| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Borders in the Muslim world: mere lines in the sand |
|
|
|
| |
12th February 2008
| |
| |
Lines in Middle Eastern sand, drawn by civil servants in Whitehall, can not wipe out Islam’s Golden Age. People who talk about uniting the Muslim Ummah are often derided as ideologues; impractical and unrealistic. However, all it took was a few sticks of dynamite to remove the ramshackle physical barrier – officially known as the border - between Palestinian Gaza and Egypt. The subsequent free flow of people and goods – only inhibited by the size of the gap in the broken boarder - exemplified how simple, realistic and natural the concept of one Muslim Ummah really is – if the political will exists!
In many parts of the Muslim world national border lines drawn by colonial masters, usually British, divided families, tribes, trade and commerce. Once the borders were drawn, ordinary people living simple lives were inhumanly and forcibly separated. Overnight, the borders physically divided communities who, for centuries, held the same identity; family names, belief, language and values. This abnormal separation, enforced by the creation of nation states, is actually what is unrealistic, impractical and consequently unsustainable – not natural unification.
The forced separation of people who have common interests and a single identity will always be transient. Their common interests will always encourage a tendency for merger; while the common identify will truly achieve serenity only through unification.
The unification of Germany in 1990 occurred in spite of nearly half a century of separation; the implementation of diametrically opposing ideologies in former east and west Germany; and massive economic and social inequalities. Greater integration in the European Union is actively being progressed despite the language and cultural differences in Europe; huge economic and welfare disparities between northern and eastern European countries; and vast differences in political maturity between European nations. In both these cases, political will is the driving force, which is able to overcome very real obstacles.
In contrast to Europe, the Muslim world, divided as it is into more than 50 nation states, shares a common belief , culture and ideology, many of these nations speak the same language, and they share a common and predominately successful history dating back over a 1000 years under the Caliphate. Most importantly, ordinary Muslims have an overwhelming desire for unity as evidenced by a 2006 University of Maryland survey and so vividly demonstrated by the personal accounts of those who crossed the border into Egypt. What is presently lacking though is the political will from Muslim leaders to demolish these contrived physical barriers.
| |
|
|
| |
| Turkey - Kemalism: Outdated and Irrelevant |
|
|
|
| |
07th September 2007
| |
| |
The July elections in Turkey have clearly demonstrated once again, Turkey’s sham political system which many western politicians and commentators continually promote as the ideal model for the Muslim world. The crisis in Turkey concerning the presidency and the role of Islam in politics represents the trend in the Muslim world as a whole. Some feel that the vociferous opposition expressed in the streets of Ankara, and in the military headquarters last May, seems to indicate that Mustafa Kemal’s secular legacy is safe for the time being. However, the real story is of a country in transition, slowly being transformed as part of a wider dynamic across the Muslim world.
The cause of this crisis was the decision of the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) to put forward Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and then the foreign minister Abdullah Gul, as candidates for the post of president. The presidential office is the apex of the staunchly secular political system established by Mustafa Kemal in the aftermath of World War I. Turkey had been the seat of the Caliphate until Kemal banished the Ottoman Caliph and his relatives in 1924. Hence, there are unique sensitivities towards any hint of the return of Islamic politics. Due to this legacy, the green-tinged secularism of the AKP, who invoke religion less frequently than the Christian Democrats in Germany, is treated as the spearhead of an Islamic challenge to the Kemalist system. In a country where the majority of women wear the Islamic headscarf, the greatest indication of the ‘Islamist menace’ is the fact that Gul’s wife, Hayrünnisa Özyurt also wears the hijab.
The major demonstrations on April 14th and 29th drew crowds of three hundred thousand and then up to a million. Such numbers are usually associated with widespread mobilisation of the masses, when a regime is on its last legs. In recent times we have seen similar numbers in the ‘colour’ revolutions of Eastern Europe. In Turkey’s case however the dynamics of these demonstrations of ‘people power’ are vastly different. Rather than representing the coalescence of the masses facing down the state, the demonstrators had the full backing of the establishment. One of the main organisations behind the protests was the Ataturk Thought Association (ADD), which is closely linked to the army.
Sener Eruygur, president of the ADD, is the former head of the country’s paramilitary forces. He has been linked in recent months to a plan, allegedly formed by senior officers to launch a coup against the AKP government. Due to the international climate, it is clear that the Turkish military cannot overthrow the government without serious diplomatic consequences. However media-friendly rallies mask the mobilisation of elite power with an acceptable veneer of popular outrage.
In reality, the opposition to the AKP candidacy is much more about fear than anger. Sadly, it is a fear of the majority of the Turkish people and their Islamic sentiments that is motivating this opposition. As one protestor remarked of the religious Muslims moving into her wealthy area of Istanbul “They have started to look down on us…they are trying to be part of the ruling class.” It seems strange to such protestors that people who do not meet their standards of civilisation and refinement should have, in their view the temerity to influence political life in their country, just because they represent the sentiment of the majority.
In recent years, the largely ceremonial post of president has become akin to a gatekeeper engaged in a secular crusade, rejecting appointments to academic and civil service posts if the candidates are “excessively” religious. As the Islamic identity of Turkey’s people has become more pronounced, the state has become more active in vetoing such appointments; hundreds of officers are removed from the armed forces each year and particular attention is devoted to the upper echelons of the judiciary and central government.
The political crisis in Turkey is part of a broader picture being drawn out across the Islamic world. As the poll conducted by worldpublicopinion.org for the University of Maryland shows, a large majority of Muslims support the implementation of Shari’ah law within, and the unification of Muslim countries into one Caliphate. The elite in Turkey are facing a similar problem to their counterparts in other countries. Imbibing secular western values since their childhood, they are simply unable to relate to the values of the overwhelming majority of their countrymen. The predominant beliefs, values and traditions are so alien to them that they regard the broad mass of their population with a mix of fear and disgust. An inevitable result of this is that whenever the population have the chance to express their sentiments, the elite find themselves repelled by what they hear. Frustrated by their own illogical arguments and rejected by a Europe that has shown its anti Islamic credentials, the ruling elites lash out wildly at their own countrymen.
It is clear that liberal secularism increasingly shown as ineffective in western nations has no future in the Muslim world as the latter move towards an Islamic system more in tune with their religious beliefs, history and heritage. Within such a system, Muslims elect their ruler, there is accountability and the ability to criticise officials no matter their position, an independent judiciary, a rule of law, a strong obligation to eliminate poverty and the fruits of modern technology and science. In addition Islamic texts clearly reject eighteenth century western doctrines of liberal secularism (the detachment of religion from public legislation) or the privatisation of vital resources such as water and energy, as well as the failed laissez faire social model. Islam also comprehensively rejects the flawed basis of political unity being achieved through the destructive force of nationalism; an anachronistic throwback to the nineteenth century. As the Muslim world moves beyond the false bonds of race, the secular world retreats back to the dark ages of Westphalian nation state supremacy and patriotic concepts such as being proud to be Turkish.
Turkey was the capital of a superpower once, the centre of a flourishing civilisation with Islam at its centre. Today it begs European states such as Greece and Cyprus to pass it some crumbs from the ‘grown-ups’ table. No wonder an increasing number of people believe Kemalism belongs more to a museum than in a modern 21st century state.
| |
|
|
| |
| Maryland Poll and Changing Political Trends in the Muslim World |
|
|
|
| |
07th September 2007
| |
| |
A number of striking findings came in an underreported poll published in April 2007. The poll, commissioned by the University of Maryland confirms previous research on the subject http://www.css-jordan.org . The poll conducted across four majority Muslim countries (Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco, and Indonesia) showed overwhelming support for the following:
• Application of Shariah law in Muslim countries
• Unification with other countries in a Pan Islamic state ie. Caliphate
• Opposition to occupation and western foreign policy
• Opposition to the imposition of western values in Muslim lands
• Opposition to the use of violence against civilians
For some of these issues, the level of consensus is in excess of 75%.
WHAT CAN BE LEARNED FROM SUCH POLLS?
1. It indicates the real views on the Muslim street
2. It blows the false myths about the political ideas of Islam and violence
3. It shows that the ideas underpinning the global war on terror are dangerous for the whole world and are deceptive to Western audiences
4. It proves the need for a change in western foreign policy towards the Muslim world
5. It proves that the Caliphate resonates in the Muslim world and that there is a need for all to understand these ideas from their advocates
1. It indicates the real views on the Muslim street
Tony Blair stated in many speeches that the Muslim world does not have to choose between dictatorship and a ‘Taleban style theocracy’. Rather, he argued, that the shared universal values of western democracy and liberty should be the future for Muslims.
It is true people hate dictatorship, occupation and corruption. However, it is false to think that the Muslim world feels the only way this can end is to choose a system like the one Blair, Bush and others advocate.
Muslims see the Shariah in governance as a means of guaranteeing their authority in appointing the ruler, and giving the checks and balances of accountability. Islam, Shariah and the Caliphate are what Muslims see as their liberation from dictatorship, occupation and corruption. It is a system that comes from their beliefs and values and is in accordance with their history.
2. It blows the false myths about the political ideas of Islam and violence
Right wing and hawkish commentators in the west argue that there is an inherent link between the political ideas of Islam and violence as a means to see Islam established. This survey has proved this is a lie and is false. People in the Muslim world want Islam but do not see political violence as a means to achieve it. In reality the overwhelming activism for the return of Islam and the Caliphate in the Muslim world has been through a political method.
3. It shows that the ideas underpinning the War on Terror are dangerous and are deceive the people in the west.
Political leaders, such as Bush, Blair, Cheney, John Reid and others have all attacked the principle of anyone working for a Caliphate and Shariah in the Muslim world.
President Bush stated, when referring to people that share the ideology of Al Qaeda "They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call caliphate, where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology."
Tony Blair also weighed in, when after the 7/7 attacks on London he stated that Britain must confront - “an evil ideology”, defining this as “their barbaric ideas.” These included: “the establishment of effectively Taliban States and Shari’ah law in the Arab world en route to one Caliphate of all Muslim nations.”
Charles Clarke when Home Secretary in 2005 made a speech to the right wing neo-conservative US think tank the Heritage Foundation stating in regards to the Muslim world: “What drives these people on is ideas. And, unlike the liberation movements of the post-World War II era, these are not political ideas like national independence from colonial rule, or equality for all citizens without regard for race or creed, or freedom of expression without totalitarian repression. Such ambitions are, at least in principle, negotiable and in many cases have actually been negotiated. However, there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Sharia law”.
They have led people in their own population to believe these are ideas of a fringe group of Muslims and most Muslims disagree with the idea of Shariah, Caliphate and any political manifestation of Islam. It is this thinking that deludes people into believing that they can ‘solve’ the problems of the Muslim world by bombing some groups, banning others and changing a couple of regimes.
The reality is that Islam, Shariah and Caliphate are the political ideas of the majority. Therefore, the war that these politicians launched is one that is against the ideas that are the majority mainstream ideas of the Muslim world – the ideas that people see as their liberation from tyrannical oppression, economic dependency and political slavery. They are fooling their own population into a false idea that is a war that can be won. They say it is to be a ‘long’ war. If they are trying to fight the ideas of approximately 1 billion people this is to be a never ending war.
4. It proves the need for a change in western foreign policy towards the Muslim world
The late Robin Cook said, after the Iraq war was over, that the challenge for the west is to reform its foreign policy with the Muslim world – meaning that he recognised that a colonial relationship was no longer tenable. The sad reality is that Bush and Blair interpreted the alternative to ruling through proxy dictators as direct rule via occupation. The unfortunate reality is that the likes of David Cameron and his small circle of neocon advisors agree with this analysis. The Gordon Brown analysis is like that of the Iraq Study group in the USA – that is that the policy of intervention to suppress the expression of these political ideas of Islam is essential, but that the military option is a last resort.
The hopeful sign is that the mainstream populations in Britain, Europe and America were against the Iraq war, and do not support these politicians in their desire to intervene, interfere and invade. They are sceptical about the arguments about liberal interventionism – seeing it as a hypocritical excuse to intervene for material gain. They are sceptical about the scare mongering about terrorist threats. Even where they see the need to take security measures at home they see this foreign policy as worsening the problem. They recognise that heightening anger in the Muslim world and destroying civil society does not make the world a safer place.
5. It proves that the Caliphate today resonates in the Muslim world and that there is a need for all to understand these ideas from their advocates
Above all this survey reflects the emergence of the return of the Caliphate as a majority desire. It proves that the Muslim masses want to live by the Shari’ah. It proves that the west has lost the battle of ideas. And it proves that Islam has won the battle for hearts and minds.
Given that this is the case, this shows that there is an urgent need for people to understand these ideas from those who carry them and believe in them. Many ordinary people in western countries see past the lies and spin of politicians. There is currently no effective voice that is countering these government inspired lies with the real facts about what Muslims the world over want. There is a huge burden on the Muslim community to advocate Islam as an alternative for the Muslim world.
| |
|
|
| |
| Are Muslims becoming more ‘radical’? |
|
|
|
| |
Akmal Asghar
13th February 2007
| |
| |
Scrutiny of the Muslim community, these days, is unrelenting. From bringing the Met into disrepute by discouraging female officers from shaking hands with male colleagues, teaching firebrand radicalism to five year olds, destroying Britain’s social harmony to refusing dogs in their taxis, Muslims now routinely find themselves in the firing line of the country’s media machine and most prominent politicians.
Tony Blair, John Reid, Charles Clarke, Jack Straw and David Cameron, amongst numerous others, have all made alarmist comments on issues from the veil to the Shariah. The temperature has steadily risen to fever pitch since 7/7 and shows no sign of abating or of consulting sanity any time soon.
In the barrage, some of the most basic and widely accepted Islamic beliefs and notions have become targets. The Shariah, Dawah, Islamic education, Islamic politics, the concept of an Islamic state and even the desire to remove western occupation from the Muslim world have all been declared part of the ideology of extremism.
Academics and think-tanks are wheeled out periodically to provide some intellectual credibility to the sensationalism. Take the recently published report by the Policy Exchange ‘Living Apart Together’. To clarify its use of ‘terminology’, it recycles the oft-repeated western distinction between Islam and political Islam ('Islamism' ), describing the latter as supporting a ‘strict’ Islamic state and largely rejected by ‘devout’ Muslims. Amongst its many statistics, it provides no evidence to support this distinction nor is able to demonstrate it has any credibility in Islamic thought. Instead, it makes a self-fulfilling assumption - that Islamic politics is an aberration of Islam – to demonstrate increasing ‘radicalisation’ amongst Muslims.
