Arab world lacks climate change data, says report

My concerns regarding my family occupied my every thought. I have a son. At that time, he was eight years old. I feared that they would try to get to him, since they couldn’t get to me. I look back now and ask myself, “How much danger was I really in?” But I don’t second guess my fears. After all, I was going to work in the trunk of my car. The danger was real and immediate sacrifices were necessary.

The first sacrifice I made was to have my son live away from me. We were separated and it was for his own safety. It was so difficult for the both of us. Where could my son stay and with whom? That question was my main concern. I reached out to a friend of mine whose family accepted to host my son in their home.

My son needed to move in and live with my friend, but for safety’s sake, my friend and his family needed to come up with a story that they could share with their neighbors about the “new boy” who was coming to live with them. So, my son became their nephew whose mother fought with the father and left the house. Since the father could not take care of the boy, he had asked them if the boy could stay with them and they accepted.

The first time my son went to live with them, he cried. My son did not stay in their house for the entire day; my friend kept him for a couple of hours and then returned him home to me. My friend was cautious: he took the longer route leading to my place. He even changed his appearance before seeking me out. I was still terrified.

I realized that my son needed to see me, however much I was afraid that they might get to him. My friend and I decided that we should not make a routine out of anything; there should be no regular times nor regular places where we would meet.

Security is about safety. But it is about the safety of the community, not about using force to secure communities. I later recalled that idea when I developed my Environmental Policies, Insurgency, and Post-Conflict Countries course and I am currently writing a book about that concept.

My son and I have a unique bond. I’m not sure how much he understood, but beyond the tears in his eyes, there was still “I trust you.” Still, he had an innocent perspective on the extent of my power as a “government official.” He asked: “Aren’t you the Minister? Can’t you do something about it?” I could only reply: “No! I can’t. I don’t have the power.” His response was honest and firm: “What do you have then?” “My mind, my thoughts and my ideas” I said. It may not have been much of a consolation to him, but the hellish experience did shape my ideas on the basic nature of security.

In fact, when I was designing my syllabus on Environmental Challenges in Post-Conflict Countries, I frequently recalled that conversation with my son. Weak states have no power: Is there a way to build their capacity and what should be done first? And how can these countries be secured?

Back to the story: My friends lived in a middle-class neighborhood in Baghdad; the school was less than a half mile from home. There were many boys and men within the house, so my son could blend in, and get some protection if needed. I used to meet my son once or twice a week. It was always different locations, different times, and of course I had to look different each time. I wore different hair, different clothes, and drove different cars.

Despite these drastic measures, my son also had his share of bomb attacks. I will never forget the most difficult 30 minutes of my entire life. 30 minutes equals the amount of time it took to drive from where I lived to where he lived. I drove to his place after receiving a call telling me an explosion took place nearby. I called and I knew he was okay, however I wanted to see him and hold him. When I arrived, the house was in a bad shape: the main door looked like it has been pulled out, the windows were broken, and the furniture was upside down. Some walls were completely destroyed.

I held my son. I was crying even as he said “I am fine, I am fine.” He was and still is a brave young man. Even now, I don’t know whether the house was targeted because my son was there, or if the explosion took place for another reason. However, I have every reason to believe that they were trying to get to him.

The very next morning my son, my father, and my friends were on an airplane to Syria, where they stayed until we all moved to the US. They spent over a year in Syria. I used to fly back and forth just to see him and to spend some time with him. Of course, I called him every day. Sometimes, when people ask me “why don’t you go back and serve your country,” I feel it is difficult for them to imagine what is out there. They have no concept.

It is not that I am afraid to go back—even though I have every reason to be—but I need to live my life with my son. I just want a simple and normal life: enjoying a nice ride in the car, eating outside, or watching a movie.

I will never forget when my son and I went to the movies for the first time here in the US. It was so much fun: we got the tickets, bought popcorn and soda, and we enjoyed the show. We had fun! It was real fun without worries, which is something we didn’t get a chance to experience back there.

I remember when I was participating in the Trust Factor Workshop in Richmond in May of 2009. My son was with me. One of the participants asked if I would like to go back and serve in the government again. My son heard him and told him quite abruptly: “No! It is too dangerous.” My son’s answer was firm and resolute because he felt someone was trying to put me in danger again, and he was trying—as always—to protect me. My son knows what’s out there!

