The Common Ground News Service, April 13, 2005
CGNews-PiH
April 13, 2005
***********
The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity, brought to you
by Search for Common Ground, seeks to build bridges of understanding
between the West and the Arab World and countries with predominately
Muslim populations.
Please note: The views expressed in the articles and in CGNews-PiH are
those of the authors, not of CGNews or its affiliates.
**********
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL ARTICLES ARE AVAILABLE FOR RE-PUBLICATION.
Common Ground News Service- Partners in Humanity
Article #1
Title: 'She' TV gives voice to Arab women
Author: Will Rasmussen
Publication: The Christian Science Monitor
Date: April 4, 2005
Rasmussen looks into a television station that caters to women and
women's issues in the Middle East, trying to empower women by
questioning taboos and provoking controversy. Discussing challenges
that women face in their societies, the programs invite responses from
religious clerics as well as women viewers, showing a diversity of
perspectives that is not often heard in such a public forum.
Article #2
Title: A woman's reflection on leading prayer
Author: Yasmin Mogahed
Publication: Middle East Times
Date: March 30, 2005
Considering the very controversial issue of Islamic woman leading
prayer, Mogahed adds a unique perspective. She defends the position
that men should lead prayer, drawning not only religion but also the
broader context of male-female relations around the world.
Article #3
Title: Behind diplomacy, Iran sees a fight coming
Author: Scott Peterson
Publication: The Christian Science Monitor
Date: March 31, 2005
Peterson tries to decipher the various signals Iran and the United
States are exchanging over the issue of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons
program, and considers the political, military and social implications
of economic or political incentives or military action
Article #4
Title: How to Win Friends in the Mideast
Author: Rami G. Khouri
Publication: Los Angeles Times
Date: March 31, 2005
In this article, Khouri provides some concrete advice to Karen Hughes
and Liz Cheney as they take on the responsibility of revamping global
public diplomacy and the promotion of democracy throughout the Middle
East.
**************************
~YOUTH VIEWS~
This week our youth views article was co-written by American University
of Beirut student, Marwa Abou Dayya, and Harvard student, Alex Fortes.
Fortes and Abou Dayya write about their participation in th Soliya
Connect program that engages American and Arab college students in
dialogue through weekly online videoconferences.
*************************
YOUTH VIEWS
In Bridging Gaps, Dialogue is Key
Marwa Abou Dayya and Alex Fortes
April 12, 2005
Since the events of September 11, 2001, and especially since the
beginning of the Iraq War in March 2003, the relationship between Arab
states and the United States has been particularly contentious. As
participants in Soliya Connect, a program that engages American and
Arab college students in dialogue through weekly online
videoconferences, we have discussed with our peers the politics,
policies, and perceptions that divide these two regions. Encouraged by
our surprising agreement and driven by our often-heated debates, we
have attempted to better understand the issues that spark the greatest
controversy between Arab and American nations. Through examination of
our own views and our understanding of our respective cultures, we have
identified three major areas of disagreement: Israel-Palestine;
democracy, rights, and war ethics; and media objectivity. We believe
that a better understanding of these issues, with an unwavering
commitment to dialogue, is a vital initial step in disentangling the
Arab-American tensions so prominent today.
The most viable proposal we can make is to maintain a serious
commitment to increased dialogue and interaction between the two
regions. This dialogue must transcend the normal interactions of
diplomacy and work to place members of the society in every discipline
at a discussion table, to air perceptions and grievances and to help
clear up confusions. Programs such as Soliya are well designed to
address this problem, but they do not go far enough. The United States'
relationship to Israel, and implicitly, Israel's relationship to the
Arab world, plays a pivotal role in American-Arab relations. Therefore,
a dialogue between Americans and Arabs must also include Israelis in
order to be as productive as possible. The Lebanese government
currently prohibits interaction between Lebanese citizens and Israelis.