This highlights the real problem with the current language and its impact on assessing the Muslim community. The growing ‘politicisation’ of the Muslim community is equated with ‘radicalisation’. As Muslims increasingly employ Islam in their politics, they move from ‘Islam’ to ‘Islamism’. The same report shows increasingly Islamic attitudes amongst the younger generation on issues such as, for example, Shariah, the veil and Islamic schools, describing this interest in religion as more ‘politicised’.
The unspoken assumption amongst many-a politician and commentator therefore is that more Islam, particularly Islamic politics, means more radical. Increasing levels of Islamic practice is a problem; it increases the likelihood of radicalisation, extremism and possibly even flirtations with terrorism.
Such sensationalism could only ever find believers in the current climate. The narrative is simply used to put pressure on Muslims, declaring that by using Islam as the rallying point of their political activity they tend towards ‘extremism’, their criticism of the west is unthankful for the refuge it afforded earlier generations of Muslim, challenging western values is a sign of dangerous separatism and that outspoken criticism of the west’s foreign policy hints at religious radicalism and provides succour to terrorism. It is an attempt to silence any criticism of the west or its policies in the Muslim world.
Contrary to this assessment, mounting evidence shows that practicing Muslims – particularly the youth - are less likely to be involved in crime and drugs, more likely to be educated, morally responsible and socially upright; and overcome greater social obstacles in achieving success, than those who do not. Islam has a key role to play in uplifting the Muslim community - the Muslim community needs more, not less, Islam.
It is hard to understand how the current language from politicians and commentators is designed to make things better. Muslims, bruised by the language of such preachers of fear, are scuttling away, intimidated into staying silent, whilst the growing paranoia about Islam goes unchallenged. By playing on peoples’ heightened security fears and focussing on one community exclusively and branding its mainstream and orthodox beliefs (such as the Shariah) ‘extremist’, the prospect before us is one of increasing polarisation, a growing distance and misunderstanding between Muslims and non-Muslim in this country.
| |
|
|
| |
| Saddam’s humiliating end: A wake-up call to Muslim leaders |
|
|
|
| |
13th January 2007
| |
| |
Arif Samad, 12 January 2007
The military occupation of the Muslim world continues unabated with the US’s aerial bombardment of alleged Al-Qadea operatives in southern Somalia. The order to bomb had apparently been given by the new Somalian leadership imposed upon the Somalian people by an Ethiopian invasion force, supported by the US, which routed Islamists from the Union of Islamic Courts who had brought order, security and stability to the war-torn country. The new Somalian leadership puts back in power the warlords that had plagued the strategically important country for decades.
This is the latest episode in current Western foreign policy towards the Muslim World and comes fresh on the heals of new news that there will be a ‘surge’ in US military deployment in Iraq, where, for nearly four years, the world’s most powerful military has been bogged down in a bloody insurgency/resistance battle after invading the country in 2003. Sanctioned and decapitated Iraq was invaded a year after the US sought military revenge on poverty stricken Afghanistan for the attacks of 11 September 2001. In between these, there’s been time to thoroughly flatten apartment blocs, bridges, roads and power stations in Lebanon by Israel in a widely recognised proxy war between the US and Hizballah.
It is argued that Al-Qaeda, Jahadists or Islamists are the problem so nobody should be too sorry or worried about the blatant contravention of international law or human rights or the fact that the world’s biggest military power is directly or indirectly beating up on among the poorest countries of the third world. How about morally unjust? No, because morals are expendable in the new asymmetric warfare we’re dealing with, that is the non-negotiable mentality of the terrorist / suicide bomber, comes the retort. Surely, the right to life, a fair trial and rule of law can not be so readily dispensable? If so, then what are the fundamental ‘values’ that Western leaders so keen to establish in the Muslim world?
After helping to apparently release the Arab and Muslim world from the clutches of British colonialism America is showing its true colours. The tireless American diplomatic effort for an independent Middle East during Britain’s empire was rooted less in altruistic intentions than it appeared. The Arab dictators and despots that replaced British colonialism in the Middle East served their new Western master well but betrayed the interests and wellbeing of their citizens - none more so than Saddam Hussein, who once dined with President Chirac of France and in the 1980s was courted by Donald Rumsfeld of the USA as a potential regional leader. The master than disgraced the servant culminating in a truly humiliating end for Saddam Hussein – shamefully degraded upon capture; tried in a kangaroo court show trial; heckled and humiliated moments before hanging; and precariously hauled to a final resting place on the back of a ‘fruit & veg.’ pick-up truck.
Saddam’s end should be a wake-up call to rulers in the Muslim world – serve the interests and look after the wellbeing of your citizens for when the enemy comes calling they are your best hope for survival. Saddam, a one-man army, upon his capture was abandoned even by his own highly paid personal republican guard. For in the end, ruling his nation by the fear of torture, imprisonment and murder from the secret police (muhabarat), while calling upon Allah in prison failed to convince but a few.
| |
|
|
| |
| Stern warning – let’s get real |
|
|
|
| |
03rd November 2006
| |
| |
Reducing carbon emission is about a lifestyle change in the west but in the developing world it is a matter of life and death. The climate change debate is incredibly western centric. Using growing fears in the west over carbon emissions to take a pot-shot at the relatively recent economic growth in China and India is profoundly disingenuous given that since the industrial revolution the west has been solely responsible for most of the carbon dioxide emissions in the world today.
The members of the Group of Eight (G-8) - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – make up the industrialised world and together account for about two-thirds of the world's economic output. Not coincidently, since 1850 North America and Europe have produced 70% of all carbon dioxide emissions, according to the Stern economic climate change review. Industry, power generation and transport are among the biggest generators of carbon emissions world wide – accounting for 70% of green house gases in the EU. Meanwhile, the US with 5% of the world’s population is the world’s single largest polluter in absolute terms and per capita.
What are the ‘fruits’ of the industrialised western world: power literally at the flick of a switch; seemingly limitless selection and variety of household goods and appliances from all corners of the earth; unseasonal exotic foods all year round; the most elaborate disposable packaging to entice sale; decadently cheap flights for short-haul weekend breaks; and the ultimate freedom to drive a gas-guzzler a mere two blocks on the daily school run.
In stark contrast, the lot of the mainly poverty stricken developing world including India and China is: for the fortunate few that are connected to power, daily outages; no hot water let alone running clean water; death by every-day aliments eradicated in the west half a century ago; managing the whole family budget (food, housing, transport, education and heath) on less than $2 a day; no safety-net of a welfare state; and no passport to trouble the expanding market for air travel.
Morally it is highly questionable to look to India and China to curtail carbon emissions when they have only recently begun to lift some of their citizens out of abject poverty. Also, it sends the wrong message to other poor developing countries which need to grow, industrialise and reduce poverty. It is also opportunist as the world is paying the price for mainly past emissions which have hung-around in the earth’s atmosphere for several decades – as the report highlights.
Also, it is questionable whether the west is taking the problem of potentially cataclysmic proportions seriously. Aside from the growing selection of reports on the subject, what has practically been done to reduce carbon emissions? The most notable example is the emission trading scheme, a voluntary, hands-off, free market approach to the problem which excludes key polluting sectors such as air lines, and big polluting countries such as the USA. Indeed since the scheme was launched in January 2005 the value of carbon permits or the cost of polluting has fallen in real terms. With the tool most favoured by Sir Stern to reduce carbon pollution widely said to be in disarray it is difficult to see the west matching deeds to laudable words.
Given the lethal cocktail of capitalist industrial policy of the last 150 years mixed with the western culture of unbridled consumerism, the depletion of the very air that we breathe was predictable. The fall-out will be mostly in the developing world – floods in Bangladesh, migration and food shortages in sub-Saharan Africa. While London and New York can afford to pay to fortify themselves against the impending rising tide, Chittagong and Madagascar can barely afford food for their citizens. A creditable and genuine western stance would be take the lead and consistently reduce carbon emissions over a decade - then western leaders would be taken more seriously in a very serious debate about the future of our planet.
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Mohammed Zahid
26th October 2006
Mohammed.zahid@newcivilisation.com
03rd November 2006
| |
| |
The US involvement in building a new political setup in Iraq has been a failure from day one. The governments led by Ibrahim al Jafar or Nour al Maliki have failed in governing or providing much needed security to the Iraqi people. Nour al Maliki has failed to deal with the security situation in Baghdad - the situation has deteriorated even more under his short tenure than what one saw under Ibrahim al Jafar, regarded as a failure by many Iraqis.
Nour al Maliki has been at the centre of much criticism from the US administration and the neoconservatives, who are clearly unhappy with how things are unfolding in Iraq. The level of insecurity is threatening US economic and strategic interests in Iraq and the wider Persian Gulf. In addition, the Iraqi quagmire is preventing the US dealing with other regional security concerns such as Iran and Syria. The US has therefore much to lose if the situation in Iraq persists. In response to the need to rectify the terrible situation in Iraq, it has been reported that the US has been holding secret meetings with senior officials from the Iraqi military behind the Iraqi government’s back, with the hope of engineering an internal coup to bring about governmental change in Iraq. This would remove Nour al Maliki and bring forward someone else who the US believes would be better able to deal with the chaos in Iraq. No one knows who this person is but the US has a history of pulling someone out of the hat to do its work, Hamid Karazai in Afghanistan is a case in point.
This backdoor planning by the US makes it clear that the US is not really interested and will not be interested in allowing the Iraqi government to function of its own accord. This destroys the myth that the Iraqi state has political sovereignty, a line constantly pushed by the US administration post Saddam and post the December 2005 elections. It is also valid to emphasise that blaming of Nour al Maliki for the lawlessness and chaos in Iraq conveniently deflects attention from the role the US has played in the bloodshed we witness in Iraq. Sir Richard Dannatt from the British military recently linked foreign military presence in Iraq to the escalating level of violence in Iraq but such comments are brushed aside and the US and British government, who continue to direct criticism at the Iraqi government.
The outlook for Iraq appears dismal. Even if a new government is put in place by the US, the root cause of the crisis - the military occupation - needs to end, allowing an opportunity for the Iraqi people to determine their own political future. The gathering of Iraqi Islamic scholars and political leaders recently in Mecca, Saudi Arabia indicates their desire to resolve the problems facing Iraq but are disabled while the occupation continues. The end of the occupation will no doubt act as a source of Iraqi political empowerment allowing a path of political self determination to be constructed, providing a platform to lead Iraq out of the mess it is in at the moment.
| |
|
|
| |
| Why the Veil Debate is so Important |
|
|
|
| |
Sajjad Khan
19th October 2006
| |
| |
It is one of the myths of modern day discourse that Muslims are the ones afraid of debate; overly sensitive, frequently inflexible and of course always wrong. With every new criticism aimed at Muslims, the movie becomes so predictable just like a good old fashioned James Bond movie where 007 kills the baddies, saves the world and ends up with the girl. The Muslim movie is just as predictable and it goes something like this. Prominent Non Muslim indulges in a strong criticism of Muslims or Islam, this is then magnified by the media out of all proportion, and the issue is then repeated ubiquitously in newspaper editorials. In response some Muslims react defensively or violently, which is in turn attacked as Muslims being either too sensitive to criticism or at worst philistines who don’t understand the values of the Enlightenment. And before Muslims can catch their breath, another distinct attack raises itself from the ether.
The veil issue currently being debated in the UK epitomises exactly what is wrong with the current ‘debate’ surrounding Islam and the West. Jack Straw a member of the British Cabinet claimed that he wanted to open a debate surrounding the veil. Of course no such thing has actually happened, for a real debate to occur as anyone familiar with any debating society rules knows, are that both sides receive equal time and an equal opportunity to articulate their views. While Jack Straw enjoys the bully pit of the Cabinet, the ability to write columns in national newspapers, extensive opportunities to give live interviews his numerous opponents have to do with scraps via letters pages, brief appearances on twenty four hour news stations and radio phone-ins. What therefore has actually happened is more equivalent to a glorified monologue with Muslims playing the part of optional extras.
The issue around the veil is not as has been articulated a clash between the West and Islam. Rather the deeper insight is that this is another of many incidents that epitomises a clash within Western civilization itself. For Muslims the issue of the veil has long been settled, most Muslims believe that the veil is not a compulsion for women to wear, but recognise that for some the covering of the face does constitute an obligation. A small minority of women wear the veil for purely pragmatic reasons, a vehicle to protect themselves from the challenges of a highly sexualised society. Regardless of the position, the issue of the veil is not a lightning rod that it has become within Western society.
The veil however does create yet another ideological chasm within Western society. Liberalism has been sorely tested since 9-11, and the veil issue demonstrates once again that there are fundamental contradictions between liberal values on the one hand and the challenges of running a modern state. Prior to a post 9-11 world, the veil would never have become an issue, the concepts of freedom of expression and tolerance would have been too strong and too ingrained in western society. Yet as a result of a myriad of distinct reasons, elements of western society are now heading down the road of intolerance and muscular integration. Many Non Muslims accuse Muslims of not respecting western society’s cherished ideals of freedom and tolerance. Yet it isn’t Muslims that have delivered blows to these values, these same Non Muslims have done a pretty good job themselves since 9-11. It wasn’t Muslims that have passed with alacrity draconian anti-terror legislation, it wasn’t Muslims who extended pre-charge detention periods for suspects, it wasn’t Muslims who have criminalised legitimate dissent in the name of preventing the glorification of terrorism, it isn’t Muslims who preside over the abuse of human rights at Guantanomo Bay, it isn’t Muslims who want ID cards, it isn’t Muslims who have introduced mass surveillance and wiretaps. These same Non Muslims argue that Muslims have failed to integrate; indeed only recently one senior Conservative politician accused Muslims of seeking voluntary apartheid. Yet what values do they want Muslims to integrate with, the values that existed a hundred years ago, the ones that existed pre 9-11, the ones in vogue now or the new ones that are inevitably just around the corner . And when did such values become sacrosanct and above criticism. Western societies may claim a superior set of principles but they also promote excessive individualism, an unhealthy materialism, a hedonistic trend which embraces alcohol and sex and which systematically removes any kind of moral or spiritual dimension. These values are not just opposed by the large majority of Muslims but millions of other people in western society. Surely instead of continually demanding in a robotic fashion that Muslims should integrate into a set of values that continually evolve, we should start having an adult debate on what values are fit for purpose for the 21st century. What values can protect our elderly, what values can help to alleviate third world poverty and disease, what values can address the deep problems of social inequality, drugs and chronic racism.
