Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
April 18, 2006

**********

The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim-Western relations.

*This service is also available in Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia and French. You can subscribe by sending an email to cgnewspih@sfcg.org [cgnewspih@sfcg.orgcgnewspih@sfcg.org], specifying your choice of language.

*Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and articles may be reprinted by any news outlet or publication. Please acknowledge both the original source and the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

*For an archive of CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/).

**********

ARTICLES IN THIS EDITION:

1. The silent majority can deliver by Claude Salhani
International Editor and a political analyst with United Press International, Claude Salhani, considers whose role it is to stand up and protest violations to religious freedoms and uphold respect for the traditions and tenets of other faiths. Arguing that the silence of Arab and Muslim leaders has been an excuse for too long for the seeming apathy of the Muslim majority to speaking out, he asks Muslims to stand up to protect the true legacy of their faith and the freedom for each to pray as he or she chooses.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), April 18, 2006)

2. ~YOUTH VIEWS~
Peace through Skype by Bill Glucroft
Bill Glucroft, a student of journalism at Emerson College in Boston, describes how Skype, an online software that allows individuals to communicate with others around the world by typing or speaking through their computers, has allowed him to make contact with ordinary Iraqis who are struggling with basic challenges – how to fund their graduate education, how to feed their children, how to get by without electricity for a large part of the day, and so on. He contemplates “what might happen if ordinary citizens around the world form relationships with each other founded on mutual respect”: “Those in democracies might demand the same expression of empathy from their elected leaders. Those in non-democratic states might be more empowered to push for reform. Those inclined to hate Americans and join terrorist organisations might think twice if they, or someone they knew, maintained personal contacts with ordinary Americans.”
(Source: The Berkeley Beacon,March 25th, 2006)

3. Unfortunately, strangers on a train by Mona Eltahawy
New York-based commentator, Mona Eltahawy, feels compelled to intervene in a conversation she overhears on the train between two individuals discussing Muslim reactions to the Danish cartoons, who proclaim, “That's why the two people shouldn't mix.” She reminds them of “the many condemnations issued after September 11, 2001, and of the critical Muslim voices that did not always make it into the media they followed […she] also explains that Muslims were angry because something they held to be sacred had been insulted.” Putting a human face on at least one Muslim living in the United States, she explains the diversity of opinions within the religion and laments the role of the media in portraying all Muslims like their more radical counterparts.
(Source: Daily Star, April 10, 2006)

4. Russia, sole winner of the Iran crisis by Yin Gang
Yin Gang, a research professor at the Institute of West Asian and African Studies, under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, looks at why Putin is extending an olive branch to the Islamic world after years of repressing Muslims in his own country and a decline in Soviet influence in the region since 1973, inviting Hamas to visit Moscow last month, and suggesting that Iran transfer its uranium enrichment program to Russia. Considering the world-wide politics of oil, and the ability of Russia to compete with the United States for Middle Eastern friendship on its own terms, Gang provides a rare macro-level discussion of the complex politics of this region that considers the interests not only of the United States and Europe, but of all oil consumers and producers around the world.
(Source: Bitterlemons-international.org, April 6, 2006)

5. Bush's mixed signals by William Fisher
A regular contributor to the Middle East Times, William Fisher provides examples of how the Bush administration welcomes Arab Americans with one hand while pushing them away with the other. He then goes on to explain not only why the rest of America should care – Arab and Muslim Americans are Americans, they have families abroad who can help the administration to better understand the situation and build better bridges, they vote, “how our government acts toward these sizable minorities helps shape how the rest of us act”-- but also what the Bush administration can do to remedy the situation.
(Source: Middle East Times, April 6, 2006)

**********

.

ARTICLE 1
The silent majority can deliver
Claude Salhani

Washington, D.C. - When a Danish cartoonist conjured a handful of caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad in an unflattering light, the Muslim world erupted in sometimes-violent protest, leaving a trail of dead bodies from the Middle East to the islands of Indonesia.

