Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
May 23, 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, 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 Danger of Over-Simplifying Anti-Americanism by Marissa Ines Wilson
Marissa Ines Wilson, a senior at Cornell University in New York, tries to answer the question asked by many Americans, "Why do they hate us?" She discovers that the reasons for anti-American sentiment are varied. Although the multiplicity of causes may seem overwhelming, Wilson sees hope in the interest many Americans are paying to this unfavourable trend: "While the many different forms of anti-Americanism may seem daunting and the temptation to dismiss them all as misled hatred is great, the attendance levels and interest in [a] recent lecture [on anti-Americanism at Cornell] demonstrates a great interest in learning what drives people's perceptions of the United States and in finding creative ways to turn negative views into positive ones."
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), May 23, 2006)

2. The lost art by Neil Stormer
Washington, D.C. based writer and conflict resolution practitioner, Neil Stormer considers when and why the United States lost the art of diplomacy. Using the recent letter from Iran's President Ahmadinejad to U.S. President Bush as an example, the first purely diplomatic interaction between the two countries in over 27 years, he highlights the opportunities and the ongoing dialogue that are inherent in diplomacy: "Ahmadinejad's letter is not the solution. It is the beginning of finding a solution, but only if the United States can remember how to play the game in a skilful fashion."
(Source: Jordan Times, May 17, 2006)

3. Winning the war of words in the campaign against terrorism by John Hughes
John Hughes, a former editor of the Christian Science Monitor, is editor and chief operating officer of the Deseret Morning News and considers the successes and failures of recent U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the attempt to quell terrorism. Pointing to physical exchanges as one of the best ways to reduce terrorism and improve understanding, he also refers to the important role of the media in "winning hearts and minds". He argues that journalists "are potential opinion makers in their homelands and [as a result of exchanges and training] are now better prepared to detect what is truth and what is fiction in the war of words consuming many of their countries."
(Source: Christian Science Monitor, May 17, 2006)

4. Bad news for everybody by Yossi Alpher
Yossi Alpher, co-editor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications, explains why the collapse of Palestine would be bad news not only for Palestinians but for the rest of the Arab world as well as discrediting "the American democratic reform drive in the Arab world...having proven itself selective, anti-Islamic and ultimately destructive." Alpher advises that for the sake of U.S. policy abroad, as well as the growth and stability of the Middle East, it is "better that we devote our energies to preventing collapse--for lack of constructive alternative."
(Source: Bitterlemons-internation.org, May 15, 2006)

5. There are misperceptions on both sides by Lubna Hussain
Lubna Hussain, a Saudi writer, describes a conversation with an American businesswoman she meets in Riyadh and the surprising realisation that most of their impressions of the other were based on misperception and misunderstanding. She concludes, saying, "I realised that there must be many individuals like this who aren't consumed by some sort of irrational hatred for us, but are just unaware of who we are and what we want. That at the end of the day if there was more exchange of views and ideas between people from opposing sides that the slight shift in perceptions that this would bring about would eventually culminate in a better understanding of everyone."
(Source: Arab View, April 7, 2006)

**********

ARTICLES

ARTICLE 1
The danger of over-simplifying anti-Americanism
Marissa Ines Wilson

Ithaca, NY - "Why do they hate us?" This question has come up countless times in impromptu discussions with my peers about the American relationship with the Middle East since September 11th. It is the same question that led me to attend a lecture about anti-Americanism at Cornell University by Professor Peter Katzenstein of Cornell University, who is well known for his work on the subject. The lecture, however, revealed to me that perhaps my friends and I have been asking the wrong question, a question that, if not re-evaluated, could be very dangerous to any understanding between the United States and the Middle East.

It is no secret that anti-Americanism exists all over the world. The real secret lies in what it means to be anti-American. It is used as a term of reference in a variety of contexts, but, as I learned, it is a generalisation, and behind the term lay a number of different realities.

Indeed, the lecturer's first and most important point was that there is no such thing as a general anti-Americanism, and that the only appropriate term is anti-Americanisms. The plural nature of the word is crucial in dispelling the myth that there is one form of anti-American sentiment that exists across many different countries and cultures. He stressed that this was not a question of "us" versus "them," because it would be impossible to try to combine the various forms of anti-American sentiment into one category without serious problems of contradiction. What one group might dislike about Americanism, another may admire or approve of.

The professor then went on to dispel another powerful myth as he briefly outlined the history of anti-Americanisms. There is a common feeling that anti-American sentiments have mostly come about as a reaction to American foreign policy. Research, however, revealed that anti-Americanism existed even before the country was founded. Europeans, even before the independence of the U.S., looked down on the struggling colonists, who were, after all, either lower class or members of radical religious groups European society shunned.

He specifically cited European exploration accounts in which explorers express a disdain for Americanism. This finding further demonstrates that this is not a simple concept that can be attributed to any one or all of America's qualities.

The complications were further clarified as the lecturer listed what his research has demonstrated to be the many forms of anti-Americanisms. Among these, he named a "cultural elitist anti-Americanism" in which people feel that American culture is not as refined or sophisticated as their own. Another form is "liberal anti-Americanism" based on a feeling that the United States does not live up to its values. A third form is "welfarist anti-Americanism", which criticises the United States' lack of a highly protective welfare state and some of the country's policies, such as the death penalty. Fourth, "sovereign-nationalist anti-Americanism" describes time-specific resentment during moments when nationalists see the United States as a threat to their sovereignty. "Legacy anti-Americanism" can be a remnant of this in which resentment stems from the United States' past presence and/or wrongdoings in a country. The final form that the lecturer discussed was that of "radical anti-Americanism" which is the rejection of what is perceived to be dominant American values, and unlike other forms, is often accompanied by actions aimed at limiting America's presence as a world power. A widespread misunderstanding among Americans, he noted, is that this is the most common form of anti-Americanism, but as Katzenstein pointed out, this is a view held mainly by very radical Islamists and Marxist-Leninists, of which there are relatively few.

