just commentary march 2011

Vol 11, No 03 March 2011

ARTICLESSTATEMENT

QUIT GADDAFI QUIT!

Turn to next page

PAKISTAN’S BLASPHEMY LAW: A SIGN OF

BLISS OR CATASTROPHE?........Reports aboutPakistan’s controversial blasphemy law have become a focal

point in the international media............................Page 2

.BAHRAIN FACES ITS FACELESS..........................P 3

.OIL-RICH SAUDIS TRY TO STAVE OFF

REVOLUTION WITH CASH...............................P 3

By Chandra Muzaffar

What will it take to coerce MuammarGaddafi to relinquish power?

As I pen these thoughts on the 28th

of February 2011, media channels arereporting that Gaddafi has lost controlover large swathes of his country of 6.4million people. The popular uprisingagainst his 41 year-old rule has spreadrapidly from Benghazi, Libya’s secondlargest city, to the outskirts of the capital,Tripoli, Gaddafi’s last bastion.

Rather than surrender to the people’swill, the erratic despot has chosen to clingon to the last vestige of power abettedby elements in the armed forces, hisspecial security units, mercenariesimported from various countries, and ofcourse, his family members. In this regard,it is significant that a large number ofsenior military personnel, civilianadministrators, cabinet ministers anddiplomats have already defected to theside of the protesters. It is partly becauseof the defection of military personnel thatmany protesters are now armed to theteeth. Consequently, there have beenbloody battles between pro and antiGaddafi groups in various parts of Libya.The United Nations estimates that atleast 2000 people have died in what is, to

all intents and purposes, a civil war.The UN Security Council has

unanimously agreed to impose travel andasset sanctions on Gaddafi and his closeaides. It has also adopted an armsembargo and referred the ruling elite tothe International Criminal Court (ICC) forinvestigation and prosecution for thekilling of civilians. These are movestargeted at Gaddafi and his coterie, asthey should be, and will not hurt thegeneral populace.

If these measures do not work, pastand present heads of state andgovernment who are known to be onfriendly terms with Gaddafi should try topersuade him to stop killing his peopleand to step down. The President ofVenezuela, Hugo Chavez, Turkish PrimeMinister, Recep Erdogan, Italian PrimeMinister, Silvio Berlusconi, and theformer British Prime Minister, Tony Blair,are some possibilities.

Gaddafi may have to be assured thatif he heeds the people’s wishesimmediately, they may still remember himfor some of his outstandingaccomplishments in the first two decadesof his rule — accomplishments such asthe closure of the huge American air-base

in Libya in 1970; his nationalisation ofoil; the pivotal role he played in the re-organisation of the Organisation ofPetroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)which enabled it to emerge as a powerfulcartel challenging Western dominanceover the oil industry; his massive man-made river project to irrigate desert land;his housing schemes for the low-incomesegment of society; and otherinfrastructure programmes.

But right from the outset — therhetoric about decentralisation ofauthority and the establishment ofgrassroots’ revolutionary committeesand congresses notwithstanding—Gaddafi adopted a highly personalised,autocratic approach to power. He wassynonymous with the State. Organisedstate structures with their own authorityjust could not emerge under his autocraticrule. This is why I suppose he onceboasted that Libya was the first societyin history where the state had witheredaway! One of the consequences of thiswas the chaos that prevailed at variouslevels of society, a bit of which Iexperienced when I was in Tripoli in April1980 for lectures that did not take place.

.THE UNITED STATES STANDS ALONE WITH

ISRAEL IN THE UN SECURITY

COUNCIL.........................................................P 5

.DIVISIONS IN OUR WORLD ARE NOT THE

RESULT OF RELIGION....................................P 8

ARTICLES

S T A T E M E N TI 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

continued next page

Personalised, autocratic rule gave riseto mammoth corruption and nepotism.Given Libya’s huge oil wealth, one is notsurprised — in the absence of any notionof accountability and transparency —why this twin evil flourished. By the latenineties, Gaddafi’s family was so deeplyentrenched in the vortex of power thatthe approval of one of his sons ordaughter had become mandatory for allmajor business deals, at the domestic andinternational levels. The family’sbusiness interests may be one of thereasons why Gaddafi is hell-bent onremaining in power.

This brings us back to the question Iposed at the beginning. If Gaddafirefuses to leave in spite of UN SecurityCouncil resolutions and advice from hisfriends, what other option is available?Some American political leaders like JohnMcCain, Joseph Lieberman and PaulWolfowitz have suggested direct NATOmilitary intervention. This would befoolish as it is dangerous. Military actionon the part of the US and Europe willrevive painful memories of Westerncolonialism and neo-colonial designsagainst Libya. It will only strengthen

Gaddafi’s hand and undermine thelegitimacy of the anti-Gaddafi struggle.NATO military intervention which willlead inevitably to occupation will have acatastrophic impact upon the Arabuprising as a whole that is still unfoldingin various parts of the region.

Besides, the people in the region willsee through the stark hypocrisy of suchintervention. If protecting lives is theirconcern, why is it that no Western powerlifted a finger to save the Palestinians ofGaza when the Israeli army wasslaughtering a defenceless population inJanuary 2009? If the US and Britain areso traumatised by the killing of civilians,why did they invade Iraq in 2003, aninvasion which subsequently led to themassacre of hundreds of thousands ofinnocent Iraqis?

It is obvious that it is not Libyan livesthat the likes of McCain, Lieberman andWolfowitz want to save. If military actionis being contemplated, it is mainlybecause the centres of power in the Westare fixated upon Libya’s oil. Next to SaudiArabia, Libya is the major supplier of oilto Europe. The current turmoil in Libyahas already pushed up the price of thecommodity to 108 US dollars a barrel.

Market analysts fear that if the flow of oilfrom Libya stops, oil prices may hit 200dollars a barrel. This will have severerepercussions for the industrialisedeconomies of the West and economieseverywhere.

It has also been argued that comparedto other important oil-exportingcountries, only about 60% of Libya’s oilwealth has been exploited so far. Thisenhances its attractiveness for those whoseek to control global oil in order toperpetuate their global hegemony.

This is yet another compelling reason— the protection of the sovereignty ofhis own nation — why Gaddafi shouldquit immediately. It would be ironic ifbecause of his stubbornness heunwittingly opens the door to somenefarious neo-colonial intruder. TheLibyan and Arab people, and indeed allthose who cherish their freedom andindependence, will not forgive Gaddafi.

28 February, 2011

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of

the International Movement for a Just World

(JUST) and Professor of Global Studies at

Universiti Sains Malaysia.

PAKISTAN’S BLASPHEMY LAW:A SIGN OF BLISS OR CATASTROPHE?

