just commentary march 2009
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
Vol 9, No. 3 March 2009
Turn to next page
STATEMENTS
THE BOSNIAN EXAMPLE OF
COEXISTENCE
By Ali Abunimah ......................................... page 6
By Marc Gopin .......................................... page 7
ARTICLESREDUCING POLITICKING; FOCUSING
UPON THE ECONOMIC CRISIS ... It is no
coincidence that in the short span of 3 or 4 days Ruler
after Ruler has expressed grave concern about the
situation in the country .............................. P.2
MEDIA SILENT AS INDIAN MUSLIMS
FOREGO HOLIDAY
ASEAN RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS
THE PLIGHT OF THE ROHINGYA AND
OTHER REFUGEES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
.....The Rohingya, who live in the northern part of Arakan
state in Myanmar, adjacent to Bangladesh, are a Muslim
minority ............................................................. P.3
REMOVE THEIR NAMES
CAN MITCHELL TURN JERUSALEM
INTO BELFAST?
By Jean-Moïse Braitberg, Michael Neumann, Osha
Neumann ........................................................page5
By Amir Telibeirovic
No ‘Westerner’ can erase the
Islamic influences in Bosnia,
and no ‘Easterner’ can impose
their own influences on our way of life.”
This statement, overheard at a Sarajevo
coffee bar, explains the unique
character and identity of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Despite the conflict of the
previous decade, it is still a unique case
of a country following a middle path
of coexistence between individuals
with different religions and ethnicities.
Islam was introduced to Bosnians in
the 15th and 16th centuries during the
Ottoman Empire. Bosnian Muslims,
ethnically identified as Bosniaks, have
long been neighbours with ethnic Serbs
who are largely Orthodox Christian,
predominantly Catholic Croats and
other ethnic and religious minorities,
such as Sephardic Jews, Albanians,
Roma and others.
If you talk to members of the older
generation in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
they will recall a time when Yugoslav
communist leader Josip Broz Tito
pointed to Bosnia and Herzegovinia as
a model for Yugoslavia to coexist
without conflict.
Though there has been intolerance and
conflict between members of various
religious and ethnic groups, tensions
never pitted the entire populations of
one group against another. Most
conflicts in Bosnia’s history were
imported or orchestrated from Ankara,
Vienna, Berlin, Belgrade and Zagreb —
for territorial occupation or the
exploitation of local natural resources.
One critical exception in recent history
was the Bosnian War (1992 to 1995),
which erupted as a result of the breakup
of Yugoslavia and brought much misery
and destruction to the region.
Eventually, peace was restored by
NATO forces. But after the Dayton
Peace Accords in 1995, which brought
an end to the three-year war, refugees
returned to their homes to find their
cities divided — sometimes physically
— along ethnic lines. And local laws
limiting freedom of movement
exacerbated these tensions and
obstructed reconciliation efforts.
As a result, parts of Bosnia and
Herzegovina remain divided —
politically, religiously and ethnically —
even today.
Since the war, however, restoring the
middle path of coexistence has been the
goal of ordinary Bosnians working with
non-governmental organisations in local
cities. Reconstruction has served as a
way for various groups to work
together for a common good. Non-
GLOBAL FINANCIAL UNCERTAINTIES
AND THE FUTURE OF MALAYSIA (PART 2)
By Mahathir Mohamad ................................ page 8
By Faith in Human Rights .......................... page 10
OBAMA ON AFGHANISTAN .....Barack Obama
is reported to have decided to send 17,000 more troops
to Afghanistan .................................................... P.4
THE TUSSLE FOR POWER IN PERAK ........
Whatever the legal issues involved .................. P.4
FAITH IN HUMAN RIGHTS
L E A D A R T I C L EI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
2
continued from page 1
governmental organisations such as the
Sarajevo-based International Forum
Bosnia, which houses the Center for
Interreligious Dialogue and facilitates
dialogue among different religious
groups, and the International Mennonite
Organization which aids in home
reconstruction and youth programmes,
are hard at work to ease remaining
tensions in this post-conflict society.
But what is most notable is those places
where coexistence between ordinary
people of different religions and
ethnicities never stopped, not even
during the war. These are the
communities that the rest of the region
can learn from, the people that adhered
to the middle path and refused to align
with those who committed acts of
violence along ethnic or religious lines
and turned against their neighbours in
times of trouble.
Cities like Sarajevo, Mostar and Tuzla,
were known to have the largest inter-
ethnic populations in the Balkans. In
various sieges throughout the war,
neighbours came together, regardless
of ethnicity or religion, to protect one
another and their towns from
destruction. In fact, the heavy artillery
raining down upon them created
solidarity among them, instead of
separating them.
Historically, neighbourhoods in these
cities were not divided between one
group or another. There had been inter-
ethnic and inter-religious mixing for
generations, and this kind of
coexistence was considered the norm,
unlike other towns in the region where
one ethnic or religious group comprised
the majority.
This attitude of coming together during
the war demonstrated that not all
communities can be driven apart along
ethnic or religious lines, even in times
of war. In fact, people of various
backgrounds came together in reaction
to the aggressive attempts to divide
them.
Despite the violent upheaval in the
1990s and the tumultuous years that
followed, coexistence amongst the
diverse population of Bosnia and
Herzegovina has endured. The resilience
of the people in the region, particularly
those still working to build united
communities out of divided groups,
serves as an example not only in the
Balkans, but for conflict-torn countries
around the world.
10 February 2009
Amir Telibeirovic is senior editor of
Sarajevo-based online magazine Bosnia
Daily. This article is part of a series on
lesser-known Muslim societies written for
the Common Ground News Service
(CGNews).
Source: CGNews
continued next page
It is no coincidence that in the short
span of 3 or 4 days Ruler after Ruler
has expressed grave concern about the
situation in the country. Their concern
reflects the sentiments of the rakyat
who are fed up with the excessive
politicking that has characterized public
life since the General Election of 8
March 2008.
