The Common Ground News Service, April 28, 2005
Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
April 28, 2005
The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) is
distributing the enclosed articles to build bridges of understanding
between the West and the Arab World and countries with predominately
Muslim populations. 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 publishing, please acknowledge
both the original source and CGNews, and notify us at
cgnewspih@sfcg.org.
**********
ARTICLES IN THIS EDITION:
1. "The American-Islamic debate shifts slowly, positively" by "Rami G.
Khouri"
Rami G. Khouri, editor-at-large for the Daily Star in Lebanon, looks at
changes in the content of American-Islamic dialogue, such as the recent
discussion on how to include Islamist parties and groups in the
democratic process in the Middle East. These small shifts, argues
Khouri, demonstrate the possibility for Arabs, Americans and Muslims to
rally around a single, shared political goal in ways that have not been
possible before.
(Source: Daily Star, April 14, 2005)
2. " Winds of change in Syria" by "Marc Gopin"
Marc Gopin, the James Laue Chair at George Mason University's Institute
for Conflict Analysis and Resolution and director of its center on
religion and diplomacy, describes his experience discussing Middle East
peace in Syria. Seeing some areas for opportunity and hope during his
visit, he offers some next steps for Israel and the United States to
continue to engage with Syria going forward.
(Source: George Mason University, April 18, 2005)
3. "What we don't know about the world: the danger of ignorance in Arab-
US relations" by "Ned Walker"
Ned Walker Jr., President of the Middle East Institute, expounds on his
experience working with the Al Ahram Center in Cairo to examine the
crisis in Arab-US relations. Feeling that deeper understanding was
required to get at this problem, the group outlined a list of
recommendations designed to set aside stereotypes and suppositions and
engage one another to face this issue.
(Source: Middle East Institute, April 10, 2005)
4. "Achieving long-term political change in the Middle East" by "Dov S.
Zakheim"
Dov S. Zakheim, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) from 2001-2004
and Search for Common Ground Board Member, looks at the direction of
political change in the region and suggests Islam and modernity and
Islam and not mutually exclusive. Instead, he provides some out-of-the-
box suggestions for a movement towards greater freedom that takes into
consideration the realities of the region.
(Source: Search for Common Ground, April 23, 2005)
**********
ARTICLE 1
The American-Islamic debate shifts slowly, positively
Rami G. Khouri
BEIRUT - I have spent the last three days in Doha, Qatar, participating
in a rich discussion among 150 Americans and citizens from Islamic
countries around the world, which has clarified a few important trends
in American-Islamic world relations. The center of gravity of the
public debate about the Arab-Islamic world, and between Americans and
Muslims, is slowly shifting. It is moving away from wars for regime
change and clashes of civilizations, into a discussion of democracy and
reform. Most intriguingly and significantly, a core issue in this
global debate became clearer to me and many other participants here at
the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, organized by the State of Qatar and the
Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in
Washington, DC. It is the issue of whether, and how, to include
Islamist parties and groups in the democratic process.
As Arab and Islamic societies become more democratic, the most
credible, organized and legitimate groups in society are likely to be
Islamist parties like Hizbullah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. If
they are denied participation in elections, or denied incumbency if
they win, the democratic process will prove to be a sham. But, it is
also asked, can they participate in politics and share in power if they
remain armed? Significantly, the core of the debate now is not about
whether these groups should participate politically, but how they can
do so in a manner that is acceptable to all concerned.
Other dimensions of the shifting debate are also clearer these days.
These include greater stress on how to promote reform in Arab-Asian-
Islamic societies, expand the circle of participants in pluralistic,
democratic politics, adjust economic and educational policies to
support development and security, and understand better the centrality
for Arabs and Muslims of resolving the Palestine issue fairly.
Participants here frankly aired and debated their views, but in a
spirit and context that were markedly different from similar gatherings
in previous years. Democratic reforms have rapidly emerged as the
central pivot around which most of the discussion now revolves, while
the mutual criticisms and complaints remain largely the same.
Political leaders and civil society activists need to grasp and act on
this novelty: the promotion of democracy and economic reforms in Arab-
Islamic countries provides an unprecedented opportunity for people from
both societies to work together for goals they share, to redress
problems they both suffer from, and to achieve results that will
benefit them all. Never in recent generations have Arabs, Americans and
Muslims been able to rally around a single, shared political goal that
they all perceive to be legitimate, urgent, useful and practicable.