STATEMENTS

Reports about Pakistan’s controversialblasphemy law have become a focal pointin the international media. It is naturalfor the international media to view thisissue so seriously mainly because of theway the Pakistani leadership, both thegovernment and the opposition, has beengiving it such importance. It is as if thislaw constitutes the complete teachingsof Islam and without this law Islam willnot survive in the world today. The primeminister has claimed that, “a Muslimcannot have two opinions on theblasphemy law and being a descendantof the Holy Prophet (Peace Be UponHim), he cannot even think of amending

it.”1 The opposition, including a numberof religiously oriented political parties,has also adopted a similar position onthe law. Although Pakistani politiciansand religious leaders hope to achievedivine bliss through this law, it is boundto create a catastrophe. In our opinion, itconstitutes sheer exploitation of the lawin the name of Islam and its Prophet.

Circumstances in Pakistan clearlysuggest that it is not the law, but theexecution of the law which has created avolatile situation in the country. Ourknowledge of history tells us that lettersare not always capable of ensuring thepurpose of the law. That is why history

has coined the phrase “letter and spirit.”This is most relevant in the applicationof law, and especially in Pakistan where,according to reports, many peoplebelonging to minority communities havebeen harassed under the guise of this law.

Mistreatment of the poor and weakhas occurred in every societythroughout history, but when it is donein the guise of religion, it naturally causeshorror. Certain followers of religion,however, view any criticism of this horroras religion-phobia. In the case of Pakistanit would be called Islamophobia which,of course, is in abundance around us

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

3


continued next page

today. But shouldn’t one raise thequestion whether the way this law isbeing manipulated would indeed createfear among the minority communities?What would be the rationale forsupporting a murderer? Love for theProphet? A Prophet who was known forhis love and kindness for the weak anddestitute? A Prophet who went to visitan adversary when he came to know thatthe woman (a Jewess) who used to placetrash on his pathway was ill andcounseled her? The woman was somoved by the behavior of the Prophetthat she immediately accepted Islam.Does the blasphemy law in any wayreflect teachings of the Prophet? In ouropinion, if the upholders of theblasphemy law believe that they hold thetruth, let them allow the truth to manifestitself through their behavior.

It is shocking to see peopledemonstrating in favor of a murderer whocommitted the crime in the guise ofprotecting the Prophet’s honor.Politicians, both from the government andthe opposition, seem to have beenpersuaded by political expediency. Evenlawyers are reported to have offered freeservice to the murderer, and now,according to newspaper reports, the lawenforcing agencies cannot find aprosecutor for the case. This is

completely unacceptable by any standardof Islamic behavior. Is there no room fora balanced view of Islam in contemporaryPakistan? According to the Britishnewspaper, the Guardian, Javed AhmadGhamdi, an independent scholar fromLahore who held the view that there isno justification for a blasphemy law inthe light of the Qur’an and Prophet’steachings, is alleged to have fled fromPakistan because of his views on that lawand other similar issues related to Islamicteachings. One of his followers, Dr.Farooq Ahmad, was gunned down byextremists a few months ago. What ishappening to Pakistan? A nationestablished more than half a century agowith the dream that Muslims would regaintheir past civilization in the modern worldby reviving Islamic teachings. Does thecurrent state of affairs in Pakistanembody any sign of that noble dream?

This question is related to the issueof patience, pluralism, freedom of speechand respect for human dignity. This issuealso raises the question of thefundamental purpose of religion. Inhistory religions have been the backboneof all civilizations. No civilization wouldhave been possible without peace. Islamin particular, which literally means peace,not only established peace under theleadership of Prophet Muhammad(S.A.W); it also laid down the foundation

of a glorious civilization. Is the situationin Pakistan contributing to theestablishment of peace? How could oneexpect to establish peace if the minoritiesdo not feel secure? How could a nationcontribute to peace if the majority of thepopulation goes for wild emotionalism inthe face of minor provocations?

It is high time that the so-calledIslamists in Pakistan in particular look atthe situation in Egypt where theirenemies are trying to create panicamongst the general public bysuggesting that if the current people’srevolution in Egypt succeeds theircounterparts will take over and imposetheir version of Islam on the people. TheIslamists in Pakistan should know verywell that Islam is not confined to theboundaries of Pakistan. Neither isIslamophobia. It goes without sayingthat the picture of Islam that the Islamistsdepict in Pakistan will have an impact onthe rest of the world.1 The Prime Minister claims to be a Syed;

thus implying that he is a descendant of the

Prophet.

Dr. Abdullah Al Ahsan,Vice-President,

International Movement for a JustWorld (JUST)

and Professor of History, InternationalIslamic University, Malaysia.

9 February, 2011

ARTICLES

By Dan LiebermanBAHRAIN FACES ITS FACELESS

The first reports came by email onFebruary 14, two days before media andthe U.S State Department acknowledgedgovernment attacks on the innocentBahraini Shi’i.

Hello,

I was at a peaceful protest andpeople were chanting legitimate demandsasking for parliament, constitution, basichuman rights, and etc... Out of nowhere,riot police then came charging downattacking the protesters with rubberbullets, tear gas and sound bombs.

Despite foreign journalists presentat the scene, more and more violence isbeing used at the moment. Officials needto be aware of the situation. Internationalmedia must be told of this unfair, unjustsituation of peaceful protesters beingattacked by frequent violence.

The emails continued for severaldays, more frequently and with increasingdespair. Finally on the February 17 night,police killed several protestors andwounded hundreds of those who weresleeping in tents in Pearl Square.

What is the reality of this onceagain suppression of a persecutedmajority in an Arab nation? Due to theattacks being upon Shi’i, the aggressiongains added importance. The Shi’is areunique. In Bahrain, they “have limitedopportunities in the public sector, and areeven more excluded in the military, whereno Shi’is hold important positions, evenif Shi’is serve as normal soldiers.”

Persecuted in Saudi Arabia,second-rate citizens in Saddam Hussein’s

A R T I C L E S


4

continued next page

continued from page 3Iraq and present day Bahrain, where theyare a majority, and downtrodden whenthe Maronites controlled Lebanon’spolitics, the Shi’i have never been afavored group in societies, andinternational communities have ignoredtheir plights.

Why?The reason is not religious. The

masses of Islam are no different from themasses of Protestants, they don’t careto whom and how their neighbor prays.Creating a conflict between opposinggroups creates havoc and a reason tomaintain control. By prompting,promoting and provoking a Sunni/Shi’idivide, western nations have contributedto preventing Arab nations from evolvinginto democratic, egalitarian and stablestates. The Sunni/Shi’i divide, portrayedas a religious conflict, is actually aneconomic conflict.