But when a Muslim convert was recently sentenced to die in Afghanistan for choosing a different path to his God, the majority of the Muslim world remained silent. There were no demonstrations in Karachi, Peshawar, Damascus or Beirut. There was only silence -- a noticeable silence that was, quite frankly, disappointing.

Missing from the debate were loud and unequivocal condemnations by the leaders of predominantly Muslim countries. But blaming the absence of good leadership has become an all-too-convenient proxy for indirectly condoning Muslim apathy toward many issues. One assumes that the majority of people remained silent for fear that they too would find themselves accused of heresy. But while self-preservation is everyone’s right, it is questionable whether we can, as a global community, disregard the wider implications of not putting the principle first at such a critical time on the world stage.

The Holy Qur’an teaches that “there is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clear from the wrong way”, (2:256). Additionally, many Hadiths, or sayings, of the Prophet are clear about respecting “non-believers”:

“Whoever hurts a non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God." (Bukhari)

"He who hurts a non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I am his adversary, and I shall be his adversary on the Day of a Judgement." (Bukhari)

"Beware on the Day of Judgement; I shall myself be a complainant against him who wrongs a non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him." (Al-Mawardi)

Besides such direct evidence underscoring the absence of an Islamic foundation for punishing apostasy, it is not inappropriate to call upon the human conscience in this affair. Christians leaving their faith for Islam is something that happens every day, and usually without reaction; such conversions are particularly frequent in European and North American prisons.

This is not to overlook the fact that in Egypt, a Copt converting to Islam has caused the occasional uproar. Nor is it to say that religious fervour is uni-directional, for Christians have had their fair share of killing “non-believers”: the infamous phrase of the Vietnam War era, “Kill them all, let God sort them out”, originated with the Catholic popes during the Cathar Wars, when Pope Innocent III in 1210 unleashed "orders of fire and sword" against a group of Cathars, deemed heretics. Similarly, after papal forces besieged Beziers in southern France, about 450 defenders were apprehended. Many of them claimed to be Christians and good Catholics and did not want to die. Fearing that among them some may have been lying, the pope is reported to have passed on the order in Latin: "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" or "Kill them all. God will know His own."

The point however is not to vie with one another in wicked deeds, but to honour the legacies of our great religions and moreover treat others as we wish to be treated. So when an Afghan man decides to exercise his fundamental right to choose how to worship his God who, incidentally, is the same God worshipped by his Muslim compatriots, the shari‘a courts in Afghanistan should have let him be. When they didn’t, the majority should have risen up to protect the true legacy of its faith while appealing to reason at the same time. From the perspective of Western leaders and human rights groups, the issue is one of basic individual liberties, of one’s right to elect how one lives one’s life, without interference from the state, church or mosque.

A country cannot claim it is free or just until its citizens enjoy individual liberties which include not only what language they speak, but how they choose to pray as well.

###
* Claude Salhani is International Editor and a political analyst with United Press International in Washington. Comments may be sent to Claude@UPI.com.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), April 18, 2006
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 2
~YOUTH VIEWS~
Peace through Skype
Bill Glucroft

Boston, Massachusetts - Three years ago, Tariq Arif, then 23, was hopeful that the American invasion of Iraq would benefit him and his fellow Iraqis. Within three months, that optimism had vanished.

“When I had my first conversation with one of the soldiers, I was in my car, they asked me to pull over. I told him, ‘Hey, how are you? Can I know your name?’ And I was really disappointed when he told me: ‘Shut your [expletive] mouth and keep looking at the ground.’ I said to myself, ‘Is that a real American man?’”

Bassam Ali, 28, lives in Baghdad’s Dora neighbourhood. He has a bachelor’s and master’s degree in architecture and urban design, and eagerly wants to earn a doctorate from an American institution.

“Before the American invasion,” Ali said, “we lacked for financial resources…now we lack for security. So which is better, I don’t know.”

These excerpts are from text and voice interviews obtained using Skype, a free Internet telephone service. In February, a colleague suggested I could easily contact Iraqis using this software, and during my recent spring break, I did just that.

