[Asharq al-Aswat] The West is fearful of the Nahda Movement's influence in Tunisia, and this has caused America and its European allies to turn a blind eye to the mistakes committed by the Tunisian government. However, The infamous However... of course, the government has been responsible for some development achievements witnessed in the country.
The US, and influential western countries, are committing a grave error when dealing with some of the more repressive countries in the Islamic world. The US and its European allies support and endorse these countries, or at least turn a blind eye to their practices, in accordance with Western interests. When we say that Western states have committed a fundamental mistake, it is not because they have prevented Islamic movements from coming to power -- in doing so they are simply acting in accordance with their interests and strategies. Islamic trends are viewed by the West as nothing more than an opposition which must be prevented from gaining control, at all costs. This may mean a total disregard for democratic outcomes, and the results of fair polls -- as happened in the Algerian and Paleostinian elections -- regardless of the catastrophic consequences this may have for Arab or Islamic nations.
The fundamental mistake of the Western strategy is that it fails to put pressure on these countries to improve moral relations with their populace, by undertaking genuine economic, political and developmental reforms, fighting corruption, and loosening their iron fist. Failing to do so only generates a sense of injustice and oppression, which results in public uprisings and riots. Sometimes these have catastrophic consequences, as was evident in the Algerian case, which we fear may now be repeated in Tunisia.
The US and its European allies could have designed their strategies in a manner that prevented Islamic trends from reaching power, but via the consolidation of pubic liberties, fighting corruption and promoting development. A clean and a fair government with a strong economy, and a transparent supervisory and accountability system, even if it rejected the Islamic agenda completely, would be fully resistant to change, and the Malaysian experience is testament to this.
The historic, charismatic, political figure of [former Malaysian Prime Minister] Mahathir Mohamed is not the product of Islamic trends, although he shares some characteristics with them. Indeed he is in some sense an authoritarian, although he did not reach the level of dictator. He competed with the strong Malaysian Islamic movement, and took part in a fierce struggle with its one of its key figures, Anwar Ibrahim. In the end, Mathathir was successful in ousting Ibrahim from government, dismissing him in a somewhat ugly fashion.
Nevertheless, this confrontation did not disrupt Mahathir's government, because the Malaysian nation appreciated his patriotism, and his contribution to the country's developmental plans, which would enable Malaysia to later become one of the Asian Tigers. The man was religious by nature, and had no quarrel with Islam in general. There is a clear difference between antagonizing the political Islamic movement, and antagonizing the religion of Islam. Therefore, the nation raised no objection, nor did they care much about the defeat of a key symbol of the Malaysian Islamic movement, whilst Mahathir strengthened his firm grip on power. Had Arab states -- suffering from disorders and divisions between them and their people - been governed by the Mahathir model, we would not find problems as serious as those ongoing in Tunisia, even when faced with an Islamist opposition.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/07/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
[Asharq al-Aswat] Investigations into the bombings which targeted al-Qiddissin church in Alexandria are still in their infancy, so it is difficult to say who was behind this heinous crime. Therefore, it is not wise to make reckless accusations, which would only add fuel to fire. It is true that al-Qaeda, in the guise of the so-called "Islamic State of Iraq", has issued several statements over the past two months, which threatened to target Christians in Egypt. [It is also true] that some websites, frequented by 'Jihadists', have published the addresses of a number of churches in Egypt, including al-Qiddissin church in Alexandria, and called for them to be targeted during the new year celebrations. However, The infamous However... these days we are aware that 'al-Qaeda' is no longer an organization, in the strict sense of the word, but rather it has become an international banner under which different organizations are operating. In reality, these organizations share nothing in common, except for extremism and terrorism.
Extremism, terrorism, and common venal criminality. No... murderousness, extremism, terrorism, and common venal criminality. But let's not quibble about trivialities.
The term 'al-Qaeda' may sometimes be used by deviant groups
"Heretics! Burn them!"
seeking to sow the seeds of discord, create problems, and undermine stability.
Of course, 'al-Qaeda' cannot be declared innocent of this crime,
Perish the thought!
for the act, and they way it was carried out, bore the hallmarks of the global terrorist network. The organization and its slogans seek to destabilize the region and incite sectarian strife. Al-Qaeda has attempted, and continues to attempt, to trigger a war between Sunnis and Shiites, or create tensions between Mohammedans and Christians, as we saw with the Lady of Salvation Church massacre in Storied Baghdad last October. Following the massacre, the so-called "Islamic State of Iraq" warned that it would target Egyptian Copts, under the pretext that two [Christian] women, who had recently converted to Islam, were being held in jug in Egyptian monasteries. One should highlight here that "al-Qaeda" does not target Christians in defence of Islam or Mohammedans. The organization has previously targeted mosques, and more Mohammedans have died as a result of its attacks than the followers of any other faith. However, The infamous However... whether or not 'al-Qaeda' criminal masterminded the horrific crime in al-Qediseen church, there is a greater and more significant issue here; namely the underlying conditions that have paved the way for those seeking to create sectarian strife, and undermine the stability and unity of our nations.