One of the rationales given on why Britain and America went to war in Afghanistan was the need to liberate women who lived in Afghan society. The British Foreign Secretary at the time of the Afghan invasion was especially keen to accentuate the point that the Taliban were oppressing women through dictating to them what they could and could not wear. Who was the then British Foreign Secretary, yes you guessed it, the Rt Hon Jack Straw. You couldn’t make it up.
sajjad.khan@newcivilisation.com
| |
|
|
| |
| Londonistan, Britain – Political Spin and Media Manipulation |
|
|
|
| |
Arif Samad
10th October 2006
| |
| |
The anger of Muslims over the revelation that Jack Straw, the leader of the House of Commons, requests’ Muslim women constituents to remove their nikab (face veil) in face-to-face interviews, the report that a Muslim police officer, with family ties in Lebanon, refused to guard the Israeli embassy during the recent Israeli/Lebanon war, and the judgment against a Muslim taxi driver who refused to take a (guide) dog into his cab – all headline news within the space of a few days - brilliantly enforces the notion of Londonistan, Britain. A notion of a minority intolerant Muslim community imposing its foreign values and culture on the host liberal society, and abusing the hospitality afforded them.
The backdrop to these high profile media incidents has been a deliberate and seemingly coordinated political campaign to focus on the apparent inadequacies of Muslim community in Britain. On 24 August, Ruth Kelly, MP, launched the new Commission on Integration and Cohesion specifically targeting Muslims communities and their apparent lack of integration. On 20 September, John Reid, the Home Secretary, travelled to East London, near the bungled police raid in Forrest Gate, to warn Muslim parents to watch over their children for signs of extremism. The opposition also got in on the act with the leader of the Conservative party, Dave Cameron, threatening, at the party conference on 4th of October, to dismantle Muslim dominated communities (ghettoes). Lastly amid the media frenzy and the ensuing debate on the 6th of October, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the UK’s Official Statistics Institute, published a race and diversity map of Britain highlighting that in some towns of the UK there was a up to 85% chance that any two people chosen at random from a particular area would be from different ethnic groups, even if neither of them are white.
It appears the Government and its agencies orchestrate the loaded political debate and feed the ever eager and sensationalist media to create a caricature of fanatical Muslims. After repeated conditioning by the partial media, which is dominated by a handful of moguls, the media conducts or sponsors opinion polls. As an example, the Daily Express conducted an opinion poll on the weekend after Jack Straw’s revelations on whether the nikab should be banned, generating a ‘yes’ vote of 97%. These polls are then highlighted to show public opinion hostile to Muslims and their perceived values and culture - unsurprisingly. The opinion polls are then jumped on by agenda-driven politicians to justify draconian policies against the fragmented Muslim community that seriously lacks the media outlets to be able to dent the negative perception generated by Government and scandalously propagated by the media.
This chain of events is becoming ever more common on a host of important issues: the argument for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; the debate on Sarah’s Law; and the discourse around detaining suspects for up to 30-days without charge. It raises serious questions about the politicisation of independent institutions (the security services, the police and the judiciary), of the impartiality of debate, the manipulative role of the media and ultimately about the strength and health of British democracy.
| |
|
|
| |
| Immigration - the fruit of global inequality |
|
|
|
| |
Arif Samad
10th October 2006
| |
| |
The World Trade Organisation (WTO), which is working to resuscitate the Doha trade talks, purports the benefits of free trade estimating that millions of people in the developing world will be lifted out of poverty. Given free trade, countries will naturally maximise output by specialising in producing those goods and services in which they possess a comparative advantage; and buy in those goods and services in which they don’t. Barriers to trade inhibit countries from specialising and therefore reaping the benefits of free trade. As an example, the elimination of US cotton subsidies to its farmers in the developed world would result in higher cotton prices accruing to developing worlds’ farmers hence lifting them out of poverty.
By analogy, the free movement of human capital can yield similar benefits. Immigration increases the pool of labour and eases supply shortages thereby lowering wages, increasing profits, and if lower costs are passed on to consumers, reducing prices of goods and services provided by immigrants. Labour supply and demand reaches equilibrium as immigrants do the jobs domestic workers are not prepared to do for the wage offered. Immigrants, while normally receiving low wages, have income they otherwise would not. A high proportion of this income is remitted back home to support poorer families and communities with housing, education and health care. Moreover, back home wage levels rise as employers try to hold on to workers attracted to a better-paid life abroad.
However, the West and its institutions view unhindered immigration with distinctly less enthusiasm than free trade. As the gap between the have and have-nots grows ever wider, increasing numbers of economic migrants land at Western borders and are having the doors slammed shut to them. The USA is erecting a 15-foot wall on its Mexican border to stem the flow of poor Mexicans venturing to the land of the free to make their fortune. The EU has laid on stricter conditionality on Romania and Bulgaria because many in Europe, even among the business community, feel it unwise to continue with the unrestricted open door policy following the recent accession into the EU of eight former communist states. Risking life and limb, hordes of poverty stricken young North African men illegally land on the shores of Europe daily only to be deported shortly thereafter. Australia has been deluged with so many unwanted immigrants that it has resorted to detaining them in camps in the country’s Outback.
Why the contradiction in the application of capitalist economic theory? After all, there are plenty of economic migrants (more pleasantly known as expatriates) from the West in very lucrative employment in the Gulf. Still many more work in very poor developing countries as consultants/ specialists/ economists reportedly earning as much as a £1000 per day. Some have argued that the level of immigration in the West has reached unsustainable levels. Among the countries where this debate has been fiercest is the UK, where ethnic minorities account for about 10% of the overall population, although in some cities that proportion is greater. However, this argument is less convincing when looking at the level of economic migration, for example, the Gulf, where over one hundred thousand Western expatriates work. According to the latest data there are 3.5 foreigners for every national in the United Arab Emirates, with expatriates accounting for more than 90% of the 2.7m workforce.
It appears that the reason why increased immigration to the West is being staunchly resisted is the same as the reason the US and EU are unwilling to reduce farm subsidies despite the stark contradiction with free market theory. Western self-interest is the biggest obstacle to the clear benefits for the worlds’ poorest from free trade and less restricted migration. Trade and work are ways in which the poorest could help themselves rather then relying on handouts. Western aid and loans to the developing world on the other hand ingrain dependence, which in turn forces compliance.
Globalisation generally favours the wealthiest resulting in ever-greater concentration of wealth in the West. This increases global inequality with growing numbers of desperate people unable to fulfil their basic needs. Thus, is the Western policy of keeping people out sustainable?
| |
|
|
| |
| Impact of 9/11 Five Years On |
|
|
|
| |
Salman Ahmed
20th September 2006
| |
| |
Re-watching the recorded images and sounds of the September the 11th attack on the World Trade Centre, as a Muslim I am faced with the question as to how the perpetrators justified their mass slaughter of thousands of innocent people on the basis of Islam. In New York five years ago, people were going about their daily lives on what should have been a normal working day; they were unaware that they were combatants on a battle field or that they were engaged in a war and that the building where they worked was the main target. Most Muslims like myself can find no justification for the killing of such innocent people under Islam, irrespective of whether they believe there may or may not have been any merit to the political grievances that Al Qaeda point to for justification of such attacks. There is near unanimity amongst the scholars and intelligensia of the Muslim world that Muslims need to address the thinking, which a very small minority of Muslims carry, that the killing of innocent people can be justified such as that of September the 11th. The thinking of such “Jihadists” if left unchecked has such serious consequences that the Muslim majority cannot afford to take the position that this is just a matter of a difference of interpretation of Islam: that we can agree to differ on the killings of civilians, and leave such “Jihadists” to operate freely.
In the Muslim world, everyday brings news from Iraq and Afghanistan about car bombs, suicide attacks, kidnappings, torture and fatalities that run into the dozens or sometimes hundreds. Pictures of tortured bodies regularly appear on Arab satellite channels, and by all accounts a very high percentage if not the majority of people killed are civilians; people who were not interested in fighting anyone but happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The minimum estimates for non-Allied casualties incurred in Iraq and Afghanistan is of the order of approximately thirty to forty thousand people. Whilst many of the casualties can be attributed to collateral damage that results from military actions undertaken by the allied forces, some of them can be attributed to sectarian killings, others to criminal elements, some to cross-fire and so on. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, there seems to be no end in sight to the killings that are taking place, and Western military commentators talk about the need to keep on fighting for the next five to ten years in both countries.
Although Western military forces cannot be held accountable for all the civilian deaths that have occurred, all of these deaths can be attributed to the failure of Western allies to stabilize the societies of the countries that were invaded. And it is now widely accepted that very limited planning was done to deal with the post-conflict situation in both countries and many leading politicians were very naïve in what they thought would happen in both Iraq and Afghanistan once the old regimes were removed. It is this incompetence, naivety, mistaken thinking amongst leading Western politicians that has lead to the situation where hundreds of civilians are dying every week. The potential for fighting between Shia and Sunni was entirely predictable in Iraq, and so was the support for the Taliban in Southern Afghanistan amongst the Pushto speaking tribes.
There is an Islamic tradition that goes back to the Prophet that each generation of Muslims is taught. “If you see something wrong (munkar) don’t try to fix it if you don’t have the capability especially if what you do will cause anarchy and discord (fitnah) in the society”.
Today we see that neither the US or Britain or their remaining allies have a credible plan for stabilizing Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor are they prepared to pay the necessary price – money and people – for stopping the anarchy that has spread throughout these countries. There is no real Marshall plan for Afghanistan or Iraq and there seems to be no interest amongst Western taxpayers to make the necessary sacrifices to sort these countries out. What we are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan is an experiment that a small number of Western politicians have come up with; a plan to re-engineer societies whose culture and history they have very limited understanding of. These “experiments” are clearly not working and it is time to acknowledge this and look for a way out even if it means making a deal with our enemies. As we remember September the 11th we should also reflect upon all the causalities that have happened during the War on Terror. Is it not time for Western intellectuals and the public to hold their leaders to account for all the deaths that they have caused and for the anarchy they have created, and ask them for the way out?
Salman.ahmed@newcivilisation.com
| |
|
|
| |
| Darfur - Why UN Troops are not the Solution! |
|
|
|
| |
Sajjad khan
Editor- New Civilisation
20th September 2006
| |
| |
Thomas Jefferson once said ‘The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.” The sanctity of life however took a huge knock in the twentieth century and we are still feeling the consequences in the new millennium. Mankind lost millions in WW1 in European trenches, we lost tens of millions in WW2 including 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians and tens of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the Korean peninsula 3-4 million civilians were killed as a result of the conflict, in Vietnam 58,000 US soldiers were killed as well as 2 million Vietnamese over a ten-year period. After Vietnam we have witnessed unspeakable massacres in Cambodia and in the 1990’s Rwanda lost millions as a result of an intra tribal genocide. In the 21st century the momentum goes on, three thousand dead in America, tens of thousands dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and since 2003 the deaths of tens of thousands in Darfur in Western Sudan.
As is inevitable and right, one looks for a cause to blame for the suffering, a scapegoat, someone we can easily punish and account for these unspeakable atrocities. For some in the West the narrative is straightforward, the deaths in Darfur are a direct result of the Sudanese Government and their allies in the Janjaweed militia. Yet even if this political narrative is correct, putting in UN troops is not the answer. The UN’s track record on protecting civilians is patchy to say the least. In 1995 UN peacekeepers failed to protect the massacre of 8,000 people in Srebenicia. In Rwanda, the UN failed to protect the Tutsis from being massacred, in the 1990’s it was UN sanctions that were responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq which according to the then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright was a price well worth paying. And the Sudanese Government is not paranoid when it comes to being suspicious about the real agenda of some member states that may wish to contribute to a UN force.
Of course the Sudanese regime has the primary culpability in the current Darfur conflict. The duty of any state is to protect its citizens and to ensure that the lives of its entire people are protected regardless of colour, creed or tribe. In trying to address rebellions in the west of its country, the Sudanese Government should be able to distinguish between those intent on destroying the unity of the state and those who are innocent bystanders. Collective punishment whether practiced in Palestine or Sudan can never be justified. If they continue to kill their citizens, then other Muslim countries should do what is necessary to resolve the situation. Yet it is not only the Sudanese Government who needs to rediscover the sanctity of human life, we all do. Many in the West who believe in the Bush doctrine often accuse Muslims of having double standards when it comes to the death of their co-religionists, criticising America and Israel when it comes to Iraq and Lebanon but turning a blind eye when it comes to atrocities in Darfur. However hypocrisy is not unique to these Muslims, these same critics who highlight Darfur stay largely silent when it comes to the record of Western states in the 19th and 20th centuries where literally millions have died at the behest of Western policy. Not to mention the hypocrisy that they have shown over the UN, an entity that they collectively rubbished in the Iraq conflict and which they now embrace as the mechanism to deal with Sudan.
And here lies the rub of the issue, the sanctity of human life cannot be simply protected by military means or UN resolutions, it requires a transformational change in our collective values and our political actions. Too much of today’s society is now built on materialism, hedonism and national pride and too little built on caring for the dignity of human life. Too much foreign and security policy now prioritises resources over people, markets over ideals and expediency over principle. A life lost in the twin towers should not count more than one who dies in Kandahar, nor is a civilian life taken in the name of God, any more justified than those taken in the name of defending national security, corporate capitalism or tribal superiority. The life of a Red Indian chief, the life of a black slave from Sierra Leone, the life of a Vietnamese mother, the life of an American cabin attendant, the life of an Iraqi trader and the life of a child in Darfur should be equally viewed as sacred. Mankind in the 21st century has advanced technologically in a way in which our ancestors would have only dreamed of, yet our attitude towards the sanctity of human life remains stuck in the dark ages.
Sajjad.khan@newcivilisation.com
| |
|
|
| |
| A Nuclear Iran whose problem is it? |
|
|
|
| |
Salman ahmed
11th September 2006
| |
| |
Reading most foreign policy commentators, you would think that we are facing a nightmare situation with Iran about to start the manufacture of nuclear weapons unless the international community takes significant and immediate action. If the "mad mullahs" of Iran, who are apparently unrestrained by civilised Western values, are not stopped then they could start to threaten the stability of the world by coupling their fanaticism and religious fervour with nuclear weapons. Some question why they need to develop nuclear power when they are sitting on some of the world's largest reserves of oil. Others point out, that given the Iranian President’s statements calling for the destruction of Israel, surely this would be a recipe for nuclear Armageddon if Iran were not stopped.