This endeavour is simple yet profound, ambitious yet easy to accomplish. I call it “Peace through Skype” and it holds the potential to completely alter the way human beings communicate with, and understand, one another.

Terrorists have long been using technology to foment fear and anarchy. Al Qaeda has been particularly tech-savvy, organising attacks through a cheap global network consisting of chat rooms, online message boards and email.

The tragic irony is that these mechanisms were developed by the same democratic and free market societies that terrorists want to destroy. The question, then, is why aren’t these societies using these same tools to stop them? If people the world over take a page from the extremist playbook, we can counter messages of hate and violence with one of compassion and understanding.

Latif al Moula is a 45-year-old Baghdad pharmacist. His family survives on his monthly salary of $100. Al Moula still struggles with the realities of the war.

“Can you believe we don’t have electricity most of the day? Can the American people live in darkness all the time, every day? Do you know we are [an] oil country and we don’t have petrol for our cars? Is that called freedom?”

Dr. Nodi Nassrat, a 38-year-old Christian and mother of two, is conflicted about America’s continued presence.

“[Iraq’s] election is a big lie,” she said. “All of us know this. It is the fact we live. They [the United States] didn’t come to Iraq to leave. They came to stay for long [sic]. But we all believe that the U.S. army should not leave.”

Ali Hajde, 23, hails from the Kurdish city Khanaqeen. Upon graduating from high school he went right to working as a translator for American forces. The job endangers his life, but Hajde remains optimistic.

“Most of them [U.S. soldiers] treat me well and respect me…. It will get better, we hope so.”

The half-dozen Iraqis who responded to the message I sent requesting a dialogue are gracious, open-minded, well-educated and well-informed people. They are desperate to talk, to tell their story and help the world understand that “most Iraqi people are good and peaceful.”

These Iraqis do not hate America, and certainly not Americans. Conversely, they admire the United States for what it traditionally stands for and for all it has achieved. That is why they, and so many others in the world, are angry. The Bush administration’s arrogant adventurism – culminating in the flawed war in Iraq – has effaced a precious, widely held notion that America is a force for good.

With the Bush administration engaged in dangerous duels with the governments of Iran, North Korea, Syria and other “outposts of tyranny”, it is imperative that Americans engage in their own duels – duels of dialogue – with the people of these countries. The State Department’s billion-dollar public diplomacy program is appreciated, but it is not sufficient. Global communication begins with us.

What might happen if ordinary citizens around the world form relationships with each other founded on mutual respect? Those in democracies might demand the same expression of empathy from their elected leaders. Those in non-democratic states might be more empowered to push for reform. Those inclined to hate Americans and join terrorist organisations might think twice if they, or someone they knew, maintained personal contacts with ordinary Americans.

This isn’t rocket science. It’s just simple communication, and with Skype (www.skype.com) and similar platforms, it’s free and easy, so let’s get talking. A better world depends on it.

###
* Bill Glucroft is a student of journalism at Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts.
Source: The Berkeley Beacon,March 25th, 2006
Visit the website at http://www.berkeleybeacon.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 3
Unfortunately, strangers on a train
Mona Eltahawy

New York - I was on the evening train from Washington to New York, happily reading a book, when I overheard a sliver of conversation that would make it impossible to concentrate and remind me just what an uphill struggle it could be to be a Muslim in America today. "And those cartoons! They get so angry about cartoons but planes flying into buildings? My God. Cartoons," said a woman.

"That's why the two people shouldn't mix," is what I thought I heard the man next to her reply.

I felt at once nauseous and invisible. I was sickened by the contempt for Muslims that was clear in the woman's words. In my own writing, I have criticised as exaggerated the reaction by some Muslims to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. But I criticise as a Muslim who is proud to be identified as such.

And I felt invisible because it was obvious that these two Americans never for a second thought a Muslim could be there on the train with them. To them, Muslims were "over there" - somewhere primitive and far away, not on a train from Washington to New York just like them.