Similar to Northern Ireland, whereIrish Catholics protested against theirsecond-class citizenship and economicpersecution by English Protestants, thedeprived Shi’i minorities (majority inBahrain) have legitimately protested theireconomic subservience – for decades.During these decades, the United Statesplayed a significant role in the continuedrepression of the followers of Ali. Whilesupporting Saddam Hussein before theGulf War, encouraging the Maronite andSunnis in Lebanon, and having closerelationships with Saudi Arabian andBahrain monarchies, the U.S. governmentignored the legitimate grievances of theShi’i and implicitly allowed thesegrievances to erupt into challenges.

Adding to the total collapse of U.S.policy, the U.S. has been antagonistic toHezbollah, the organization that led theShi’i to achieve equality in Lebanon, anddespite contrary western propaganda,enabled Lebanon to evolve to a moredemocratic, egalitarian and stable state.American polices have forced Shi’i toturn to benefactors who will assist themin their plight. After soul mates from Irannaturally respond, the U.S. then accusesIran of meddling and controlling, andexporting terrorism. Anti-Shi’i is one of

the most punishing of the anti-isms andis aggravated by a western world thatexcuses nefarious anti-shi’i policies.Recognition of the rights of the Shi’i willdiminish the Sunni/Shi’i divide.

Iran and Saudi Arabia mostrepresent the divide, with each nationfearing that the other nation wants tooverthrow its government. U.S. militarypresence in Saudi Arabia and U.S.administrations close relations with theKingdom supports Iran’s arguments.Arab hostility to Iran occurs from theIslamic Republic’s disregard of its Sunniminority and its contentious attitude tothe Gulf states, its claims on Islandterritories and its supposed assistanceto a rebellious Shi’i.

Middle East stability dictatesreconciliation between the Arab worldand Iran, between Sunnis and Shiites, andspecifically between Saudi Arabia andIran. By cooperating, Iran and SaudiArabia can stabilize the Middle East. Thisdoes not mean that the two authoritariannations should be excused forsuppression of internal democraticmovements and be able to avoidresponsibility towards their own peoples.

Nor does it mean that their accordshould be allowed to prompt anarrangement that subverts other nationsor constructs an anti-American coalition.It only means that, by peculiarities ofinternational politics, these nationshappen to have significant power toresolve a crushing situation. The worldshould be aware of this unique powerand use it to advantage. Trace thesituation. It emerges from U.S. failures,which predict a U.S. loss of influence,which Iranian President MahmoudAhmadinejad claims will create a politicalvacuum, which will be filled by oil richIran and very oil rich Saudi Arabia, whichmerits a repair of the Sunni and Shi’idivide, and then leads to Middle Eastpeace and stability.

Support of autocratic monarchiesin Saudi Arabia and the Gulf state nationshas strengthened these regimes anddelayed them from extending sufficientfreedoms to their populations, includingShi’i. The latter ethnicity is important

because U.S. proclamations of freedomof religion and minority rights, except forIraq, are rarely applied to the Shi’i - justthe opposite - the victimized and mostlypowerless Shi’i, who have been attackedby Sunnis from India to Saudi Arabia, areconstantly and falsely portrayed asaggressive, terrorist prone and alwaysready to seize control. This depictiondisguises government corruption,reinforces Sunni domination andexaggerates a Sunni/Shi’i divide thatseeks amelioration.Bahrain is now a crucial focus for rightsof Arab peoples. The outcome of theevents in Peal Square will portend thefuture of the Middle East and influencethe political situation in Iraq.

A sectarian government in Iraqincreases the probability of a continuousand crushing civil war between theShiites and Sunnis. The strife couldundermine and consume the opposingIslamic states; Saudi Arabia and theIslamic Republic of Iran. A stable andnon-sectarian Iraq at their bordersrelieves these states of responsibility toassist opposing factions and limitscharges of neglecting brethren fromattack. A non-sectarian governmentserves as a buffer between Shiite Iran andWahhabi Saudi Arabia.

Is cooperation between Iran andSaudi Arabia far-fetched? Majorproblems exist between Iran and the Arabstates — territorial disputes, threats ofclosing the Straits of Hormuz, Arabstates’ alliances with the United States,claims that Iran supports a Shi’i uprisingin Bahrain, and the Sunni/Shi’i divide.Nevertheless, previous events indicatedthat Iran and Saudi Arabia intended todiminish antagonisms and more eagerlycooperate in stabilizing their Middle East.

On March 4, 2007, the Iranianpresident and Saudi leaders had officialtalks in which they “pledged to fight thespread of sectarian strife in the MiddleEast, which was the biggest dangerfacing the region.” Following thismeeting, Iranian President Ahmadinejad,on Oct.4, 2007, highlighted what he hassaid is the emergence of a “power vacuum

A R T I C L E S


5


continued next page

in the region,” and indicated Iran’sreadiness to fill that vacuum, whileencouraging cooperation between Iranand Saudi Arabia to achieve that goal.

On August 18, 2008, seven Arabcountries, including Kuwait, announcedtheir intentions to reopen their embassiesin Baghdad. The Arab Interim Parliament(AIP), which has been active inaddressing Arab Nations’ social andeconomic affairs, stated on August 25,2000, “it was examining a proposal tohave its chairman hold a dialogue betweenthe Arab and Iranian nations.”

A series of economic agreementsbetween Iran and the Gulf statesdemonstrated a recognized dependence.

London-based economic weeklyMEED reported on August 3, 2008 thatUAE-based Quest Energy and an Iraniancompany are developing a project tobuild a 1,000 megawatt power plant inIran. On August 17, 2008, the Saudi PressAgency reported that “Iran signed a dealto export gas to Oman that could opennew export routes well beyond theneighboring Arab state.”

A Bahrain that evolves into a non-sectarian and independent democracy

initiates a hopeful path to stabilization ofthe entire Middle East. This task will failif the western world does not recognizeits role in aggravating the problems of theArab world. Instead of inciting divisionand hatred, and juggling Middle Eastlives to favor their own interests, isn’t itpreferable that western agencies andgovernments encourage a Shi’i/Sunnirapport? Start with Bahrain.

22 February, 2011Dan Lieberman is editor of Alternative

Insight, a monthly web-based newsletter.

Source: Countercurrents.org

By Tarek El-Tablawy

OIL-RICH SAUDIS TRY TO STAVE OFF REVOLUTION WITH CASH

As Saudi Arabia’s 86-year-old monarchreturned home from back surgery, hisgovernment tried to get ahead ofpotential unrest in the oil-rich countryWednesday by announcing anunprecedented economic package thatwill provide Saudis interest-free homeloans, unemployment assistance andsweeping debt forgiveness.