But for many people, and you don't necessarily have to be an Iranian Mullah or a member of Hezbollah to see it, there seems to be a common premise to most of the
arguments made against Iran. This premise being that those dark skinned peoples who live far away, with their foreign culture and religion, can't be trusted; they are not
civilised like us; rather they are belligerent barbarians; and can't be accepted at their word. This perception of the people of the Orient was discussed in detail by the late Edward Said in his book "Orientalism" and is not a recent phenomenon or the result of recent neo-con propaganda or policies. By all accounts, most Iranians, both religious and secular, see the issue of the development of nuclear technology as being a sign of progress for their nation. And since they don't see themselves as being culturally or racially inferior; they can't comprehend why the West wants to prevent them from developing nuclear technologies that others have.
Though today the Iranians are not proposing to develop nuclear weapons, it is conceivable that once they are able to master the uranium enrichment process they would be able to generate sufficiently enriched uranium to use in nuclear weapons. The latest intelligence estimates by the CIA indicate that Iran is a decade away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. And even if the Iranian government does decide ultimately to develop nuclear weapons this should be seen in the context of Iran's legitimate security concerns. From their perspective, they have seen the invasion and occupation of two of their neighbours by the United States: Afghanistan and Iraq. And they continually hear calls for regime change in Iran by many US politicians. Furthermore the lesson they have learned from the United States dealings with North Korea, is that no serious US politician calls for forced regime change in North Korea, where nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to the world's superpower.
There is little or no evidence to indicate that the Iranian regime develops foreign policy differently to other states. Nor is there any evidence that the Iranian leadership wants to sacrifice millions of its citizens in a potential nuclear exchange with Israel for the sake of liberating Jerusalem or the coming of the Mahdi (Messiah). When the Iranian President in his speeches calls into question the existence of the Israel state, he articulates an opinion shared by many in the Muslim world. Such speeches may enhance Ahmadinejad's standing in the Muslim world but Iran, which does not even border Israel, is not in a position to threaten the Israel state.
Thus the major losers if Iran or another Middle Eastern state acquires nuclear technologies and possible weapons, will be the United States and Israel who will have to think twice before they launch attacks against that country or want to initiate forced regime change. For us in Britain lets recognise the issue as what it is - not our problem. If the Israeli and
United States governments want to start a new war in Iran, this time lets make sure Britain keeps out of it.
Salman.ahmed@newcivilisation.com
| |
|
|
| |
| Pakistan- Time for New Political Vision |
|
|
|
| |
Mohammed Zahid
Mohammed.zahid@newcivilisation.com
06th September 2006
| |
| |
The Pakistani government post 9/11 has faced mounting pressure as a result of its compliance in the War on Terror and its close alliance with the US. The launching of raids in the North West and the Waziristan province under US directives has created an unstable situation in Pakistan. The problem has been complicated by the on going troubles it has faced in the oil rich province of Baluchistan. The assassination of the Baluchi leader Nawab Akbar Bugti last week heightened this conflict which has been going on for decades and at the same time raised questions surrounding the root cause of this conflict and the way to bring stability in Pakistan.
The Pakistani government has consistently blamed greedy tribal chiefs to external interference from India to provide an explanation as to why it has faced problems in Baluchistan. However, this laying of the blame at the feet of others seems to be a rather convenient policy for the Pakistani government, which has failed to look at its own role in the problem which have emerged from the Baluchistan region. This region has been highly neglected by central government for decades; the level of investment has been marginal compared to other regions. The number of social and economic problems in the region have, been mounting over the years. Therefore, from a brief understanding of the social and economic context, it can be seen that underlying grievances have been simmering for some time and it would be only a matter of time, before people in the region began demanding a greater share of oil revenues and autonomy to look after their own affairs.
The Pakistani government has consistently denied such reasoning for the problems it has faced in Baluchistan and continued with burying it head in the sand. This approach has not surprised many as the Pakistani government, whether under a military or a civilian dictatorship has failed to effectively extend its sphere of representation beyond an elite strata in Pakistan. This elite has been formed from the landowners, industrialists and business class which have since the creation of Pakistan been highly interwoven with successive Pakistani governments. Therefore the policies of the government have acted in the interest of this elite rather than the whole population of Pakistan- leading to an ultimate division between state and society, with ensuing tensions and conflicts between the two.
The Pakistani government can continue to blame others but the root cause of the problems it faces in Baluchistan and other regions are its own doing, with the existence of a highly unrepresentative socio-economic and political system. If this continues, the problems are unlikely to abate and there would be without doubt others in Pakistan waiting to fight the government for its right and appropriate distribution of resources. Pakistan is at a critical juncture and a new political vision needs to be adopted, one which will galvanise the Pakistani populace under it and create a stable political medium. The political vision, which is gaining momentum in Pakistan and other places in the Muslim world, is one of Political Islam, which is rising to the forefront of domestic, regional and international discussions and agendas. Therefore it is ever more important for an acknowledgment to be made of the future role of Political Islam in Pakistan and a debate to begin upon how it can deal with the problems, which the Pakistani government has failed to deal with over the last 50 years.
| |
|
|
| |
| Hamas- Flexibility and more Flexibility |
|
|
|
| |
Mohammed Zahid
Mohammed.zahid@newcivilisation.com
06th September 2006
| |
| |
The Hamas led government has faced international pressure from day one, resulting in an international boycott in particular the refusal of international donors to supply much needed capital and the Israeli refusal to hand over Palestinian tax revenues collected from Eastern Jerusalem. This predicament has led to political infighting in the Palestinian Territories and numerous strikes being staged by workers demanding their wages. This pressure, in addition to the Gaza siege being imposed by the Israeli’s has led the Hamas government to yield to the pressure and move to accept a unity government with Fatah. Mahmoud Abbas has declared that a unity government should be formed within a period of 10 days, allowing governance to proceed in the Palestinian Territories. This level of flexibility from Hamas was expected for a number of reasons.
First, Hamas has a history of demonstrating flexibility; it’s change in policy from calling for the end of total occupation to the creation of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.
Second, Hamas had previously stated that it would not participate in elections enshrined by the Oslo Accords of 1993, but changed its policy and participated in municipal elections, leading to its participation in national elections.
Third, Hamas had refused to acknowledge the Oslo agreement but its participation in the national elections and its taking over of the Palestinian Authorities (PA) was a clear change in policy as the PA was a product of the Oslo Agreement.
Fourth, Hamas, had previously stated its desire not to negotiate and discuss with the Israeli government but clearly by leading the PA it must negotiate with Israel, thus implicit recognition of the State of Israel.
Therefore from the above, flexibility is obvious in the policy of Hamas and it is this flexibility, which has been understood fully by the US, Israel and Fatah. Therefore, it was only a matter of time before Hamas would yield to pressure and accept what was demanded from them. The ‘Prisoners Document’ including articles acknowledging the State of Israel and accepting a 2 state solution- if accepted would be another clear example of Hamas flexibility. There have been signs of acceptance of the document, although the Hamas spokesman Abu Zuhri has dismissed this and Mahmoud Abbas has given Hamas a week to make its views clear on the document. With the internal situation deteriorating and more pressure being imposed on Hamas, there is no doubt that flexibility will be shown by Hamas. Therefore Hamas, would be following the path trodden by the PLO, one of compromises. This is a very dangerous predicament for Hamas as it could lose face in Palestine and the wider Muslim world, but may be it will be able to sell any acceptance of the prisoner’s document to the Palestinian people on the back of removing its international boycott and improving the economic situation. However, the experience of Hamas has indicated once again, that anyone who takes the hot seat in Palestine is bound to be flexible or made to be flexible as Palestine is under occupation and the occupiers and those connected (i.e. the US) pull the strings of the political happenings and agenda in terms of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
| |
|
|
| |
| Five Years on - Lessons Not Learned |
|
|
|
| |
Sajjad Khan
Sajjad.khan@newcivilisation.com
06th September 2006
| |
| |
The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu taught his soldiers to "know your enemy" before going into war. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself, in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated”. The Americans and British alas still do not understand their enemy. Whether it is the governments, informed commentators or ordinary citizenry the lack of a comprehensive understanding of the Muslim world remains worrying. One could partly excuse why senior officials in 10 Downing Street and the West Wing had to rush to buy books on Afghanistan, Political Islam and Muslim Groups following the events of September 11th . However ignorance five years on cannot excuse the cataclysmic deficiency in current policy.
Though the majority of Muslims share a political narrative of decades old grievances against Anglo/American foreign policy, most have rejected the path of using mass violence against civilians. The fact that most have rejected such a path should not be confused with either support for the means or the ends of the US/UK project. However it is the failure to understand the mainstream demands of most in the Muslim world that has been the real failing of the War on Terror. For most people living in the West, you could be confused into thinking that most of those who oppose the Anglo American project want the extinction of all Non Muslims, the imposition of Sharia Law in Canterbury or Utah and the mass incarceration of the female species.
Yet careful study in the Muslim world of surveys, electoral results and yes even speeches by the minority who do support a strategy of violence has shown that the demands are in fact much more reasonable. The demand of seeking the removal of all foreign forces (bases included) and the cessation of western occupation and interference (centuries old) in the resources of the Muslim world is just a continuation of the anti colonial struggles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The demand of stopping the unadulterated support of Israel an entity that was responsible for wiping the unitary Palestinian state off the map in 1948 should be seen through a prism of mass injustice to the people of Palestine. Finally the demand to stop all support for the region’s tyrannical dictators and to allow the Muslim world to define its own political destiny can only be controversial to those that have graduated from the school of hypocrisy and expediency.
Of course Muslims will have several ideological objections to aspects of a secular society, in the same way that many in the west will profoundly disagree with several elements of Islamic governance. Muslims may want in an ideal world everyone to voluntarily embrace their core beliefs (as is the case with Communists and free market Capitalists), but this cannot be a demand, this is a decision that individual Non Muslims will have to make without coercion and in an atmosphere of trust and debate. In the same way demanding Shariah law in societies where the vast majority prefer a secular liberal way of life is just wish list politics. Ideological disagreements, wish lists or the use of vitriolic rhetoric by some should not be equated with tangible political demands.
Of course some in the western world will baulk at the above demands preferring instead a status quo riddled with insecurity. A report published by a Pentagon advisory panel, the Defense Science Board in 2004 systematically destroys this cosy rationale. The report states ''Today we reflexively compare Muslim 'masses' to those oppressed under Soviet rule. This is a strategic mistake. There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies -- except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends.'' The report says that ''Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies.'' The report also says: ''The critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim world is not one of 'dissemination of information' or even one of crafting and delivering the 'right' message. Rather it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none.”
However it only suits those who seek perpetual war in Washington and London to constantly recite the mantra that there is no political solution to the current crisis. Calling your opponents fascist while being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in the Muslim world is hardly credible. The false choice portrayed by Messrs Bush and Blair to their citizens is to either appease the terrorists or defeat them. After five years of ideological, political and military failure, people in the West should realise that Tony Blair is occasionally right, there is often a third way.
| |
|
|
| |
| Political Succession in Libya- Like Father Like Son? |
|
|
|
| |
Mohammed Zahid
Mohammed.zahid@newcivilisation.com
29th August 2006
| |
| |
Libya has been ruled by Colonel Gaddafi and his motley crew for 37 years and his tenure has been characterised by brutally of the highest degree. Political parties and dissent are banned, with execution facing whosoever dares to speak out against the oppression and injustice enacted by the Gaddafi regime. Over the last couple of years, there has been a change in Libyan politics, with the ascendancy of Gaddafi’s son, Seif al Islam, this has raised the discussion of political succession in Libya, similar to the process in Syria; with Bashar al Assad inheriting the reigns of power from his father, Hazef al Assad in 2000. Seif al Islam recently made bold comments, in which he admitted corruption and the abuses inflicted by the Libyan regime over the last 37 years. Therefore in some quarters, there is a belief that the succession of Seif al Islam would be a good thing and would lead to an improvement in the social, economic and political landscape of Libya. This belief seems to be rather naïve, and fails to take into consideration the impact of similar succession processes in the Middle East.
In Egypt, Gamal Mubarak, is being groomed to succeed his father, a process which began in 1996. His rise to power has been astonishing, with Gamal effectively running the county and out powering the Prime Minister Dr Ahmad Nazif. Gamal has made promises of economic and political reform but little political reform has been seen to date, which can be seen from the fact that the situation in Egypt has deteriorated excessively since the elections in 2005, despite Gamal being in a position of power and influence. Like wise in Syria, Bashar al Assad, also made such promises of reform leading up to his succession and in its aftermath, he allowed political space, the opening of discussion forums and the freeing of political prisoners. Yet this ‘Damascus Spring’ only lasted a short period of time. Once the Bashar regime had consolidated itself, one saw the rolling back of the limited changes that were introduced. Today in Syria, the situation is no better to that under Hazef al Assad. In fact the level of security personnel in Syrian society has increased as Bashad al Assad is no doubt a weaker leader compared to his father, requiring higher levels of oppression to maintain control over society. In Jordan, the rise of King Abdullah in 1999, the darling of the West, was presented in a positive manner for the future of Jordan, however again this optimism has been short lived. King Abdullah kept parliament suspended till 2003 and during this time introduced over 100 laws, which stifled debate and discussion in society. Professional syndicates have been paralysed and criticism of ‘friendly allies’ has been made an offence. The recent law to prevent the issuing of religious decrees except from the official religious representative is further evidence of the political control, which has come to manifest Jordan.
Taking the above into consideration, there is a process of change in the Middle East. Dictators are getting old and are thinking of how to maintain power in the family. As a result sons are being pushed forward and are being presented in a different light to distinguish them from the corrupt political elite which exists. This is important in order to win public support and confidence. Therefore Seif al Islam is another face in a long line of faces which are appearing on the scene and one is unlikely to see drastic political changes in Libya and the cases of Egypt, Syria and Jordan should be clear examples of how a change in faces has not brought about economic and political change. The underlying factors still seem to go unnoticed such as the corruption in the economic and political elite, the role of external actors in political affairs and the suitability of existing systems to deal with the problems being faced by the populace. This is the real debate and is something that needs to be tackled if real and not cosmetic change is to occur in Libya and the wider Middle East.
| |
|
|
| |
| Terrorism and British Foreign Policy |
|
|
|
| |
25th August 2006
| |
| |
Should the fear of terrorism play a role in the formulation of British foreign policy? A group of Muslim MPs, peers and leaders recently wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister in which they urged the Prime Minister "to change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion. Such a move would make us safer." Politicians and commentators were quick to criticise this letter. Many argued we should not allow British foreign policy to be dictated by the actions of extremists.