I tried to imagine what it would be like to ignore what I had heard. I tried to continue reading my book. On any other day it might have worked. But I had spent that day at the home of a friend and her family who were so absolutely and comfortably American and Muslim at the same time that it made even more absurd the notion of Muslims as "over there."

And I could not ignore the comment that weekend which I had spent at a
conference of the Egyptian American Alliance for Youth in Virginia. Egyptian Americans had flown to the conference from more than 10 states. Not everyone was a Muslim of course but those who were managed to embrace all their identities seamlessly, further highlighting the absurdity of the idea of a clash of civilisations. These young people were the reason there wouldn't be such a clash.

It was impossible to ignore the conversation of course.

And so I put my book away, pulled out two business cards from my bag, put a smile on my face and turned around to begin a conversation meant to remind my train companions that Muslims were "over here" too.

I reminded them of the many condemnations issued after September 11, 2001, and of the critical Muslim voices that did not always make it into the media they followed. But I also explained that Muslims were angry because something they held to be sacred had been insulted.

And to the man who seemed to think the two people should not mix, I explained neither Muslims nor Westerners were monoliths. I told him I was sure he would hate to be lumped in with the stereotype of whatever the West or America was supposed to be. I told my train companions that I have had mirror conversations in the Middle East in which I've tried to explain that there is another America besides the cheap stereotype.
Actually, we ended up having a good conversation that also touched on our views over what the United States should do about Iraq. Most importantly, by the time I turned around and resumed my reading, my train companions knew there was a Muslim sitting in front of them.

My train companions were sad examples of the growing proportion of Americans who expressed unfavourable views of Islam, as documented in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. A majority of Americans now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence and nearly half of Americans - 46 percent - have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the months after the September 11 attacks, The Washington Post reported.

According to the newspaper, experts said Americans' attitudes about Islam were fuelled in part by political statements and media reports focusing almost solely on the actions of Muslim extremists. For example, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress who were trying to block the Bush administration's attempt to hire a Dubai company to manage operations at six American ports resorted to the worst kind of anti-Arab stereotypes. For many Americans, Arabs and Muslims are interchangeable.

As for the media, you will invariably see more images of those Muslims angry at cartoons - angry, violent, and destructive - and of extremists whose views are obligingly black and white, than you will see Muslims who are able to present an argument that is both self-critical and nuanced.

But to practice self-criticism of my own here, some Muslims have been all too willing to fit the stereotype. If it is not apparent already, the fallout of the cartoon controversy has caused untold damage to the way Muslims are perceived around the world. It feels at times as if Muslims - particularly those of us who live in the West - are firefighters, constantly on call to put out the fires of radical disasters - usually caused by Muslims who don't live in the West.

I dread Fridays sometimes. For it is on those days that it seems the entire world's media decides to attend the most provocative of Friday prayers, listen to the sermon and then rush to report the latest radical proclamations of these particular imams, as if those imams speak for us all.

It is tiring and tedious to always have to be ready with a statement of condemnation. But being a Muslim is a full-time job. Especially in the West.

###
* Mona Eltahawy (www.monaeltahawy.com (http://www.monaeltahawy.com/)) is a New York-based commentator. She wrote this commentary for The Daily Star.
Source: Daily Star, April 10, 2006
Visit the website at www.dailystar.com.lb
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 4
Russia, sole winner of the Iran crisis
Yin Gang

Beijing - Russian President Vladimir Putin invited Hamas to visit Moscow last month, and suggested that Iran transfer its uranium enrichment program to Russian territory. Both proposals exasperated the United States and surprised the world.

In June 2005, the Organization of the Islamic Conference consented to Russian membership with observer status. OIC and Arab League observers were present at Chechnya's recent parliamentary elections, thereby expressing a degree of recognition of Russia's policy on Chechnya and undercutting western criticism.

But why is Putin extending an olive branch to the Islamic world?