The total cost was estimated at 135billion Saudi riyals ($36 billion), but thiswas not largesse. Saudi Arabia clearlywants no part of the revolts andbloodshed sweeping the alreadyunsettled Arab world.

Saudi officials are “pumping in hugeamounts of money into areas where it willhave an obvious trickle-down byaddressing issues like housingshortages,” said John Sfakianakis, chiefeconomist for the Riyadh, Saudi Arabia-based Banque Saudi Fransi. “It has, really,a social welfare purpose to it.”

The most prominent step was theinjection of 40 billion riyals ($10.7 billion)into a fund that provides interest-freeloans for Saudis to buy or build homes.The move could help reduce an 18-yearwaiting list for Saudis to qualify for aloan, Sfakianakis said.

Another 15 billion riyals ($4 billion)was being put into the General HousingAuthority’s budget, while the SaudiCredit & Savings Bank was to get 30billion riyals ($8 billion) in capital. The

bank provides loans for marriage andsetting up a business, among otherthings, and is supported by the Saudigovernment.

Other measures included a 15 percentcost of living adjustment for governmentworkers, a year of unemploymentassistance for youth and nearly doublingto 15 individuals the size of families thatare eligible for state aid. The governmentalso will write off the debts of peoplewho had borrowed from the developmentfund and later died.

While Saudi Arabia has been mostlyspared the unrest rippling through theMiddle East, a robust protest movementhas risen up in its tiny neighbor, Bahrain,which like others around the region iscentered on calls for representativegovernment and relief from poverty andunemployment.

There are no government figures inSaudi Arabia that provide a nationalincome breakdown, but analysts estimatethat there are over 450,000 jobless in thecountry. Despite the stereotype of richSaudis driving SUVs, large swaths of thepopulation rely on government help andlive in government-provided housing.The nation has a rapidly growingpopulation of youths — about two-thirdsof the population is under 29 — many ofwhom are chaffing under the harshreligious rules that keep the sexes largelysegregated.

A Facebook page calling for a “March 11Revolution of Longing” in Saudi Arabiahas begun attracting hundreds ofviewers. A message posted on the pagecalls for “the ousting of the regime” andlists demands including the election of aruler and members of the advisoryassembly known as the Shura Council.

King Abdullah returned to thesituation Wednesday after spendingthree months in the United States andMorocco getting treatment for a bad back.The economic sweeteners wereannounced before his plane landed.

The unrest in Bahrain, a GulfCooperation Council member state, iswhat has most worried Saudi Arabia andother Gulf Arab nations. Their worries, inturn, translate into concerns in thebroader global oil market since most ofthose nations are key OPEC members.Saudi Arabia, alone, sits atop the world’slargest proven reserves of conventionalcrude.

A disruption in crude supplies fromthe Gulf would make the current, two-year-high levels of over $100 per barrel,appear cheap. Oil prices have alreadyspiked because of Libya’s unrest.Investment bank Goldman Sachs said ina research report that the Bahrain protestsspotlight how the Gulf states are alsovulnerable, noting that the unrest in theisland nation and in Libya “increase the

A R T I C L E S


6

continued next page

continued from page 5risks of major supply disruptions.”

While analysts largely discount thekind of wide-scale protests in SaudiArabia, Qatar and the United ArabEmirates that have rocked the rest of theArab world, and it’s not possible to knowif the Facebook campaign has much

support from within Saudi Arabia —leaders need to pay attention to theissues raised by the demonstrators, theysay.

Abdullah, viewed as a reformer, hassought to address similar complaintsbefore.

He has worked to ensure that thegovernment has first and final say on allreligious edicts — a step aimed atweeding out the conflicting and oftenincreasingly austere messages putforward by competing clerics.

He has also set up a coedpostgraduate university, and is pushinghard to complete a series of mega-projects to help diversify the country’seconomic base and provide jobs foryoung Saudis.

Boosting the financing fordevelopment and housing funds will helpaddress a key gripe of many Saudis, andthe cost of living adjustment will helpoffset inflation in the kingdom, whichstood at about 5.3 percent in January.Banque Saudi-Fransi, in a research notereleased late Wednesday, said thecountry is trying to stem the spiraling costof housing by building 200,000 new unitsper year through 2014.

But few other Arab nations have hadmuch success in using money to quashthe protests.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak

offered it as a carrot in the first days ofthe protests, but was ousted shortlythereafter. The 15 percent pay andpension raise he promised, however,remains in effect for public sectoremployees. Others, like Jordan and Yemenhave looked to boost subsidies, andJordan is reviving a government bodythat ensures the prices of basiccommodities are within reach of the poor.

But Jordan, like other Arab countrieswhere the protests are still ongoing, isnot in the clear, and Saudi Arabia’s leadersare watching closely, hoping to stave offa contagion within their borders.

24 February, 2011

Tarek El-Tablawi is a reporter for The

Associated Press

Source: The Associated Press

THE UNITED STATES STANDS ALONE WITH ISRAEL IN THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL

By Richard FalkIn what appears to be as close to a

consensus as the world community canever hope to achieve, the United Statesreluctantly stood its ground on behalf ofIsrael and on February 18, 2011 vetoed aresolution on the Israeli settlements inthe West Bank and East Jerusalem thatwas supported by all 14 of the othermembers of the UN Security Council. Theresolution was also sponsored by 130member countries before beingpresented to the Council. In the face ofsuch near unanimity the United Statesmight have been expected to accord somerespect for the views of every leadinggovernment in the world, including all ofits closest European allies, and to havehad the good grace to at least abstainfrom the vote. Indeed, such anobstructive use of the veto builds a casefor its elimination, or at least theplacement of restrictions on its use. Whyshould an overwhelming majority ofmember countries be held hostage to thegeopolitical whims of Washington, or insome other situation, an outlier membertrying to shield itself or its ally from aSecurity Council decision enjoyingoverwhelming support? Of course this

American veto is not some idiosyncraticwhim, but is an expression of the sorrypro-Israeli realities of domestic politics,suggesting that it is Israel that is the realholder of the veto in this situation, andthe U.S. Congress and the Israeli Lobbyare merely designated as the enforcers.

