In spite of the apologies presented by Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten for the cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad, tempers are still rather frayed.

In spite of the apologies presented by Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten for the cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad, tempers are still rather frayed. Riots in several Muslim countries against Danish diplomatic facilities and companies have caused more than 20 casualties due to police repression against local demonstrators. The latest incident, in Libya, resulted in 6 deaths.

The paper’s recklessness outraged a people whose religiosity constitutes a highly praised value and fit “like a glove” for Islamic groups who use fundamentalism as a political tool. Protest demonstrations have also contributed to raise tensions inside Europe. Fortunately no new major outbreak of violence involving immigrants, whether Muslims or not, erupted like the one that recently occurred in France. Had this been the case, xenophobic sentiment would rise, new security and anti-migration laws would be enforced, the radical right would become even stronger, and the vicious circle would go on. (For more read Inácio Ramonet’s article).

Another highlight was the publication of new photos depicting torture sessions and violations of human rights by American military in the Abu-Ghraib prison in Iraq, confirming Amnesty International’s report denouncing arbitrary arrests and torture practices in that country. Internal conflicts in Iraq between Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis have escalated after a blast inside a Shiite mosque last February.

The US and the European Union have agreed on the conditions to be met by Palestine, post Hamas victory, in order to be eligible to financial aid, as well as on the restrictions to impede Iran from mastering uranium-enrichment technology.

Iran, after having suspended its program to acquire uranium-enriching technology, decided to resume it a few months ago in spite of opposition by the US and the European Union, who intend to bring the issue before the UN Security Council, where they expect to approve a resolution imposing sanctions on that country if it refuses to abandon the program. The argument presented by the great powers is the risk of nuclearizing the Middle East.

Controlling the process to enrich uranium is a key step to make an atomic bomb, but it is equally important to produce the fuel needed by nuclear power plants without having to rely on highly-costly enriched uranium imports. Brazil, for instance, is struggling to become self-sufficient in relation to enrichment because of its Angra I and II nuclear plants, two important components of the national electric energy generating system, which still depend on imported nuclear fuel.

Contradictorily, the US administration has just signed an agreement with India offering nuclear technology in exchange for India’s consent to international inspections of part of its atomic facilities. The proposal forces India to define which of its 22 nuclear plants are designed for military purposes and which are for power-generating purposes. It is thereby expected that 65% of the facilities will be inspected.

Besides its contradictory nature, the agreement is bound to provoke other reactions, from China for instance. The two countries have had border conflicts in the past and while India closed ties with former USSR, China’s partner in the region was Pakistan. China will not accept the new status of an even more powerful India without counter-measures which will probably include drawing closer to Pakistan and supporting that country’s nuclear program. (Read more in A Bad and Dangerous Deal – The US / India Nuclear Pact)

The agreement signed with India is marred by double standards, for Iran has declared that it only seeks to use the technology for peaceful purposes, which is a legitimate right. Moreover, Iran-unlike India-is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which provides for regular inspections by international bodies, such as the IAEA-the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, Iran’s adversaries in the region, particularly Israel, do not accept this hypothesis while accusations of the existence of a clandestine Iranian nuclear program for military purposes resurface time and again.

For his part, the new president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, unlike his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, who favored a policy of distension and dialogue with Western countries, took up the anti-American, anti-European rhetoric of the more orthodox Ayatollahs. If this, on one hand, contributes to increase tension, on the other, it broadens Iranian influence in the region through the political parties associated with Shiite sectors, as in Iraq and Lebanon. Which certainly also motivates foreign pressure on the country. (Read more in As Syria’s Influence in Lebanon Wanes, Iran Moves In).

On top of that, there is also the economic aspect involved in the trade of nuclear technology, which represents huge profits for those who have it. These countries are not willing to share the technology’s application with anyone because, to begin with, this would mean more competition and more bargaining power for clients. Russia has tried to mediate and offered the possibility of implementing a joint Russian-Iranian program to produce enriched uranium, thus ensuring objectives would be monitored by one of the permanent members with veto power at the United Nations Security Council.

In early March, IAEA submitted a new report to the UN Security Council stating that at present it is not possible to determine whether the Iranian nuclear program is entirely devoted to peaceful ends. The situation therefore will remain tense in the near future, contributing to the region’s instability, and potential increases in international oil prices, even though China and Russia declared their intention to veto retaliatory measures against Iran.

In April, the new Palestinian Parliament and the majority government formed by the Hamas will be sworn in. The electoral result was embarrassing for the US and the EU, since the process was democratic and its legitimacy, unquestionable. Notwithstanding, both impose conditions to recognize the new government and keep the region’s financial aid, especially the recognition by the Hamas of Israel’s right to exist. Israel, in turn, decided to suspend transfers of taxes collected in the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority until the victorious Hamas does not give up armed fight and recognizes the agreements signed by both countries.

It will be difficult for the Hamas not to alter long-held positions, since it accepted to take part in a political-electoral process guided by peace accords negotiated by the Palestinian Authority, previously controlled by Al-Fattah. Furthermore, some of the stronger arguments in defense of the territorial rights of the Palestinian people stem from UN resolutions, the very same organ that, in 1948, recognized the right to existence and the independence of Israel. And what serves the purpose of defending the rights of one party should also serve to defend the rights of the other. (Read more in Saeb Erakat’s article published on March 5, 2006 in the Estado de São Paulo).

Should there be free elections in the remaining countries of the Middle East currently ruled by monarchies or single-party regimes, the outlook seems the election of parties with strong religious ties with, particularly, the more fundamentalist Islam, as was the case in Algeria in 1992, motivating a Western-backed coup d’etat to keep the status quo, which generated a conflict that cost the lives of approximately 150 thousand Algerians along the 1990s.

A somewhat similar situation is occurring in Egypt where, against electoral restrictions imposed by local legislation and the monopoly exerted by President Mubarak’s PND party, the Muslim Brotherhood continues extending its political reach.

That, however, does not mean that the majority of the Arab population is fundamentalist since Islam comprises various groups such as, for example, the Sunnis and the Shiites, and also since there are many different ways of interpreting the Koran, much in the same way as occurs with Christians and Jews in relation to the Bible. The key element to explain this electoral trend is the weakening of current rulers and the skill demonstrated by parties, such as the Hamas, to adopt a nationalist discourse and to dialogue with the poorest sectors of the population, offering them the social assistance that governments have not delivered.

Hamas elected six women to Parliament, who announced their disposition to fight for changes in the Palestinian legislation in order to ensure better gender equality and alter items that today connive with forced weddings, honor killing, lower salaries for women, and girls excluded from school. Their argument is that such laws are based on custom and tradition and not on Islam which, strictly speaking, gives women the right of choice. (Read more).