Historically, the Muslim world's attitude toward Russia has always been lukewarm or even hostile. Ever since the Tsar's time, relations between Moscow and Muslim regions were characterised by rebellion and repression. This hostility peaked in Stalin's time, when Islamic influence was completely repressed. According to an official document from 1926, Islam was defined as anti-Soviet. Moscow also issued in that year a document entitled Prohibition of Any Form of Islamic Religious Education. Ten thousand mosques and 500 seminaries all over the country were shut down, all estates belonging to mosques were confiscated, and thousands of Islamic religious leaders were sent to concentration camps.

The absolute prohibition of Islam and repression against Muslims was never relaxed until World War II. Although the Soviet regime resumed a policy of religious freedom after the war, religious professionals were still under strict control and all mosques were managed by the government.

During the Cold War, Arab countries were allied with both camps. The Soviet Union's allies were those controlled by Egypt's and Syria's secular regimes. These Arab countries fought against Israel with Soviet military aid. The United States' allies were Arab monarchies that opposed not only Israel but also communism. The war of 1973 marked the decline of Soviet influence. Egypt became America's non-NATO ally and Syria sought U.S. help to realise an "honourable peace" with Israel.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan irritated the World of Islam. Nowadays it is generally recognised that jihad against infidels first appeared in Afghanistan, with Russia the target. The United States acted as a firm supporter of this jihad, disregarding the long-term consequences.

In this war, Islamic radicalism spread rapidly. After Michael Gorbachev withdrew Soviet troops from Afghanistan, they not only destroyed the pro-Soviet regime there but also began to direct their aggression against the western infidels who had previously supported them. Ultimately, Afghanistan fell into the hands of the Taliban theocracy. Jihad fighters from all over the Middle East congregated there. Across the border Islamic radicalism expanded. Afghanistan became Bin Laden's jihadi headquarters.

Meanwhile, Russia itself was facing severe pressure from the Islamic world. In ten out of 89 federal entities the main population is Muslim. According to official statistics, the Muslim population constitutes about five percent of the total; unofficial statistics put this figure at 15 percent, or over 23 million Muslims. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and institutionalisation of freedom of religion inspired religious enthusiasm and ethnic pride among Russian Muslims. Rebellious and terrorist activities emanating from Chechen-Ingush and North Ossetia have severely affected political stability and economic development in Russia, especially since the emergence of the extreme Islamic Truth Party in 1999. Moscow has to carefully consider the long-term consequences of developments among the Islamic population living in Russia.

It is not easy for Russia to build harmonious relations with the Islamic world. During the Balkan War in the 1990s, for example, Moscow was frequently accused by the OIC of supporting the Serbian anti-Muslim regime. A turning point for Russia was the sale of a high-powered nuclear reactor to Iran in 1995. This repaired relations between Russia and Iran and was followed by resumption of weapons exports to Syria, reflecting a Russian ambition to return to the Middle East.

Competing with the United States for the friendship of the Islamic world may become Putin's national policy for Russia. Russia is a convenient ally for Islam, which is under problematic pressure from the West to initiate democratic reform. The cooperation agenda between Russia and the OIC also includes anti-terrorism, meaning that Islamic radicals in Russia will face more pressure.

Putin is smart. Whether or not Hamas is ready to change its position, Russia can claim to have done its best to fulfil its international obligation. Whether the Iran crisis leads to sanctions or a war, Moscow benefits from the outcome, which one way or another will raise the price of oil, thereby bringing more money to Russia, the number two oil-producing country in the world. A war with Iran might affect the Straits of Hormuz, a very important channel for oil transportation, but Russia does not need the straits for its oil exports, which totalled 250 million tons last year, almost twice that of Iran. So Russia would be the only beneficiary of the continuation or escalation of the Iran crisis.

In contrast, China, Japan and South Korea, as major consumers of Gulf oil, would be the ones who pay the bill. In 2005, China paid out ten billion dollars due to higher oil prices for its 130 million tons of imports, while Russia earned 20 billion dollars more.