Even people outside Malaysia — as I
discovered recently— are astounded
that leaders in government and the
opposition are consumed with political
manoeuvrings at a time when the
whole world is focused upon the global
economic crisis. Some of them are of
the view that the antics of the politicians
have brought Malaysia to the brink of
political turmoil.
At the root of this politicking is the
unbridled drive to acquire and enhance
power, whatever the costs and
consequences, among politicians on
both sides of the divide at state and
federal levels. Ethical principles mean
little to them.
Their politics has not only created
tension and antagonism, illustrated so
starkly in the Perak crisis. It has also,
it appears, increased corruption and
abuse of power and has led to the
further deterioration of ethnic relations.
Intense politicking has also taken a toll
upon certain institutions of governance
such as the Election Commission, the
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
(MACC), the Police and even the
Judiciary.
Most of all, it has distracted our political
leaders from concentrating upon the
economy. With almost all exports –
petroleum, palm oil, rubber, electrical
and electronic goods—declining,
unemployment escalating steeply, and
the Gross Domestic Product(GDP)
shrinking, the prognosis for the next
few months is discouraging. Our
leaders, regardless of party affiliation,
should be responding to this Herculean
challenge by implementing carefully
thought-out policies and programmes
that will ensure the well-being of the
people in these difficult times. All their
energies should be focused upon this
challenge— and not on how to engineer
defections or to oust their political
rivals.
Such a concentrated focus upon the
economy may not be forthcoming for
an obvious reason. The two major
dramatis personae in the Malaysian
political arena today, Dato Seri Najib
Razak, the incoming Prime Minister,
and Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the
Leader of the Opposition, will continue
to be locked in combat for some time
to come. Najib will want to consolidate
and strengthen his position as head of
government, while Anwar will go all out
to topple him since his single-minded
ambition is to become Prime Minister
in the shortest time possible.
It is partly because of their fear of the
disastrous consequences of this titanic
REDUCING POLITICKING; FOCUSING UPON THE ECONOMIC CRISIS
STATEMENTS
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D S T A T E M E N T S
3
The Rohingya, who live in the northern
part of Arakan state in Myanmar,
adjacent to Bangladesh, are a Muslim
minority. They are amongst those
persecuted by the Myanmar military
government. Due to persecution, they
have fled to Thailand and Malaysia and
live as illegal refugees in miserable
conditions in refugee camps. The
receiving states consider them illegal
refugees and do not provide them with
adequate protection. Many of them have
been persecuted by the security forces
of these states and exploited by the
locals. Their situation is pathetic.
The recent boat people incident is
additional testimony to their miserable
situation. It was reported that the Thai
Navy had pushed hundreds of
Rohingya boat people back into the sea
and let them die. The Indian Navy and
the Indonesian authorities in Aceh
rescued hundreds of them. Some of the
survivors had claimed that they were
abused by the Thai Navy.
The Myanmar government has told the
ASEAN foreign ministers that it is
willing to accept the refugees from
their countries if they are identified as
Bengali minorities. There is a
contradiction in their stance as the
Myanmar government does not classify
them as citizens.
It was reported on 27 February 2009
in the Bangkok Post that the Malaysian
Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah
Badawi had stated that the countries
affected by the influx of the Rohingya
refugees must be firm in turning them
back. The Rohingyas must prove that
they came from Myanmar and have
addresses and family members there.
Speaking after chairing a meeting of
ASEAN Foreign Ministers on the eve
of the summit, the Thai foreign
Minister, Kasit Pironmya said that since
no conclusion was reached on the
Rohingya issue, further discussions
would be held with Malaysia,
Indonesian and Bangladesh
governments. The matter would be
discussed from 14-15 April 2009 at the
Bali Process meeting which is a non-
binding grouping founded in 2002 to
solve problems concerning human
trafficking and smuggling. It is obvious
that the meeting will not produce any
substantive result as it has no binding
value upon the states concerned.
Any proposal to send the Rohingyas
back will only make their plight worse.
What awaits them is more torture and
inhuman treatment. Despite the
presence of adequate human rights
laws at international and regional
levels, the refugee problem, especially
the plight of the Rohingyas in
Southeast Asia remains a long neglected
issue that needs the urgent attention of
the international community and
regional states.
It is time that ASEAN gave serious
attention to this problem as it has
adopted an ASEAN Charter that alludes
to human rights. It has a moral
responsibility to solve the problem as it
is a flagrant human rights violation in
its own backyard.
ASEAN should not hide behind the
policy of non-interference in the internal
affairs of a fellow member state and
allow refugees to suffer. In fact,
ASEAN should, as a matter of urgent
priority, adopt a common policy on the
fair and humane treatment of refugees
which would cut across national
boundaries. In formulating this policy,
ASEAN states should be guided by
both international law and the religious
cultures of the region which exhort us
to show our humanity to our distressed
neighbour so that his dignity would be
preserved and protected.
Dr Arujunan Narayanan
Executive Committee Member,
International Movement for a Just
World (JUST)
6 March 2009
continued from page 2
ASEAN RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS THE PLIGHT OF THE
ROHINGYA AND OTHER REFUGEES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
tussle for power between these two
personalities that concerned citizens like
Anas Zubedy have proposed a truce that
would help to reduce politicking. Najib
and Anwar could perhaps seek to forge
some agreement in the following areas:-
1)The formulation of anti-defection
laws at state and federal level which
would require an elected legislator to
vacate his seat in parliament or the state
assembly if he decides to resign from
his party. Some existing provisions in
the Federal and State Constitutions will
have to be amended in order to
accommodate the proposed legislation.
2)Joint efforts to improve Federal-State
ties in accordance with their respective
constitutions and in the true spirit of
federalism.
3)The creation of ‘economic crisis
councils’ at federal and state levels
which will bring together the
government and the opposition— apart
from other groups and individuals—
with the single aim of overcoming the
economic crisis.
4)Joint efforts to improve ethnic
relations by eliminating communal
rhetoric, deepening understanding of
the ethnic situation in Malaysia, and
demonstrating through deeds a
commitment to a balanced, all-
embracing notion of justice for all
communities.
