ALGIERS: Algeria’s ambassador returned to Paris on Thursday, three months after being recalled amid tensions related to the era of French colonial rule in the North African country. The move was announced by Algeria’s presidency.

In October, President Abdelmadjid Tebboune recalled Ambassador Antar Daoud, citing alleged “irresponsible comments” by French President Emmanuel Macron about Algeria’s pre-colonial history and post-colonial system of government.

Algeria also refused permission for France to fly military planes in its airspace, and accused Paris of “genocide” during the colonial era.

Last month, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian sought to defuse tension by paying a visit to Algiers. The countries agreed to resume cooperation toward peace in Libya and on other international issues.

At the time, Le Drian noted the countries’ “complex history” and said he wanted to “remove misunderstandings.”

Algeria gained independence after a brutal six-year war from 1954 to 1962, following more than a century under French colonial rule.

The countries in recent years have had close economic and cultural ties, but relations took a sharp turn for the worse after France sharply curtailed visas for people from North Africa because governments there were refusing to take back migrants refused asylum in France.

LONDON: It was the world’s first smartphone. Now, barely two decades after it revolutionized the way humans communicated, Arabs have joined the rest of the world to bid a fond farewell to BlackBerry as the firm switches off life support for its classic, pre-Android ground-breaker — once the must-have device for go-getters everywhere.

The story of the rise and inevitable fall of the BlackBerry is a parable for our fast-moving, rapidly evolving technological age. Keeping pace with innovations that come and go faster than the seasons is a challenge for consumers and manufacturers alike.

“First-mover advantage,” or the benefit of being first to the market with a new category of product, used to give pioneering technology companies a decisive head start over the competition, but no more.

In its day, for example, the Canadian firm BlackBerry seemed to have carved out an unassailable niche for itself — yet within a few years had been overtaken by the myriad smartphone rivals that followed in its pioneering wake, constantly adapting and improving upon its revolutionary concept.

BlackBerry had itself been such a giant killer. One of its first products, launched in 1999, rendered the one-way pager redundant overnight, through the simple but inspired innovation of allowing users to reply to the messages they received.

The feature was introduced in a device called the RIM 850. RIM stood for Research in Motion, the name of the company behind the BlackBerry until 2013, when it finally adopted the name of its best-known product. The RIM 850 also featured an early version of the distinctive Blackberry QWERTY keyboard.

The BlackBerry brand was introduced soon after. The name was not, as some believe, a clever riposte to the Apple brand. Rather, some bright spark at a marketing firm suggested it on the basis that the device’s unique keyboard resembled the surface of a blackberry.

Holding the device in two hands and using only their thumbs to type, users quickly became adept at rapidly tapping out emails and messages on the tiny keys. For many, the BlackBerry became an addiction; not for nothing was the device nicknamed CrackBerry. Doctors began to identify cases of “BlackBerry thumb,” a form of tendonitis caused by the constant use of the least dexterous part of the hand in a way that nature never intended.

The big breakthrough for the brand came in 2003 with the launch of the BlackBerry 7230, the world’s first true smartphone. On a device no bigger than a Wall Street wallet, users could make calls, send and receive text messages and emails, and surf the internet.

It was an instant hit and, for a few years, an iconic status symbol. For a time, the BlackBerry was omnipresent in the well-manicured hands of high-profile users such as Kim Kardashian, Sarah Jessica Parker and Barack Obama.

It was not to last, however. The launch of the Apple iPhone in 2007, and in particular its touchscreen, marked the end of the brief but glorious reign of the BlackBerry. For a while, arguments continued to rage between tech commentators about which device was best — but consumers settled the debate by voting with their credit cards.

Confronted by Apple’s slick touchscreen technology, the once-innovative BlackBerry keyboard suddenly seemed like a waste of precious screen space — something that Apple co-founder Steve Jobs was quick to point out.

BlackBerry responded by doing what many technology innovators do — it turned its nose up at the upstart new kid on the block, having failed to learn the painful lessons provided by similar experiences of the likes of IBM and Xerox.

When BlackBerry was put up for sale in 2013, Time magazine concluded that the company had “failed to realize that smartphones would evolve beyond mere communication devices to become full-fledged mobile entertainment hubs.”