Much has happened in the three years since the September 11, 2001
attacks against targets in the U.S., the two years since the United
States used its armed forces to change the regimes in two Islamic
countries, and over a decade after the clash of civilizations question
was raised by Samuel Huntington. The small but clear shifts in the core
discourse between concerned Americans and Muslims and Arabs has been in
the making for over a decade. It has only been clarified in the past
nine months or so, due to a combination of factors. Some of the most
important ones include American-engineered deeds and failures in Iraq;
Washington's predatory, aggressive global policy since September 11,
2001, and the world's equally strong defiance and resistance to
unilateral American militarism; the slow reconciliation and revived
partnership for global action between the U.S. and Europe; more dynamic
indigenous Arab movements for democratic change and freedom in response
to collective Arab mediocrity in the governance field; a stronger
American embrace of the policy of promoting freedom and democracy;
fears about the growing scourge and expanding scope of terrorism; and,
a global emphasis on the centrality of resolving the Arab-Israeli
conflict for promoting other mutually identified goals in the Arab-
Islamic world.
The shifts are discernible but not gigantic, significant but not yet
decisive. They are important to acknowledge and nurture, however,
because they may offer the end of a thin thread that Americans, Arabs,
Asians, and Muslims can grasp and weave into a strong rope that can
pull them all out of their cycle of anger, fear, and war. This is a
challenge that will require the best of Americans and citizens and
leaders in Islamic societies.
An important element in the slow change that may be taking place in how
Americans and Arabs/Muslims deal with each other is a growing
appreciation for the fact that the rules of internal democracy in one
country must apply to relations among countries and the expansion of
democratic societies around the world. Specifically, (as many Arabs and
Muslims repeatedly told Americans here this week), all countries have
to abide by a universal set of rules and norms, just as all citizens of
a democracy should enjoy equal rights and obligations. This means that
the U.S. and Israel, for example, cannot set their own rules on issues
related to security or weapons of mass destruction proliferation, and
expect the rest of the world to accept lower standards of security or
national rights. A credible democratic culture, it was stressed here,
requires that all citizens within a state, as well as all countries in
the world, abide by common legal norms.
We are far from achieving this condition, but movement is toward that
direction, and toward closer positions, after many years of Arabs,
Americans and Muslims moving in different directions, and often
shooting each other on the way.
###
* Rami G. Khouri is a member of The Daily star staff
Source: Daily Star, April 14, 2005
Visit the Daily Star at www.dailystar.com.lb
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
ARTICLE 2
Winds of change in Syria
Marc Gopin
WASHINGTON, DC -- In between speaking at two seminars in Israel
regarding the future of peace and conflict in the region, I slipped out
of the country into Jordan and then on to Syria.
The trip was the brainchild of Hind Kabawat, a Syrian Canadian attorney
who I had met at the World Economic Forum. She planned with me an
unprecedented set of engagements in Damascus raising publicly for the
first time in 40 years the subject of peace in the Middle East.
We raised these issues through the lens of culture and religion, a less
threatening approach than pure political discourse, and, most
importantly, I would raise these issues as a scholar of conflict
resolution with a cultural background as a religious American Jewish
scholar.
Hind displayed a combination of intense national pride, commitment to
peace, political savvy and public relations know-how that really should
be studied as a textbook example of how to open up political dialogue
across civilizations when it has been closed for generations.
Everything was approved at the highest levels even though all the
engagements remained unofficial. I was a private citizen, but I was
greeted at the border by a representative of the minister of
information who gave me an official talk summed up by the words, "Our
president has offered a full peace to Israel and normalization of
relations."
The main public dialogue on Thursday night, January 6, 2005 - excerpts
of which were nationally televised - was attended by 300 distinguished
guests, government officials, artists, professors, professionals. It
took place in the most prestigious building of Damascus, the Assad
Library, and attendees included the American, Canadian and Swiss
ambassadors, the Syrian ambassador to the US, assistants to President
Bashar Al Assad and representatives of various ministries, especially
the ministry of information and the ministry of expatriates, in
addition to professionals and officials from Lebanon.