So in looking at the benefits of the Iran crisis, China and Russia are not on the same boat, even though the two countries ostensibly have similar policies.

###
* Yin Gang is a research professor at the Institute of West Asian and African Studies, under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He also serves as deputy secretary general of the Chinese Association of Middle East Studies. He is the author of “Arab-Israeli Conflicts: Issues and Solutions” (2002) and “Saddam Hussein, A Man Destined to Stir the World” (1991).
Source: Bitterlemons-international.org, April 6, 2006
Visit the website at www.bitterlemons-international.org
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 5
Bush's mixed signals
William Fisher

Washington, D.C. - Last month the U.S. Muslim World Advisory Committee of the United States Institute of Peace sat down for a talk with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes. These are the kinds of meetings that Arab-American and other Muslim-American groups have been having throughout the country with US officials at various levels of government since soon after 9/11.

These meetings usually end with oh-so-diplomatic remarks about the "full and frank exchanges of views" and praiseworthy statements from each about each.

Yet, though Arab-American and other Muslim organisations are reluctant to discuss the issue for the record, they tell me privately that they are worried that the Bush administration is sending dangerously mixed signals precisely to those whose "hearts and minds" it claims to be trying to win.

Consider the following:

President Bush continues to assert that Arabs and other Muslims are valued and contributing members of American society. He denies that his Global War on Terrorism is a war against Islam. Secretary Rice and Ambassador Hughes spend substantial time with Arab-American and other Muslim advocacy groups, reasserting their "mission" to reach out to these communities.

The FBI, CIA, the Departments of Homeland Security, Defence, State and other U.S. government agencies spend millions to recruit members of these communities to apply for jobs, then deny them security clearances because they have relatives in the Middle East. Then Ms. Hughes takes off on another of her "listening tours" of the Middle East, promising to reach out to "Muslim Moms".

At the same time the FBI and the DHS continue to practice racial profiling and to harass and prosecute Arabs and other Muslims here at home. The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces work with local law enforcement to snoop on Arab and Muslim communities and wiretap mosques. We tell the Arabs we don't want them running our ports. And legitimate Muslim charities can't raise a nickel without fear of being put on the government's "support for terrorists" list.

Which of these contradictory messages do you think resonates most loudly in the United States? Just take a look at the myriad polls that measure the degree of pervasive insecurity among these constituencies at home, and attitudes of other Americans toward these minorities. The common denominator is fear, one of the other. And fear breeds intolerance and even violence.

Why should we care what Arab and Muslim Americans think and what we, their neighbours, think of them? For one thing, they're Americans. They live here, among us. They are business and labour leaders, clergymen, sports figures, engineers and mathematicians and physicists, teachers, doctors and nurses, ordinary working citizens, even members of Congress.

Secondly, their ties to family and friends in other countries can provide us with important bridges to understanding. They might just be capable of helping Karen Hughes to explain U.S. policies to parts of the world that we desperately need on "our side". Or to better understand how the "other side" sees us.

Thirdly, Arab and Muslim Americans vote. And that, if nothing else, ought to capture the attention of our elected officials.

Finally, how our government acts toward these sizable minorities helps shape how the rest of us act. Jingoism has no good consequences, for anyone.

No one ever said that balancing these competing interests would be easy. Terrorists in our midst must be identified and prosecuted. So must so-called charities that illegally use their organisations as fronts for laundering material support for those who would harm us and our allies.

At the same time, there is zero evidence that Arab and Muslim Americans are anything but loyal to our country, and just as horrified as the rest of us by the attacks of 9/11. Thousands of these “hyphenated” Americans are now serving in the U.S. armed forces, many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. And how many terror-related convictions resulted from the mass roundups of Arab and Muslim men in the weeks following 9/11? None.

Yet there appears to be no consistent effort anywhere in the upper reaches of the Bush administration to engage these communities or to explain or coordinate what must seem to them as grossly contradictory and conflicting efforts.

