When Arab regimes behave like spoilt brats (or worse)

Because there has been some 'curiosity', let me make it plain: I don't need permission from the Saudis, Abu Dhabi or anybody else to write what I want to write.

Arab regimes have appalling low tolerance levels. I often cite the case of one of Malaysia's most influential editors, Abdullah Ahmad, to explain this point. His career was ruined after an article he wrote in the New Straits Times on 12 November 2003. I've just reread that article in his book "On the Record". What followed the publication of that opinion piece is an example of how Arab regimes go about curbing freedom of expression beyond their borders. And they do it in a sly, determined and destructive way.

Bush and Blair: Despicable war criminals

More than eight years since the invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush and Tony Blair continue to be despised for their illegitimate military adventure. Malaysia's former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who had opposed the war when in office, remains a strong critic of the US and British leaders, calling them "the two best known war criminals".

Speaking on Friday at an anti-war forum organized by his Perdana Global Peace Foundation, Dr Mahathir lashed out at Bush and Blair. He strongly believes that wars should be criminalized as they glorify mass killings and have become profitable business for some countries. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal will hold the Anglo-American duo's trial on Saturday in a move that is both symbolic and part of a campaign not to forget the immense destruction caused by Bush and Blair's policies.

Blair is especially hated because of his cunning servility towards US global power, something his own country Britain is unable to project on its own. It is also apparent how this obnoxious man is profiteering from his former position as Britain's prime minister. Blair (he is Arthur Balfour's real heir) is pathetic as the so-called peace envoy on Palestine. It just gives him another tool to earn privileges for himself from the Gulf's super-rich sheikhs. The Kuala Lumpur trial is likely to find both Bush and Blair guilty of grave war crimes. Let us hope it encourages Asian leaders and unscrupulous businessmen from associating themselves with these two despicable men.

Fareed Zakaria's outlandish idea for a 'non-European' IMF chief

Indian-turned-American journalist Fareed Zakaria wants the disgraced Dominique Strauss-Kahn's successor at the International Monetary Fund to be a "non-European."

That sounds like a bold statement from someone who spends most of his time admiring European and Washington worldview. But read beyond the headline and Zakaria gives his outlandish logic why it's not a good idea to put another European in charge of an organization which is notorious for exploiting developing countries.

"If you don’t bring them in, they’re going to freelance and they’re going to grow outside of the system. That’s the most dangerous thing that could happen," Zakaria says in his CNN blog.

Then he praises the European and US-dominated international system, which according to him has imposed some degree of rules and norms -- another myth that is repeated by European and Washington officials, ignoring the chaos and lawlessness they have created.

Forget about international policy matters, the IMF has created a work culture in which women do not feel comfortable wearing skirts.

Back to the logic why a non-European should be roped in as the next IMF chief, Zakaria's boldness represents crazy Western fears about the rise of countries such as China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Russia and South Africa.

The supporters of the status quo do not mind if these countries grow in stature as long as they uphold the supremacy of European and US approach to world affairs.

Several non-European candidates have been mentioned as potential successor to Strauss-Kahn, the Frenchman who resigned after his arrest in the sexual assault case, but in the end the IMF will be headed by someone who, as Zakaria suggests, serves Western interests.

Echoes of Tahrir in Indian anti-corruption campaign

Cairo's Tahrir Square may no longer be the lively center of Egypt's January 25 revolution, but its cry of freedom has found an echo in an Indian anti-corruption campaign.

Let's be clear there are no parallels between the situations in Egypt and India. Corruption is a serious problem in both countries, but let the comparisons end here.

Being the world's largest democracy, India provides ample space for protest against authority and the freedom of expression is guaranteed and protected by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.

It is in this sense that Egyptians have become such an inspiration to the world, because they fought against a regime that was so entrenched in power for decades.

Tahrir - which means liberation - will always be synonymous with people power, and with the overpowering images of courage against a brutal system that fought back viciously to keep its grip on 80 million people.

Post-Hosni Mubarak's ouster, Tahrir also represented an eruption of uncontrolled joy, and even those who were not there savored the emotion vicariously.

So, when I began to read references to Tahrir Square from Indians online, it was a reminder of what is possible through the collective power of people.

The mention of Tahrir in India soon  became controversial amid objections that it was wrong to compare India's vibrant democracy to Egypt's dictatorship under Mubarak.

In short, what is happening in India is this: Veteran social activist Anna Hazare is on an indefinite fast demanding radical government action against widespread corruption and Indians have enthusiastically expressed support for him.

Actress Gul Panag, who went to the Jantar Mantar protest site in Delhi described the atmosphere as "electrifying", and asked more people to "come forward" if the place was to become India's Tahrir Square.

Rajdeep Sardesai, a popular television anchor, said in a tweet: "Off to Jantar Mantar. Is it India's Tahrir Square in a manner of speaking?"

Another television journalist, Barkha Dutt, said she loved the fact that Hazare's campaign "has stirred us out of our passive acceptance of things" but she was not "so charmed by comparisons to Egypt."

Her argument is clear that with all its faults India is a thriving democracy and the Hazare campaign is directed at cleaning up the system and strengthening democratic institutions.

It was surprising to see so many arguments on Twitter in favor and against the Tahrir reference. And it must be said that both sides are right in their view.

But the spirit in which Tahrir is cited in India must make Egyptians proud of what they have achieved in their struggle for democracy.

"More than anything Egypt was about the power of the people," actress Panag said, adding that "it's when people have had enough - of anything."

India is not the only flawed democracy where we can  hear the echoes of Tahrir, in the even more flawed democracy, the United States, protesters have used Egyptian analogies.

In Wisconsin, pro-labour protesters threatened to "go Egypt on their asses" against the Republican moves to cut the power of trade unions. They also carried a sign reading "Welcome to Tahrir Square" and called their governor "Hosni Mubarak".

Let's hope Egypt's military rulers would acknowledge that their citizens have infused people's movements with a new spirit beyond Cairo.

Inviting bids to manage Egyptian and Tunisian foreign policies

The British foreign minister, William Hague, has some strange views on the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Speaking on BBC Radio 4 after Hosni Mubarak's fall, Hague takes pleasure from his belief that people in the two countries are not bothered about how their governments conduct foreign relations. "I was very cheered, actually, by meeting young people in Tunisia earlier this week who had taken part in the revolution there," he said of his recent trip to Tunis.

"And their motivations were not religious, they were not foreign policy motivations; their motivations were to have economic opportunities, to have jobs..."

So, is it a good thing or a bad thing for the people to have a say in their nation's foreign policy?

Hague's above comments leave one wondering that he wants Egypt and Tunisia to outsource their foreign policy decisions to London. Such thinking goes beyond the issue of British support for Israel.

The British establishment continues to believe that it can still manipulate foreign policies beyond its borders. Autocrats like Hosni Mubarak and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali are the reason why some European countries feel emboldened in their attempts to dictate Arab policies.

When the whole world is saluting the courage of Tunisian and Egyptian people for toppling tyranny, Western politicians are busy trying to preserve the old order in security and foreign relations in the whole region. If you want Egyptian and Tunisian foreign policies to be outsourced, let there be a tender based on free market competition rules, allowing both government ministries in Europe and private enterprises of Tony Blair and Associates’ ilk to participate in bids and make an offer that the Arab people can't turn down.

Hague has every right to feel happy about the Tunisian and Egyptian activists not having "foreign policy motivations", but it will be seen as a symptom of the old colonial mindset.