The atmosphere of the public dialogue, simultaneously translated
between English and Arabic, was electric in many ways, with great
anticipation of how a public dialogue would proceed with 300 people on
the most sensitive issues of war and peace. I was treated with immense
respect, but, at the same time, some in the audience had the
opportunity to vent anger at what they saw as the victimization of
Syria and the Palestinians. Others expressed deep appreciation for my
willingness to come and listen. We had a great, tough dialogue.
I knew the political leadership was watching every word to see if this
experiment of public dialogue across civilizations would fly and be a
precedent, and I knew the American ambassador was watching, too. Those
who planned the event expressed through word and deed their sense of
astonishment that something utterly new was happening.
The words that Hind said publicly by way of introducing me were far
more important than mine because she is an insider to the culture. She
is the kind of catalyst that the West should support. Such people can
change history nonviolently because they are from within the privileged
group that leads the country.
The question hovering over the entire trip was would the West listen to
her words, would the West engage a complicated Syria and support its
best reformers, or would it ignore her and others. Would it see the
side of Assad that is trying to make change, or would it focus instead
on the Syrian supporters of Hizbullah and other violent incursions in
the region.
Despite the obvious challenges of what the military supports, there are
some winds of change at the heart of Syrian culture, winds that the
West is missing. In fact, my biggest problem since I left Syria was
that no one in Israel believed that the event actually took place, or
that a religious Jew would be treated this way in the capital of
Israel's fiercest foe.
Fortunately we made a videotape, and yet the sense of disbelief remains
palpable. I said this to one Syrian, and she said in a generous way
that is typical of her culture, "It's ok, we could hardly believe it
ourselves, how could we expect others to believe it."
The United States, Japan and other Western investors should seize the
opportunity at this time in history to find a creative way to support
the reformers in Syria, including Assad, and they should learn who to
support, who not to support and who to try to pressure into change.
Blanket condemnations and boycotts of a society of 18 million people
are useless and just create solidarity with the hardliners in their
midst.
We tried to offer a vision of the future that week, one in which an
open Middle East would be a boon for Syria in particular. Old Damascus
is a goldmine of civilization and yet it is empty of tourists. Business
interests should unite here with a political and military plan to pull
Syria away from terrorism and old forms of geopolitical control and
corruption.
We stand at a dangerous and hopeful crossroads in the course of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, a conflict that cannot be separated from
a discussion of Syria's future. Many feel that it would be political
suicide for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel to open right now a
Syrian-Israeli peace track, specifically involving giving back the
Golan. Yet can the Palestinian-Israeli peace track proceed with
Hizbullah, a client of Syria and Iran, doing everything it can to
disrupt the peace process?
What all parties need most right now is not the immediate start of
Syrian-Israeli negotiations, but a palpable thaw in relations, a firm
direction away from support for terrorism accompanied simultaneously by
significant gestures of cultural and economic rapprochement. This,
combined with subtle US efforts to engage and support Assad, are key
ingredients that will bring Syria into the circle of an enlarged peace
process, and this eventually will deal a final death blow to state-
supported terrorism in the Arab Middle East.
###
* Marc Gopin holds the James Laue Chair at George Mason University's
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, directs its center on
religion and diplomacy in Washington DC and is the author of Holy War,
Holy Peace. Acknowledgement to George Mason University.
Source: George Mason University, February 6, 2005.
Visit the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR) online:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/ICAR
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
ARTICLE 3
What we don't know about the world: the danger of ignorance in Arab-US
relations
Ned Walker
WASHINGTON, DC - For two years, scholars and experts from the Middle
East Institute in Washington and the Al Ahram Center in Cairo worked
together to examine the crisis in relations that divides us. We found
significant common ground in our personal values and national goals.
Yet the anger, frustration and disappointment that often marked our
dialogue provided ample evidence of the stress that has developed
between our societies. Our Arab friends said, "It's the policy,
stupid." There is no doubt that our way was complicated by our active
policy in Iraq and our passive policy on the Palestinian issue. But
while policies play a part in the estrangement, they are only a part of
the problem and not really the most important part.
What we found was that because of our different histories, our
exaggerated expectations of one another, the stereotypes we have
developed of one another, our different cultural heritage and our
ignorance of each other, we are hard wired into mutual mistrust. We
come at problems from different perspectives, and that leads to
misunderstanding. If a negative interpretation of the motivation for
our respective policies is possible, that will too often be the
interpretation that is adopted.