By the time BlackBerry woke up to this reality and scrambled to update its suddenly clunky products, they had been swept aside by the relentless stream of new products from Apple, which released a new and improved iPhone every year.

In 2008, BlackBerry was worth $80 billion. Five years later, its market value had plummeted to little more than $4.3 billion. Its market share in the US collapsed from 70 percent to a mere 5 percent.

On Dec. 22, 2021, the company finally gave up the ghost and announced support for its legacy products was at an end.

In fact, BlackBerry had already moved on from phones, reinventing itself in 2016 as a business “providing intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world.”

Spectacular although the demise of BlackBerry’s smartphone business undoubtedly was, there is nothing unique about the firework-like trajectory of its rise and fall. Like so many other technologies, before and since, it was simply overtaken by others that did the same job, better.

Fax machines, Polaroid instant cameras, video cassette recorders, pagers, the Sony Walkman and CDs — the unique selling points of all these devices were replicated, improved upon and now have been subsumed into the convergence of the multiple technologies found within modern smartphones.

Each one of these now obsolete technologies continue to hold a place in the hearts of millions of people as milestones on their journeys through life. But taken together, they also mark the course of the rapid and remarkable evolution of human ingenuity and technology — and, perhaps, offer some valuable lessons that will inspire the hi-tech pioneers of tomorrow.

In reality, most of these technologies that seemed so revolutionary at the time they emerged were merely evolutionary. The fax replaced the telegram. Videotape replaced film. CDs replaced vinyl and cassette tapes. And so the list goes on.

As technology guru Joseph Awe once put it: “If you can buy it, it’s already obsolete.”

The trick for a successful manufacturer is to make its own products obsolete by updating them itself, rather than waiting for someone else to do it.

Even as consumers scrambled to get their hands on Apple’s iPhone 13 Pro Max, launched in September last year, Apple already had a note in the diary about the launch of the next iteration of its world-beater later this year.

If the industry rumor mill is anything to go by, however, there is unlikely to be anything earth-shaking about the iPhone 14, just more tinkering around the edges. Nevertheless, doubtless we will snap it up.

In the 14 years since the iPhone debuted, there have been no fewer than 33 versions of the device. And the more we want one, the more we are prepared to pay for one. The first iPhone cost $499; the iPhone 13 Pro Max starts at $1,000.

It is hard to see where the smartphone can possibly go from here, beyond the endless incremental upgrades to screens, memory and cameras. What, then, will be the next big thing in technology?

Right now, some of the most exciting developments are taking place in the fields of artificial intelligence, big data, machine learning, voice technology, cloud computing and the internet of things.

Follow the money trail left by the smartphone and it seems a fair bet that another grand convergence is approaching fast somewhere down the track. Implants, anyone?

If you think Alexa and your Ring video doorbell are smart, wait until all your possessions, physical and digital, are seamlessly connected via the cloud — and, crucially, enabled with personal agency.

Amazon’s reportedly imminent smart fridge, which will order groceries for you when they start to run low, is just the start of the cool things to come.

And you did not really think that Google has given up on its Glass smart spectacles, with their heads-up display, did you? Since the device flopped with consumers in 2015 the company has been quietly developing the technology, which is now in proven use in a variety of industries.

Will any of this change the world or our lives for the better, as technology companies like to suggest? Probably not. What it will do is give data-hoovering corporations everywhere the ability to stare ever more directly and deeply into our souls, and sell us all those things we never even knew we needed.

Today, most of us seem happy with that deal — content to sign off on all those boring terms and conditions that absolutely nobody bothers to read reads in their rush to get their hands on the latest must-have innovation.

And, to be fair, the human race has been “must-having” since the dawn of time.

One of the oldest technologies is the hand ax, a crude stone tool developed between 1.6 and 2 million years ago. This technological breakthrough was arguably the most important ever made, for the simple reason that it began to make possible all the smart stuff we have produced since then.

With an ax, our ancestors could chop branches from trees, making it easier and quicker to build permanent shelters. This was a precursor to the development of settled societies and, ultimately, the first cities, the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals.

