1 hour ago
We begin the presentation of British newspapers from an opinion piece by the FT’s international affairs editor, David Gardner, entitled “For Iraq to be governed effectively, Muqtada al-Sadr must abandon partisanship.”
“Muqtada al-Sadr came first in the Iraqi general elections on Sunday. This confirmed his position as the most powerful and popular figure in the country. It is doubtful whether this would make it easier to govern Iraq, a feeble state contested between the United States and the United States,” the writer says at the beginning of his article. Iran, the arena of Sunni jihadist massacres.
Muqtada al-Sadr, a scion of the aristocracy of the clergy that opposed the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, who was toppled in 2003 and a former hero of the disenfranchised Shiites, rediscovered himself as an Iraqi patriot who wants Americans and Iranians out of the country. He cemented a populist image by provoking himself. His Shiite opponents and corruption. As an Islamist, he appeals to a higher authority and pretends to be above politics, while ruthlessly seeking power.”
The writer explains, “Since 2019, al-Sadr has occupied Iraqi institutions and ministries with his cadres. Although al-Sadr theoretically dissolved the Mahdi Army in 2008, he revived it – under the name Saraya al-Salam – in 2014, when ISIS forces (ISIS in the Iraq and the Levant) from Baghdad and the cities of Najaf and Karbala.
He says, “As for the next Iraqi prime minister, he will be nominated by him or require his approval.”
Al-Kadhimi, the current prime minister, wants to continue in office. Sadr’s opinion on that is unclear. But what has been very clear so far is that while ordinary Iraqis scramble to live and demand a decent government, their leaders have been unwilling or unable to share power. And resources. In a zero-sum equation, they can’t even agree on a national narrative and a social pact. If al-Sadr is truly patriotic, his first job is to transcend sectarian and partisan preferences, and put Iraq and the Iraqis first.”
We turn to a report by Charlie Faulkner in The Times, entitled “Fear of the Taliban Silences the Musical Heart of Afghanistan.”
“Music shops in Herat are empty with advertisements for rent. Silence prevailed in the heart of Afghanistan’s music scene after hundreds of musicians hid in the city or fled the country, hiding their instruments amid fears of the repercussions of the Taliban’s takeover.”
He adds, “Memories of the fate of musicians during their previous hard-line rule from 1996 to 2001 clouded society today. This fear alone is enough for people to abandon their livelihoods.”
The writer deals with the story of Mehdi Shabab, 44, who “first realized his love for music when the Taliban were in power, and who, despite a difficult start, learned to play in bunkers with other musicians, built his life around his passion and spent many years teaching others.”
“But his business collapsed when Kabul fell. Like many other musicians, he said there was no longer a future in Afghanistan.”
“When the Taliban regime ended, I started teaching,” Shabab says. “I felt that teaching more people how to play instruments was a way to strengthen the culture of music in Herat. But now it’s all over. The Taliban are against music.”
While the central government has not announced a ban on music, Herat’s director of media and culture said in a meeting with journalists that music in the media is prohibited. Taliban officials have ordered wedding halls across the country not to play music during events, and Many people already turn off any music.”
The head of the Herat Music Syndicate said performers in the city had “received threats and had their instruments destroyed by the Taliban”.
“All my musical belongings, the instruments I spent years working with, playing with, and making life with, had to be put away in a room. I had to shut the door on that part of my life,” the young man said.
“His house was empty,” Shabab explained. “He sold all his possessions in anticipation of leaving the country and is waiting for a call to help him leave.”
“A vain look”
We conclude with an article expressing the opinion of the Telegraph newspaper in Britain’s quest to reduce the use of carbon in the world.
Just weeks before the Glasgow climate summit, China announced plans to build dozens of coal-fired power plants. If Boris Johnson is looking to the world’s worst polluter to join his zero carbon campaign, his aspiration is in vain.
“While Britain is reducing its production of coal, other countries are increasing its production. EU countries, such as Germany, are still highly dependent on fuel, even as the bloc is lecturing the rest of the world to end its dependence on it. China produces half of the production.” “The world’s coal, and its commitment to downsizing is essential to achieving any of the global CO2 reduction targets. Britain points to its success in this regard, however it is importing carbon-based fuels such as gas and goods from highly polluting countries, thus moving its emissions abroad.” .
Britain’s contribution to global decarbonization is “very small. However, zero-carbon mandates, taxes and levies will cause serious problems with domestic prices and supplies this winter and beyond. This not only puts us at a competitive disadvantage for the countries that have managed Better energy policy, but it won’t make a difference at all to global warming if countries like China and India don’t take action.”
The paper concludes that “developing resilience to the inevitable effects of climate change is just as important as actions to reduce greenhouse gases, says Emma Howard Boyd. It is either adapt or die. The government must take this seriously.”