the Middle Ages or in a resistance castle of Baath.

12.12.2008

Lebanon Gains Recognition from Syria Formalizing Independence

Lebanon and Syria formally reached an agreement to establish diplomatic relations between the two countries for the first time since independence.

Finally, Lebanon could formally gain the recognition of its existence as an independent sovereign country from Syria for the first time in Lebanon's history. This, actually, constitutes a historic moment for Lebanon.

From the beginning of independence, Syria considered many parts of Lebanon as deducted parts of its territory, not to mention the Lebanese suspicion that Syria does not recognize Lebanon as independent country, and intends to 'regain' its authority over it. In this regard, Lebanon always cites the absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries since independence as an indicator of this thinking.

Furthermore, the Syrian military presence in Lebanon for about 30 years during and after the Lebanese civil war, including about 15 years of Syrian regime's dominance over Lebanon after the Gulf War II and following the Lebanese Taef Accord ending the civil war, whereas the Syrian security apparatus ran the Lebanese various affairs directly or indirectly at this stage. This dominance was depending on American implicit mandate to the Syrian regime after the Gulf War II.

Now, it is a new phase in the Middle East with a new reality in the region shaping new relations and rules affecting the geopolitics of the region. It is also an essential part of the long-awaited new Middle East.

This recognition constitutes a historic change in the Syrian behavior toward Lebanon, especially, current regime's behavior. This change, in my opinion, would not have been possible without the long struggle of the Lebanese independence government, PM Sanioura's first government formed after the first free democratic elections following the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, which ended the Syrian administration of Lebanon.

This government put the goal of realizing the full independence and securing the full sovereignty of Lebanon, and challenged all the obstacles, which included every malicious and destructive means from intimidation to assassinations and use of political violence. With the international support, finally, it achieved this goal of independence and sovereignty under the sole and exclusive authority of the democratically elected government.

Now, Lebanon is harvesting the results of this government's struggle and achievements, which could enforce all concerned parties to accept the fact of Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and democracy.

Labels: , ,

12.01.2008

Iran's Loss in Iraq

Many argue that removing the Baath totalitarian regime in Iraq has empowered Iran, especially by opening Iraq to Iranian influence.

First of all, it is really funny to assume that the Baath weak isolated helpless regime in Iraq, after more than a decade of harsh international sanctions and isolation, would be a barrier to any serious activity coming from behind the borders. This regime survived previously in its last phase after Gulf War II only to exist there, and this was because of an American decision and under a balance of power in the Middle East supported by the United States after the Cold War.

In reality, we do not find the typical elements of the political influence used to be in such cases between countries. In particular, there are no means available to the Iranian government to influence the decisions of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi parliament, and nor there are examples about such incidents.

More precisely, referring to the facts of some crucial events and milestones in the Iraqi late history is very indicative and conclusive in this argument. Here, I want to cite three major happenings serving as evidences and examples supporting this conclusion.

First of all, when Iran publicly put its strength behind the nomination of Mr. Jaafari for the Shiat prime minister office after the latest parliamentary elections ―the first inclusive elections with the participation of all major political parties in Iraq― against the will of the US and lost this nomination after a political battle. Second event is when the Shiat Iran-supported Mehdi Army was finally conquered. And the third very important event when the Shiat stronghold Albasra was submitted to the rule of law and the Iraqi government and "liberated" from Iran-supported Shiat militias, and its inhabitants went to streets celebrating their "liberation".

Furthermore, the clearer evidence of Iran's loss in Iraq is the very recent official information talking about Iranian government's attempts to bribe the Iraqi Members of Parliament not to vote for the Iraq-US strategic treaty and security treaty. This is very conclusive about the fact of Iran's lack of means to influence the Iraqi decision and to affect significantly the Iraqi political situation. In addition, it clearly shows how Iran goes pathetic in terms of getting influence in Iraq and securing its interests there, because Iran realizes its loss in Iraq.

Labels: ,