Most importantly, perhaps, it also allowed early humans to easily extract marrow from the bones of large animals, introducing a nutrition-rich diet that over time helped them develop more powerful brains — brains that would, ultimately, create the BlackBerry.

LONDON: The UAE on Wednesday announced its commitments for its second term on the UN Security Council for the next two years, a day after it formally took up the post as a non-permanent member of the world body.
The UAE’s Stronger United commitments include working toward securing peace, advancing inclusion, building resilience, and spurring innovation, and will guide the UAE’s engagement with the Security Council and UN member states throughout its term, Emirates News Agency (WAM) reported.
The UAE, along with Albania, Brazil, Gabon and Ghana, was elected by the UN General Assembly in June to serve as non-permanent members of the 15-member council for the 2022-2023 term. 
“The UAE’s conduct on the UN Security Council will reflect who we are as a country and a people — tolerant, inclusive, and bound by the belief that we are stronger united,” said Lana Nusseibeh, the Emirates’ permanent representative to the UN.

ICYMI: Watch Amb Nusseibeh speak at today’s flag installation ceremony for the newly elected members of the @UN Security Council.

We look forward to collaborating with towards a more peaceful & secure world where everyone can thrive.#UAExUNSC pic.twitter.com/UfdWYqS1hJ

— UAE Mission to the UN (@UAEMissionToUN) January 5, 2022

“Diplomacy is about dialogue, seeking out diverse views, and charting a path toward consensus,” she said, adding: “We will seek a convergence of views and a unified council voice so that its decisions are met with the broadest possible support.”
Nusseibeh said she is looking forward to working with the council and the wider UN membership “to build bridges, strengthen multilateralism, and deliver on the council’s mandate.”
The UAE will represent Arab countries at the Security Council and its commitment also includes strengthening cooperation with regional organizations, such as the Arab League and the African Union.
“The UAE has also promised to champion cross-cutting issues on the Security Council, including women, peace and security, climate change, and the use of technology to promote peace (and) will also address a range of other issues including counterterrorism and COVID-19 response and recovery,” the statement said.
During its two-year term, the UAE will serve as president of the Security Council twice, in March and June next year, where it will set the agenda and chair its standing committees.

LONDON: The Yemeni government on Wednesday strongly condemned and denounced the burning of dozens of homes by the Houthi militia in several areas of the port city of Hodeidah.
Yemeni Information Minister Moammar Al-Eryani said the Iran-backed group set fire to more than 40 homes in the villages of Markouda — which also houses a displacement camp — Al-Shujaira and Al-Nakhilah in the south of Hodeidah, which is controlled by the Houthi.
“The destruction of civilians’ homes by the terrorist Houthi militia in the villages south of the city of Hodeidah is an extension of its crime of destroying thousands of homes of state leaders, sheikhs, politicians, media professionals and military personnel who reject its coup in the various governorates under its control, and forcibly displacing their families, in flagrant violation of international law,” Al-Eryani said in tweet.

1- We strongly condemn the crime of burning more than (40) houses of citizens in the villages of (Al-Taif, Markoudha, Al-Shujaira, Al-Nakhila) located southern of Hodeidah city. pic.twitter.com/hZf9b7clWa

— معمر الإرياني (@ERYANIM) January 5, 2022

Amsterdam-based human rights organization Rights Radar condemned the burning of the homes, saying Monday it amounted to a “humanitarian disaster that doubled the suffering of the people of those areas.”
It said fires destroyed 26 houses in the village of Taif, seven in Markouda, five in Al-Shujaira and four in Al-Nakhilah, most of which belonged to displaced citizens who had been fleeing the fighting since the conflict began in 2014.
Rights Radar also said local sources accused members of the Houthi militia of deliberately setting fire to the homes.
“We demand the United Nations and its mission to support the Hodeidah Agreement and human rights organizations clearly and explicitly condemn this heinous terrorist crime,” Al-Eryani said.
He also called on the international community to work on classifying the Houthi militia as a terrorist organization, and to prosecute its leaders in international courts as war criminals.

LONDON: In November 1914, Sheikh Khazaal, the last ruler of the autonomous Arab state of Arabistan, could have been forgiven for thinking the troubles of his people were over.