Throughout the course, we honored this rule and did not interact with
Israelis at any point in the program; however, we think that it is
vital for the interests of the whole region to open up dialogue fully
between Israelis, Americans, and Arabs, at least in the context of
programs with goals of fostering understanding such as Soliya. We
therefore propose an effort to lobby the Lebanese government to modify
this rule and exempt programs that aim at increasing understanding
among the different cultures. It is also important to note that the
United States, in its diversity, presents a less problematic arena in
which to enhance American-Arab relations. By fostering dialogues among
Americans of various backgrounds and those of Arab descent, we can
soothe internal tensions having to do with the conflict without needing
to address the more entrenched divides one encounters when dealing with
the Middle East.
Since the Arab relationship to America is so heavily marked by the
conflict in Israel and Palestine, commitment to resolution of this
conflict must be the first priority of American foreign policy in the
Middle East. While under the Clinton administration the United States
did make earnest attempts to mediate between the two parties in the
conflict, the Bush administration has until very recently been less
willing to take an active role as mediator beyond putting forth
proposed terms of peace. What has replaced the emphasis on Israel and
Palestine only serves to further aggravate American-Arab relations -
the war in Iraq. While the justifications for this war were various and
poorly corroborated, one of the chief ones stated by the American
leadership is bringing democracy to the Middle East. As a general
policy goal, this is meritorious; using war as a means to achieve it,
however, is anything but. The U.S. must instead emphasize reform from
within, aiding it through trade liberalization and political support of
popular liberal revolutions of the society. Achieving a democratic
Middle East must be done on the terms of the people of the Middle East.
It is the burden of Arab States to cooperate in prosecuting the most
destructive elements of Arab society; however, in so doing, these
governments risk being perceived as pawns of the United States and
losing popular legitimacy. The subtleties of these interactions and the
circumstances surrounding them are extremely complex and beyond the
scope of this piece to address comprehensively. Even so, a commitment
to more enlightened policies - both at the level of international
politics and at the level of cultural dialogue and exchange - furthers
our goal of cooperation and reconciliation.
We emphasize that maximizing social interaction and cultural exchange
through various forms of dialogue - whether they be sponsored by NGOs,
governments, educational institutions, or legitimate elements of the
mass media - is central to decreasing the tension between American and
Arab cultures. This joint piece by a Lebanese Muslim and an American
Jew is itself a testament to the compromise and consensus that can be
achieved between the two; any and all steps taken to further this goal,
no matter how small, are positive.
**Available for reprint.
*********
Article #1
'She' TV gives voice to Arab women
Will Rasmussen
BEIRUT, LEBANON - Television talk-show host Matilda Farjallah shifts
forward in her chair and looks the white-bearded Sunni sheikh sitting
across the table directly in the eyes. "Tahzeeb al-mara ["instructing
the woman"] is discussed in the Koran. Does it allow instructing a
woman by beating her?" she asks. Men, the sheikh responds, can instruct
women - but "only with words."
Yet, the sheikh adds, if the woman doesn't seem to get the message,
the husband can strike her.
"But only lightly with a ruler," the sheikh says, "and only on the rear
end."
Ms. Farjallah grows animated, her elbows lifting from the table. "Some
men," she says, "take advantage of the Koran and say: 'It is written,
We can beat women. It is within our rights.'" Dialogue like this isn't
common in the Middle East, but it's being dished out every day by Heya
(Arabic for "she") satellite television station, broadcast to an
estimated daily audience of 15 million women, from illiterate denizens
of remote villages in Egypt to Prada-clothed fashionistas in Beirut.
Tune in to Heya during the day, and you'll find shows on fashion,
cooking, or home decoration. But the station, carried on the digital
Nile Satellite television channel, is bent on more than just
entertainment.
"Our goal is to empower women," says Heya's founder, Nicolas Abu Samah,
who launched the station two years ago. "We want to question taboos and
provoke controversy."
Repression of women was listed as one of the Arab world's
three "deficits" in the United Nation's 2002 Arab Human Development
Report, along with a lack of political freedom and illiteracy. Mr. Abu
Samah, who spent 15 years in England with the Filmali Production Co.,
says his station does not make political statements or take stances on
religious matters. It simply raises tough questions.
Heya's potential audience is 100 million women across the Middle East,
nearly 70 percent of the region's TV viewers, according to Abu Samah.
Illiteracy is high among women in the region, and Abu Samah says
satellite TV is an important way of reaching them.
