"Turkey and China block YouTube. When I was in Saudi Arabia, I had access to all three -- twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, and the same was true in Qatar and UAE." (Steve Clemons)

It's great that when he’s in town, Saudi Arabia allows Steve to Tweet to his heart's content, to check his facebook page and to watch the videos of his choice.

Does that mean Saudi Arabia can be viewed favorably compared to either Turkey or China?

Maybe if you're a man.

Saudi Arabia doesn't permit women to drive and it does not allow women to intermingle with men who are not their husbands, brothers and fathers.

Public transportation is segregated in Saudi Arabia; women are literally required to ride in the back of the bus.

Saudi Arabia doesn't allow women to vote and it requires them to wear a hajib which covers everything except for the hands and face, whether they want to or not. Saudi Arabia will execute any women who decides to convert from Islam to any other religion.

A woman is not allowed to testify in court in Saudi Arabia if what she witnessed was also witnessed by a man. Why? Because women are considered inherently untrustworthy.

A girl in Saudi Arabia may be offered for marriage by her father at the age of 9; there is no limit to the age of her spouse.

Saudi Arabia fields no women's teams in the Olympics; it is one of the few countries not to do so. Female participation in athletic competitions is considered immoral.

It's really great though that Saudis can watch Lady Gaga videos on You Tube whenever they want to.

If only the rest of the Muslim world was as progressive as Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia also forbids the practice of any religion but Islam. There is not a single church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia. Non-muslims are not allowed to set foot in Mecca or Median. Jews are not allowed into the country (though they make exceptions for celebrities like Tom Friedman). Radical Wahhabism is the official state religion with full control over the educational system.

Like Wigwag says, if only the rest of the Muslim world was as progressive as Saudi Arabia.

And the US shuts down Helen Thomas, an 89 year old American institution, for insensitive discourse.

Just to let everyone know that Pakistan has again
opened access to Facebook and Youtube. The reason
why they were blocked were on a court order. court
in Question was the Lahor High Court which is
similar to any of the state supreme courts in the
US. Although i agree that banning this was wrong
but i don't think this was because of the
islamists but because of a very activist judge in
the LHC.
I disagree that the battle in Pakistan is between
the islamist. if it were the case then why havnt
people voted for any of the religious parties in
mass like in egypt where the brother hood almost
won the majority in parliment.
I have to say i have always agree with the
analysis on the blog but this is the first time i
will have to record my dissent.
by the the way as a pakistani my family has always
supported and voted for the MQM

Hi Steve,

you know that I would prefer to agree with you here... But I have
to say that I think WigWag and Nadine are more to the point
regarding the conditions in Saudi Arabia.

I notice that you prefer to focus on and encourage the positive
signs, evidence of the slow progress within a society that is
pretty extreme overall, compared to Western standards and
values agreed upon in most parts of the world. But the obvious
fact is that the West doesn't want to put any significant pressure
on SA as long as the oil flows. When we are no longer
dependent on Saudi Arabian oil, you don't have to be a prophet
to predict that there will be an avalanche of media critique from
the West against the medieval values, institutions and laws
determining the Saudi society in the 21. century. I think it is
crucial that some of this criticism and pressure should come
right now, and not when there is no more oil there, and we
don't need them anymore. At that time, I would not be surprised
if the most noisy criticism will come from the corner that
prefers to keep silent now.

As for the last part of your post - the Gedmin quote and your
subsequent comment: thanks for bringing important nuances
into the discussions of a terrain that is too often painted in
black and white.

Steve,

It's hard to debunk all the falsehoods in just the short excerpt you include along with his other views, but let me just say:

o Pakistan did temporarily ban facebook in response to a "contest" to draw Mohamed. This "contest" was in response to the veiled threats against the South Park creators. The temporary ban has been lifted by order of the courts:

o Pakistan also had banned Youtube because of blasphemous content. This site has also been restored, although some 1200 pages remain blocked.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hKcxA-AxoI5ew27U22omnFQUjVyw

The first is misguided but somewhat understandable and the second is silly and wrong. In both cases either the responsible authority saw the error of its ways or the courts stepped in and corrected the errors.

There are troubling trends in Pakistan, (ie. the religious youths intimidating secular students at a major Lahore university - sorry read it in the German press) but the courts and military remain strong and mostly secular - as in separation of Mosque and state, as do most people in Punjab province.

I love the innuendo in Gedmin's piece: "... condemns suicide bombings (at least in conversation with me)."

As far as your "he is a serious thinker in the neoconservative establishment and was the institution builder behind what was once the dynamic 'New Atlantic Initiative' at the American Enterprise Institute." Well, I just don't know where to begin... Apparently he was a big supporter of the Iraq war, in Germany, during his "Atlantic Initiative" days and pretty much was laughed, hounded out of the country.