Oil had been discovered on his lands, promising to transform the fortunes of the Ahwazi people, and Britain stood ready to guarantee their right to autonomy. In reality, the troubles of the Ahwazi were just beginning.

Within a decade, Sheikh Khazaal was under arrest in Tehran, the name Arabistan had been wiped from the map, and the Ahwazi Arabs of Iran had fallen victim to a brutal oppression that continues to this day.

For centuries, Arab tribes had ruled a large tract of land in today’s western Iran. Al-Ahwaz, as their descendants know it today, extended north over 600 km along the east bank of the Shatt Al-Arab, and down the entire eastern littoral of the Gulf, as far south as the Strait of Hormuz. 

However, the independent status of Arabistan was struck a blow in 1848 by the geopolitical maneuverings of its powerful neighbors. With the Treaty of Erzurum, the Ottoman empire agreed to recognize “the full sovereign rights of the Persian government” to Arabistan. The Arab tribes whose lands were so casually signed away were not consulted.

Within 10 years, however, Sheikh Khazaal’s predecessor, Sheikh Jabir, had found a powerful friend — the British Empire. 

Trade in the Gulf was vital for Britain’s interests in India and Sheikh Jabir was seen as a valuable ally, especially after his support for the British during the short Anglo-Persian war of 1856-1857 in which Britain repelled Tehran’s attempts to seize Herat in neighboring Afghanistan.

Keen to maintain Afghanistan as a buffer, the British had backed the emir of Herat’s independence. Now, it seemed, Queen Victoria’s government meant to do the same for the sheikh of Arabistan.

Read our full interactive Deep Dive on the Ahwazi Arabs and their traumatic history in Iran here

The British opened a vice-consulate at Mohammerah in 1888. By 1897, by which time Sheikh Khazaal had become the ruler of what the British referred to as the Sheikhdom of Mohammerah, imperial Britain was heavily invested in Arabistan.

As a British Foreign Office summary of dealings with Sheikh Khazaal put it, “an essential part of British policy in the Gulf was the establishment of good relations and the conclusion of treaties with the various Arab rulers, and the sheikhs of Mohammerah, controlling territory at the head of the Gulf, thus came very prominently into the general scheme.”

With the might of the British at his back, Sheikh Khazaal appeared to be steering Arabistan toward a bright, independent future.

But, in 1903, the Shah of Iran, Muzaffar Al-Din, formally recognized the lands as his in perpetuity. Then, in 1908, vast reserves of oil were found on the sheikh’s land at Masjid-i-Sulaiman.

In 1910, after a minor clash between Arabistan and Ottoman forces on the Shatt Al-Arab, Britain sent a warship to Mohammerah, “to counteract a certain amount of loss of prestige suffered by the sheikh and also to make a demonstration in face of the growth of Turkish ambitions in the Arabian Gulf area.”

On board was Sir Percy Cox, the British political resident in the Gulf. In a ceremony at the Palace of Fallahiyah on Oct. 15, 1910, he presented the sheikh with reassurances of Britain’s steadfast support, and the insignia and title of a Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire. 

In 1914, in a letter from Sir Percy, the sheikh had in his hand what amounted to a pledge by the greatest imperial power of the time to preserve his autonomy and protect Arabistan from the Persian government.

In the letter, dated Nov. 22, 1914, the British envoy wrote that he was now authorized “to assure your excellency personally that whatever change may take place in the form of the government of Persia, His Majesty’s government will be prepared to afford you the support necessary for obtaining a satisfactory solution, both to yourself and to us, in the event of any encroachment by the Persian government on your jurisdiction and recognized rights, or on your property in Persia.”

Read our full interactive Deep Dive on the Ahwazi Arabs and their traumatic history in Iran here

In fact, all of Britain’s assurances would prove worthless and, just 10 years later, Arabistan’s hopes of independence would be shattered.

The problem was oil. The Arabs had it, the Persians wanted it. And when it came to the crunch, the British, despite all their promises of support, chose to back the Persians.

Britain’s change of heart was triggered by the Russian revolution of 1917, after which it became clear that the Bolsheviks had designs on Persia. In 1921, fearing that the failing Persian Qajar dynasty might side with Moscow, Britain conspired with Reza Khan, the leader of Persia’s Cossack Brigade, to stage a coup.