Susan Rice, the American chiefrepresentative in the Security Council,appeared to admit as much when shelamely explained that the casting of theveto on this text “should not bemisunderstood to mean support forsettlement construction,” adding that, onthe contrary, the United States “rejectsin the strongest terms the legitimacy ofcontinued Israeli settlement activity.”Why then? The formal answer given isthat the United States, agreeing withIsrael, believes that only in the contextof direct negotiations can the issue ofsettlements be addressed alongside otherunresolved matters such as refugees,borders, and the status of Jerusalem. Thisseems absurdly arrogant, andgeopolitically humiliating. If the 14 othermembers of the Security Council believethat Israeli should be censured forcontinuing to build unlawful settlements,

and that no negotiations can proceeduntil it ceases, then it would seem that aunited front would be the most effectiveposture to resumed negotiations. This isespecially so here as it is a no-brainer torealize that every additional settlementunit authorized and constructed makes itless likely that a truly independent andviable Palestinian state can ever bebrought into being, and that there existsthe slightest intention on the Israeli sideto do so.

In view of this feverish Israeli effortto create still more facts on the ground,for the Israelis to contend thatnegotiations should resume withoutpreconditions, is to hope that thePalestinian Authority will play the foolforever. After all for more than 43 yearsthe Israelis have been whittling away atthe substance of the two state consensusembodied in unanimous Security CouncilResolution 242 (1967), contending atevery phase of the faux peace processthat an agreement must incorporate‘subsequent developments,’ that is,unlawful settlements, ethnic cleansing. Inthe end, the Israelis may turn out to have

A R T I C L E S

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 S7


continued next page

been more clever by half, creating anirresistible momentum toward theestablishment of a single seculardemocratic state of Palestine thatupholds human rights for both peoplesand brings to an end the Zionist projectof an exclusive ‘Jewish state.’ With greathistoric irony, such an outcome wouldseem to complete the circle of fire ignitedby Lord Balfour’s secret 1917 promise tothe Zionist movement of ‘a Jewishhomeland’ in historic Palestine, a processthat caused a Palestinian catastrophealong the way and brought war andbloodshed to the region.

The disingenuousness of the Israeliposition was confirmed by the recentpublication of the Palestine Papers thatshowed beyond a shadow of a doubt thateven when the Palestinian Authoritiescaved in on such crucial issues asJerusalem, settlements, and refugees,their Israeli counterparts, including thesupposedly more moderate predecessorsto the Netanyahu leadership, displayedno interest in reaching even an agreementso heavily weighted in Tel Aviv’s favour.What seems inescapable from any carefulreading of these negotiating positionsbehind closed doors during the priordecade is that the public negotiations area sham designed to buy time for Israel tocomplete its illegal dirty work of de factoannexation in the West Bank, a positionit has long adopted in the form of Israelide jure annexation of the entire expandedcity of Jerusalem in defiance of the will ofthe international community and theunderstanding of international law,objectively considered. To contend thatstopping the unlawful encroachments ofcontinuing settlement activity onoccupied Palestinian territory, anassessment that even the United Statesdoes not question substantively, is aninappropriate Palestinian demand seemsso excessive as to humiliate anyPalestinian representatives that stoopedso low as to accept it. Equally so, is theIsraeli claim that this demand has notbeen made in the past, which to the extentaccurate, is not an argument againstfreezing further settlement activity, but a

disturbing comment on Palestiniancomplacency in relation to their failure toinsist upon respect for their rights underinternational law.

In the context of this latest incidentin the Security Council, the PalestinianAuthority deserves praise for holdingfirm, and not folding under U.S. pressure,which was strongly applied, includingreported warnings from President Obama

by phone to President Mahmoud Abbasof adverse ‘repercussions’ if the textcalling for an end to illegal settlementbuilding was brought before the SecurityCouncil for a vote. Obviously, the UnitedStates Government realized itspredicament. It did not want to be soisolated and embarrassed in this way,finding itself caught between itsinternational exposure as willing tosupport even the most unreasonableIsraeli defiance of the UN and itsdomestic vulnerability to a pro-Israelibacklash in the event that it failed to doIsrael’s bidding in this matter of largelysymbolic importance.

We should not forget that had theSecurity Council resolution beenadopted, there is not the slightestprospect that Israel would have curtailed,let alone frozen, its settlement plans.Israel has defied a near unanimous vote(with, hardly a surprise, the U.S. judgecasting the lone negative vote among the15 judges) of the World Court in 2004 onthe unlawfulness of the settlement wall.Here, an American dissent could not bringIsrael in from the cold of its refusal toabide by this ruling as thankfully there isno veto power in judicial settings. In thatinstance of the wall, Israel wasted no timedenouncing the advisory opinion of thehighest UN judicial body, declaring its

refusal to obey this clear finding that thewall built on occupied Palestinian territoryshould be dismantled forthwith andPalestinians compensated for any harmdone. Instead, despite brave non-violentPalestinian resistance, work continues tothis day on finishing the wall.

With respect to the settlements it isno wonder that American diplomacywanted to avoid blocking an assertion ofunlawfulness that it was on record asagreeing to, a fact awkwardlyacknowledged by Ambassador Rice in thedebate, knowing that the resolutionwould not have the slightest behaviouralimpact on Israel in any event. It shouldbe noticed that as much as Israel defiesthe UN and international law, it stillcashes in its most expensive diplomaticchips to avoid censure wheneverpossible. I believe that this is animportant, although unacknowledged,Israeli recognition of the legitimizing roleof international law and the UN. It is alsoconnected with an increasing Palestinianreliance on soft power, especially its BDScampaign. This partial shift in Palestiniantactics worries Israel. In the last severalmonths Israeli think tanks close to thegovernment refer to as ‘the delegitimationproject’ with growing anxiety. Thisapproach of the Palestinian GlobalSolidarity Movement is what I have beencalling a Legitimacy War. For the lastseveral years it is being waged and wonby the Palestinians, joining the strugglesof those living under occupation and inexile.

On the PA side there was reportedanxiety that withdrawing the resolutionin this atmosphere would amount to whatwas derisively referred to as a possible‘Goldstone 2,’ a reference to theinexcusable effort by the PalestinianAuthority back in October 2009 to haveconsideration of the Goldstone Reportdeferred for several months by the HumanRights Council as a prelude to itsinstitutional burial, which has now moreor less taken place thanks to Americanpressures behind the scene. It has evenbeen suggested that had the PAwithdrawn the resolution Abbas would


8A R T I C L E S

continued next page


have been driven from power by an angrypopular backlash among the Palestinianpopulace. In this sense, the PA was, likethe United States, squeezed from bothsides: by the Americans and by their ownpeople.

Of course, in the background of thisincident at the UN are the tumultuousdevelopments taking place throughoutthe region, which are all adverse to Israeland all promising in relation to thePalestinian struggle even though manyuncertainties exist. It is not only the anti-autocrat upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt,the outcome of which is still not clearfrom the perspective of genuine regime

change as distinct from recasting the roleof dictatorial leader, but the wider regionaldevelopments. These include the politicalrise of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Turkishdiplomacy that refuses to tow theWashington line, the failure of Americaninterventionary diplomacy in Iraq, andthe beleaguered authoritariangovernments in the region some of whomare likely to give more active support onbehalf of Palestinian goals to shore uptheir own faltering domestic legitimacyin relation to their own people.