5)Concrete measures to enhance
mutual respect for their respective roles
as Prime Minister, on the one hand, and
Leader of the Opposition, on the other.
If Najib and Anwar make no attempt to
reduce politicking and improve the
political atmosphere in the near future,
it is quite conceivable that the overall
situation will deteriorate rapidly with all
its dire consequences.
In such a situation, the rakyat would
expect the Rulers— specifically the
King— to help restore good governance
through measures which accord with
constitutional rule and democratic
principles.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar.
President,
International Movement for a Just
World (JUST)
9 March 2009
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
4
S T A T E M E N T S
Whatever the legal issues involved in
the tussle in Perak, there is no honour
in coming to power through
defections. I have maintained since the
mid-eighties that acquiring power
through the backdoor is unethical. It
is not only a betrayal of the voter; it
also shows very little respect for the
democratic process.
The Perak episode is in a sense linked
to the attempt by the de facto leader
of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) , Dato
Seri Anwar Ibrahim, to engineer
defections from the ruling Barisan
Nasional (BN) at the federal level in
order to achieve his ambition of
becoming Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Anwar’s backdoor politics in fact
began two weeks after the 12th
General Election. He tried over a period
of seven or eight months to topple the
BN which at that time had a clear 58
seat parliamentary lead over the
combined opposition. Anwar failed in
his bid. Even in the case of Perak, it
was after he enticed a Barisan Nasional
Assembly member to cross over, that
the BN hit back with its manoeuvres
leading to the present tussle for power.
Anwar had now been hoisted by his
own petard. However, it is not going
to deter him from trying again. One
hopes that his PKR colleagues and his
partners in the Pakatan Rakyat, Parti
Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) and the
Democratic Action Party (DAP), will
be more critical of Anwar’s antics and
evaluate his leadership of the PR in a
more objective manner. After all, he is
partly responsible for the loss of one
of the states that the PR captured in
the last General Election.
More important, now is the time for
both the PR and the BN to demonstrate
their sincere commitment to the well-
being of the people by joining hands in
formulating an anti-defection law which
will be adopted at Federal and state
levels. There are a number of countries
from Bolivia to Trinidad to South Africa
to India which have such laws. The
BN has been reluctant to enact such
legislation because it has for a very long
time benefited from crossovers. Now
it knows that the PR can also play the
same game.
If the BN and PR continue to play this
diabolical game, there will be no political
stability. Malaysian democracy will be
a sham. Economic development will
stagnate since political leaders will be
preoccupied with manoeuvres and
machinations aimed at ousting their
adversaries. The bureaucracy will
cease to deliver. Even ethnic relations
will take a turn for the worse as political
instability increases and economic
growth declines. Most of all, the people
will suffer when their interests and
aspirations are ignored as leaders jostle
for power.
The Malaysian citizenry should not
allow this to happen. It should adopt a
principled stand against defections and
demand an anti-defection law
immediately. It is wrong of our people
to endorse defections or remain silent
about them when one’s own side is
the beneficiary. Likewise, it is
hypocritical to oppose defections
simply because one’s side is the victim.
It is only when our citizenry rises
above such biases and commits itself
to what is ethical regardless of who
gains and who loses that we would
have developed a political culture that
is resistant to defections and other
forms of Machiavellian politics.
Chandra Muzaffar.
9 February 2009.
THE TUSSLE FOR POWER IN PERAK
President Barack Obama is reported to
have decided to send 17,000 more
troops to Afghanistan on top of the
33,000 already deployed there.
Although this is almost half the number
that commanders in the field asked for,
in our opinion, this surge of troops
would constitute a continuation of the
Bush policy in the region and a
dangerous escalation on the part of the
new administration. This is mainly
because it would be against the human
values enshrined in the American
constitution. Besides, in the past,
occupation and war have not
succeeded in the land of Afghanistan.
In this regard, the Soviet attempt of
the 1980s was the most recent fiasco.
Many pundits are already comparing
US involvement in Afghanistan with its
earlier debacle in Vietnam - in the 1960s.
In our opinion, this involvement might
turn out to be much worse than that.
Almost everybody who is familiar with
the conflict agrees that the only
alternative is to win the hearts and
minds of the people of Afghanistan.
This would also be in line with the
fundamental values of Islamic and
Western civilizations. In our view,
President Obama should rather give
priority to social and economic
development in Afghanistan, ensure an
effective system of governance, and
resist the temptation of pursuing the
military solution.
Of course in the short term the security
situation must be addressed; Instead of
increasing troops, President Obama
should replace US and NATO forces
with OIC troops. The purpose of an
OIC presence would be to stabilize the
immediate security situation. Once
some stability has been achieved, talks
may begin for the formation of a truly
national government and legitimize it
through the democratic process.
Dr Abdullah al-Ahsan
Vice-President,
International Movement for a Just
World (JUST).
24 February 2009
OBAMA ON AFGHANISTAN
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
5
A R T I C L E S
Mr. President of the State of Israel, I
am writing to you to intervene with the
appropriate authorities to withdraw,
from the Yad Vashem memorial
dedicated to the memory of Jewish
victims of Nazism, the name of my
grandfather, Moshe Brajtberg, gassed
at Treblinka in 1943, and those of other
members of my who family died during
deportation to various Nazi camps
during World War II. I ask you to honor
my request, Mr. Chairman, because
what took place in Gaza, and more
generally, the injustices to the Arab
people of Palestine for sixty years,
disqualifies Israel to be the center of
the memory of the harm done to Jews,
and thus to all humanity.
You see, since my childhood, I lived in
amongst survivors of the death camps.
I saw the numbers tattooed on their
arms, I heard the story of torture; I
knew the impossible grief and I shared
their nightmares. I was taught that
these crimes must never happen again,
that never again must man, because of
ethnicity or religion despise other man,
mock his Human Rights of living a safe,
dignified life, without barriers, and
hope, so remote be it, of a future of
peace and prosperity.