The station boasts a staff of about 60, with correspondents in Syria,
Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, and North Africa.
Studios are in Beirut and Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
About 70 percent of staff members - and all of the top managers - are
women, Abu Samah says.
Farjallah's show, "Al-Makshouf" ("The Uncovered"), is one of a number
devoted to political and social issues for Arab women, from domestic
violence to workplace discrimination to sex before marriage. "We try to
tackle all the core issues," she says. "We're involved in contentious
legal or religious issues all the time."
For the episode on domestic violence, Farjallah invited a young mother
named Rola Heidar who said she was regularly beaten by her husband and
her father.
On the air, Farjallah usually rests thoughtfully on her elbows, but can
play hardball. She is direct and forceful even with Ms. Heidar,
demanding: "Why didn't you leave him?"
Heidar, wearing a black mask to conceal her face, says her children -
babies at the time - "would die if I left, because he doesn't bring
food home."
That episode was particularly heated, with the sheikh bearing much of
the ire from the all-female panel.
"Is there a law that says that if a man beats a woman, she can leave
the house?" asks one panelist, an Algerian writer.
"Every problem has a solution," the sheikh answers. "If a law separated
her from her husband, are her problems over?" He urges Heidar to inform
the authorities about the beatings.
Another panelist, representing a women's rights group in Lebanon,
responds: "If she goes to the police, they'll laugh at her and not take
her seriously."
The sheikh says the beatings Heidar faces are the result of "a bad
education and a misunderstanding of the religion."
Farjallah insists her show isn't just talk. "We try to take action on
these issues," she says, adding: "We invite guests to share their
problems, but we try direct help as well - not just raise awareness."
She set up a hot line so viewers could call to offer Heidar help and
also listed the phone number for a women's rights group.
"In part of another episode we hosted 20 poor families on the show and
got [Lebanese Industry Minister] Leila Solh and [Saudi billionaire]
Prince Al-Walid bin Talal to help them," she says.
Farjallah's show, however, isn't the only one on Heya that's been
pushing buttons. The station's "Morning Show" addresses issues such as
prostitution, divorce, HIV/AIDS, and so-called honor crimes.
Even the news is geared toward women's issues. "From Day to Day"
examines news related to women from around the globe. The news is a
springboard for discussion between the anchor and a commentator, both
women.
A recent episode tackled depression among mothers after childbirth, the
pros and cons of invitro fertilization, and an employer who asked
female applicants to send in "sexy" pictures.
While the channel aggressively tackles social issues, it never directly
criticizes religious authorities or political leaders in the Middle
East. For that reason, Abu Samah says he's never faced censorship.
"Sometimes we have to choose our words carefully, but we can still get
the issues across," he says.
Source: The Christian Science Monitor
Visit the website at: www.csmonitor.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity
with permission.
Please contact Lawrenced@csps.com for reprint permission.
**********
Article #2
A woman's reflection on leading prayer
Yasmin Mogahed
On March 18 Amina Wadud led the first female-led Jumma (Friday) prayer.
On that day women took a huge step toward being more like men. But did
we come closer to actualizing our God-given liberation?
I don't think so.
What we so often forget is that God has honored woman by giving her
value in relation to God - not in relation to men. But as western
feminism erases God from the scene there is no standard left - but men.
As a result the western feminist is forced to find her value in
relation to men. And in so doing she has accepted a faulty assumption.
She has accepted that man is the standard and thus a woman can never be
a full human being until she becomes just like a man - the standard.
When men cut their hair short women wanted to cut their hair short.
When men joined the army women wanted to join the army. Women wanted
these things for no other reason than because the "standard" had them.
What women didn't recognize is that God dignifies both men and women in
their distinctiveness - not their sameness. And on March 18 Muslim
women made the very same mistake.
For 1,400 years there has been a consensus among scholars that men are
to lead prayer. Why does this matter to Muslim women? The one who leads
prayer is not spiritually superior in any way. Something is not better
just because a man does it. And leading prayer is not better just
because it's leading. Had it been the role of women or had it been more
divine, wouldn't the Prophet have asked Aisha or Khadija, or Fatima -
the greatest women of all time - to lead? These women were promised
heaven - and yet they never led prayer.