Taking care of my family, making sure they were safe, and being there for them was my main challenge back there. I could not work or keep the campaigns going without first securing my family. However, there were many challenges ahead. I was tasked with establishing the Ministry of Environment, since Iraq did not have one. To be able to do that I needed to get to work safely, and that’s another story.

The debates include who is to be responsible for the cuts, how much CO2 should be cut, and whether there should be financial support for poorer countries who are at greater risk for severe effects.   The European Union has used its role as an international environmental leader to call for a legally binding international treaty that would both address the numerous concerns on the table and would replace the Kyoto Protocol after its expiration.

Many states have blocked progress towards this European goal, most notably the US and the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), due to differing interests and the role of climate change in their domestic politics.  Domestic politics helped launch the European Union into its role as the leader of international environmental politics.  Therefore, looking at climate change through the lens of domestic environmental politics can shed light on some ways the EU can better reach its goal of international carbon emissions reductions.

As R. Daniel Kelemen and David Vogel (2009) point out in their article “Trading Places: The Role of the United States and the European Union in International Environmental Politics”, there many factors that helped launch the European Union on this path of leadership.  Public concern for the environment rose in the 1980s due to several events occurring at that time.  Europe witnessed the massive destruction of its forests due to acid rain.

In addition, the Chernobyl nuclear power accident affected the subcontinent as far West as Germany. The political power of environmentalists increased when Greens were elected into national parliaments across the subcontinent. Finally, states felt heavy domestic pressures to act upon environmental legislation in order to make sure that they did not become competitively disadvantaged in the Single Market. These countries saw championing environmental issues as a way to obtain democratic legitimacy since the majority of European publics support environmental measures (Kelemen and Vogel, 442).   It is no surprise that the European Union has so strongly supported international efforts for a legally binding agreement on climate change in light of their domestic politics.  The EU would not support this goal if the domestic pressure was not present.

In contrast, the domestic politics of other important players like the United States do not put pressure on them to support an international agreement on climate change.  Environmental issues in the United States have become extremely partisan, with the Republican Party unlikely to support any environmental legislation that will have an effect on business. In addition, the public pressure that is found in the EU is lacking in the US. Surveys show that the vast majority of the American public is satisfied with the environmental legislation already in place (Kelemen and Vogel, 440-1).  This helps explain the new role of the US as an environmental laggard.

If domestic politics shape how a country acts during international environmental negotiations, then changing domestic policies may be the answer to resolving the unwillingness of countries to commit to CO2 emissions.  The implementation of a carbon tax is a highly controversial issue within the European Union as well as in other areas of the world.  Policy analysts within the EU support the implementation of a tax on CO2 for all products imported into the EU from countries who do not have their own cap-and-trade system or equivalent measures (Egenhofer and Gross, 2010, 3).

If the policy is implemented without violating WTO  rules it would have enormous impacts on carbon emissions around the world.  The EU is one of the world’s biggest importers and a tax imposed by them could force countries to undertake CO2 emissions reductions in order to pay a lower tax rate.  This is especially true for an emitter like China, whose main market is the EU.  In other words, through a domestic carbon tax on imported goods, the EU could realize its goal of convincing other countries to commit to CO2 emissions reductions.

Works Cited

Gros, D. and Egenhogen, C. (2010). Decision Time for Europe on Climate Change: Keep the head buried in the sand or get touch?. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies

Many Americans ask this question, “If Saddam was so bad, and we liberated you from his brutal regime, why are you killing our soldiers?” The answer to this difficult question is rooted in issues surrounding basic services. These services include fresh water, electricity, sanitation services, and trash pickup.

The Iraqi people looked at the U.S. army as the agents of change. They thought they would get reliable electricity supplied without any interruption, running water, sanitation services, and daily trash pickup immediately following the fall of the regime. However, when these services were not provided [1] to the Iraqi people, they consequently saw the U.S. army as a negative force in Iraq.

Services have always been a factor in whether people are willing to support a change in regime. Prior to 1991, the Iraqi government provided the above-mentioned services with some consistency. However, after the first Gulf War (1990-1991), Iraq witnessed constant interruptions in the quality and consistency of these services.

Electricity, which beforehand was never subject to brownouts, was henceforth rationed and the population had to deal with large gaps of time without electricity. The temperature would reach over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and the population had become dependent on cooling services like  a air conditioner or a fan. However, there is no electricity to run such an equipment.