In many ways, the failed SecurityCouncil resolution condemning Israelisettlement activity is a rather trivial eventin the broader setting of the underlying

conflict. At the same time it is asignificant show of the play of forces thatare operative in Washington andRamallah, and above all, it is an unseemlydisplay of the influence Israel wields withrespect to the Obama Administration. Isit not time that the United States revisitedits Declaration of Independence or beganto treat the 4th of July as a day ofmourning?

23 February, 2011

Richard Falk is an international relations and

law scholar who taught at Princeton

University for forty years. He is also on the

JUST International Advisory Panel.

Source: Richardfalk.wordpress.com

DIVISIONS IN OUR WORLD ARE NOT THE RESULT OF RELIGIONKaren Armstrong was a Catholic nun

for seven years before leaving her order

and going to Oxford. Today, she is

amongst the most renowned theologians

and has written numerous bestsellers on

the great religions and their founders.

She is one of the 18 leading group

members of the Alliance of Civilizations,

an initiative of the former UN General

Secretary, Kofi Anan, whose purpose is

to fight extremism and further dialogue

between the western and Islamic worlds.

She talks here to the German journalist,

Andrea Bistrich, about politics,

religion, extremism and commonalities.

ANDREA BISTRICH: 9/11 has becomethe symbol of major, insurmountablehostilities between Islam and the West.After the attacks many Americansasked: “Why do they hate us?” Andexperts in numerous round-table talksdebated if Islam is an inherently violentreligion. Is this so?KAREN ARMSTRONG: Certainly not.There is far more violence in the Biblethan in the Qur’an; the idea that Islamimposed itself by the sword is a Westernfiction, fabricated during the time of theCrusades when, in fact, it was WesternChristians who were fighting brutal holywars against Islam. The Qur’an forbidsaggressive warfare and permits war onlyin self-defence; the moment the enemysues for peace, the Qur’an insists thatMuslims must lay down their arms and

accept whatever terms are offered, evenif they are disadvantageous. Later,Muslim law forbade Muslims to attack acountry where Muslims were permittedto practice their faith freely; the killing ofcivilians was prohibited, as were thedestruction of property and the use offire in warfare.

A B: The sense of polarization has beensharpened by recent controversies — theDanish cartoons of the ProphetMuhammad, over the Pope’s remarksabout Islam, over whether face-veilshinder integration. All these things haveset relations between Islam and the Weston edge. Harvard-Professor SamuelHuntington introduced the theory of a“clash of civilizations” we arewitnessing today. Does such afundamental incompatibility between the“Christian West” and the “MuslimWorld” indeed exist?K A: The divisions in our world are notthe result of religion or of culture, but arepolitically based. There is an imbalanceof power in the world, and the powerlessare beginning to challenge the hegemonyof the Great Powers, declaring theirindependence of them — often usingreligious language to do so. A lot of whatwe call “fundamentalism” can often beseen as a religious form of nationalism,an assertion of identity. The old 19th-century European nationalist ideal hasbecome tarnished and has always been

foreign to the Middle East. In the Muslimworld people are redefining themselvesaccording to their religion in an attemptto return to their roots after the greatcolonialist disruption.

A B: What has made Fundamentalism,seemingly, so predominant today?K A: The militant piety that we call“fundamentalism” erupted in every singlemajor world faith in the course of thetwentieth century. There isfundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity,Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism andConfucianism, as well as fundamentalistIslam. Of the three monotheistic religions— Judaism, Christianity and Islam —Islam was the last to develop afundamentalist strain during the 1960s.

Fundamentalism represents a revoltagainst secular modern society, whichseparates religion and politics. Wherevera Western secularist government isestablished, a religious counterculturalistprotest movement rises up alongside itin conscious rejection. Fundamentalistswant to bring God/religion from thesidelines to which they have beenrelegated in modern culture and back tocentre stage. All fundamentalism is rootedin a profound fear of annihilation: whetherJewish, Christian or Muslim,fundamentalists are convinced thatsecular or liberal society wants to wipethem out. This is not paranoia: Jewish

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

9


continued next page

fundamentalism took two major stridesforward, one after the Nazi Holocaust, thesecond after the Yom Kippur War of 1973.In some parts of the Middle East,secularism was established so rapidly andaggressively that it was experienced as alethal assault.

A B: The fact that fundamentalism isalso a phenomenon in politics wasstressed only recently by former USpresident Jimmy Carter when he voicedhis concerns over the increasingmerging of religion and state in theBush administration, and the element offundamentalism in the White House.Carter sees that traits of religiousfundamentalists are also applicable toneo-conservatives. There seems to be amajor controversy between, on the onehand, so called hard-liners orconservatives and, on the other, theprogressives. Is this a typicalphenomenon of today’s world?K A: The United States is not alone inthis. Yes, there is a new intolerance andaggression in Europe too as well as inMuslim countries and the Middle East.Culture is always, and has always beencontested. There are always people whohave a different view of their country andare ready to fight for it. AmericanChristian fundamentalists are not infavour of democracy; and it is true thatmany of the Neo-Cons, many of whomincline towards this fundamentalism,have very hard-line, limited views. Theseare dangerous and difficult times andwhen people are frightened they tend toretreat into ideological ghettos and buildnew barriers against the “other”.

Democracy is really what religiouspeople call “a state of grace.” It is an idealthat is rarely achieved, that hasconstantly to be reaffirmed, lest it be lost.And it is very difficult to fulfil. We are allAmericans and Europeans— falling shortof the democratic ideal during the socalled “war against terror.”A B: Could you specify the politicalreasons that you identified as the chiefcauses of the growing divide betweenMuslim and Western societies?

K A: In the Middle East, modernizationhas been impeded by the Arab/Israeliconflict, which has become symbolic toChristian, Jewish and Muslimfundamentalists and is the bleeding heartof the problem. Unless a just politicalsolution can be found that is satisfactoryto everybody¸ there is no hope of peace.There is also the problem of oil, whichhas made some of these countries thetarget of Western greed. In the West, inorder to preserve our strategic positionand cheap oil supply, we have oftensupported rulers such as the shahs ofIran, the Saudis and, initially, SaddamHussein, who have establisheddictatorial regimes which suppressedany normal opposition. The only placewhere people felt free to express theirdistress has been the mosque.