But now for the first time in 1,400 years we look at men leading prayer
and we think, "that's not fair". We think so although God has given no
special privilege to the one who leads. The imam is no higher in the
eyes of God than the one who prays behind.
On the other hand only a woman can be a mother. And God has given
special privileges to mothers. The Prophet taught us that heaven lies
at the feet of mothers. And no matter what a man does he can never be a
mother. So why is that not unfair?
And yet even when God honors us with something uniquely feminine we are
too busy trying to find our worth in reference to men, to value it - or
even notice. We, too, have accepted men as the standard; so anything
uniquely feminine is, by definition, inferior. Being sensitive is an
insult, becoming a mother - a degradation. In the battle between stoic
rationality (considered masculine) and selfless compassion (considered
feminine), rationality reigns supreme.
As soon as we accept that everything a man has and does is better, all
that follows is just a knee jerk reaction: if men have it - we want it,
too. If men pray in the front rows we assume that this is better, so we
want to pray in the front rows, too. If men lead prayer we assume the
imam is closer to God, so we want to lead prayer, too.
A Muslim woman does not need to degrade herself in this way. She has
God as a standard. She has God to give her value; she doesn't need men.
In fact, in our crusade to follow men, we, as women, never even stopped
to examine the possibility that what we have is better for us. In some
cases we even gave up what was higher only to be like men.
Fifty years ago society told us that men were superior because they
left the home to work in factories. We were mothers. And yet we were
told that it was women's liberation to abandon the raising of another
human being in order to work on a machine.
Then after working we were expected to be superhuman - the perfect
mother, the perfect wife, the perfect homemaker - and have the perfect
career. And while there is nothing wrong, by definition, with a woman
having a career, we soon came to realize what we had sacrificed by
blindly mimicking men. We watched as our children became strangers and
soon recognized the privilege we'd given up.
And so only now - given the choice - women in the West are choosing to
stay home to raise their children. According to the US Department of
Agriculture, only 31 percent of mothers with babies and 18 percent of
mothers with two or more children are working full-time. And of those
working mothers, a survey conducted by Parenting magazine in 2000 found
that 93 percent of them say that they would rather be home with their
kids, but are compelled to work due to 'financial obligations'.
These 'obligations' are imposed on women by the gender sameness of the
modern West and removed from women by the gender distinctiveness of
Islam.
It took women in the West almost a century of experimentation to
realize a privilege given to Muslim women 1,400 years ago.
Given my privilege as a woman, I only degrade myself by trying to be
something I'm not - and in all honesty - don't want to be: a man. As
women we will never reach true liberation until we stop trying to mimic
men and value the beauty in our own God-given distinctiveness.
If given a choice between stoic justice and compassion, I choose
compassion. And if given a choice between worldly leadership and heaven
at my feet - I choose heaven.
**Yasmin Mogahed is an Egyptian-American freelance writer.
Acknowledgement to Media Monitors Network (MMN)
Source: Middle East Times
Website: www.metimes.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained from the author for publication.
**********
Article #3
Behind diplomacy, Iran sees a fight coming
Scott Peterson
As concerns mount over its nuclear program, fear of a US strike is
spurring Iran to strengthen its defenses.
TEHRAN, IRAN - From Washington, the rhetoric calls for diplomatic
solutions to the nuclear standoff with Iran. But Tehran also hears a
growing drumbeat for war that echoes the build-up to US invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq. In preparation for any strike on its budding
nuclear facilities, Iran is making clear that the price will be high -
burnishing its military forces, boosting its missile program, and
warning of a painful response against US and Israeli targets in the
region.
"They see a fight coming, regardless of what they do, so they are
getting ready for it," says a European diplomat in Tehran, referring to
ideologues who think a US invasion is a "very real prospect." Even
moderate conservatives fear the "Iraqization of the Iran dossier," says
the diplomat. The result is that Iran is "constantly trying to project
strength" and is developing a new doctrine of asymmetric warfare.
President Bush, who included Iran in his "axis of evil," has called
speculation about a strike "ridiculous," but says all options are open.