Yet Mr. President, I note that despite
dozens of resolutions adopted by the
international community, despite the
glaring evidence of the injustices done
to the Palestinian people since 1948,
despite the hopes raised in Oslo, and
despite the recognition of the right of
Israeli Jews to live in peace and
security, repeatedly reaffirmed by the
Palestinian Authority, the only answers
given by successive governments of
your country have been violence,
bloodshed, confinement, incessant
controls, colonization, deprivations.
You’ll tell me Mr. President, that Israel
has the right to defend itself against
people launching rockets into Israel, or
suicide bombers that destroy innocent
Israeli lives. My response to that is that
my humanism doesn’t vary according
to the nationality of the victims.
Yet you, Mr. President, you lead the
destiny of a country which claims not
only to represent the Jews as a whole,
but also the memory of those who were
victims of Nazism. This is what
concerns me and that I find
unacceptable.
By displaying the names of my family
members at the Yad Vashem Memorial,
in the heart of the state of Israel, your
state imprisons my family memories
behind the barbed wires of zionism, and
makes it hostage of a so-called moral
authority which commits every day the
abomination of denying justice.
So, please, remove the name of my
grandfather from the shrine dedicated
to cruelty against Jews so that it no
longer justifies the injustice being done
to the Palestinians.
Please accept, Mr. President, the
assurances of my respectful
consideration.
Jean-Moïse Braitberg
Following the example of Jean-Moise
Braitberg, we ask that our
grandmother’s name be removed from
the wall at Yad Vashem. Her name is
Gertrud Neumann. Your records state
that she was born in Kattowitz on June
6, 1875 and died in Theresienstadt.
M. Braitberg delivers his request with
excellent reasons and eloquent personal
testimony. His words are inspiring,
but they give you — and those who
stand with you - too much credit. I
will instead be brief. Please take this
as an expression of my disgust and
contempt for your state and all it
represents.
Our grandmother was a victim of that
very ideal of ethnic sovereignty in
whose cause Israel has shed so much
blood for so long. I was among the
many Jews who thought nothing of
embracing that ideal, despite the
sufferings it had inflicted on our own
race. It took thousands of Palestinian
lives before, finally, I realized how
foolish we had been.
Our complicity was despicable. I do
not believe that the Jewish people, in
whose name you have committed so
many crimes with such outrageous
complacency, can ever rid itself of the
shame you have brought upon us.
Nazi propaganda, for all its calumnies,
never disgraced and corrupted the
Jews; you have succeeded in this. You
haven’t the courage to take
responsibility for your own sadistic
acts: with unparalleled insolence, you
set yourself up as spokesmen for an
entire race, as if our very existence
endorsed your conduct. And you
blacken our names not only by your
acts, but by the lies, the coy evasions,
the smirking arrogance and the infantile
self-righteousness with which you
embroider our history.
In the end, you will give the Palestinians
some scrap of a state. You will never
pay for your crimes and you will
continue to preen yourself, to bask in
your illusions of moral ascendancy.
But between now and the end, you will
kill and kill and kill, gaining nothing by
your spoilt-brat brutality. In life, our
grandmother suffered enough. Stop
making her a party to this horror in her
death.
Michael Neumann
I join my brother, Michael Neumann,
in asking that any reference to our
grandmother be removed from Yad
Vashem, the Holocaust memorial.
I have been to this memorial. Its
buildings, paved courtyards and plazas
REMOVE THEIR NAMES
By Jean-Moïse Braitberg, Michael Neumann, Osha Neumann
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
6
continued next page
US President Barack Obama’s
appointment of former Senator George
Mitchell as his new Middle East envoy
is a good choice. Mitchell showed
even-handedness uncharacteristic of
US officials when he led a fact-finding
mission to the region in 2000.
Had its recommendations been
followed — cessation of all violence
and a full freeze of Israeli settlement
construction on occupied Palestinian
land — the peace process might have
made progress. Mitchell, who is already
in the Middle East, helped broker the
1998 Belfast Agreement, the key to
ending decades of strife in Northern
Ireland. Because of historical
similarities, that peace agreement is an
important precedent for Palestinians
and Israeli Jews.
Before 1948, European Jewish settlers,
newly-arrived in Palestine, wanted their
own state once British colonial rulers
withdrew. But because Jews were a
minority, the only way to achieve this
was a partition that the majority Arab
Palestinian population, fearing
dispossession, bitterly opposed. When
Israel was established in 1948, most
Palestinians were forced from their
homeland, and those remaining became
second-class citizens in a “Jewish
state.”
The modern conflict in Ireland began
when Great Britain, facing resistance
from Irish nationalists, decided to
withdraw after centuries of rule. But
the Protestant ruling class — a quarter
of the population — descended from
English and Scottish settlers, insisted
that Ireland remain tied to Britain.
These unionists refused to live in a state
with a nationalist Catholic majority.
To appease the unionist minority, which
threatened violent rebellion if it did not
get its way, Britain partitioned Ireland
in 1921, creating Northern Ireland, an
entity whose legitimacy nationalists
refused to recognize.
As Israeli Jews did to Palestinians,
Protestants institutionalized their own
culture and religion as the official creed
and violently suppressed expressions
of nationalist identity. In the words of
its first prime minister, Northern
Ireland’s seat of government at
Belfast’s Stormont Castle was a
“Protestant parliament for a Protestant
people.” Catholics faced systematic
discrimination in jobs and housing.
Nationalists launched a civil rights
movement in the 1960s inspired by the
one in the US. Protestant unionists
violently resisted demands to share
power and reform, but the numerical
growth and assertiveness of the
nationalist Catholic population within
Northern Ireland made such
intransigence untenable.
In 1972, Britain sent in troops and
imposed direct rule. During 30 years
of “The Troubles,” 3,700 people died
at the hands of the Irish Republican
Army (IRA), Protestant militias, British
forces and others.
CAN MITCHELL TURN JERUSALEM INTO BELFAST?
spread themselves authoritatively over
many landscaped acres. It frames the
Holocaust as a prelude to the creation
of the state of Israel. It embalms
memorabilia of the death camps and
preserves them as national treasures.