Which should make us wonder whether this is about ideology: the "clash of civilisations?" Or about creating smokescreens: blaming the media for not reporting all the "good news" from Iraq? Or about more of the unbelievably uncoordinated incompetence that gave us the Katrina disaster? Or about the political tone-deafness that resulted in Harriet Myers?

The short answer is "I don't know". Maybe a bit of all.

What I do know is that this is an issue on which George W. Bush has shown a somnambulistic failure of leadership. It is not enough for the president from time to time to tell Arab Americans and other Muslim minorities - and the rest us - that he values our citizenship. It is not enough for him intermittently to reassure Muslims - and attempt to assure the rest of us - that we are not at war with Islam.

At the very least, there needs to be high-level, visible and transparent interest in worrying about the mixed signals we're sending. It can't be left to Karen Hughes alone. There is only one person who can get this done: the president.

So, Mr. Bush, here are two modest but doable suggestions:

First, you should appoint a permanent high-level advisory body to keep the administration informed about what Arab and other Muslim Americans are thinking, feeling and doing about what they see as problems between their communities and government, and how other Americans see the same picture.

This body should advise you about perceptions and misperceptions and how to address both with honesty and clarity. It should include thoughtful representatives of these communities, clergy of all faiths, private sector representatives, members of both political parties, and senior members of the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Defence, Justice, and the FBI and CIA.

But without the machinery to act on its findings and recommendations, this will be just another of thousands of government advisory bodies. It needs teeth. Talented people who know how to do implementation.

So, Mr. President - notwithstanding that government is historically a notoriously flunked communicator - you are surrounded by some very smart people and could have some of the world's most adept professional communicators at your service instantly. These experts should convince you to take Arab American alienation very seriously and to mobilise whatever public and private sector resources you need to craft honest messages and make sure they get heard.

Without your leadership, these steps will be - and be seen to be - little more than cosmetics. Only you can make them important. You need to reach out in a powerful and consistent way to explain to Arab-Americans and other Muslims - and their neighbours, all the rest of us - the contributions made by these populations over many years.

Instead, your silence will only metastasise the uninformed and unreasoning Islamophobia that is rapidly become implanted in our national genetics. And, at the same time, you need to tell the Arab- and Muslim-Americans, and our population at large why it's important for law enforcement to do what it does to protect us (hopefully, while reigning in their over-zealousness to prosecute).

This dialogue is partly about policy, but it is equally about better coordination within government, about better public-private partnerships, to actually carry out a sustained program of thoughtful, grown-up, no-spin communication.

There's a lot you can do about that. As long as you think it's important. And as long as you're prepared to listen.

###

* William Fisher managed economic development projects in the Middle East for the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. He is a regular contributor to the Middle East Times and can be contacted at www.billfisher.blogspot.com (http://www.billfisher.blogspot.com/)
Source: Middle East Times, April 6, 2006
Visit the website at www.metimes.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
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 affecting Muslim-Western relations. CGNews-PiH syndicates articles that are balanced and solution-oriented to news outlets worldwide. With support from the Norwegian government and the United States Institute of Peace, this news service is a non-profit initiative of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO working in the field of conflict transformation.

This news service is one outcome of a set of working meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan in June 2003.

~YOUTH VIEWS~

CGNews-PiH also regularly publishes the work of student leaders and journalists whose articles strengthen intercultural understanding and promote constructive perspectives and dialogue in their own communities. Student journalists and writers under the age of 27 are encouraged to write to cbinkley@sfcg.org for more information on contributing.
*The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews-PiH 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
Website: http://www.commongroundnews.org

Editors

Emad Khalil (Amman)
Juliette Schmidt (Beirut)
Chris Binkley (Dakar)
Medhy Hidayat (Jakarta)
Elyte Baykun (Washington)
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Washington)

**********

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email to cgnewspih@sfcg.org with “subscribe” or “unsubscribe” in the subject line, indicating your language of choice among English, French, Arabic and Bahasa Indonesia.

Posted by Evelin at April 19, 2006 01:22 PM