Earlier this month, the US added modest incentives of WTO membership
and spare aircraft parts to bolster Britain, France, and Germany as
they negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program. But the US last week
refused to consider a security guarantee, as proposed by the head of
the UN's nuclear watchdog agency.
Experts say Iran has many assets to draw upon in case of attack:
* Iran has been upgrading its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach Israel
and US forces in the region. Iran's armed forces have conducted high-
profile military exercises since last fall.
* Iran is reported to have set up sophisticated air defenses around its
nuclear facilities. US officials in February said pilotless US drones
had been sent from Iraq since last year to sample the air for traces of
uranium enrichment. Iran has confirmed that it is excavating deep
underground tunnels to protect some nuclear facilities.
* Ukraine's new pro-West lawmakers are investigating "smuggled"
shipments of a dozen Soviet-era Kh-55 cruise missiles - designed to
carry a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead 1,860 miles, virtually undetectable
by radar - to Iran in 2001. A Russia-Iran satellite launch deal is to
provide digital maps for more accurate targeting, according to Moscow
analyst Pavel Felgenhauer.
* Western diplomats are raising concerns that Iran is "quietly building
a stockpile" of sophisticated military equipment, such as 2,000 armor-
piercing sniper rifles and night-vision goggles, acquired through legal
purchases as well as under a UN anti-drug program, the Associated Press
reported last Friday.
Beyond this, civilian hard-liners have been recruiting suicide bombers
to kill US troops in Iraq, or Israelis. Though derided by some
officials as not serious, by last June 15,000 had signed up, according
to Knight-Ridder.
"It is code to America: 'If you hit us, we will play dirty, using
Hizbullah and volunteers to hit the US across the region," says the
European diplomat, echoing analysts who note that Iran can swiftly
destabilize Iraq, activate militant cells, and close the Strait of
Hormuz to oil traffic. "There is an enormous danger of miscalculation."
That possibility, and the examples of US-engineered regime change in
Afghanistan and Iraq, are causing Iran to hedge its bets.
"If I was a student of [Prussian military strategist Karl von]
Clausewitz, I would do as the US does: I would talk incentives, and [at
the same time] design a theater of war against the enemy," says Abbas
Maleki, a former deputy foreign minister who heads the Institute for
Caspian Studies in Tehran.
In response, says Mr. Maleki, Iranians are focusing on three
possibilities: a surgical strike on nuclear facilities; a three-month
rolling air attack; and a six-month "troops on the ground" option.
"Iran must be very, very cautious to avoid any attack," says Maleki,
who maintains ties to Iran's leadership. "We have conventional weapons
designed for neighboring threats like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban -
not to fight a superpower. But we must defend ourselves."
Talking up that defense is almost daily news in Iran, where supreme
leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says Iranians are "accustomed to the
harsh and threatening language of the enemy," and told Iranian nuclear
officials last week to ignore US threats and continue their work. The
Revolutionary Guards "must be ready all the time," he said, "to stand
up to ... acts of bullying."
Analysts say any military action by the US could boost unpopular
conservatives.
"Iranians are very patriotic, and though there is a lot of
dissatisfaction with the regime, they oppose an attack," says Nasser
Hadian-Jazy, a political scientist at Tehran University with close ties
to the Khatami government. "It would be like Sept. 11 in the US, which
brought the neocons into power. A US attack could bring our neocons
into power."
Many experts agree that a military attack aimed at nuclear sites could
propel Iran's leadership to kick out UN inspectors and withdraw from
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
As a signatory of the NPT, Iran has been relatively cooperative so far.
Despite numerous Iranian reporting violations, and delays visiting
certain sites, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says its
inspectors have found no evidence of a weapons program.
Adding to concern in the West, the Asian Wall Street Journal reported
last week that US intelligence has received tens of thousands of pages
of Farsi-language designs and test data, dated from 2001 to 2003, to
modify the Shahab-3 missile to carry a "black box" that, the report
says, US experts "believe is almost certainly a nuclear warhead."