That treasure does not belong to Israel.
It is a treasure only if it serves as a
reminder never to permit any nation to
claim an exemption for its chosen
people from the bounds of morality and
decency.
Israel has twisted the Holocaust into
an excuse for perpetrating more
holocausts. It has spent the treasure
of the world’s sympathy for the victims
of the Holocaust on a fruitless effort
to shield itself from all criticism as it
massacres and tortures Palestinians and
suffocates them under a brutal
occupation. I do not wish to have the
memory of my grandmother enlisted
in this misbegotten project.
I grew up believing that Jews were that
ethnic group whose historical mission
was to transcend ethnicity in a united
front against Fascism. To be Jewish
was to be anti-Fascist. Israel long ago
woke me from my dogmatic slumber
about the immutable relationship of
Jews to Fascists. It has engineered a
merger between the image of Jewish
torturers and war criminals and that of
emaciated concentration camp victims.
I find this merger obscene. I want no
part of it. You have forfeited the right
to be the custodian of my
grandmother’s memory. I do not wish
Yad Vashem to be her memorial.
Osha Neumann
31 January 2009
Jean-Moïse Braitberg is a French author
Michael Neumann is a professor of
philosophy at a Canadian university. He
is the author of What’s Left: Radical
Politics and the Radical Psyche and The
Case Against Israel. He can be reached
Osha Neumann is a defense lawyer in
Berkeley and author of Up Against the
Wall MotherF**ker: a Memoir of the 60s
with Notes for Next Time.
Source: Le Monde and Common Ground
News
continued from page 5
By Ali Abunimah
A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
7
The Mitchell-led Belfast Agreement
ended formal Protestant hegemony in
favor of equality, mitigating partition’s
injustices. It promised that government
power “shall be exercised with rigorous
impartiality on behalf of all the people”
and guaranteed “just and equal
treatment for the identity, ethos, and
aspirations of both communities.”
Decades of bloody conflict left deep
social divisions. But a framework for
nondiscriminatory democratic
governance has allowed nationalists and
unionists within Northern Ireland to
begin to shed their siege mentalities.
While formal partition of Ireland
remains, it is disappearing on the
ground as anyone can live, work and
move freely, and official cross-border
bodies are integrating the infrastructure
and economies of the two jurisdictions
on the island of Ireland.
The power-sharing executive in
Belfast, led by staunchly nationalist
Sinn Fein (closely affiliated with the
IRA) and the hardline Democratic
Unionist Party, was once as
inconceivable as a government made
up of members of Hamas and Israeli
politicians would be today. US
diplomacy played a key role by putting
pressure on the stronger parties —the
British government and Protestant
unionists — in favor of the weaker
nationalist side. Instead of shunning
Sinn Fein the US, prodded by the Irish
American lobby, insisted it be brought
into the process.
By 2010, Palestinians will outnumber
Israeli Jews in Israel, the West Bank
and Gaza Strip combined. The two
groups can no more be totally separated
than Protestant unionists and Catholic
nationalists in Ireland.
Like Irish nationalists, Palestinians will
never recognize the “right” of another
group to discriminate against them. Like
Protestant unionists did, Israeli Jews
insist on their own state. Israel’s
“solution” is to cage Palestinians into
ghettos — like Gaza — and periodically
bomb them into submission just so
Israeli Jews, their relative numbers
dwindling, can artificially maintain a
Jewish state.
continued next page
Millions of Muslims across India
decided to temper or even cancel
festivities on their most cherished week
of holy yearly celebrations, Eid al-
Adha, which commemorates the
willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his
son in obedience to God and His mercy
upon him as a result, in protest of violent
acts committed in the name of Islam
by the criminals who murdered so
many in Mumbai.
According to a Times of India article,
“They wore black ribbons, carried
placards of peace, sent out emails and
SMS’s reiterating harmony and put up
banners saluting those who died in the
26/11 terrorist attack.
Some Muslims even avoided festival
purchases such as new clothes. From
Chennai’s Thousand Lights Mosque to
Delhi’s Jama Mosque, from the
Khwaja Banda Nawaz Dargah (shrine)
in Gulbarga to the mosques of Mumbai
- Eid celebrations were subdued, in a
symbolic declaration of Muslim protest
against terrorism.
“At every shrine prayers were said for
the grieving families in Mumbai. In the
cities of Ajmer Sharief, Kaliyar Sharief
(Uttarakhand) and Barabanki’s Deva
Sharief, communities came together
burying their differences to focus on
one thing: communal harmony. By
showing our unity, we have spoilt the
terrorists’ Eid,” said Qari Mohd Miya
Mazhari, editor of the Urdu daily,
Secular Qayadat.
“The festival of sacrifice also became
a platform of protest both for celebrities
as well as ordinary citizens.
“In Mumbai, actor-director Aamir Khan
wore a black band on his arm. So did
Jab We Met director Imtiaz Ali, lyricist
Javed Akhtar and his actor-director son,
Farhan Akhtar. A news agency reported
that other Bollywood biggies such as
Shah Rukh Khan and Salman Khan too
preferred to stay away from the
festivities.”
This is an act of solidarity with the
victims - Hindu, Jew, Muslim, and
Christian alike - and this despite the fact
that the prejudice and structural injustice
that Indian Muslims experience is
widespread and systemic. I have always
sensed from my readings and studies
that Indian Islam, the religion of one of
the largest Muslim communities in the
world, has always articulated a deeply
ethical form of Islam. It historically has
MEDIA SILENT AS INDIAN MUSLIMS FOREGO HOLIDAY
By Marc Gopin
If Mitchell is allowed to apply Northern
Ireland’s lessons, then there may be a
way out. But he goes to Jerusalem with
few of the advantages he brought to
Belfast. The Obama administration
remains committed for now to the
failed partition formula of “a Jewish
state” and a “Palestinian state” and
maintains the Bush administration’s
misguided boycott of Hamas, which
overwhelmingly won Palestinian
elections in 2006. And the Israel lobby
— much more powerful than its Irish
American counterpart — warps US
policy to favor the stronger side, an
intransigent Israel committing war
crimes. If these policies don’t change,
Mitchell’s efforts will be wasted and
escalating violence will fill the political
vacuum.