Even if you don't agree with British foreign policy, it is hard to fault this argument. Despite the vast amounts of publicity given to the latest potential terrorist plot to blow up airplanes using liquid explosives, the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist in the UK still remains much less than by being run-over by a bus. The actual risk of terrorism is disproportionately small compared to the fear of terrorism created by the
media. Given these very limited risks and the limited impact that terrorism has on British society it makes sense to ignore the actions of a handful of terrorists when formulating British foreign policy.
Nor can Muslim leaders make a convincing argument that British foreign policy is inherently anti-Muslim, given that the NATO invasion of Kosvo arguably saved many thousands of Kosovan Muslims being slaughtered at the hands of Serbian Christians, as the Prime minister has stated on several occasions.
If there is a failure of British politicians in formulating their foreign policy, it is the failure to take account of the very palpable anger that exists throughout the Muslim world against specific US/UK positions on issues such as Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. The results of the Israeli attacks upon Lebanon - the dead bodies of women and children - have been shown in all their gory details on the Arab satellite channels rather than the brief non-offensive reporting used by the Western media. The countless number of images of dead children and women has created a public mood of
hatred against specific US, Israeli and UK government policies in the Muslim world. It is hard for non-Muslims or non-Arabs to get a sense of this hatred but nevertheless it exists.
This anger has been building up as crisis follows crisis in the Muslim world. The Arab and Muslim regimes and governments are perceived by many Muslims as having sided with the US, UK and Israel. If there were democratic or accountable governments in the Muslim world, then arguably this public anger would have by now had a serious impact on the diplomatic and economic relations between Britain and many Muslim countries and would have led to a re-examination of foreign policy in Britain. But since most of the regimes of the Muslim world do not tolerate public meetings or dissent, and always seems to side with the West, there is little sense of this anger at a government level. If any one of the Middle Eastern dictatorships were to fall, and be replaced by a representative government - Islamic or secular - Britain will then find itself paying a major price for the foreign policy it pursues today.
| |
|
|
| |
| US-Iran Strategic Dilemmas |
|
|
|
| |
25th August 2006
| |
| |
The on going saga between the West and Iran, over its nuclear programme has once again surfaced in the wake of the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, with Iran declaring its intention to continue with producing enriched uranium. This has resulted in a mixed response from the international community, China and Russia have called for a diplomatic solution, no real change in their previous positions and the US has called for the UN to take a tougher line against the Iranians again echoing previous hard line positions. In order to stem international pressure, Iran’s nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani has promised ‘serious’ talks with the West over its nuclear programme. However, it remains unclear if the West is willing to negotiate with Iran while its nuclear programme remains active and it is also unclear what the Iranian’s are willing to offer in order to deal with the demands of the international community. However, the recycling of this saga indicates dilemmas being faced by the US and the Iranians, both jostling to attain the best possible outcome to satisfy strategic goals and objectives in the Middle East.
There is no doubt that the power of Iran has increased post 9/11 as a result of drastic foreign policy mistakes by the US. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq has increased the influence of Iran; Chatham House has echoed this view in a new report. The report argues that Iran’s role in the Middle East has increased to such an extent that it now eclipses traditional regional powers such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In addition, with Hezbollah seen as an Iranian proxy, it adds to the political weight of the Iranians in the region. All of these facts have raised alarm bells with the US neoconservative strategists, who realise the need to deal with the strategic dilemmas being posed by the growing weight of Iran. The nuclear stand off provides the US with the prime opportunity to prevent a further potential strengthening of Iran via the acquisition of nuclear weapons and to contain Iran by working with her in order to deal with the deteriorating situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, what we are likely to see is an abandoning of the US hard line policy of not negotiating with Iran; this has been evident through the statements of leading players in the US government. The US realises that its influence in the region is being challenged by Iran and the fact is that US foreign policy, along with its non-engagement stance has added to Iran’s prowess, as a result making it necessary to approach and negotiate with Iran.
On the other hand, Iran also has an interest in speaking with the US, in order to guarantee regime security. The conservative elite in Iran is facing mounting internal economic and social pressures, threatening internal stability and external pressures being imposed are not helping the situation. As a result, the call for serious talks with the West by Larijani can be understood in this context, that of Iran’s willingness to compromise in order to preserve security. In addition, the development of a strategic partnership with the US in the region would be in the interest of Iran, as one saw in the 1960s and 1970s under the Shah. Therefore it is likely that Iran, will suspend its nuclear programme not indefinitely but for a short period of time to test the economic and security promises which are being made to Iran, as outlined in the Vienna programme of incentives which were delivered to Iran by the EU’s foreign policy chief, Javier Salano.
Therefore Iran’s nuclear programme can be viewed as a smokescreen, behind which the US and the Iranians are working to achieve strategic goals, in order to preserve their interests in the region. The failure of both actors to achieve their goals will result in this nuclear saga continuing into the near future, adding to instability which already exists in abundance in the region.
| |
|
|
| |
| The Open Letter on Foreign Policy |
|
|
|
| |
Mohammed Hussein
Mohammed.hussein@newcivilisation.com
21st August 2006
| |
| |
An open letter signed by three Muslim MP’s, three peers and 38 community groups, condemning British foreign policy and stating that this had in effect given “ammunition to extremists”, has managed to provoke a somewhat surprising reaction from both the government and politicians.
The Foreign Office minister Kim Howells criticised the letter describing the comments therein as “facile”. He went on to say that there was no rational connection between British foreign policy and attempted terrorist attacks in the UK. Interestingly, noises have also been made to imply that the letter may have conferred a sense of legitimacy to those bent on violence. In addition to this, commentators have stressed that no government worth its salt can allow its policy decisions to be held hostage by terrorists. After all, if the government’s stance on the Common Agricultural Policy upset farmers in this country, leading to violent protests and the taking of civilian life, should the government be willing to change its policy? Probably not. Therefore, so the argument goes, the same principled stand must apply to all other policies, even those as deeply unpopular as the involvement in Iraq.
Well, not quite. The manner in which Kim Howells et al have attempted to portray this issue and force it into a false context is actually very disingenuous. We need to take a step back and analyse events in the correct framework.
The issue of the letter is in reality about the need to acknowledge the consequences of policy decisions. Acknowledging that certain actions are the results of a particular policy is not the same as accepting these actions as being legitimate. In fact policies should only be altered based on factors, such as the inherent reasoning, objectives and aims – Western governments invariably seek to achieve material and strategic interests and so this is usually the main arbiter in determining policy. Thus, if the authorities believe their decision to be right, regardless of the consequences, then as a matter of principle they should not change. Change would only be required and expected, were the process of reasoning, the logic and the causes of formulating the policy found to be wanting.
So why all the fuss and furore over one letter? It merely expresses a known fact. It certainly is not rocket science to make such an obvious statement as to connect the government’s foreign policy with a sense of frustration and resentment that may potentially fuel and lead to terrorist attacks. Which begs the questions as to why there is an effort on the part of some quarters to turn this into a different and false debate?
Perhaps because, presumably, they realise that the foreign policy is in fact seriously flawed – the basis of the policy, the logic and reasoning – all was, and is, full of shortcomings.
Another reason why the government’s assertions about the letter are wrong is that in this case, one of the stated aims is to prevent precisely the outcome that it is generating (i.e. a decreasing level of security and a greater threat of terrorism). If the government were to enact a policy to prevent violent crime – and one of the outcomes was an increase in violent crime – to decide not to acknowledge that fact and continue on with the same policy on the premise that their actions cannot be held hostage by criminal elements, would be nothing short of sheer folly on the part of the government.
Underlying this whole scenario is the fact that Western policy makers construct their policies using Machiavellian principles of self interest and benefit. History has shown Western powers causing strife the world over due to their pursuance of a colonialist foreign policy. It is these values that underpin such destructive behaviour – which we are still witnessing today vis-à-vis Iraq. Far from implying that the government should allow its foreign escapades to be dictated by terrorists, or lending a sense of legitimacy to those perpetrating violent acts, the letter in fact does a service to us all by at least calling to account those government actions that are proving to be detrimental in so many respects.
Kim Howells’ insistence that those who disagree with their policies should wait every five years and then change the government by using their vote is a sad indictment of a government struggling to defend what little credibility it may have with the British public. Today, bringing democracy and Western values to the Middle East seems to be the hue and cry of Western powers, but they would do well to paper over the cracks appearing at home. Examples, such as reactions to this letter, highlight yet again another reason why it is Western values that must surely be put under the microscope.
| |
|
|
| |
| Hizbollah - terrorists or freedom fighters ? |
|
|
|
| |
Dr Salman Ahmed
26th July 2006
| |
| |
Living in Britain and watching events of the latest Middle East crisis unfold, it is easy to believe that Israel is justified in neutralising Hizbollah and that fundamentalist militant Islamic groups such as Hizbollah and Hamas are preventing the achievement of a real peace between Jews and Arabs.
This type of perception is in complete contrast with the narrative used by most Arabs and Muslims both in Britain and throughout the Islamic world to interpret the same events. The Muslim narrative characterises Israel as a terrorist state: a state that forcibly occupied Muslim lands; that for decades has been routinely killing and oppressing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank; when fighting makes no distinction between civilians and militants and that has demonstrated no interest in giving the Palestinians a real meaningful state.Even the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is seen to have created nothing more than the world’s largest prison in which prisoners can be assassinated at will by the Israel army.
In contrast, many Muslims and Arabs have a favourable view of Hizbollah. The only group who can claim to have defeated the Israeli army and led it to withdraw from their occupation of Lebanon. The killing and capture of Israel soldiers that Israel claims was the trigger for the latest crisis, is seen by many as completely justified in order to use the captured soldiers as exchange for some of the many hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli administrative detention. And given the scale and severity of Israeli attacks on Lebanon’s cities, villages and infrastructure, many will also support Hizbollah’s firing of rockets into Israeli cities as a justified form of retaliation.
Whilst many in the West may question why Hizbollah needs to arm itself and operate independently of the Lebanese army, in the contrasting Muslim narrative, the latest Israel military action will fully justify in the minds of many Arabs the need for an armed independent force such as Hizbollah that is capable and willing to stand up to the Israel army; the argument that many Western inclined Lebanese politicians made was that Hizbollah should disarm because Western nations would help to protect Lebanon. A notion which is now seen to be completely flawed. Many will see Hizbollah as a group who can and do stand up to the Israel military, whilst the remaining Arab rulers look on and make excuses to their people that they are not strong enough to militarily challenge Israel.
If Western nations fail to recognise in their policies that there is a completely different narrative operating amongst Muslim peoples, then they are laying the ground for future conflicts in the Middle East, and the next generation of Jihadi groups. By not calling for an immediate ceasefire, and allowing Israel to systematically neutralise Hizbollah, many Muslims will come to the view that Western nations value Muslim and Arab lives less than Jewish or Western lives, that killing civilians is acceptable, provided they are Arab.
If anything the latest crisis in the Middle East will accelerate the trend that has been taking place amongst the Arab and Muslim peoples over the last few decades that is to support Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah. The reason cited is that they do not carry the legacy of failure and corruption that characterises the existing Muslim rulers and are prepared to challenge the existing order of the Middle East.
| |
|
|
| |
| Standing together - against Hizbullah |
|
|
|
| |
25th July 2006
| |
| |
The current crisis in Lebanon is something of a watershed moment for the Arab regimes and their relationship with their publics. The statements of a number of these regimes have reflected what many in the region have suspected for many years: namely, when it comes to the crunch, these rulers are more interested in protecting Israel and the US from the Arabs and Muslims rather than protecting Arabs from Israel and the US.
The Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian governments were vocal in their criticism of Hizbullah in the first few days of the crisis, characterising the capture of the Israeli soldiers as reckless. They made such statements even as Israeli jets were striking Lebanon’s infrastructure, killing and wounding its civilians. The Arab world has become accustomed to inaction from the Arab regimes during times of crisis. People also expect announcements of emergency summits, or meetings of foreign ministers which end (if they actually take place at all) with mere slogans and no concrete actions. In this case however, the regimes are not just being blamed for their usual apathy. More than that, they seem to have given Israel valuable political cover to continue its indiscriminate campaign against Lebanon, since the whole crisis in their eyes is all the fault of Hizbullah.
For these regimes, it is very dangerous to play this game. Undoubtedly, they will have earned brownie points from the Bush administration for being even more subdued in their criticism of Israel than Jacques Chirac. In the “international” (Western) community, it is usual to criticise armed militias, as they operate beyond the acceptable boundaries of political life. In this light, the stance of the regimes mentioned could be seen as responsible and statesmanlike.
However one of the reasons that the armed groups of Palestine and Lebanon command so much respect in the “Arab street” is that they persist in defying the Israeli behemoth, regardless of the obvious material advantage enjoyed by the latter. The regimes, and their pliant media, respond by saying that when such a disparity exists, pragmatism calls for a measured approach. For the millions who watch frustrated as civilians are killed on the streets of Beirut, Tyre, Sidon and Gaza, the reason for this disparity is the parasitical regimes. Instead of building strong advanced economies that could be the basis for truly independent policies, these regimes have squandered billions, and in some cases trillions on their own interests.
Many commentators claim that the audacious stance that these regimes have taken is part of a backroom deal with Washington: lay off the democracy promotion and we’ll be more publicly supportive of your policies. According to this line of reasoning, these ruling factions will stave off the threat to their seats posed by Washington’s talk of democracy through acts of obeisance. The problem with this logic is that in order to get more support from Washington, the regimes will have to pursue more of the antics that infuriate their people.
No doubt, the regimes will have to yield, one day, to the demands of the millions. The only question is, how soon will that day come? Evidently, these regimes have relied for decades on external support for survival, and they calculate that as long as they sustain that support, their thrones are safe. However, in these days when hostility to the West and America in particular is at an all-time high, such support will not be enough. There are many ways to cope with adversity; drawing attention to your complete impotence in the face of your greatest regional adversary is not one of them.
| |
|
|
| |
| The case for action against Iran |
|
|
|
| |
10th April 2006
| |
| |
The referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month, and the accompanying rhetoric from Tehran and Washington, has increased international concern over the likelihood of another military conflict in the Middle East.
Following the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there is now much greater public scepticism about the claims of Western governments and the capabilities of western intelligence services. At the same time however, there is real concern about the prospect of the Iranian regime, in a volatile region, acquiring nuclear capabilities.