Similar leaks about Iraq's alleged weapons activities prior to the
invasion proved crucial to making the case for war, but were later
disproved. The Journal reports that US officials first thought "the
find might be disinformation, perhaps by Israel," but "are now
persuaded ... the documents are real."
A complete 14-month reassessment of US intelligence on WMD threats
ordered by the White House, and using pre-war errors about Iraq as a
case study - is to be presented to President Bush Thursday. A lengthy
classified section is reported to have found serious gaps in US
knowledge of Iran's programs.
"Nobody knows exactly how they are doing it, where they're doing it,
and how far along they are - all the stuff which is critical to know if
you were to launch a strike," says Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA
analyst now at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
"Rather than setting back the nuclear program, [a strike] could
accelerate it," says Mr. Pollack, author of "The Persian Puzzle: The
Conflict Between Iran and America." "That's actually sinking in with
the [Bush] administration."
Diplomats in Tehran say the US and Europe last month hammered out a two-
page agreement on how to "march together" in dealing with Iran - a big
change for an administration that has long dismissed the European
initiative.
But such moves come amid a host of reports from the US and Israel of US
special forces operating clandestinely in Iran already, searching for
evidence of a nuclear weapons program; the use of unmanned drones; and
even Israeli commandos training for their own strike dressed in
Revolutionary Guard uniform and using dogs strapped with explosives.
Showing improved abilities is part of Iran's deterrent strategy, though
most equipment is "aging or second rate and much of it is worn,"
Anthony Cordesman, a veteran Mideast military analyst at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington, wrote in December.
Even the Soviet KH-55 missiles delivered to Iran may have been
substandard, Ukrainian defense attorneys now say, though Iran could
reverse-engineer them.
Still, Iran has the largest military in the region, with 540,000 active
troops and 350,000 more in reserves. In addition to more than 1,600
battle tanks and 1,500 other armored vehicles, Mr. Cordesman
writes, "there is considerable evidence that [Iran] is developing both
a long-range missile force and a range of weapons of mass destruction."
Ironically, any strike could bury Iran's already weakened
moderates. "This action will really work against democracy and
reformers in Iran, and I believe the Americans know that," says Mostafa
Tajzadeh, a former deputy interior minister and adviser to Khatami. "If
we are pessimists, we would say they want hard-liners to [solidify]
control."
Source: The Christian Science Monitor
Visit the website at: www.csmonitor.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity,
with permission.
Copyright permission can be obtained by contacting Lawrenced@csps.com.
**********
Article #4
How to Win Friends in the Mideast
Rami G. Khouri
BEIRUT - The United States recently appointed Karen Hughes and Liz
Cheney to revamp two persistently enigmatic and largely failed
policies: global public diplomacy and the promotion of democracy
throughout the Middle East.
If these two able officials want to do a better job than their
predecessors in grasping why this noble American mission to promote
freedom is received with such skepticism, scorn and even resistance
around the world, and not just in Arab-Islamic lands, here's what they
should ponder:
* Style. As that great British thinker Mick Jagger once said: "It's
the singer, not the song." Washington's manner is often aggressive and
threatening. It uses sanctions and the military and unilaterally lays
down the law that others must follow or else they will be considered
enemies and thus liable to regime change.
People don't like to be bullied or threatened, even if change would be
for their own good.
* Credibility. The U.S. track record has hurt, angered or offended
most people in the Middle East. By primarily backing Arab dictators and
autocrats or supporting the Israeli position on key issues of Arab-
Israeli peacemaking, credibility has been lost.
The priority issue for most Arabs - whether Palestinians, Iraqis or
others - is freedom from foreign occupation and subjugation. If
Washington uses war and pressure tactics to implement United Nations
resolutions in Lebanon and Iraq but does nothing parallel to implement
U.N. resolutions calling for the freedom of Palestinians from Israeli
occupation, it will continue to be greeted with disdainful guffaws in
most of the Middle East.
* Consistency. The United States could have promoted freedom and
democracy in Iraq without waging war and spending $300 billion, getting
more than 1,500 Americans killed and 10,000 injured (and perhaps
100,000 Iraqis killed) and creating a massive anti-American backlash
throughout the world.