2 February 2009
Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali
Abunimah is author of One Country: A
Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-
Palestinian Impasse.
An abridged version of this article first
appeared in The Detroit Free Press.
Source: The Electronic Intifada
continued from page 6
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
8
A R T I C L E S
continued next page
At the other end of the spectrum we
see a number of countries which have
been sanctioned by the powerful and
rich countries of the world. They have
hardly any involvement in foreign
investments, certainly not in financial
instruments and funds. The financial
turmoil would not affect them as badly
since they have become insulated
though the sanction etc. But still they
will be faced with some relatively minor
problems.
We may say that Malaysia is a country
in between the two examples
mentioned. We have not been great
investors in foreign funds or even in
the foreign industries which are
collapsing. But we are a trading nation
and for a trading nation the sufferings
of its trading partners cannot but affect
it adversely. We are going to find our
trading partners unable to pay, partly
because their banks are bankrupt and
partly because their countries’
recession must affect their buying
power and their priorities when they
buy. Our trade must therefore diminish
and this will affect our industries and
jobs for our workers.
This is the environment in which
Malaysia will have to function and it
will have to handle. How it handles this
environment will determine its future.
The last time Malaysia had to face a
financial crisis, its economy went down
the way other countries did. The people
became poor suddenly and the growth
became stunted. It seemed like it would
have to borrow from the IMF and
surrender itself to IMF dictates. The
result would be a less independent
country with no certainty of recovery
as the IMF loan was for settling
Malaysia’s foreign debts and not really
to help its economy to recover.
It therefore chose not to seek IMF and
World Bank “help” because Malaysia
had to continue with its New Economic
Policy. We did not think the IMF would
be interested in our principle objective
of correcting the economic imbalance
between the races. They believe in
competition in which the losers should
be put to death like the gladiatorial
fighters of old. Such an attitude would
increase the ill feelings and tensions
between the races, would in fact lead
to racial clashes and instability for the
country. And the instability would have
an adverse effect on the economy.
Today Malaysia has joined other
countries in the region in being
politically unstable. For 50 years
political stability was what attracted
investments, both foreign and local.
Now a weak Government has tried to
regain popularity by pandering to the
demands of the extremists and the
naïve. The floodgates have been opened
and all kinds of sensitive issues are being
publicly debated.
The result is not the kind of liberal
society that such a policy was
supposed to bring. The result is the
resurgence of racism on the part of all
the ethnic groups.
In this atmosphere the Government will
find it difficult to handle the oncoming
financial and economic instability. The
fear of political repercussions will
prevent the Government from taking
decisive, if unpopular, measures.
Admittedly the crisis is not the easiest
been a model to the world of a minority
community asserting its identity and
simultaneously arguing for a strongly
non-violent ethic of religiosity.
Why does the world ignore millions of
good simple people when they stand
up for non-violence but keep everyone
riveted when 20 or so criminals hijack
a city? More importantly why is a
hijacking a “Muslim event” but not the
peaceful protests and statements of
solidarity with Hindu victims of millions
of people?
We cannot have a deep understanding
of the problems facing humanity if this
prejudice against peaceful expressions
of religion goes on in the media. I know
that “if it bleeds it leads” in the media,
but the lack of attention to the majority
who are peaceful is creating at least as
much bleeding as the acts of terrorism.
The three Abrahamic religions share a
story of Abraham and his son being
prepared to offer the greatest sacrifice
to God, and this Muslim holiday
celebrates God’s response to such
devotion. I say what I am about to say
in protest against the haters in our
midst: I am grateful that God saved this
son of Abraham so that a great culture,
civilisation and religion could be born,
a culture and civilisation of the Arab
and Muslim world.
And I refuse to join the haters in my
midst who look at these sad
brainwashed criminals of the Mumbai
attack and say, “They are the flower
of Islam”. They are no more the flower
of Islam than Timothy McVeigh and his
Christian Identity Movement, or the Ku
Klux Klan and their burning Christian
crosses, are the flower of Christianity.
Crime is crime, and we must honour
the millions of Indian Muslims today
who are surrendering their holiday spirit
in solidarity with the innocent.
What a wonderful model and challenge
to the rest of humanity.
16 December 2008
Dr. Marc Gopin is the director of George
Mason University’s Center for World
Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict
Resolution, and author of
www.marcgopin.com.
Source: Common Ground News Service
(CGNews).
continued from page 7
GLOBAL FINANCIAL UNCERTAINTIES AND THE FUTURE OF MALAYSIABy Mahathir Mohamad
(Part 2)
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D
9
A R T I C L E S
continued from page 8
problem to handle. But if confidence is
to be restored the Government must
be seen to be serious about handling it.
Making a few billion dollars available is
not the total answer. There is a need to
identify the problem areas, to
understand the underlying causes and
to devise plans of actions to counter
them.
Actually Malaysia is cash rich. It has
huge savings and its reserves exceeded
the statutory requirement. Its economy
is made up of both the production of
raw material and commodities and the
manufacture of goods.
Its growth remained quite steady during
the early period of the downturn
because commodity prices were very
high and were able to sustain high
exports earnings despite decline in
earnings from exports of manufactured
goods.
I have no figures to support the
statement but our exports used to
consist in value terms of 82% of
manufactured goods and 18% of
commodities. But when the prices of
crude oil went up from USD 30/- to
USD 140/-, while palm oil went up from
less than RM 1000/- to RM 4,500/-,
the export earnings from commodities
must be a major contributor to the USD
100 billion of Malaysia’s export
earnings in 2007 and first half of 2008.
But now we are seeing the prices of
commodities making a steep dive with
crude down to about USD 50/- and
palm oil to RM 1500/-. Our export
earnings must take a beating. It is likely
that the trend will continue.
In the meantime exports of
manufactured goods will not be rising,
but is likely to decline.