There was only one area of the city that never lost power: the buildings directly used by Saddam’s regime and his close family members. Grievances (which had heretofore not been mentioned in public due to the brutally oppressive nature of his regime) began to infiltrate the public dialogue. One could hear passive criticisms of the regime, for example, “They enjoy the air conditioning while we suffer in the heat!”

Flash forward 10 years, after the U.S. had installed itself in the Green Zone—Saddam’s old palace—electricity is still provided there, while the locals continue to lack electricity. From their perspective, it was a bit of the same old story: new regime, same lack of services. The expectations, however, for U.S. capacity were much higher among the population, who saw the Americans as technologically accomplished. While, the U.S. chose this site because of its location and barricades, it was not safe at all, as evidenced by the magnitude of rockets that hit the Green Zone daily.

Moreover, the man on the street, who might accept Saddam’s excuse that he lacked the spare parts to fix the power plants, would never accept that the Americans could not quickly and efficiently update and restore services.  The logical course of this predicament, when we look at the continued lack of services, was towards conflict, not peace.

The expectations of Iraqis were simply not met. These expectations had much more to do with services and necessities than democratic ideals and elections, as the Americans believed. As soon as it became apparent that the United States could not restore services, the Iraqi people lost their enthusiasm for the liberators and began to view them as occupiers.

The liberators are agents of change. They considered democracy a panacea for all problems. Thus, in 2003 the Coalition Forces believed that setting up a democratic government would result in a series of positive changes in the quality of life for the Iraqi people. However, electing popular people based on their religious belief or ethnic background does not constitute a government staff with the capacity of providing services.  Clearly, in a post-conflict situation, democracy does not equate to providing daily services [2]. The liberators failed to provide these services, and this resulted in the deterioration of the quality of daily life. Consequently, Iraqi people established a negative view of these agents of change.

Under Saddam’s regime, electricity was provided for four hours [3] and interrupted for two hours. However, after the fall of the regime, electricity was provided for two hours and interrupted for four, then interrupted for six hours, then for eight hours, then for twelve, and sometimes days. In a climate where summer lasts for nine months with a temperature of more than 100 Fahrenheit, electricity is not a luxurious commodity. The question raised by many Iraqis was, how could Saddam’s regime, which lacked the technology possessed by the United States, restore services in two months after the first Gulf War, while the United States with all its technology could not? The answer for many Iraqi people was and still is that the Coalition Forces are the occupiers and they do not care.  Many Iraqi people started to believe that the Coalition Force is making their life worse in the name of establishing democracy. Thus, they swiftly lost their faith that the Coalition Forces were liberators and began to perceive them as occupiers. It follows that since they are the occupiers, then they need to be opposed and fought.

Different insurgency groups including the former Ba’ath members utilized the argument of lacking services to recruit civilians. By reflecting on their capability of restoring services, the Ba’athists portrayed themselves as nationalists who worked in the country, rather than the vehicle of an oppressive regime. Many civilians believed them and still do.  Thus, as services continued to deteriorate, opposition to the liberators and the change they brought grew stronger, and it took a violent form.

Beyond internal insurgency groups such as the Ba’ath regime, foreign insurgency groups such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, also recruited among populations that lacked services.  Al-Qaeda portrayed lacking services as a direct assault towards the true Muslim community by a U.S. backed government. For example, 60% of the population of Anbar Province, the biggest Sunni province, still lacks access to safe drinking water.  Additionally, Sunni communities viewed failing to provide services by a Shiite dominated government as a direct assault.

While it is difficult to imagine a Shiite insurgency against a Shiite dominated government, Iraq witnessed as early as June 2003 a Shiite insurgency led by Moqtada Al Sadr. Sadr City the stronghold of Moqtada Al Sadr lacks all services including access to safe drinking water, electricity, and sanitation services. Sadr portrayed the U.S. backed Shiite central government as discriminatory government against Shiite peasants in Sadr City, which was equivalent to Saddam’s position towards Sadr City. (Saddam’s regime purposefully deprived Sadr City from services). As such, citizens were told this government should be opposed as well as those who backed it.  The lack of services has become a hefty recruiting tactic and brought the different insurgency fractions together to fight the U.S. Coalition Forces, who came to be viewed as the occupiers.