Without a doubt, Egypt was targeted in particular, because it is undergoing a difficult, tense period, which represents a favourable opportunity for any party seeking to undermine the country's stability and security. Sectarian tension is regarded as Egypt's Achilles' heel, and it is easy for those targeting national unity and social cohesion to trigger violent confrontations between Mohammedans and Christians. The virus of sectarian strife has been growing for quite some time, and numerous incidents have taken place in recent years as a result of constant tension, and increasing extremism. Such incidents are the outcome of a previous accumulation, dating back to the 1970s or even earlier. When religion is brought into a political dispute, with the aim of using it as leverage or a bargaining chip, the door is open for extremism. Likewise, this also paved the way for sectarianism, in a country where the Mohammedan and Christian population had lived in peace and cohesion since the dawn of Islam.
That certainly is one view of the historical facts.
Without a doubt, political suppression and a lack of freedom of expression have fed extremism further, thus preventing any conscious and courageous effort to deal with the sectarian tension.
Many rational minds warned several years ago of the dangers of dealing with Christians as 'non-Mohammedans in a Mohammedan state', rather than simply treating them as citizens. Despite this, the dominant discourse, not only in Egypt but across the Arab world, continued to handle the situation on the bases of 'the majority and the minority'. The logic of 'a majority and a minority' within a nation is in fact a poisoned dagger. It is being driven into an open wound, exposing it to the bacteria of sectarianism and the disease of extremism. To label someone as a minority would cause them to feel wary, and adopt a defensive position, out of fear for their existence.
So what is required?
The concept of citizenship is the correct approach to galvanise our societies, on the basis that we are all citizens, whether Mohammedans and Christians, Sunnis and Shiites, or Arabs, Kurds and Berbers (for example but not exclusively). As a result, everyone enjoys full rights and duties, as long as they belong to the same country, and protect the sanctity of the homeland. Full citizenship is a safeguard for human rights ... which are not the same thing as individual rights, mind you... , dignity and humanity, and promotes one's allegiance to his country, regardless of his race, religion or sect.
Present-day Sudan is an example of what can happen to a nation when it fails to entrench the concept of citizenship, when people are dealt with on the basis of majority and minority, and when the language of 'Mohammedan this and Christian that' is used. Iraq is another example of what can happen to a nation when a sectarian mentality prevails, with a division between Sunnis and Shiites, and Arabs and Kurds. Yet Leb may be the greatest example of how sectarianism can damage a nation. The country has been torn and worn out by sectarian wars, which continue to ravage at its weak body.
Egypt may be different to Leb, Iraq and Sudan, but it is certainly not immune to the virus of sectarian strife. Perhaps the recent events will prompt people to think of how to handle such an issue, not in terms of how to calm the current situation, but instead to search for a comprehensive cure and preventive solution. In doing so, the concept of full citizenship must prevail over the language of 'minorities and majorities', which has only made matters worse. Only then, beturbanned goons and those seeking to incite civil strife will be unable to undermine the country, or trigger sectarian conflict.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
01/07/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In reality, these organizations share nothing in common, except for extremism and terrorism. In the name of...
Unfortunately, the basic glitch remains the same, i.e. the ACCURACY = RELIABILITY OF SOLAR BEHAVIOR/SOLAR STORM-FLARE MODELS espec as per MSM-Net, Pert-forecasted STARTING-IN-2012/2013 TECHS-, CIVILIZATION-DAMAGING? [iff not DESTROYING?] SOLAR STORMS???
MATH > essens indics or infers that for the various PERTS' forecasts to be accurate as above, THE SCALE = MAGNITUDE OF THE ANTICIPATED 2012/2013-after SOLAR STORMS-FLARES MUST BE WORSE OR HIGHER THAN IS BEING PUBLICLY STATED.
#2
JosephM, until the 'perts can at least predict the past accurately, we can't much trust their predictions of the future. The only thing that seems certain is that Guam is not going to sink under the waves any time soon... nor go over like a tilt table if too many American troops land on one side without balance on the other.
Hat tip Instapundit
In classical Athens, public life became dominated by clever and smart-sounding sophists. These mellifluous "really wise guys" made money and gained influence by their rhetorical boasts to "prove" the most amazing "thinkery" that belied common sense.
We are living in a new age of sophism -- but without a modern equivalent of Socrates to remind the public just how silly our highly credentialed and privileged new rhetoricians can often sound. History provides perspective
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