It could better promote democracy and rally Arab democrats by telling
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Tunisian President Zine el Abidine
ben Ali that being president without any meaningful legal opposition
for more than 20 years is long enough. The U.S. could support term
limits for Arab presidents.
* Motive. Perpetually changing the motive for the war in Iraq hurts
American credibility. We've been told that invading Iraq was about
weapons of mass destruction, links with Al Qaeda, imminent threats to
the United States, homegrown brutality against the Iraqi people,
stopping threats to neighbors and, now, spreading freedom and democracy
throughout the Middle East. Some of these rationales may one day prove
to be correct. In the meantime, the collection of half a dozen is
crippling to placing any trust in Washington.
* Context. The Arab states suffer massive internal pressures from
issues of population, identity, demography, economy, environment,
ideology, crises of citizenship rights versus statehood obligations and
secularism versus religiosity, and the perpetual pressure from foreign
armies. In this wider context, the issues of freedom and democracy are
dwarfed by the more pressing imperatives of stable statehood,
liberation from foreign occupation, meeting basic human needs, and
stopping foreign armies.
* Legitimacy. There is no global consensus that the United States is
mandated to promote freedom and democracy, or that this is the divinely
ordained destiny of the United States. There is such a mandate, though,
in the charter of the United Nations, in Security Council resolutions
to end foreign occupations and international legal conventions - most
of which the U.S. resists, ignores or applies very selectively.
No surprise then that virtually the whole world resists the United
States.
* Militarism. The American use of preemptive war for regime change
creates more problems than it solves. Promoting freedom and democracy
through the guns of the Marines doesn't work for many people outside of
Republican and neoconservative Washington circles.
* Relevance. The value of individual freedom as defined in American
culture runs counter to how freedom is understood in most of the Middle
East and the developing world. There, people sacrifice individual
liberties for the protection and the communal expression of belonging
to a bigger group - the family, tribe, religion or ethnic or national
group.
All of these are real concerns, derived from modern historical
experience, and they act as the primary constraint to any meaningful
Arab cooperation with the U.S. But the good news is that they all can
be overcome through better communications between Arabs and Americans
and more consistent, lawful policies by everyone concerned.
** Rami G. Khouri is a syndicated columnist. This piece is used by
permission of Agence Global.
Source: Los Angeles Times
Visit the website at: www.latimes.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained from the author for publication.
**********
About CGNews-PiH
The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity, brought to you
by Search for Common Ground, seeks to build bridges of understanding
between the West and the Arab World and countries with predominately
Muslim populations. This service is one result of a set of working
meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan
bin Talal in June 2003.
Every two weeks, CGNews-PiH will distribute 2-5 news articles, op-eds,
features, and analyses that aid in developing and analyzing the current
and future relationship of the West and Arab/Muslim world. Articles
will be chosen based on accuracy, balance, and their ability to improve
understanding and communication across borders and regions. They will
also reflect the need for constructive dialogue around issues of global
importance. Selections will be authored by local and international
experts and leaders who will analyze and discuss a broad range of
relevant issues. We invite you to submit any articles you feel are
compatible with the goals of this news service.
We look forward to hearing from you, and welcome any questions,
concerns, or comments you may have about this service. Please forward
this message to colleagues and friends who may also wish to subscribe
to the service. To subscribe, send an email to subscribe-
cgnewspih@sfcg.org with subscribe in the subject line.
If you are a member of the media, please join us in promoting
constructive dialogue to improve understanding and perceptions. Unless
otherwise noted, all copyright permissions have been obtained and the
articles may be reproduced by any news outlet or publication free of
charge. If you choose to republish any of the articles, please
acknowledge both the original source and CGNews, and notify us at
cgnewspih@sfcg.org
************
E-mail: cgnewspih@sfcg.org
Editors:
Emad Khalil
Amman Editor
Oussama Safa
Rabat Editor
Juliette Schmidt & Elyte Baykun
Washington Editors
Michael Shipler
Youth Views Editor
**********
This is a not-for-profit list serve.
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you think would like
to see these articles.
To subscribe, send an email to subscribe-cgnewspih@sfcg.org with
subscribe in the subject line.