FDI has not been flowing in either.
Although there have been a lot of
proposals nothing much is seen on the
ground. The Arab proposal to invest in
Wilayah Iskandar may not materialise
nor will the other corridors see any
real contribution to growth.
The reason is simple enough.
Worldwide there has not been much
FDI lately. But for corridors or regional
development to take place, the
infrastructure in terms of roads,
railways, water supply and electricity
must be assured. Sites for industries
must also be identified and be well
prepared. We do not see anything of
these developments either.
Generally infrastructure projects have
been neglected. It must be noted that
these projects are not only necessary
to support growth, but they also
create business opportunities and jobs
for the people. Sadly we are told many
of the projects have been overpriced
and there is a likelihood that much of
the money will not go into real
construction. This will mean the
contribution of such large
Government expenditure towards
economic stimulation would be
minimal.
This is the future that Malaysia is likely
to experience if we go by the present
economic scenario in the country and
internationally. But the future can
become brighter if the economic and
financial crisis facing the world and
their effect on Malaysia are better
managed.
This crisis is extraordinary and the
scale is enormous. The world has
never seen anything like this before,
not even during the Great Depression
of 1929 - 31. The great financial
institutions and banks survived in 1929
- 31 but we are seeing them falling
like nine-pins this time.
For Malaysia to handle the effects on
the country the crisis must be carefully
studied and understood. Certainly we
must know why and how they
happened and how they affect us.
This crisis is largely Man-made. It is the
result of greed being allowed to abuse
the systems. This is what happens when
Government abdicates its regulatory role
and slavishly acceded to the demand of
the bankers and financers to leave the
market to the market. The signs of a
breakdown were seen early but such is
the faith in the market regulating the
market that the free market
Governments took no notice and did
nothing.
Fortunately Malaysia has always been
conservative and has not taken to the
idea that Government should not
interfere with the market. As a result
much of market activities in Malaysia
have remained subjected to regulations.
So Malaysia should be in a better position
to counter the effects of deregulation.
Now Government must look into playing
a bigger role in the economy. But it should
also be judicious. If it controls too
tightly, business will not be attracted or
it will fail, strangled by Government
regulations.
In any case, deep knowledge of the
aetiology of the crisis will help the
process of identifying the effect on
Malaysia’s economy and finances and
perhaps help formulate a plan for
tackling or mitigating the fallouts from
this, the greatest financial crisis ever.
The world has yet to acknowledge that
this financial crisis needs a global
solution. It needs a revision in the
banking system and the monetary
system. It may even need a totally new
system developed with the interest of
all the countries in the world.
Malaysia may be able to lessen the
effects on the country’s economy but
until the world succeeds in devising new
systems for banking and international
monetary regime, all solutions will only
be cosmetic.
11 December 2008
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is a former Prime Minister of Malaysia. The above speech was delivered at the ‘Bridges — Dialogue
Towards a Culture of Peace’, held at Putrajaya, Malaysia on 11 December 2008
Part one of the speech was published in the February 2009 issue of the JUST Commentary
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S
10
continued next page
I Human Rights: Achievements
1. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights celebrates the dignity of the
human person, irrespective of religion,
race, sex or other distinctions. As such
it helps realise our shared vision of a
religiously and culturally diverse world
community striving together to promote
and defend the rights and dignity of all.
The Declaration has stimulated and
inspired a new standard setting and
good practice at national and
international levels. We wish to
emphasize the importance of two of its
principles: that every person enjoys the
freedom of thought, conscience and
religion, and that no one should be
discriminated against on the basis of
religion or belief.
2. States bear the primary responsibility
to promote and protect human rights.
However, we wish to underline that
everyone has duties to the wider
communities of which they form a part
and only in which the free and full
development of one’s personality is
possible. It is therefore important to
make all people aware, through
information and education, of their
human rights and also of the common
responsibility to make human rights a
reality. In this regard we commend the
valuable contribution of many religious
and civil society organisations.
II Human Rights: Challenges
3. We express our deep concern that
despite all achievements, the enjoyment
of human rights in today’s world
remains a distant reality for many.
Human rights violations cause innocent
people to die or to be seriously harmed
resulting in untold suffering, loss and
hardship. More than ever, in this world
threatened by racial, economic and
religious divisions, we need to defend
and proclaim the universal principles of
dignity, equality, freedom, justice, and
peace, which are enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Challenges to the acceptance of
human rights and fundamental
freedoms
4. The rights, freedoms and obligations
laid down in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights are recognised all over
the world. Nevertheless, they are not
fully accepted everywhere. We observe
tensions with regard to a number of
specific rights, such as the freedom of
religion or belief, the principle of equality
and the prohibition of torture. We wish
to state clearly that the Declaration
should not be regarded as a ‘pick-and-
choose’ list. There is an urgent need
for a thorough reflection on the integral
acceptance of each right.
Challenges to the interpretation of
human rights and fundamental
freedoms
5. Human rights are open to a variety
of interpretations. The argument of
cultural relativity of human rights is at
times used to justify grave violations
of human rights and fundamental
freedoms. We therefore recall the 1993
Vienna Declaration and Programme of
Action on Human Rights, wherein all
States of the world agreed that “all
human rights are universal, indivisible
and interdependent and interrelated. (..)
While the significance of national and
FAITH IN HUMAN RIGHTSPreamble
On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 2008, we,
representatives of various world religions, are gathered at the Peace Palace, seat of the International Court of Justice,
in The Hague, The Netherlands, to pronounce and confirm that our religions recognise and support the human rights
and fundamental freedoms of every human person, alone or in community with others.
It must be acknowledged that sadly enough religion sometimes is being misused in a way which violates human rights.