The speakers will address the official stances of the U.S. and Iranian governments, as well as addressing some of the following key questions:
- What is the likelihood that the Iranian nuclear programme is genuinely a
peaceful one, and if a covert military programme exists, how far away is Iran from producing deployable weapons?
- Assuming that Iran were able to successfully develop nuclear weapons, what are
the possible global and regional ramifications? Could the world possibly live with a
nuclear Iran?
- As the official nuclear powers retain their existing arsenals and develop new systems (U.S. development of tactical nuclear weapons, British renewal of Trident), does this contribute to the determination of non-nuclear weapons states to develop their own capabilities?
- What if any type of action should be taken against Iran, should military options be taken off the table?
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
30th March 2006
| |
| |
As Iranians celebrate their New Year (Norouz), political analysts and commentators are in frenzy over the forthcoming talks between Washington and Tehran over Iraq. The talks come at a critical time for the US and Iran. Bush’s popularity rating is low domestically and Iran continues to face international pressure over its nuclear programme. Both sides have stated that they were invited by Iraqi officials to meet in order to provide a solution to the chaotic situation in Iraq; although it is likely that US officials had a part to play in prodding Iraqi officials to make contact with their old adversary. Importantly, both sides also made it clear that no topic would be on the agenda apart from Iraq. As a result a number of questions arise: is this possible? What is the expected outcome of the talks? And what is the reaction of the Arab countries to the talks?
When both sides decide to meet, it is expected that the US will ask the Iranians to do as much as possible to calm the situation in Iraq. In return it is expected that the Iranians will ask for something in return for their co-operation. From previous experience of politics in the Middle East there is a policy of give and take when discussions take place between states; for example the stop-start Israeli-Palestinian peace process has been characterised by demands from both parties. It is likely that Iran will table demands in return for any effort to improve the security situation in Iraq hence it is likely that the controversial nuclear issue will be brought to the table as a key issue in the talks. As the US leads the tough front against the Iranian nuclear programme, Iran will try to achieve a change in US policy towards its nuclear programme.
Iran and the US will use the talks for domestic objectives as well. For example, in Iran the new conservatives led by Ahmadnejad will use the talks to argue that they have given the US the opportunity to change its attitude and behaviour towards Iran and if however, the talks fail, this will provide the justification for the continuation of firebrand politics in Iran. The US will use the talks to improve its image domestically and in the rest of the world by presenting itself as trying to solve the desperate situation in Iraq by talking to a country where no diplomatic relations have existed for over 26 years. However, if the talks fail it will add more weight behind voices in the US administration calling for military action against Iran’s nuclear programme.
In the Middle East there is already concern between Arab governments as they think that the talks will give Iran more power and credibility in the region over the Arab governments themselves; which are already facing a crisis of legitimacy domestically and regionally. In addition the fragile Iraqi government is not happy with the upcoming talks; which they think will question the legitimacy of the already weak Iraqi government.
There is no doubt, the talks will definitely break the ice between the two sides; depending upon the negotiators selected, authority given to them and the agenda put on the table. There are 3 possibilities that emerge from the talks
1) There is agreement upon the issue that Iran has an important role in calming the situation in Iraq and in return the US accepts to discuss the nuclear issue as part of this agenda.
2) The failure of the talks, due to a US refusal to discuss the nuclear issue and in return Iran refuses to play any role in the security dimension in Iraq.
3) No agreement or failure- but the talks act as a stepping stone to further talks in the future between the US and Iran. But which possibility materialises out of the three is a guessing game at the moment and we will have to wait and see what the outcome is.
| |
|
|
| |
| S occupation of Iraq - A bigger debacle than Vietnam |
|
|
|
| |
Sajjad Khan
26th March 2006
| |
| |
It is always interesting to listen to pro war commentators on the subject of Iraq; they sound so sure of themselves. Frequently using favourable comparisons to Saddam Hussein’s rule (as if he was somehow an appropriate benchmark), or claiming that they speak for the Iraqi people, they constantly tell us that Iraq is going well and that the US led occupation has popular acceptance. They often cite favourable first hand meetings with Iraqis, arguing that when one looks at the bigger picture important progress is being made such as elections and the new constitution. The problem with the politicians and the few commentators who continue to support the war is that when they go to Iraq they don’t venture beyond the green zone, the Kurdish areas or military compounds. Ascertaining the pulse of the Iraqi people from these areas is like doing a poll on George Bush’s popularity in the Whitehouse living room.
A more reliable indicator is a poll conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org in January 2006 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. It broadly concludes that nearly thee years on from the invasion of Iraq; the US led force continues to lose the battle for hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. The poll finds that a large majority of Iraqis think the US plans to maintain bases in Iraq permanently, even if the newly elected government asks the US to leave. In a devastating indictment of Coalition policies, nearly half of all Iraqis approve of attacks on US-led forces—including nine out of ten Sunnis. Most Iraqis believe that many aspects of their lives will improve once the US-led forces leave with sixty-seven percent saying that “day to day security for ordinary Iraqis” would improve. Contrary to the propaganda coming from Washington and London, there is a fair amount of consensus that if US-led troops withdraw, there would be a substantial improvement in the performance of the Iraqi state. Overall; 73% think there will be an increase in the willingness of factions to cooperate in Parliament; Sixty-seven percent assume there will be an increase in the availability of public services such as electricity, schools and sanitation; and sixty-four percent assume crime will go down
This poll corroborates the clear trend over recent months in the Islamic world. The success of Islamic parties in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq itself is a growing indication of people’s rejection of liberal secular models and the West’s interference in the Muslim world. The failure in Iraq therefore is a major body blow to Western attempts to transform the paradigm in the Muslim world, an objective cited constantly by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. However following an illegal invasion; the callous attitude towards civilian casualties, the X rated horrors at Abu Ghraib, the loss of billions of dollars in corruption, and a chronic failure to address the security, energy and economic needs of the Iraqi people, is it any surprise that the opinion polls are so bad. However, it should come as no surprise that the Iraq project has gone so badly due to the narcissistic nature of Western foreign policy. The war in Iraq was always justified as being good for the West’s security (better to fight our enemies ‘over there than over here‘ ). This may have given some superficial comfort to the citizens of Washington and New York, but those in Baghdad and Fallujah (as well as the tens of thousands of American soldiers who have died or been injured) have paid the price, as major Iraqi cities become battle zones. This colonial mentality towards the systematic exploitation of another nation’s land, infrastructure and civilian lives, coupled with an oil-centric foreign policy explains the failure to provide effective governance to Iraq. Rather than Iraq being a beacon for Western liberalism it has become a recruiting sergeant for greater Islamic governance in the region.
Not only was the war in Iraq botched, it has as was predicted, increased insecurity for the whole world, in that sense alone it is worse than the Vietnam debacle. This is because both America and Britain have failed to diagnose the real lesson of 9-11, it was not about terrorism per se, or its nexus with WMD (these are mere symptoms) but it was about the huge reservoir of Muslim alienation. After the debacle of Iraq and the incompetent and coercive way the War on Terror has been prosecuted, this alienation with the West has grown to unprecedented levels, indeed it now only takes a small spark for things to boil over. If you feel I am exaggerating, just ask the Editor of Jyllands-Posten or the head of the British Council in Gaza.
| |
|
|
| |
| Rape needs a Social Remedy |
|
|
|
| |
26th March 2006
| |
| |
This week the British Home Office has launched a campaign to remind men of the importance of obtaining the active consent of women before having sex. The campaign, costing £500,000 has been launched to get the message across concerning recent changes in the laws on consent. The changes are meant to emphasise that, if a man hasn’t received a clear sign of consent from the woman he is with – whether his wife, long-term partner or someone he met for the first time – he could be treated as a perpetrator of rape, were the case ever to reach court.
This change in the workings of consent has taken place because of the low conviction rates in England and Wales in cases of rape. It is estimated that around 50000 rapes take place each year of which only 600 result in conviction for the assailant. While the number of cases being reported is increasing, the likelihood of conviction is not changing. Part of the problem is that in half of these reported cases of rape, drink is a significant factor. In close to one third of cases, both the suspect and the victim claim that they were drunk at the time of the alleged offence. When juries are faced with accounts of events that include the confusion of inebriation, they tend to acquit because of the doubt involved. Undoubtedly this leads to guilty men walking free from court after carrying out serious attacks.
In all likelihood however, outcome of cases will not be changed substantially by the government directives. Already in November 2005 a case was abandoned after the victim admitted under cross-examination that she couldn’t remember whether she had expressed a refusal to have sex, or indeed whether she had consented. The judge then directed the jury to acquit and the prosecution withdrew the case at that point. The judge argued that since the woman was unsure herself if she had not consented, the jury could not possibly make a conclusion. The case is under government review, but if other judges use similar reasoning, the government campaign will have little impact. The reality of rape cases is that juries are effectively asked to consider one person’s word against that of another, and whenever there is doubt, they will acquit. Others however are nervous that if this new approach gains ground, it could by used by women as a method of revenge. If a woman regrets sleeping with a particular man, or wants to get back at a former partner, she will just have to claim that he didn’t confirm that she had consented. Thus it is claimed that this change will switch the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence.
The real difficulty, which is behind the problem of rape, is that the attitudes towards relationships and sex in society encourage men – and women – to be single-minded in their pursuit of sex. As well as flirtation and persuasion, men can also add intimidation, coercion and violence. Police have noted that while ‘stranger rape’ has decreased substantially over the years, ‘acquaintance rape’ is on the increase. As forensic techniques have improved considerably over the years, men who violently attack strangers can expect a higher chance of getting caught, and getting convicted afterwards. So many of them have switched tactics. They arrange dates with women, ensure they are seen in public engaging in amorous behaviour, make sure the woman is drunk or otherwise intoxicated, and carry out their attacks behind closed doors. Such men are repeatedly involved in cases, but repeatedly acquitted because their history is not disclosed to the jury during the trial. This was a change that the government was also interested in, but was not able to bring into effect.
The problem that should be addressed is a cultural issue rather than one of courtroom procedures. Fundamentally, as long as the highest ambition in people’s lives is to obtain the maximum level of material pleasure, there will be people who will be driven to reach this at the expense of others. In the sexual realm, as long as men aim to be as promiscuous as possible, and expect women to always be available, they will use whatever means possible to achieve their aims .Now that women are encouraged to be as promiscuous as men, these men feel entitlement to use women for their pleasure. Threats from government that can’t be backed up are not likely to deter men from carrying out these attacks. The only thing that will seriously affect this state of affairs is a change of values in the wider society.
| |
|
|
| |
| Reflections on Bush Visit highlights Pakistan’s Inferiority Complex |
|
|
|
| |
20th March 2006
| |
| |
The US President’s recent visit to Pakistan has attracted considerable; attention, criticism and debate, generating significant column inches in newspapers and passionate views on both sides. Most critics have cited the significant difference in his visits of India and Pakistan with the former getting a nuclear deal and the latter an empty palm. Yet this is to be expected, India is an important strategic ally fulfilling the role of a junior partner to America’s more senior status. The relationship with Pakistan is not strategic at all but merely tactical as a result of the War on Terror, in that sense it is the same relationship as one has with a piece of chewing gum.
The problem with most Pakistani commentators and politicians is that they don’t fully understand this and so remain stuck in the 5 I’s syndrome. The 5 I’s are the prism by which most Pakistanis look at their country; India, Incompetence, Insecurity, Indebtedness and Inferiority. You know the drill, whenever the Musharraf regime is criticised about anything, whether it is it’s subservient relationship with the United States, its failure to diversify away from a cotton based economy or its inability to remove corruption from politics, it and its supporters invoke the 5 I’s. Let me explain, in response to criticism of Pakistan’s over dependence on the US, the reply that comes back is that strong relations with America are essential because if we don’t India will benefit at our expense, thus the Indian blind spot constitutes the 1st I. The 2nd I is invoked whenever there is criticism of policy; don’t worry the previous regimes were incompetent and corrupt, we are running the economy and foreign policy far more effectively and professionally now. The third I is also constantly paraded, the one of insecurity; we have to support America, we have to kill people in Waziristan, we have to permit American bases because Pakistan is in an insecure state. The fourth I builds on insecurity by ubiquitously articulating a state of indebtedness; we are $35 billion in debt, we are a poor country, we have no natural resources, we are much smaller than India and if Europe can’t stand up to Bush, why are you expecting us to. All these 4 I’s are a subset of the main I, the mother of all the I‘s, that of inferiority. Inferiority is the disease of the Pakistani body politic; it is enmeshed in every idea they come up with, every word they utter, every paragraph they write and every policy they formulate. Every post independence leader from Liaquat Ali Khan to Pervez Musharraf has had an inferiority complex and given the impression of being a leader in office but not in power. No surprise then, that the country fails to even punch at its own weight forget about punching above it.
Countries like Singapore and South Korea are much smaller in size and population than Pakistan and have been equally ravaged by horrendous wars and conflicts. Yet despite this, these nations are technologically streets ahead of Pakistan notwithstanding the huge inequalities of neo-liberal economic policies. Even Cuba boycotted by the US since 1961 has a higher GDP per capita. The constant blaming of America, the army, corrupt politicians or India’s RAW for every conceivable failing are fast becoming torpid excuses. Pakistan like most Muslim countries does not lack resources or empty slogans like enlightened moderation they lacks leadership, vision and political will. There is a clear alternative to the current policy of servitude to America, but it requires courage and sacrifice. Pakistan should seek a stronger economic realignment with the Muslim world, together the Islamic world controls most of the energy, key waterways, a quarter of the world’s population, enjoys a strong military as well as having huge financial clout. As Ann Berg a former Director of the Chicago Board of Trade recently wrote ‘Imagine the power of an Islamic financial supermarket, rivalling the sophistication of the U.S. market (itself only 30 years old), to channel dollar holdings into dinars for a billion-plus people! The embrace of a pan-Islamic, gold-backed system would create an unparalleled financial upheaval.’ A more unified Islamic bloc may be a dream to some but it is increasingly a nightmare to those sitting in London and Washington. As the War on Terror and global inequality have repeatedly demonstrated; western foreign policy, global capitalism and liberal values simply aren’t up to the task. The Muslim world must summon new powerful solutions to address the unprecedented challenges mankind faces today, but to do this they must rid themselves first of the yoke of inferiority.
| |
|
|
| |
| Iran- Air Strikes, Sanctions or War? |
|
|
|
| |
20th March 2006
| |
| |
The referral of Iran to the Security Council last week raised the bar in the ensuing nuclear crisis with the West. The pressure on Iran is to intensify with a plan of action to be presented by the Security Council next week. The eagerly awaited plan by the Security Council is likely to force Iran to implement a series of actions dictated by the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. The failure of Iran to adhere to the actions dictated by the IAEA will most likely lead to ‘serious consequences’. Therefore the question of importance is what are these ‘serious consequences’, which Iran would inevitably face in the near future; well a number of possible scenarios spring to mind:
- Air Strikes- This has been much touted amongst US policy makers but poses many difficulties if decided upon. Firstly, a number of Iranian Nuclear facilities remain unknown to the Security Council and many are underground. Secondly, those that are known are located near a large populace, therefore any air strike would result in the death of many Iranians. This would heighten anti Western sentiments in Iran (especially anti American sentiments) and put a dent in Western plans to win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people; a fact stressed by Condoleezza Rice in her latest journey to the Middle East. The possibility of air strikes via the use of Israel or pre-emptive action by Israel would be catastrophic for both the West and Israel in terms of security and stability in the Middle East
- Sanctions- This action seems to be the most likely but again there are various disagreements in the Security Council. The US, UK and France seem to agree upon the imposition of sanctions but China and Russia do not . This disagreement is dictated by national interests- with China and Russia both having significant economic interests within Iran. This can be seen via Russia’s arduous attempts to diffuse the nuclear crisis. In addition China is a net importer of oil to fuel its growing economy and its multi billion dollar oil agreement with Iran will surely determine Chinese opposition to any sanctions on Iran. In addition the consequences of sanctions are daunting for the price of oil with the price of a barrel of oil expected to rise to $100 if oil from Iran is cut off; which would lead to excessive hikes in domestic fuel prices in the West. Politically this would be suicidal for Western governments.