The modern world has been veryviolent. Between 1914 and 1945, seventymillion people died in Europe as a resultof war. We should not be surprised thatmodern religion has become violent too;it often mimics the violence preached bysecular politicians. Most of the violenceand terror that concerns us in the Muslimworld has grown up in regions wherewarfare, displacement and conflict havebeen traumatic and have even becomechronic: the Middle East, Palestine,Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir.

A B: In regard to the Arab — Israeliconflict you have said that for Muslimsit has become, “a symbol of theirimpotence in the modern world.” Whatdoes that really mean?K A: The Arab-Israeli conflict began, onboth sides, as a purely secular conflictabout a land. Zionism began as arebellion against religious Judaism andat the outset most Orthodox rabbiscondemned Zionism as a blasphemoussecularization of the Land of Israel, oneof the most sacred symbols of Judaism.Similarly the ideology of the PLO wassecular — many of the Palestinians, ofcourse, are Christian. But unfortunatelythe conflict was allowed to fester; onboth sides the conflict became sacralizedand, therefore, far more difficult to sortout.

In most fundamentalist movements,certain issues acquire symbolic value andcome to represent everything that iswrong with modernity. In Judaism, thesecular state of Israel has inspired everysingle fundamentalist movement, becauseit represents so graphically thepenetration of the secular ethos intoJewish religious life. Some Jewishfundamentalists are passionately for thestate of Israel and see it as sacred andholy; involvement in Israeli politics is asacred act of tikkun, restoration of theworld; making a settlement in theoccupied territories is also an act of tikkunand some believe that it will hasten thecoming of the Messiah. But the ultra-Orthodox Jews are often against the stateof Israel: some see it as an evilabomination (Jews are supposed to waitfor the Messiah to restore a religious statein the Holy Land) and others regard it aspurely neutral and hold aloof from it asfar as they can. Many Jews too see Israelas a phoenix rising out of the ashes ofAuschwitz — and have found it a way ofcoping with the Shoah.

But for many Muslims the plight ofthe Palestinians represents everythingthat is wrong with the modern world. Thefact that in 1948, 750,000 Palestinianscould lose their homes with the apparentapproval of the world symbolizes theimpotence of Islam in the modern worldvis-à-vis the West. The Qur’an teachesthat if Muslims live justly and decently,their societies will prosper because theywill be in tune with the fundamental lawsof the universe. Islam was always areligion of success, going from onetriumph to another, but Muslims havebeen able to make no headway againstthe secular West and the plight of thePalestinians epitomizes this impotence.Jerusalem is also the third holiest placein the Islamic world, and when Muslimssee their sacred shrines on the Haram al-Sharif [the Noble Sanctuary, also knownas Temple Mount]surrounded by thetowering Israeli settlements and feel thattheir holy city is slipping daily from theirgrasp, this symbolizes their beleagueredidentity. However it is important to note


10

continued next page

continued from page 9that the Palestinians only adopted areligiously articulated ideology relativelylate-long after Islamic fundamentalismhad become a force in countries such asEgypt or Pakistan. Their resistancemovement remained secular in ethos untilthe first intifada in 1987. And it is alsoimportant to note that Hamas, forexample, is very different from amovement like al-Qaeda, which hasglobal ambitions. Hamas is a resistancemovement; it does not attack Americansor British but concentrates on attackingthe occupying power. It is yet anotherinstance of “fundamentalism” as areligious form of nationalism.

The Arab Israeli conflict has alsobecome pivotal to Christianfundamentalists in the United States. TheChristian Right believes that unless theJews are in their land, fulfilling the ancientprophecies, Christ cannot return in gloryin the Second Coming. So they arepassionate Zionists; but this ideology isalso anti-Semitic, because in the LastDays they believe that the Antichrist willmassacre the Jews in the Holy Land ifthey do not accept baptism.

A B: Do you think the West has someresponsibility for what is happening inPalestine?K A: Western people have a responsibilityfor everybody who is suffering in theworld. We are among the richest andmost powerful countries and cannotmorally or religiously stand by andwitness poverty, dispossession orinjustice, whether that is happening inPalestine, Kashmir, Chechnya or Africa.But Western people have a particularresponsibility for the Arab-Israelisituation. In the Balfour Declaration(1917), Britain approved of a Jewishhomeland in Palestine and ignored theaspirations and plight of the nativePalestinians. And today the United Statessupports Israel economically andpolitically and also tends to ignore theplight of the Palestinians. This isdangerous, because the Palestinians arenot going to go away, and unless asolution is found that promises securityto the Israelis and gives political

independence and security to thedispossessed Palestinians, there is nohope for world peace.

AB: In addition, you have stressed theimportance of a “triple vision” — theability to view the conflict from theperspective of the Islamic, Jewish andChristian communities. Could youexplain this view?KA: The three religions of Abraham —Judaism, Christianity and Islam — canand should be viewed as one religioustradition that went in three differentdirections. I have always tried to see themin this way; none is superior to any ofthe others. Each has its own particulargenius; each its own particular flaws.Jews, Christians and Muslims worshipthe same God and share the same moralvalues. In the book A History of God, Itried to show that throughout theirhistory, Jews, Christians and Muslimshave asked the same kind of questionsabout God and have reached remarkablysimilar solutions — so that there areJewish and Muslim versions of theincarnation, for example, and very similarnotions of prophecy. In The Battle for

God, I tried to show how similar thefundamentalist movements are in all threefaiths.

Jews, however, have always foundit difficult to accept the later faiths ofChristianity and Islam; Christianity hasalways had an uneasy relationship withJudaism, the parent faith, and has seenIslam as a blasphemous imitation ofrevelation. The Qur’an, however, has apositive view of both Judaism andChristianity and constantly asserts thatMuhammad did not come to cancel outthe faiths of “the People of the Book”:you cannot be a Muslim unless you alsorevere the prophets Abraham, David,Noah, Moses and Jesus — whom theMuslims regard as prophets — as in factdo many of the New Testament writers.

Luke’s gospel calls Jesus a prophetfrom start to finish; the idea that Jesuswas divine was a later development, oftenmisunderstood by Christians.Unfortunately, however, religious peoplelike to see themselves as having amonopoly on truth; they see that they

alone are the one true faith. But this isegotism and has nothing to do with truereligion, which is about the abandonmentof the ego.

Too often it seems that religiouspeople are not necessarily morecompassionate, more tolerant, morepeaceful or more spiritual than others.America, for example, is a very religiouscountry, and at the same time it is themost unequal socially and economically.What does this say about the purposeof religion?