Reza Khan, as a British report of 1946 would later concede, “was ultimately personally responsible for the sheikh’s complete downfall.” 

In 1922, Reza Khan threatened to invade Arabistan, which he now regarded as the Persian province of Khuzestan. His motive, as US historian Chelsi Mueller concluded in her 2020 book “The Origins of the Arab-Iranian Conflict,” was clear. 

“He eyed Arabistan not only because it was the only remaining province that had not yet been penetrated by the authority of central government but also because he had come to appreciate the potential of Arabistan’s oil industry to provide much-needed revenues,” Mueller wrote. 

Sheikh Khazaal asked for Britain’s protection, invoking the many assurances he had been given. Instead, he was brushed off, and reminded of his “obligations to the Persian government.” 

Time was running out for the Arabs. In a despatch sent to London on Sept. 4, 1922, Sir Percy Loraine, British envoy to Iran, wrote “it would be preferable to deal with a strong central authority rather than with a number of local rulers” in Persia. This, he added, “would involve a loosening of our relations with such local rulers.”

In August 1924, the Persian government informed Sheikh Khazaal that the pledge of autonomy he had won from Muzaffar Al-Din in 1903 was no longer valid. The sheikh appealed to the British for help, but was again rebuffed.

Reza Khan demanded the sheikh’s unconditional surrender. It was, the British concluded, “clear that the old regime had come to an end and that Reza Khan, having established a stranglehold over Khuzestan, would be unlikely ever voluntarily to relinquish it.”

Read our full interactive Deep Dive on the Ahwazi Arabs and their traumatic history in Iran here

The British government was “now in an embarrassing position” because of “the services which the sheikh had rendered them in the past.” Nevertheless, for fear of Russian incursion in Persia, Britain had now decided firmly to support the central government in Tehran.

The Ahwazi were on their own.

On April 18, 1925, Sheikh Khazaal and his son, Abdul Hamid, were arrested and taken to Tehran, where the last ruler of Arabistan would spend the remaining 11 years of his life under house arrest. The name “Arabistan” was expunged from history and the territories of the Ahwaz finally absorbed into Persian provinces. 

Khazaal’s last days were spent in futile negotiations with Tehran, marked, the British noted, by a series of “gross breaches of faith on the part of the central government, which had obviously no intention of carrying out the promises given to the sheikh.”

The Persians, concluded the British, “were obviously merely waiting for the sheikh to die.” That wait ended during the night of May 24, 1936. 

In the almost 100 years since the Ahwazi people lost their autonomy, they have experienced persecution and cultural oppression in almost every walk of life. Dams divert water from the Karun and other rivers for the benefit of Persian provinces of Iran, Arabic is banned in schools, while the names of towns and villages have long been Persianized. On world maps, the historic Arab port of Mohammerah became Khorramshahr.

Protests are met with violent repression. Countless citizens working to keep the flame of Arab culture alive have been arrested, disappeared, tortured, executed or gunned down at checkpoints. 

Many Ahwazi who sought sanctuary overseas are working to bring the plight of the Ahwazi to the attention of the world. Even in exile, however, they are not safe.

In 2005, Ahmad Mola Nissi, one of the founders of the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz, fled Iran with his wife and children and sought asylum in the Netherlands. On Nov. 8, 2017, he was shot dead outside his home in the Hague by an unknown assassin.

In June 2005, Karim Abdian, director of a Virginia-based NGO, the Ahwaz Education and Human Rights Foundation, appealed to the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

The Ahwazi, he said, had been subjected to “political, cultural, social and economic subjugation, and are treated as second and third-class citizens,” both by the Iranian monarchy in the past and by the current clerical regime. Nevertheless, they still had “faith in the international community’s ability to present a just and a viable solution to resolve this conflict peacefully.”

Sixteen years later, Abdian despairs of seeing any improvement in the position of his people. “I don’t see any way out currently,” he told Arab News, though he dreams of self-determination for the Ahwazi in a federalist Iran.

In the meantime, “as an Ahwazi Arab, you cannot even give your child an Arabic name. So, this nation, which owns the land that currently produces 80 percent of the oil, 65 percent of the gas and 35 percent of the water of Iran, lives in abject poverty.”