- War- This seems the most unlikely action and a far off reality. However would the US engage in war without a UN mandate like it did in Iraq? The answer would be most certainly no- the US is over stretched in Iraq, with the situation continuously deteriorating. In addition the situation in Afghanistan is far from stable and pressure is increasing on the Bush administration to re-build New Orleans in the aftermath of the destruction caused by hurricane Katrina. War in Iran would be suicidal for the US in terms of the wider Middle East; endangering national interests and reinforcing its image of being a bully.
It seems that any action on Iran is going to pose various dilemmas to the West and any wrong action would ultimately be devastating for its interests in the region. Whatever actions is decided upon, the ensuing outcome is going to be instability; which would add to the instability that is already present within the Middle East.
Further instability is going to be devastating for the people of the region that have continued to suffer for decades under dictatorship and intrusive Western foreign policy. Therefore an important question to present is what can bring order and stability to this devastated part of the world? Clearly the existing order has failed ; the region requires a new political framework; which is being expressed by the people via the ballot. Islamic politics is on the rise and the hope is with Political Islam in restoring stability. This is the real debate; can Political Islam ensure stability; clearly the public opinion in the Middle East indicates it can.
| |
|
|
| |
| Extradition of the NatWest Three |
|
|
|
| |
12th March 2006
| |
| |
Gary Mulgrew, Giles Darby and David Bermingham; three businessmen who have never been pursued by UK authorities, are to be extradited to the United States as a result of an alleged fraud marginally related to the collapse of US energy giant Enron. Incredibly, while the US authorities accuse them of colluding with Enron executives to defraud NatWest, the British company has backed the trio and is satisfied that they have done nothing wrong. Due to new extradition arrangements made between the US and the UK in 2003, even though the alleged crime took place in the UK, and no charges have been pressed here, the process for US prosecutors has been eased considerably.
The new arrangements that the UK government accepted were intended to ease the process of extradition, in view of the need to pursue cases against terror suspects. As part of the treaty, the UK accepted its citizens could be arrested on the US grounds of ‘probable cause’, an easier standard to meet than the UK ‘prima facie’ requirement. By definition therefore, the British authorities have accepted that its citizens can face trial abroad after the presentation of evidence insufficient for charges here.
To add insult to injustice, Congress has refused to ratify the treaty from the US side. So while the UK has taken these steps, which could have a devastating effect on the British citizens in American crosshairs, British authorities have had no response to requests regarding Americans suspected of offences. This has particularly created problems with cases of alleged sex offenders who UK authorities want to pursue for involvement in child pornography.
These one-sided arrangements are just another example of the extraordinary reach of the security measures, which have been established post-9/11. As with other legislation enacted thus far, many of the victims of such measures have been people with no connection to terrorism in any shape or form. As the British government takes steps which will criminalise legitimate dissent in the name of fighting terror, these particular measures open people to the risk of being split from their families for actions which break no laws in their own country.
At the same time, this case also highlights the hollowness of the US-UK special relationship, which the Blair government has been so keen to emphasise. While the US Congress refuses to ratify the extradition treaty, it has seen fit to accept agreements with the Marshall Islands, Peru and Micronesia. The main reason for this reluctance is that Congressmen, who need the Irish-American vote to secure their seats, want to protect IRA activists based in the US who have had direct and indirect links to murders in the UK. This is despite the numerous steps taken by the Blair government, which ensure that such people will never face trial as part of the Northern Ireland peace process.
It is an incredible paradox. On one side, innocent citizens are exposed to risk of arrest for non-crimes. On the other, elected politicians act to ensure that people with known links to acts of terror remain at liberty.
Perhaps the best explanation is an outbreak of ‘liberties fatigue’. We hear so frequently about the sacred status of liberty in the West, but in reality it seems the majority of people are quite willing to sacrifice these rights if it makes them feel safe. As Napoleon - a leader who knew a thing or two about tough security measures – said, "a man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights." As Blair and Bush like to remind us, after 9/11, everything changed.
| |
|
|
| |
| Post Cartoons: The Vision for Muslims in the West |
|
|
|
| |
12th March 2006
| |
| |
“Two years ago, less than two weeks after the tragedy of September 11th, I gave a speech in Minnesota in which I said it didn't take much to imagine that kind of world because we have seen that world before. All it takes is for us to think back to another time, to a civilization that was once considered the greatest in the world. It was a civilization that was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins. One of its languages became the universal language of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its writers created thousands of stories. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things. When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, as I said to the audience that day in Minnesota, the civilization I'm talking about of course, was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent - rulers who challenged our notions of self and truth; who contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership; whose leadership led to 800 years of invention and prosperity." (Carly Fiorina former CEO Hewlett Packard)
Following the unprecedented uproar surrounding the Danish cartoon saga, there is a huge debate being aroused as to the future footprint of Muslims in Europe. Muslims living in the west are at the epicentre of a great and global challenge unmatched within living memory. Since 9/11 the spotlight has been focused on every minute detail and aspect of our lives. We have been subjugated to the most intense and intrusive scrutiny ever imaginable. Out of these extraordinary circumstances there have arisen within us, a multitude of voices and calls distinct in nature. Some have called in response for the doctrine of hate while others have exercised the doctrine of apology. Yet both these reactions have somehow missed the mark. If success post 9/11 is measured by our ability to have won a deeper understanding of Islam in western society then we have to be honest and state that we have failed the test spectacularly, despite our abundance of resources and capabilities.
However it is precisely for this reason, that with humility and a strong belief in our creator that we are now in need of strong characters and firm hearts. Here at New Civilisation magazine we try to do our bit; productively engaging with the host society on a range of contemporary topics in an articulate manner so that they begin to appreciate and see the true heritage and depth of Islam. Our culture, heritage and history are rich with examples of where Islam made a fundamental difference to the societies it came to and this should be an inspiration for us all. We are all I think familiar with Cordoba the capital of Muslim Spain, which became the centre for all light and learning for the whole of Europe. Scholars and students from various parts of the world and Europe came to Cordoba to study. The contrast in intellectual activity is demonstrated best by one example: In the ninth century, the library of the monastery of St. Gall was the largest in Europe. It boasted 36 volumes. At the same time, that of Cordoba contained over 500,000!. In the field of mathematics where the number Zero and the decimal system were introduced to Europe; the trigonometric work by Alkirmani of Toledo which was translated into Latin; in medicine where every major city of the Caliphate had a hospital, the one at Cairo having over 8000 beds, with separate wards for fevers, ophthalmic, dysentery and surgical cases. As Carly Fiorina says Muslims made a difference. However in addition to the divine obligation of explaining our beliefs with wisdom, we should also be reminded that people in the host society need our help not just our condemnation. We do not live isolated lives from the society around us; our communities, our businesses and our families are directly shaped by the prevailing thoughts and values within society. Reacting with hate or violence, isolating ourselves or engaging in permanent compromises are strategies which are doomed to fail.
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
05th March 2006
| |
| |
Condeleeza Rice last year cancelled a visit to Egypt due to the ill treatment of Ayman Nour; the Egyptian liberal activist. Ayman Nour had been detained by the Egyptian regime on what were classed as criminal charges (in reality political motivation was more of a reason than any form of criminality). The cancellation of the trip was seen as a principled stance on behalf of the US government. The US administration also threatened to cut economic aid to Egypt unless Ayman Nour was released from detention. Diplomatic relations between the two countries turned cold as the US turned up the heat on its favourite ally. A rumble in the jungle was brewing between the two states but this past sparring between the two friends was forgotten last week as Rice visited Egypt in her whirlwind diplomatic mission to the Middle East. The question therefore arises: is Egypt more open and tolerant now than it was last year? Has the autocratic state finally come to an end? Well, one can wish, dream and ponder. Recent events indicate a strengthening of autocracy rather than a withering of state power; this fact seems to have eluded Rice on this particular visit.
Following on from the appalling conduct of presidential and parliamentary elections last year; the Egyptian government jailed Ayman Nour for 5 years and cancelled Municipal elections for a period of two years. The dispute has continued between the state and the judiciary over judicial reform. Security brutality is evident once again as the Kifya(enough) movement took to the streets and the harassment of Muslim Brotherhood activists continues on a daily basis. Cleary the situation today in Egypt is much worse compared to last year when Rice cancelled her visit. However all of the above seems to have escaped the Secretary of State’s mind; a bout of amnesia I believe. So where is the stance of principle she showed last year?
The US is unlikely to make an exertive effort to push for democracy again in Egypt as the strength of the Islamic current in society grows and the grooming process of Gamal Mubarak continues at a fast pace to prepare him for inevitable succession from his father at the next presidential elections in 2011. The US objectives seem to be very clear in the context of Egypt; to prevent further gains by the Islamists and to ensure the smooth transfer of power. These twin goals of halting the growth of political Islam and stability are likely to shape US strategy in the coming years in the Middle East as political Islam gains further ascendancy in the Arab street and ageing dictators come to a natural end of their prolonged existence.
| |
|
|
| |
| Ports, UAE and The Addiction to Foreign Dependence |
|
|
|
| |
23rd February 2006
| |
| |
Of course there is a double standard; of course there are inconsistencies; of course there is hypocrisy. This is a War on Terror guys not a boy scouts field trip to plant trees. People seem perplexed as to why so many senior US politicians would want to block the operating of six seaports by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates government. Why the incredulity and noise, ports are on the front line of a nations security, they are as important as the operating of tanks, missiles or Special Forces and even Rumsfeld (who has overseen a huge growth in private military contractors) wouldnt outsource the management of these to a foreign government. By definition foreign governments will have their own national interests often incompatible with those held by the host country. Operating ports is not like running a doll factory; they lie at the heart of a countrys internal security apparatus.
Some may be surprised at my argument; many will rightly point to the ports issue being another example that the War on Terror is a War on Islam or more accurately a War on Islams political re-emergence. Following on from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the incarceration of Muslims in Guantanomo, the sick torture of Muslims at Abu Ghraib, the failure to accept Hamass election victory; the blocking of a company on the basis of an Islamic bias seems to fit a consistent pattern and is indeed another own goal in the battle of ideas. I broadly agree with this contention, if foreign ownership of US ports was the issue, why did Congress not raise a stink when a British company previously owned the ports. Or why no criticism of the fact that other US ports are managed by companies from Denmark, Singapore and Japan and even more surprisingly: that foreigners own almost 30% of US port terminals (welcome to globalisation). I know members of Congress find it difficult these days to find the time to even read the legislation they are passing, (some of them too preoccupied enjoying lobbyist paid golfing trips) but you would have thought, even they could have found out who owns valuable parts of the countrys infrastructure.
No my main point is that key pillars of a countrys security infrastructure and defence should not be controlled or managed by foreign governments. Of course this concept cuts both ways. This is why the UAE government should not be providing their seaports for the extensive use by US aircraft carriers or allowing the US air force perennial use of their world-class air-to-air training facility. This is why the Bahraini government should not be permanently hosting the US Navys fifth fleet but building their own. This is why the Iraqi and Afghan governments need to be calling for the removal of foreign forces from its borders and commence responsibility for its own security. This is why the Pakistanis should remove FBI offices from its cities and come clean on Americas role in the command and control regime of her nuclear program. This is why Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait should be closing down their US operated bases and investing in their own infrastructure.
A key factor in the Muslim worlds decline is that its autocratic leaders have outsourced not just their defence capability, but their energy production, scientific development and foreign policy to western states and corporations. How many new inventions, scientific innovations and industrial capabilities emanate from the Muslim world, not many I can tell you, a crime in the context of oil at $60 a barrel. Americans are now waking up to the fact that an over reliance on foreign entities whether it relates to oil, port operations or Chinese acquisitions of US energy companies threatens national security. The Muslim world needs to realise the same and stop its own addiction to foreign dependence. The Muslim world has more to offer than just being Americas airfield and the worlds gas station.
| |
|
|
| |
| America and political Islam |
|
|
|
| |
Abid Mustafa
18th February 2006
| |
| |
Hamas’s win has once again propelled political Islam to the centre of America’s war on terror. However, Hamas’s victory is not the first for Islamists. Throughout much of the Middle East, Islamists have made unprecedented gains via the ballot box and marginalized their opponents—the modernists whose raison d'etre is to secularise Islam.
Amidst this background, fundamental questions are now being asked about the effectiveness of Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world. While the US media debates the merits of Arab democracy and the success of the Islamists in Palestine, Egypt, Iraq and other countries, a fierce debate goes unreported within America’s foreign policy establishment about America’s relationship with political Islam.
The divergent views are not over the nuances of Bush’s democracy agenda but are more about America’s reliance on Islamists as the principal partner for transforming the Muslim world into an oasis of democracy and liberal values.