Follow the blog on Twitter click here

[1] All the Americans and Iraqi I met or worked with were trying to help and wanted to provide services. However, there were some serious policy implications regarding how to provide these services. For example, here in the U.S. people receive their water bills in the mail in a timely manner. In Iraq there is not a reliable mailing system. Thus, an employee from the water services would come read the meter and then would leave the bill. These employees were afraid to do their job, because of security issues. Thus, the service agency lacked resources. All the network including water, electricity, and sewage were outdated.

I collected these policy concerns and developed a course about how best to address them entitled;

“Environmental Challenges in Post-Conflict Countries”.

[2] In March of 2010, I  attended a seminar at the United States Institute of Peace, I asked the participants to close their eyes and imagine themselves in a conflicting zone where a seize fire had just been announced what option about of these three would they would need the most? A- Water, B- Democracy, C- Government. All participants (50 or more) chose water. Then, I asked to imagine themselves sitting in a donor conference after the announcement of a seize fire, which option would they go for. Some said democracy some said government.

[3] I was living in Baghdad back there. However, I knew that the rest of the provinces  received less electricity than Baghdad. For example, in Basra electricity was provided for two hours and interrupted for four hours. Lack of electricity resulted in increasing the demand for housing in Baghdad. Many Iraqis tried to sell their houses and reallocated in Baghdad. However, the regime did not allow it. For more updated information on the implications of providing electricity to Basra, please review Story#9.

Sine, I am paying for the coffee, then I get to play Holmes. You can be Watson. Are you interested? It is fun. Even though, I have not seen the movie yet. But, Let’s start anyway.

Did you notice the statement was released six days after the attack? Yes, six days not immediately afterwards. How do you understand the time gap? To me, it indicates a debate over the wording and the details of the statement. However, what method  do you think was used to initiate that debate? Was it email, phone, in person? I would say, given the time gap, it seems communications were done in person after a short conversion.

Do you think the time gap also reflects the difficulties in communications? I think it odes. There were many bombing incidents  (the attempt on my life included) where the terrorist organization released the statement immediately afterwards, which reflected the strong capacity to communicate.

How did you feel about the introduction? The introduction offers a couple of reasons for carrying out the attack, among them is revenging the executing of Sunni prisoners. However, according to Amnesty International, Iraq had executed one pensioner in 2010 [i].  Ali Hassan Al Majeed (Chemical Ali) who was executed in January 2010 [II].  It is not likely that the terrorist organization would carry out an attack to revenge an execution that was implemented 12 months ago. Well, maybe they don’t  relay on Amnsety International’s report.

I felt the introduction is vague and lacking information. The perpetrators lacked the exact information. Lacking the exact information reflects the difficulty in obtaining it. Don’t you think?

The statement portrayed the attack as being carried out against selective targets namely security headquarters, army patrols, and groups of army personals. The reality is all victims were civilians some of them were children, since one bombing took place near a children's school [III]. Why do you think?

The terrorists are not concerned or ashamed for killing innocent people. According to them, if the dead person was a good person he would go to heaven. However, if he is a bad person he would go to hell. Either way, it is that person’s behavior that determines his fate.  Twisted thinking, I know. However, that is what they think.

I think, portraying the bombing as an attack against the army indicates that the concept of the holy war or jihad is not that popular among followers and support.  Thus, the ability of these terrorist organizations to sell themselves as fighting the holy war or Jihad is declining. Moreover, the statement called on supporters not to “believe media lies.”

It seems all the writings and discussions that took place in media forums condemning the terrorist attacks is paying off.

If the terrorist organization cannot sell it cause, then it cannot recruit or raise funds.

The statement refers to only one attack out of the fourteen that were carried out. The statement offers details and more information on the attack targeting the Integrity Commission, where many civilian employees were killed. Why do you think?

I think mentioning one attack only (with one sentence promised more details to be released later regarding the rest of the thirteen attacks) means this attack is the one that sends a strong message about the capability of the terrorist organization. On the flipside, this attack was the most difficult to implement and it took more time and effort to implement it. As such, it was the only one worth mentioning.  On the other hand, referring to one attack targeting a state agency not a security apparatus is a clear contradiction with the introduction [IV].  Contradictions happen when someone is rushing and does not have a lot of time. Right?