The world religions all insist that theone, single test of any type of religiosityis that it must issue in practicalcompassion. They have nearly alldeveloped a version of the Golden Rule:“Do not do to others what you would

not have done to you.” This demandsthat we look into our own hearts, discoverwhat it is that gives us pain and thenrefuse, under any circumstances, to inflictthat pain on anybody else. Compassiondemands that we “feel with” the other;that we dethrone ourselves from thecentre of our world and put anotherthere. This is the bedrock message of theQur’an, of the New Testament (“I can

have faith that moves mountains,” saysSt. Paul, “but if I lack charity it profits

me nothing.”). Rabbi Hillel, the oldercontemporary of Jesus, defined theGolden Rule as the essence of Judaism:everything else, he said, was“commentary.” We have exactly the sameteaching in Confucianism, Daoism,Hinduism and Buddhism. I have tried toshow this in one of my most recentbooks, The Great Transformation.

The traditions all insist that it is notenough simply to show compassion toyour own group. You must have whatthe Chinese call jian ai, concern foreverybody. Or as Jewish law puts it:“Honour the stranger love your

enemies,” said Jesus: if you simply loveyour own kind, this is purely self-interestand a form of group egotism. Thetraditions also insist that it is the daily,hourly practice of compassion — not theadoption of the correct “beliefs” or thecorrect sexuality — that will bring us into


11


the presence of what is called God,Nirvana, Brahman or the Dao. Religion isthus inseparable from altruism.

So why aren’t religious peoplecompassionate? What does that sayabout them? Compassion is not a popularvirtue. Many religious people prefer tobe right rather than compassionate. Theydon’t want to give up their egos. Theywant religion to give them a little milduplift once a week so that they can returnto their ordinary selfish lives, unscathedby the demands of their tradition.Religion is hard work; not many peopledo it well. But are secularists any better?

Many secularists would subscribeto the compassionate ideal but are justas selfish as religious people. The failureof religious people to be compassionatedoesn’t tell us something about religion,but about human nature. Religion is amethod: you have to put it into practiceto discover its truth. But, unfortunately,not many people do.

Islam and the West

A B: Discussing Western ideas ofjustice and democracy in the Middle East,British foreign correspondent of TheIndependent, Robert Fisk, says: “Wekeep on saying that Arabs ... would likesome of our shiny, brittle democracy, thatthey’d like freedom from the secretpolice and freedom from the dictators-who we largely put there. But they wouldalso like freedom from us. And they wantjustice, which is sometimes moreimportant than ‘democracy’”. Does theWest need to realize that Muslims canrun a modern state, but it is perhaps notthe kind of democracy we want to see?K A: As Muslim intellectuals made clear,Islam is quite compatible with democracy,but unfortunately democracy hasacquired a bad name in many Muslimcountries. It seems that the West has saidconsistently: we believe in freedom anddemocracy, but you have to be ruled bydictators like the shahs or SaddamHussein. There seems to have been adouble standard. Robert Fisk is right:when I was in Pakistan recently and

quoted Mr Bush—“They hate our

freedom!”— the whole audience roaredwith laughter.

Democracy cannot be imposed byarmies and tanks and coercion. Themodern spirit has two essentialingredients; if these are not present, nomatter how many fighter jets, computersor skyscrapers you have, your countryis not really “modern”.

The first of these is independence.The modernization of Europe from 16thto the 20th century was punctuated bydeclarations of independence on allfronts: religious, intellectual, political,economic. People demanded freedom tothink, invent, and create as they chose.The second quality is innovation as wemodernized in the West: we were alwayscreating something new; there was adynamism and excitement to the process,even though it was often traumatic.

But in the Muslim world, modernitydid not come with independence but withcolonial subjugation; and still Muslimsare not free, because the Western powersare often controlling their politics behindthe scenes to secure the oil supply etc.Instead of independence there has beenan unhealthy dependence and loss offreedom. Unless people feel free, any“democracy” is going to be superficialand flawed. And modernity did not comewith innovation to the Muslims: becausewe were so far ahead, they could onlycopy us. So instead of innovation youhave imitation.

We also know in our own lives thatit is difficult — even impossible — to becreative when we feel under attack.Muslims often feel on the defensive andthat makes it difficult to modernize anddemocratize creatively — especially whenthere are troops, tanks and occupyingforces on the streets.

A B: Do you see any common groundbetween Western world and Islam?K A: This will only be possible if thepolitical issues are resolved. There isgreat common ground between the idealsof Islam and the modern Western ideal,and many Muslims have long realizedthis. At the beginning of the twentiethcentury, almost every single Muslimintellectual was in love with the West and

wanted their countries to look just likeBritain and France. Some even said thatthe West was more “Islamic” than theunmodernized Muslim countries, becausein their modern economies they were ableto come closer to the essential teachingof the Koran, which preaches theimportance of social justice and equity.

At this time, Muslims recognized themodern, democratic West as deeplycongenial. In 1906, Muslim clericscampaigned alongside secularistintellectuals in Iran for representationalgovernment and constitutional rule.When they achieved their goal, the grandayatollah said that the new constitutionwas the next best thing to the coming ofthe Shiite Messiah, because it would limitthe tyranny of the shah and that was aproject worthy of every Muslim.Unfortunately the British then discoveredoil in Iran and never let the newparliament function freely. Muslimsbecame disenchanted with the West as aresult of Western foreign policy: Suez,Israel/Palestine, Western support ofcorrupt regimes, and so on.

A B: What is needed from a very practicalpoint of view to bridge the gap? Whatwould you advise our leaders — ourpoliticians and governments?K A: A revised foreign policy. A solutionin Israel/Palestine that gives security tothe Israelis and justice and autonomy tothe Palestinians. No more support ofcorrupt, dictatorial regimes. A justsolution to the unfolding horror in Iraq,which has been a “wonderful” help togroups like Al-Qaeda, playing right intotheir hands. No more situations like AbuGhraib or Guantanamo Bay. Moneypoured into Afghanistan and Palestine.A solution to Kashmir. No more short-term solutions for cheap oil. In Iraq andin Lebanon last summer we saw that ourbig armies are no longer viable againstguerrilla and terror attacks. Diplomacy isessential. But suspicion of the West isnow so entrenched that it may be too late.

14 November, 2007

Andrea Bistrich is a journalist based in

Munich, Germany

Source: Countercurrents.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

Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Chequeaddressed to:

International Movement for a Just WorldP.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

or direct to our bank account:Malayan Banking Berhad, Petaling Jaya MainBranch, 50 Jalan Sultan, 46200, Petaling Jaya,Selangor Darul Ehsan,MALAYSIA

Account No. 5141 6917 0716

Donations from outside Malaysia should be madeby Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$

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 tosimilar objectives in different parts of the world.

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

It would be much appreciated if youcould share this copy of the JUST Com-mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-ter still invite him/her to write to JUSTso that we can put his/her name on ourCommentary mailing list.

TERBITAN BERKALA

just commentary march 2011

Documents