This is particularly true of U.S. efforts to support democracy in the
region. We think we are the "good guys." Arabs, however, often
interpret our true agenda as nothing more than an effort to expand U.S.
and Israeli hegemony over the region. It is hardly encouraging when our
Arab friends accuse us of actually impeding local efforts to expand
democracy because those efforts are often suspected of being dictated
by Washington. In every area of U.S. policy, whether it is success in
Iraq, the war on terrorism, the peace process or our commitment to
regional economic and democratic political development, the air of
suspicion that acts as a fog, obscuring our true intentions, hamstrings
our efforts.
These are issues that demand broad cooperation between the United
States and the Arab world. But that will not happen as long as Arabs
see us as being deaf to their concerns and aspirations and we see them
as dwelling on the past and blaming others for their problems. "Get
over it," the Americans said when confronted for the umpteenth time
with the sins of colonialism. The Arabs told us, "You never listen."
Unfortunately, there is an element of truth in each of these charges.
As a people, we are endowed with energy, impatience and the basic
confidence that all problems can be solved. Based on their past
history, the Arabs are endowed with reflection, caution and fear of
chaos. While we see reform and democracy as critical requirements for
attacking radicalism and terrorism, our friends in the region see undue
haste as a prescription for instability and the rise of radicalism.
This is not a problem of "public diplomacy" although that may provide
part of the solution. It is a much deeper problem of understanding. We
did not pretend to have the answers to all the problems we faced. But
we did feel that the kind of honest-no-holds-barred dialogue we held
over time did help us in understanding one another, and we considered
how we could institutionalize such a dialogue:
- We proposed a continuing "Leaders Forum" made up of academics,
politicians and nongovernmental personalities from the United States
and the region to work together, report to our leaders and look for
ways to reduce misunderstandings.
- We suggested that governments, ours included, engage a mix of our own
citizens who could question our actions and provide a reality check on
the policies we were following.
- We thought that the student and cultural exchanges and the funding
for them that were so useful and plentiful in the Cold War could be re-
established in this new war against terror. A large fund could be set
up to combine government and private money to support
these efforts.
- We believed that each of our societies' think tanks, which are so
used to flying solo, should establish agreements with one another for
joint projects across national boundaries.
-We suggested that media organizations might develop practical exchange
agreements to publish high-quality articles from other societies and
cultures and develop exchange programs for reporters and editors. We
felt there was a place in our entertainment industries for an exchange
of ideas to help sensitize one another.
- Finally, we called for interfaith dialogue, something that is given
more lip service than practical expression.
In sum, we felt that the greatest enemy of democracy and the greatest
asset for terrorism was our relative ignorance of one another, an
ignorance that sustains suspicion and feeds our prejudices. We must set
aside stereotypes and suppositions, practicing instead the act of
engaging one another to face the issues that challenge us.
Assertions and opinions in this Perspective are solely those of the
above-mentioned author(s) and do not reflect necessarily the views of
the Middle East Institute, which expressly does not take positions on
Middle East policy.
###
* Edward S. Walker, Jr. is President of the Middle East Institute. He
previously served as the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern
Affairs, US Ambassador to Israel, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates,
and Deputy Permanent Representative of the United States to the United
Nations.
Source: Middle East Institute, April 10, 2005
Visit the Middle East Institute at
www.mideasti.org/publications/publications_other.html
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
***********
ARTICLE 4
Achieving long-term political change in the Middle East
Dov S. Zakheim
There is a growing consensus worldwide that the Middle East may be on
the verge of fundamental change. After years of bloodshed and political
stagnation, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has recovered its
lost momentum. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon has, at a minimum,
brought about Syrian force withdrawals at a pace greater than any
Security Council Resolution was able to achieve. And elections in both
Iraq and Palestine, as well as local elections in Saudi Arabia, have
led many observers to hold out hope for a new wave of democracy to
sweep the region.
All of the foregoing developments have only taken place in the past few
months. For any of them truly to take root, more time has to pass. In
the interim, any one of them can be reversed. After all, it is not the
first time that the Peace Process generated hope among Israelis and
Palestinians. Nor is it clear that Syria is truly prepared to loosen
its grip on Lebanon. Various media reports indicate that Syria is
already inserting new personnel into Lebanon to replace many of its
former secret agents there.