Oddly enough, it is amongst the neoconservative movement that these conflicting views are the sharpest. On October 24 2005, neoconservatives Daniel Pipes director of the Middle East Form and Ruel Marc Gerecht a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute went head to head in a debate entitled “Should the United States Support Islamists?” Gerecht a strong proponent of using political Islam to buttress US interests in the Muslim world argued: “the United States must support the participation of Islamists in democratic elections. Since the authoritarian regimes currently in power will not permit the development of democratic institutions, open elections should be the first step in the reform process. Islamist political parties must be included in these elections due to their significant popular support because a ban on their participation would discredit the electoral process—robbing it of legitimacy.” He also recognized that as the Middle East becomes more democratic, it will be more anti-American and anti-Zionist; however, there is little the United States will be able to do about this trend. Gerecht did not view support for moderates as a viable option, due to their lack of popularity.
Pipes on his part argued: “facilitating the immediate political participation of Islamists is tantamount to helping the enemy. He cited four distinct characteristics of Islamist movements that render them anathema to a democratic society: devotion to Sharia, rejection of Western influence, totalitarian ideology, and a drive to power.” Pipes held that both violent and non-violent Islamists share these characteristics as part of the same movement striving towards radical change. Pipes concluded that it is preferable to have in power today’s dictators rather than tomorrow’s Islamists. He preferred a twenty-year goal, which would allow the U.S. to focus its efforts on a long-term democratic transformation. He was dismayed at the scheduling of the Iraqi elections only twenty-two months after the fall of Saddam Hussein, saying that the appropriate interval would have been more like twenty-two years.
Such opposing views are not new to American foreign policy makers; rather they are a product of a long standing effort to formulate a coherent policy towards the Islamic world. At present there a two schools of thought that dominate American thinking on this subject. The first, led by Professor Barnard Lewis and his disciples such as Samuel Huntington and the arch neoconservative Richard Perle maintain that political Islam by definition is anti-democratic and anti-Western. Co-existence with Islam is not possible unless there is a major revision of Islamic texts such as the Quran—otherwise the clash of civilisations is inevitable. Lewis asserted his clash of civilisation theory as early as 1964 when he wrote in his book the ‘Middle East and the West’: “We [must] view the present discontents of the Middle East not as a conflict between states and nations, but as a clash of civilisations.” Furthermore, the confrontationalists advocate that America can never trust Islamists and must do more to assist modernists to take power in the Muslim countries.
The other school of thought led by Professor John Esposito espouses that the West has nothing to fear from political Islam and those Islamists who eschew violence can be accommodated. These accommodationists insist that through the inclusion of Islamists in government, Muslims will quickly lose confidence in their ability to rule by Islam and will naturally turn to secular values to solve their problems. Thus America will be able to cultivate a healthy relationship with the Islamic world.
Despite their apparent differences, both confrontationalists and the accommodationists recognise that America’s continued support for dictatorships in the Muslim world breeds anti-western sentiments and is an incubator of Islamic radicalism. After September 11 2001, both concur that America must promote democracy to counter the rise of political Islam.
For decades these two factions have competed for influence amongst policy makers and US government officials. For the most part, successive US governments adopted a pragmatic approach and used political Islam to bolster US client states and support the jihad against the Communists. But the demise of the Soviet Union ushered in a period where US officials began to search for a new enemy to replace communism and many ended up subscribing to the two dominant views on political Islam.
It was not until 1992 that a serious effort was undertaken by Edward Djerejian; the then US assistant secretary of state for Near-Eastern affairs to sift through the arguments put forward by both factions and come up with a policy on political Islam. The accommodationists prevailed and some of their views were expressed by Djerejian who delivered a speech entitled "The US, Islam, and the Middle East in a Changing World." In the speech he said, “The US government does not view Islam as the new ‘ism’ confronting the West or threatening world peace. The cold war is not being replaced with a new competition between Islam and the West. The crusades have been over for a long time”
Nevertheless the speech failed to provide a coherent framework on how to combat political Islam. The Clinton administration continued to traverse the path followed by previous administrations Exploitation of political Islam to stabilise dictatorships and protect US interests throughout the Muslim world became the mainstay of the Clinton era. This remained the case till September 11 2001. Thereafter, newfound support for the clash of civilisation theory gained popularity in the US and was immediately embraced by the hawks in the Bush administration. But resistance from the State Department, and other government institutions, together with America’s failure to stabilise Iraq and Afghanistan prevented the hawks from launching a full scale crusade against political Islam.
Instead, the Bush administration announced its Greater Middle East Initiative and carefully weighed up its policy towards Islamists. In some parts of the Muslim world the US chose to collaborate with Islamists to form governments, while in other parts, America opted to minimise their participation in government. Through these tactics the US is hoping to replace the autocratic regimes of the Muslim world with the Turkish model of democracy.
For instance, in 2002, America colluded with Musharraf to facilitate Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) spectacular rise to power in return for shoring up Musharraf’s sagging popularity and preventing the secular parties from forming a viable opposition. When questioned about the success of religious parties that they represented a failure of US policy, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher replied, “I reject that opinion from the start. We think that the Pakistani people and the government have already demonstrated their strong opposition to terrorism and extremism, their desire to move their society in a more moderate and stable direction. We look forward to working with them on that and we hope that all the parties will be committed to moving in that direction.” Musharraf used the Islamists to cement his pro-American policies by voting through the Legal Framework Order (LFO) in 2004. He then reneged on his promise to step down as COAS, leaving the Islamists bemused and angry. Later, in the local elections of 2005, Musharraf conducted a wide spread purge of the Islamists and favoured secular minded politicians instead.
In Iraq, America has collaborated with Ayatollah Sistani and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) to cobble together an Iraqi government that can rule on her behalf. She has also employed the very same Islamists to prevent others in Southern Iraq undermining her occupation. When Muqtada as-Sadr resisted America’s writ, Sistani openly sided with the US to reign in the firebrand cleric and his mahdi army. While America’s tolerance of Shia theologians horrifies many in the West, some US intellectuals fully endorsed it. Gerecht in his book “The Islamic Paradox” wrote:”… secular Shites, not religious oriented ones, are probably the most serious long-term threat to the development of a viable democratic Iraq.”
Hamas’s success in the Palestinian election has less to do with the corruption of the PLO and more to do with the policies of Israel and the US. Both Israel and the US hated Yasir Arafat and considered him to close to the British. Hence they systematically destroyed Arafat’s security apparatus and rendered it ineffective against the Palestinian resistance groups. When Abbas (America’s preferred choice) ascended to power he inherited an organisation marred with factional in fighting and unable to curb the activities of Hamas. The weakness of the PLO combined with Israeli military operations against Hamas fuelled Hamas’s popularity. In July 2000 the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducted a poll and found that in popularity terms Fatah tallied 42 percent and Hamas 11 percent. The Israelis effectively used Hamas to destroy the PLO. Dreyfuss author of the book “Devil’s Game” quotes Martha Kessler, a senior CIA analyst who said,”We saw Israel cultivate Islam as a counterweight to Palestinian nationalism.” The author also quotes Philip Wilcox, a former US ambassador who headed the US consulate in Jerusalem and who said, “There were consistent rumours that Israeli secret service gave covert support to Hamas, because they were seen as rivals to the PLO.”
America has tolerated Israeli endeavours to sideline the PLO, as long as Israel does not undermine her plans to for a two state solution. In return, America declared Hamas a terrorist organisation and pressed her EU allies to do likewise. America has also called upon Hamas to disarm and to recognise Israel. In response, Hamas’s senior leader Khalid Mishaal has publicly offered some concessions. He said that Hamas could agree to a "long-term truce" with Israel if it were willing to return to the 1967 borders and recognise the rights of Palestinians to self-determination.
America’s flexible approach towards political Islam signals two things. First, America’s military might has failed to curb the rise of political Islam and this has forced America to establish new partnerships with Islamists with the aim of replacing the current dictatorships and monarchies with some semblance of democracies.
Second, the Bush administration is not settled on the modalities of engagement with Islamists. Oscillating between the approaches advocated by confrontationalists and the accommodationists on some occasions, and in other situations adopting a mixture of both, leaves America open to charges of hypocrisy – not to mention uncertainty.
Such circumstances leave the door wide-open for America’s opponents – those among western powers who seek to thwart America’s hegemony in the Muslim world and those amongst the Islamists who desire to re-establish the Caliphate. In both situations the winner is political Islam.
| |
|
|
| |
| Cartoons, Voltaire and the Non-Clash of Civilisations |
|
|
|
| |
Sajjad Khan
16th February 2006
| |
| |
Who said politics was boring, as Mark Warner the former Governor of Virginia said recently that politics was not a battle between right and left, or between conservative and liberal but between the past and the future. In the battle of ideas around the cartoons controversy, the Muslims are advocating the future whereas the west remains wedded to the past.
Of course its not pitched like that, for most people the west remains the bastion of intellectual progress, vibrancy and enlightenment. For them the Muslim attitude towards the Danish cartoons has an uncanny resemblance to their own dark ages, a period characterised by oppression, material backwardness and stagnation. The philosophical differences are not confined to what they perceive as fanatical Muslim censorship. Issues such as womens rights in Islam, the calls for the establishment of Shariah or Muslims overt religious devotion also sit uncomfortably with the secular liberal order. Most commentators in the west believe that such Islamic values belong more to the first century than the twenty first.
However the cartoons issue is the latest example to demonstrate that the west is losing its inner confidence, compromising its core beliefs and constantly alluding to a past utopian enlightenment age. For most people the idea of a clash of civilisations is an anathema, but even if you dont like the world clash as it may imply perpetual war, even a pre-requisite to a dialogue of civilisations is that both civilisations stand up passionately for their core beliefs. In the cartoons controversy, we havent seen that, the Muslims have collectively stood up for their beliefs, yet the western response has been anaemic to say the least. Dont get me wrong; I have profound philosophical differences with secular liberalism and absolute freedom of speech, yet even I can respect its viewpoint when coherently articulated. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of western civilisation, of individual liberty, of free market capitalism, of material humanism and of representative democracy; it is the foundation on which the entire secular liberal ideology resides. Voltaires infamous aphorism of defending to death the right for people to speak is an integral part of the wests cultural DNA. Yet throughout the cartoons issue, you would have thought freedom of _expression was an optional extra traded away to ensure a return to an arid status quo.
But surely the west did defend its beliefs I hear you say, as much as the Muslims defended theirs. Of course some did, but the main pillars of western society didnt and for very unprincipled reasons. The US and British governments who claim to be bringing western values to Iraq couldnt even defend their civilisational cousins in Denmark, for fear of losing even more popularity in the Muslim world. Most newspapers and TV stations in the US and Britain did not reproduce the cartoons not because they were not newsworthy but because of fear of reprisals. Even in continental Europe, there were mixed messages with the French President condemning the publication of the images, so much for the sanctity of free speech in La Republique. The abandonment of free speech wasnt confined to governments and the fourth estate; big business the other major pillar of western society was also driving a horse and carriage through the sanctity of free speech. Nestle showed their solidarity with their corporate colleagues in Scandinavia, by taking out advertisements in Saudi newspapers stating they werent Danish. Lastly there were no widespread demonstrations by the western public mirroring those seen by the Muslims to defend the concept of freedom of speech, so much for a clash of civilisations.
Of course the cartoons issue is just the latest example of western civilisations sacrifice of key principles for expediency, following Guantanomo Bay, the illegal Iraq war, draconian anti-terror legislation and Abu Ghraib. The Muslim world as opposed to its opportunistic and dictatorial leaders have shown the future, a world where principles, values and sacred beliefs are put ahead of economic interests, popular pandering and political expediency. Many may disagree with the small amount of violence accompanying the worldwide demonstrations from Jakarta to Tunis, however we cannot ignore the passion of those demonstrating. Principle, passion and sacrificing for a higher purpose are moribund concepts in the secular west. Muslims in their millions across the globe have shown the world that there are things worth fighting for, other than oil and reconstruction contracts. Voltaire must be turning in his grave
| |
|
|
| |
| Principles, Hamas and the politics of expediency |
|
|
|
| |
Sajjad Khan
27th January 2006
| |
| |
Reading all the diatribes from Washington, London and other EU capitals after Hamas’s crushing victory has got me thinking. How do they do it keeping a straight face? Do what, you ask, how do they actually maintain a straight face while consistently contravening their very own principles. But don’t they have a point you ask; surely a party that has now been elected to government must eschew violence and renounce its belief in regime change. The irony of such fallacious arguments fails to be appreciated by supporters of George Bush’s neoconservative Republican Party who have done nothing but engage in perpetual violence since 2001. Is it really credible to complain about regime change in Tel Aviv while simultaneously working to initiate regime change in Tehran and Damascus? Of course the fact that Israel has violently swept away the existing unitary Palestinian state that existed in 1948 off the map is neither here nor there.
However the above points aren’t the key ones, what is more serious is the ubiquitous depredation of principle we are seeing these days, whether its Google’s surrender to China, the ethical vacuum in Washington or the roll back of fundamental values in the War on Terror. This is important because the key strength of a principle is to gauge its resilience when faced with difficulties and challenge, the acid test being that a principle is only a principle if it’s inconvenient to apply it. Principles that constantly have to be diluted are clearly then a barometer of the parlous state of a particular way of life. As each day goes by in the War on Terror, more and more cherished cows are now being slaughtered on such a regular basis that it is difficult to know what to do with all the beef. Western governments used to believe that people had a right to a fair trial but then came Guantanomo Bay. Western governments used to believe that people should not be subject to arbitrary arrest but then came Extraordinary Rendition. Western governments used to believe that the rule of international law was sacrosanct but then came the unilateral invasion of Iraq. Western governments used to believe that people should not be subject to torture in any circumstances but then came the outsourcing of prisoners to Egyptian and Syrian dungeons. Western governments used to believe that prisoners of war should not be subject to inhumane treatment but then came Abu Ghraib. Western governments used to believe that individuals had the right to privacy but then came unauthorised wiretaps and surveillance. Western governments used to believe that individuals had the right to be told what they were charged with but then came 28 days pre-charge detention. Western governments used to believe in the freedom of speech but then came the planned offence of the ‘glorification of terrorism’ and the proscription of non-violent groups. Western governments used to believe that people could defend themselves if they were invaded but then came the labeling of Afghan and Iraqi resistance as terrorism. Western governments used to believe that civilians should be spared the horrors of war but then came the use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium. Western governments used to believe that nuclear non-proliferation was for all states as contained in the NPT but than came mini nukes and plans for a replacement for Trident. Western governments used to believe that free and fair elections provided absolute legitimacy but then came the Palestinian elections and Hamas.
Of course there are one or two ideals still left, the pursuit of expediency over principle for instance.
| |
|
