the heart-wrenching part is that he means well, like the anti-globalists. It's just a complete waste of a good heart.

Though I think many anti-globalists are more anti-USA than anti-poverty. There are quite a few people who are happy to see USA fail in Iraq, even if it means worse for the Iraqis.

Basically a football-team mentality. The ref is always wrong when the penalty is against us, etc. Definition by opposition.

Klaus, precisely.

I am, I may add that I am not unsympathetic to his underlying concerns, but frankly the choice he thinks he has is false; there isn't enough water and good land to support traditional lifestyles as such and as population pressure increases, one will see further degradation. Tourism at least may bring the capital to reverse or mitigate.

You have obviously never been stuck in a Spanish hotel otherwise filled with Brits on cheap package holidays who, for some inexplicable reason, all want to "sing" Born To Be Wild on the Karaoke machine.

Take my word for it, the candy bar and Jbel Sahro option is well worth considering.

Nooooooooo.

But I have been in the Larnaca area with the Brits and Swedes trying to comit suicide via beer.

It did have the redeeming event of some idiot balancing on the balcony, singing some idiocy to her boyfriend and falling off, breaking both her legs.

True, her screaming was intolerable for a while until the authorities arrived, but I personally had some satisfaction.

It's another thing that's been on my mind for a long time: The US-centric debate, and indeed, culture, in the West. Many many issues are decided simply by whether you are for USA or against. I spent a long time reading aliraqi.org before it became too depressing. The great thing was how little the US was mentioned compared to here in Europe.

It's a fixed idea, an extension of the 'cultural imperialism' of English speakers. Everything depends on the US. Thus, you oppose globalism because it's capitalist and you oppose USA. You are in favour of Bush because you for USA and agree with everything they say.

It's vexing. The Right in Europe just went with USA in Iraq, in spite of how everyone with half a brain could see through the WMD spin. Where is it written that an economic liberalist has to back USA always?

Where is it written that Hugo Chavez is a swell guy because he blasts Bush? Why would Ken Livingstone hug Hugo when people get up to 40 months in prison in Venezuela for 'insulting' him in the press? Why does Chomsky meet with Hizbollah? Why did Pinter back Milosevic? Football-team mentality. It's so fucking frustrating.

Read this interesting review of Syriana in Arab News. A snippet:

The self-loathing party in the US, which includes a disturbingly large part of the elite, is doing three things.

First, it says that America, being the evil power it is, is a legitimate target for revenge attacks by Arab radicals and others.

Secondly, it tells the American people that all this talk about democracy is nonsense if only because major decisions are ultimately taken by a cabal of businessmen, and politicians and lawyers in their pay.

Lastly, and perhaps without realizing it, the self-loathing Americans reduce the Arabs to the level of mere objects in their history. It is the almighty America that decides every single detail of Arab life with the Arabs as, at best, onlookers and, at worst, victims of American violence. The Arabs are even denied credit for their own terrorist acts as “Syriana” shows that it is not they but the CIA that decides who kills whom and where.

Pretending to be sympathetic to the “Arab victims of American Imperialism”, the film is, in fact, an example of ethno-centrism gone wild. Its message is: The Arabs are nothing, not even self-motivated terrorists, but mere puppets manipulated by us in the omnipotent US!

By suggesting that the US has stolen the Arab oil and decision-making process, the makers of “Syriana” are, in fact, trying to rob the Arabs of something more important: Their history. The amazing thing is that so many Arabs appear to be ready to help the thief.

If I remember correctly, that review is written by none other than Amir Taheri, of
"Jews must wear yellow stars in Islamonazi Iran" fame. He's a perfect example of the team mentality you're speaking of -- a card-carrying neocon if there ever was one, not to mention a former Shah crony. But much better at hiding his partisanship than most. Here, through beating the left with its own stick: the smear label of "Orientalism" (which is in itself an interesting concept, but so very misused for political purposes).

Apart from that, I agree completely with your point. And of course with the initial post. Poverty as a spectator sport: now, there's some Orientalism for you.

Besides, I liked the movie.

dang, it actually is. Well. I suppose even Stalin was right sometimes. How does a neocon get to write in a Saudi state-controlled newspaper anyway?

The problem is also one of skin colour. The reason the Right criticises Muslims so fervently is basically because they are racist; they don't like brown people. The reason the Left does not criticise Muslims is because they are afraid to appear racist...which, in my view, is reverse racism. Either way, it stinks. But the Left stinks sympathetically, at least.

There was a similar case when Clarence Thomas was approved for the US Supreme Court. He's repulsively Republican, but since he's also black, the largely Democrat committee held back their criticism. When they eventually did criticise him, he played the Race Card, calling it a 'high-tech lynching'. He got approved. Bah.

Another case was the Cartoon debacle. The Left largely criticised the cartoons as 'insensitive', but still valiantly defend The Satanic Verses,'because it's art', never mind that it's far more insensitive than the cartoons ever were. The real reason, though, is that Rushdie is brown, and Jyllandsposten was white. Islam is a brown religion, after all. Bah.

It annoys me because I'm a leftie myself. We're supposed to be intelligent. Right?

"How does a neocon get to write in a Saudi state-controlled newspaper anyway?"

When were the neocons agains saudi? Besides, he gets published in a lot of the arab press because of his anti-iran stance.

My dears.