For that matter, elections are not as alien to Middle East politics as
some pundits have implied. Indeed, both Palestinians and Iraqis have
held elections in the past, while many of the Gulf States have held
elections at various times for various assemblies. Nor should it be
forgotten that some elections, that took place lately, did not extend
the franchise to women.
The key to achieving long-term political change in the region is not
an instant recipe that can be conjured up in a matter of months.
Instead it involves years of patiently nourishing civil society in all
its forms, so as to give people a sense of unity and responsibility, as
well as of political empowerment. Political parties are certainly
important, but so too are professional associations, cultural
associations, labor unions, educational associations and social welfare
organizations. Empowering such groups would enable individuals to
express their hopes and aspirations in a variety of fora that could
then feed into the political process. Such groups could transcend the
tribal, ethnic and regional allegiances as well as religious
affiliations that form the current bedrock of Middle Eastern society
and generally pose an obstacle to societal cohesion.
Civil society in all its forms need not, indeed should not, replace
long-standing sources of identity for Middle Easterners. Certainly many
Western pundits would like to see secular societies emerge in the
Middle East. Yet in seeking such societies, these Westerners are guilty
of Kiplingesque cultural imperialism. Just because they have chosen a
secular lifestyle does not mean that the peoples of the Middle East
must do the same. Indeed, even as Europe has become markedly more
secular, the United States in particular has taken on a more religious
hue. For Muslims, Islam is a way of life rather than a religion, a fact
that Western secularists often simply cannot comprehend. Religious
leaders therefore play a very different role in the Middle East than
they do in the West, and western notions of pure church-state
separation (which in any event overlook the role of European monarchs
who nominally stand at the head of established state churches) simply
are beside the point.
Nevertheless, while modernity is unlikely ever to substitute for Islam,
it need not stand in opposition to it. Civil society can, in fact,
provide an effective bridge between Islam, other religions in the
region, and the rights and benefits that all freedom loving peoples
seek for themselves. By subsuming religious, ethnic, tribal and
regional identities within larger commonalities, civil society can
identify and nourish needs that encompass nations as a whole and help
to provide peaceful channels for the expression of societal
aspirations.
A strong civil society is no guarantee of western-style democracy. But
western democracy is not the only option for a system of free
representative government. In particular, several states in East Asia
practice a form of democracy that is quite different from its western
namesake. In fact, representative government will and does vary in
nature, style, and organization from region to region and from culture
to culture. What all peoples share in common is the desire to worship,
assemble, speak, earn a respectable living, and articulate their needs
to their leaders freely and without fear.
Current developments in the Middle East are too recent to be called a
trend toward realizing this desire for freedom. Achieving it will take
time. Nevertheless, if the international community is generous in
providing the material, moral and financial wherewithal so as to
nurture the various elements of civil society throughout the Middle
East, the timeline of progress could be significantly foreshortened.
And everyone, not only the people of the region, will benefit if that
occurs.
###
*Dov S. Zakheim was Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) from 2001-
2004. He is a Board Member of Search for Common Ground. It was
published in partnership with the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Search for Common Ground, April 23, 2005
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
provides news, op-eds, features and analysis by local and international
experts on a broad range of issues on the West and Arab/Muslim world.
CGNews syndicates articles that are balanced and solution-oriented to
news outlets worldwide. This service is one outcome of a set of working
meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan
bin Talal in June 2003, and is a non-profit initiative of Search for
Common Ground, an international NGO working in the fields of conflict
resolution and media production.
The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of
CGNews or its affiliates.
Common Ground News Service
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 265-4300
Fax: +1(202) 232-6718
Rue Belliard 205 bte 13
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Ph: +32 (02) 736-7262
Fax: +32(02) 732-3033
E-mail: cgnewspih@sfcg.org
http://www.commongroundnews.org
Editors:
Emad Khalil
Amman Editor
Oussama Safa & Juliette Schmidt
Beirut Editors
Elyte Baykun
Washington Editor
Michael Shipler
Youth Views Editor
**********
This is a not-for-profit list service.
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you think would like
to see these articles.
If someone would like to be added to this mailing list, please email:
subscribe-cgnewspih@sfcg.org with subscribe in the subject line.