But now, while representing different faith traditions, we come together in unity to stress that religion has been a
primary source of inspiration for human rights as our sacred writings and teachings clearly show:
“Someone who saves a person’s life is equal to someone who saves the life of all.” (Qu’ran 5:32);
“A single person was created in the world, to teach that if anyone causes a single person to perish, he has destroyed
the entire world; and if anyone saves a single soul, he has saved the entire world” (Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5);
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all
your mind; and your neighbour as yourself” (Luke 10:27);
“Let us stand together, make statements collectively and may our thoughts be one” (Rigveda 10:191:2);
“Just as I protect myself from unpleasant things however small, in the same way I should act towards others with a
compassionate and caring mind” (Shantideva, A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life);
“Let us put our minds together to see what life we can make for our children” (Chief Sitting Bull, Lakota).
We recognise our responsibility towards our believers and to the world at large and reaffirm our intention to take all
necessary steps both within our communities and in co-operation with others to promote and protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms for each and every person, irrespective of religion or belief.
Therefore, we solemnly state to take to our heart the following achievements, challenges and commitments:
I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S
11
continued from page 10
regional particularities and various
historical, cultural and religious
backgrounds must be borne in mind, it
is the duty of States, regardless of their
political, economic and cultural
systems, to promote and protect all
human rights and fundamental
freedoms.” This implies that a continued
dialogue is necessary among
government representatives, religious
communities, indigenous peoples and
independent experts based on a dynamic
interpretation of human rights.
Challenges to the implementation
of human rights and fundamental
freedoms
6. Peace and security are essential
conditions for the enjoyment of human
rights and fundamental freedoms.
Whilst States are entrusted to guarantee
the peace and security of their societies
and their citizens, this should not lead
to curtailing basic human rights. We
denounce the development of security
measures and means that endanger
human life rather than protect it, for
example the tremendous worldwide
expenditures on weapons. This life-
threatening devastating power makes
it imperative to look for peaceful means
of resolving tensions.
7. The prevalence of violence within
the international and national
communities remains a source of
serious concern and impedes the
realisation of human rights. We call on
all concerned to pursue all peaceful
means of redress and to refrain from a
misuse of violence. In addition, we
wish to highlight the problem of
structural violence within society and
of domestic violence in particular. It is
of utmost importance to counter this
and to save by so doing the lives of the
most vulnerable among us.
8. We note with serious concern the
increase of intolerance in matters
relating to religion or belief, of cases
of incitement to religious hatred, overt
or covert. While emphasising the
importance of the freedom of
expression, we deplore portrayals of
objects of religious veneration which
fail to be properly respectful of the
sensibilities of believers. We consider
the freedom to have, to retain and to
adopt a religion or belief of one’s
personal choice, without coercion or
inducement, to be an undeniable right.
Furthermore, the freedom to manifest
one’s religion or belief in any form of
worship, observance, practice and
teaching may only be subject to
carefully defined limitations consistent
with generally accepted principles of
international law.
9. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights demands meeting basic human
needs. The abject and dehumanizing
conditions of extreme poverty to which
more than a billion people are currently
subjected, must be decisively altered.
The human destruction of the
environment has to be stopped. The
process of achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals (eight
targets that 189 countries have pledged
to meet by 2015) represents a key
indicator of the commitment of States
to realise human rights for all.
III Commitments
10. Adherents of various faith traditions
have striven to protect human dignity.
Religion has to stand for peace,
reconciliation, universal values, mutual
respect and upholding human rights
and fundamental freedoms. Our faith
traditions have been and are capable of
providing inspiration and guidance
towards realising these aims. We wish
to reiterate our commitment to respect
all human rights for all, as enshrined in
the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
11. The contributions that may come
from religious inspiration and from the
structures of religion or belief towards
a fuller implementation of human rights
include the need to:
a. study carefully our holy
scriptures and teachings and to explore
the theological rationale in defence of
human rights; provide responses where
harm has been done in the name of
religion and seek ways of forgiveness
and reconciliation in order to foster
mutual respect and understanding
among our communities;
b. address major threats to the full
realisation of human rights by fostering
concepts of peace, security and
development that advance the full
realisation of the Millennium
Development Goals and make our
shared world a safe place to live;
c. listen to the suffering of
individuals, families and communities
and assist them to tell and visualize their
stories so that empathy may lead to
solidarity and action;
d. encourage religious
communities to become further
engaged with human rights issues, both
within and outside their community, and
stimulate interfaith co-operation with
mutual respect.
Conclusion
12. Humbled by the authority that is
vested in the religions of the world and
conscious of our shared responsibility
to defend human rights, we fervently
desire that this Statement will initiate a
wider process, and will become a
catalyst for transformation and change.
In order to widen and deepen the
support for human rights by religious
communities we invite religious leaders
around the world to endorse this
Statement. We call upon believers
everywhere to disseminate this
Statement as widely as possible and act
upon it.
Source: The above statement was sent to the JUST Commentary by JUST member Fr. Pieter van Dongen from The
Netherlands, who signed the petition. The petition is available for signature at http://www.faithinhumanrights.org
INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENTFOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)P.O BOX 288Jalan Sultan46730 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul EhsanMALAYSIAwww.just-international.org
Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid
Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur
MalaysiaNo. WP 1385
The International Movement for a Just World isa nonprofit international citizens’ organisationwhich seeks to create public awareness aboutinjustices within the existing global system.It a lso attempts to develop a deeperunderstanding of the struggle for social justiceand human dignity at the global level, guided byuniversal spiritual and moral values.
In furtherance of these objectives, JUST hasundertaken a number of activities includingconducting research, publishing books andmonographs, organising conferences andseminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns.
JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed to
similar objectives in different parts of the world.
About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)
It would be much appreciated if you
could share this copy of the JUST Com-
mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-
ter still invite him/her to write to JUST
so that we can put his/her name on our
Commentary mailing list.
TERBITAN BERKALA
Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque
addressed to:
International Movement for a Just World
P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
or direct to our bank account:
Account No. 5141 9633 1748
Malayan Banking Berhad, Damansara Utama Branch,
62-66 Jalan SS 21/35, Damansara Utama, 47400,
Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan,
MALAYSIA
Malaysian Tax Exemption no.
LHDN.01/35/42/51/179-6.5755
Donations from outside Malaysia should be made
by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$