Perhaps one should stop using the term Neo Con as it seems to have lost any and all meaning.

As for Left and Intelligent, well mate it's the wrong question to ask of me. Well, actually not, come to think of it. It's ideologues that are the problem, I can tolerate some Left politics here and there.

Bolshy types (and let me stress when I say Bolshy I've expanded my meaning to any and all blind adherents to "party lines" whether Right or Left) should be hung. For the sport of it.

Ah yes, re the review of Syriana, while there is a bit of a grain of truth there, I liked Syriana quite a lot and I don't believe the ordinary non-axe grinding viewer would walk away with the impression the movie was saying ALL acts of whatever were CIA.

In any case, the author is a whanker and deserves a whack upside the head.

BTW, Klaus, I agree with this comment:

Though I think many anti-globalists are more anti-USA than anti-poverty. There are quite a few people who are happy to see USA fail in Iraq, even if it means worse for the Iraq

back to the topic of development:

it has to be done bloody right or the "primitives" will be fucked even more than they are now. the sorts of walled tourist compounds that have sprung up especially on the "Red Sea Riviera" that the BBC used to pimp incesantly (until the most recent spat of bombings) and some of the more "affluent" developments in Tunisia and Morocco (Hotel Berber Palace in Ouarzazat anyone?) are supurb examples of setting up large swaths of society to fail. if a person doesn't have a job in a hotel or supporting a hotel, well, they're pretty much fucked. they can't go on the beaches anymore to do whatever it is people do on the beach when not gawking at scantily clad brown skinned women or drinking themselves sick, they can't use water to irrigate because the hotels need it for swimming pools, they can't farm much of the best land that the tourist hotels have taken over (anyone been to the oases in Tamerza or Nefta lateley?) and, worst of all, they can't go a lot of places unless they're deemed "clean enough" or what have you because no one wants to frighten the great red whales (otherwise known as tourists) who like to waddle through "quaint" primative type surroundings while still feeling secure enough to expose all that obese red skin they've gained while sitting on the beach watching the attractive brownskins play in the surf for their pleasure.

all that being said, tourism development can be done RIGHT too. it just has to bring everyone in on the process and not leave large groups outside the metal fences looking in. case in point: albania (yes, not strictly an MENA country, but there are a lot of muslims there). the development in Vlora, a city in the south on a very lovely lagoon is a prime example. the city has a wonderful long promenad that both tourists and residents use. hotels dot the shoreline where local kids get jobs in the summers working and tourists and locals alike go to party. no one is kept off the beach or away from their fields because of the hotels or the tourists. everyone is more or less equal -- both tourist and local. and it really works. then again, no one is truely brown in albania. more pale like northern euro types. (another good example would be the blossoming tourism industry in kosovo)

the differences that strike me between the tourism development in tunisia and (to a limited extent) morocco versus albania and kosovo are the way that they come about. albania and kosovo have, in general, a home grown industry that is very grass roots. people within the towns decide they want to build hotels to attract tourists. the local governments build promenads or museums or what have you to entice tourists. the national governments play supporting roles with archeological sites and transportation links (well, okay, not much in the way of transportation in albania, but they're working on it.)

conversely, in tunisia, it appears, at least on the outside, that every major hotel is plopped down on some piece of sand by foreign interests and placement is dictated by the national government. of course, a large function of that IS the national government. it's the nature of the social structure of tunisia at the moment. however, i think this is why i personally saw so much resentment in places like djerba and hammamet and kairouan toward the tourists. most people didn't want them to come and don't see the benifits recirculating back into their economies.

i'm all for capitalism and free enterprise, but i think that without strong local buy-in, these big tourism infrastructure development projects are just going to cock things up and lead to great red whales walking through the grand mosque of kairouan showing off their chunky and quite discusting flesh.

in fact, now that i think about it, it seems that albania and kosovo attracted quite a different clientel than i've seen in tunisia, morocco, and egypt. albania and kosovo draw more independant travelers. egypt and especially tunisia (morocco some too) draw the mega package tour crowds that want to go to a hotel, leave only once or twice on air conditioned busses to see something "primative," and spend the rest of their vacation turning into great red whales on the beach and in the buffete.

this stuff is fascinating! perhaps i should become a tourism consultant. then again, maybe i'll just stick with the engineering.

Dr. Doug,

If you want to draw in tourists, you have to strike the right balance. It's all very well to say that locals and tourists should be treated equally but the sad fact is that the tourists won't go for it, most especially in countries with low GDPs/head. The vast majority of tourists demand a certain amount of exclusivity, especially on beach holidays. If these people wanted to immerse themselves in local culture, they wouldn't be paying 150 Euros/night to stay in a flash hotel.

Let's be serious here. It's absurd to hold up Albania as a model for anything, let alone tourism policy. The country you want to look to is Mexico. Mexico is the undisputed world champion of efficiently (and cheerfully) separating tourists from their euros/dollars/pounds. Nobody does it better. Nobody even comes close. Mexico is also quite efficient at spreading this bonanza around in local economies.

If you really want to understand how to organize a booming tourism sector, I strongly suggest you spend several months touring Mexican resorts. I know it's a big commitment but proper due diligence is just so important, don't you think?

Mr Anonymous: such a research trip will only be acceptable if 1) it's excusively during the american spring break season and 2) the hotels have an open bar