While researching for the original statement in Arabic, I came across a website that suggested the involvement of a female suicide bomber (FSB) in these attacks. The website talked about a female martyred and vowing to revenge her. I could not confirm or deny the involvement of the FSB. I thought to share the finding with you and see what would say about it. I am enclosing  that part of the discussion with the English translation as PDF file.

I hope you enjoyed these remakes that you and I talked about over that electronic cup of coffee.  Please stay tuned and let’s look for more connections together. You can drop by any time for another electronic cup of coffee, it is on the house.

[i] Amnesty International March 2011 Death sentences and executions in 2010 March of 2011 Iraq at least one P.25 details are in P.30  http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-international-perspective#interexec

[ii] In the report Amnesty International (AI) states that the number of executing people could be higher, but it could not be confirmed. P.25. However, in Feb. of 2012,  (AI) urged the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to interfere and prevent the the recent executions that took place after the issuing of the above statement, not before.

[iii] BBC News, Middle East Dozens killed in coordinated Baghdad attacks, 22nd of December 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16297707

[iv] See the discussion in the introduction section.

I contacted the network regarding the latest news from Syria. I have received deep analysis, background information, and interesting details.  I enjoyed the easy to read writing style and the detailed information.  I will definitely use this service again. Lisa Garden.

Now you are in the classroom, taking one of  the summer courses that I offer. It is 90 degrees outside. You barely made it to the class on time. You wanted so much to get that the cold drink, but you said to yourself “ aha, I will get it after class, I will enjoy it more then.”

I enter that classroom, and  I close the door, telling you and  the rest of the students that “ You all cannot leave today until I say so”. To make it more dramatic or real, I turn off the AC.  You cannot even leave the classroom to get drinks, food, or go to the restrooms. Now, you deeply regret not buying that cold drink.

While, class ponders their situation, I pose the question: “What do you do now?”

Invariably,  you try to “negotiate with it.” However, I maintain my position: “I am unwilling to negotiate. NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO LEAVE!”

Many students who took this exercise  said “Then, we will attack you!”  When I ask them to clarify exactly what they mean, they affirm that they will exercise any form of violence against me to get out of this situation.

So, at that point, I end the exercise by asking them, “Are you violent people?” Their reaction is a resounding “No!” They often sound offended, as if I had just hurt their feelings. “We are not violent people, but what you put us through made us act this way,” they say.

I have tried this exercise with undergraduates, graduates, international students, and practitioners. The results are always the same; in fact, those who undergo the exercise frequently use the same words and display the same reactions.

Now,  when you were playing that e-game did you think the same way too? Did you think (even for a second) in appealing to violence?

I think the students' reaction towards me can easily be predicted by anyone. Similarly,  the local populace of any nation will react violently towards any authority that is "perceived" as depriving them from these services. It does not matter whether this authority is elected or not, legitimate or not.

What’s in it for you? If you are working on projects in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lybia, and Yeman, or if you are just someone who follows the news coming from that part of the world. Please ask yourself this question:

Does the majority of the population receive basic environmental services i.e. safe drinking water, electricity , sanitation services and trash-pick?

If the answer is no, then you should expect trouble such an upraise, insurgency, ethnic conflict or coup d'état.

Aha, before I forget, I will leave with this video from Egypt to watch.

The story that goes with the mission of the network, will be posted under the name of its author.  The priority will be given to stories related security threats, environment concerns, or women's issues.

Thus, searching a woman who is crossing the checkpoint is impossible. In the Middle Eastern culture, no man can touch a woman who is not his wife or sister.

Insurgencies have started to recruit heavily among women. After crossing the checkpoint, the woman would denote the exclusives killing more victims than a male suicide bomber, because she can get closer to the target than men.

Most of these women come from rural areas, where women have no access to environmental resources. While, women are the primary users of environmental resources water, cropland, forests, fisheries, they are excluded from the decision-making process and by default from environmental resources, i.e. the main source of income.

These women work for free, and wait for the male relative to give them their share of food. If the male relative dies, leaves, or stops providing for them, then they have no-income to support them or their children. Moreover, they have to live with another male relative become a burden on him.

Similar to elderly citizens in Western societies (who might think of suicide, because they feel that they are a burden on their families) these women could easily become suicide bomb attackers.

Stay tuned and explore more connections linking women, security, and the environment.

Follow the blog on Twitter click here

To donate to the blog click here or go to Support the Blog tab