"... as we need to begin to figure out strategies to deal with political Islam in a way that doesn't stupidly and inappropriately relegate all of them to al Qaeda-like status." (SC)

What happened? Did some just turn the lights on in Washington after 10 years of GWB's Dark Ages?

Yeah, I'm not so sure about this supposedly greater level of internet freedom in Saudi Arabia:

http://elitestv.com/pub/2010/03/saudi-arabia-1000-lashes-for-youtube-video

More:

"Saudi Arabia is in ONI's substantial category and is on RSF's internet enemy list."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship#Saudi_Arabia

Quoting a US professional propagandist on press freedom anywhere is an amusing proposition.

If "Pakistan is teetering on the brink" with a "descent into chaos", as Gedmin claims, it is primarily due to massive US interference in its affairs. Oh, but a "A designer from Lahore joked over dinner that if U.S. officials could solve the problem it might actually put a dent in the country's notorious anti-Americanism." Very funny.

Gedmin really stuck his neck out on this one. "In this way the Obama administration got it right." This is news? What else do we expect a US propagandist to say?

"Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - Free Media in Unfree Societies" -- so if RFE operates in Pakistan then Pakistan is by definition unfree. Ungrateful, too. "So much for modernity getting a chance in a country to which we are sending $1.5 billion a year."

Why do Pakistanis hate us when we send them so much money? Could it have a teensy little bit to do with the "AfPak" war we are extending into their country, complete with explosive Hellfire missiles entering their households?

We send these ungrateful wretches $1.5 billion a year and we get this in return.

news report
Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan condemned Israel on Monday for its recent deadly attack on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.

Afghanistan, that's no free ride either. Condemning Israel is not going going to go over big with the US Congress. The US may have to rethink its support for Turkey as a full EU member?

Whither Twitter? The following from Juan Cole June 7 wouldn't have anything to do with Pakistan would it? No. "Pakistan" isn't even mentioned.

"The congress nevertheless went on with its work, but on Sunday the Interior Minister (Hanif Atmar) and the head of the National Directorate of Security (Amrullah Saleh ) were forced by President Karzai to resign over the security lapse. Jon Boone of the Guardian reports that these are not just everyday ordinary resignations. Rather, they appear to be examples of Karzai getting rid of relatively independent and highly competent officials, possibly in favor of corrupt cronies."

"The Guardian talked to a Western security expert who is that Atmar and Saleh were beginning to perform, and were key to the US and NATO plan to train the country’s police, who are notoriously corrupt and largely illiterate. He is quoted as saying, “These are two of the most important people in the security sector who were finally getting a better reputation for their organs and clearing up corruption within them. If they are replaced by corrupt cronies then we might as well all pack up and go home now.”

It's true that to succeed in the world we must first see things as they are. So in the context of Pakistan this guy is I guess a moderate. Put him on an American scale... he's way past wanting explicit acknowledgment that the country was founded on religious principles and should be governed according to those principles -- which is kind of where the religious right in America sits. He's at the level of, religious leaders should have some way to exercise regular political authority. This is the Iran model. Of course he can see as well as we can that what has happened in Iran is that this has degraded into a pure religious dictatorship with phony elections. He may even understand that this is inevitable. He nevertheless thinks that would be in the best interests of Pakistan and its people.

So yes, we must be realistic in addressing people who are in the grips of dangerous ideological delusions. We must deal with them. But I think one thing we learned from the Cold War is, while we must deal with these people, we must not for one minute shade the truth of the fact that they are in the grips of a dangerous ideological delusion in either our own thinking or in our public discourse.

Posted by WigWag, Jun 07 2010, 9:01PM - Link

But here's the thing, Wig: SA is big. It's got a lot of oil. It
contains the two holiest places in Islam. It's not going anywhere.

So very, very few people really care what it does to its "citizens"
as long it keeps that oil flowing.

They can even provide state support to religious fanatics who
send 19 guys to kill 3,000 Americans on American soil.

No one on the left gives a shit. It's a shame, they'll say, and
maybe in 100 years or so, they'll liberalize, but who are we to
interfere? Besides, there is that small matter of dah oil. (H/T to
JohnH for that insight.)

Sure, progressives will say, "Yeah, I don't like SA, either," but it's
just a tut-tut. It's almost like they're saying "What can you
expect from people who dress in sheets?"

I agree: it took North Carrollina 150 years or so to stop wearing
sheets. It'll take Saudi Arabia at least that long to figure it out.
After all, they don't have a Washington or a Jefferson in their
history to goad them toward becoming a liberal democracy.

And that sun! Wearing sheets make a lot of sense when you
have to deal with that sun.