Still, analysis of the forms of anti-Americanism does little to answer the question, "why do they hate us?" I soon realised this question, while well-intentioned, is so difficult to answer because its basic assumptions are wrong – in fact, there is no "they" who "hate" us. The Middle East is no less complex than other parts of the world. Even within the Middle East, different groups have very different reasons for anti-Americanism, and their anti-Americanism varies in intensity. As Katzenstein pointed out, even those with anti-American attitudes often approve of or admire aspects of American culture and values. Liberal anti-Americans, for example, believe very strongly in the American creed even though they do not think America lives up to its own values. Welfarist anti-Americans also tend to strongly support American-style democracy and the United States' fight against terrorism. And sovereign-nationalist and legacy anti-Americans can often be pro-American outside of the specific events or times on which they base their resentment.

Unfortunately, a question, however good its intentions, that amalgamates diverse Middle Eastern views inadvertently creates further polarisation. Such an approach produces articles in major American publications with titles such as, "They Hate Us, They Really Hate Us" and "Anti-Americanism Is Racist Envy", creating divisions where none really existed, or strengthening them when they were far weaker than many had assumed.

Moving beyond such a question and accepting that there will be no simple answers is key. When we get caught up in sweeping generalisations, we fail to identify the root causes of conflict. These causes are crucial to assuring that dialogue addresses real problems and produces useful results. Conflict resolution theorists often stress the importance of identifying issues instead of focusing on positions. When parties focus on positions they are often distracted by general differences and fail to see similarities. When they delve deeper into the interests behind those positions, however, they find that there are many overlaps.

Ultimately, it is important to understand the nuances of our critics, not so that we can pander to them and compromise our values, but so that we can use effective diplomacy to uphold our values. While the many different forms of anti-Americanism may seem daunting and the temptation to dismiss them all as misled hatred is great, the attendance levels and interest in this recent lecture demonstrates a great interest in learning what drives people's perceptions of the United States and in finding creative ways to turn negative views into positive ones.

###
* Marissa Ines Wilson is a senior at Cornell University, where she is studying conflict resolution. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), May 23, 2006
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 2
The lost art
Neil Stormer

Washington, D.C. - Iran should take note. After more than 25 years, the United States has restored full diplomatic ties with Libya. Senior U.S. State Department officials hailed the development as the result of years of successful diplomacy.

If true, if credit should rest with skilled diplomats, it would be a welcome change in America's approach to foreign policy. For too long has the United States relied on its supremacy, at the expense of diplomacy, in order to get its way. Not everyone responds well to threats and bribes, but that has seemed to be all the United States has in its diplomatic arsenal.

Some in Washington, especially at the State Department, have expressed pleasure that George W. Bush's second term has been marked by an increase in the use of diplomacy to address issues on the international stage. You would be forgiven for not noticing — not many have.

Compared with the first term, the use of anything even resembling diplomacy — as opposed to bullying, threats and unilateralism — is grounds for celebration. America's diplomatic skills have seemingly atrophied from lack of use.

Proving this point, the United States has missed an opportunity ripe with possibility: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush last week provided a diplomatic opening in the otherwise terse and at times tense relations between the United States and Iran. Granted, Ahmadinejad's letter rambled a bit, and few would disagree that it represented an odd change of pace in what had become a predictable ping-pong match of name calling and finger pointing.

But it would be a mistake to dismiss the letter as a stall tactic or, worse, the work of a madman, as some on the far right suggest. While it may be a clever means of delaying what many had hoped would be action by the UN Security Council, it has significance in its own right.

To begin with, it was the first such diplomatic exchange between the United States and Iran in 27 years; that alone is noteworthy and warrants a serious response. The letter also touched on currents prevalent in the Middle East today — including America's intentions in the region and the seeming hypocrisy surrounding America's promotion of human rights while simultaneously abusing them — a matter of concern for America's friends and foes alike.

Iran analysts in the United States described the letter as a veiled offer to initiate discussions with the Bush administration, one intended to invite a considered response while not angering Iranian conservatives opposed to talks with the United States.

Iranian Vice President for Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Ahmad Moussavi supported that analysis, stating: "If Bush gives a fair and reasoned reply to Ahmadinejad's letter, we will welcome it and regard is as a step in diplomacy and forging of understanding."

Accompanying the letter, though understandably drawing much less attention, was a memorandum released by the Iranian government outlining specific concessions it was willing to make in the pursuit of nuclear technologies.

Together, the documents represent a diplomatic opening through which one could drive a bulldozer, if slowly and with great care.

To date, the United States has offered no response, which is the diplomatic equivalent of a five-year-old child sticking its tongue out. In a slightly more mature, though still unpromising, reply, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed the letter as "an attack". It contained nothing directly about the nuclear issue, and therefore was of little use, according to the Bush administration.

To those better versed in the chess match that is international diplomacy, the letter represents the first step on a long road toward a mutually agreeable solution. Taking this path requires an appreciation of diplomacy as an art form, but also a great deal of patience and commitment to the means itself, and not necessarily to the end.

Cardinal Richelieu held that diplomacy should be a permanent dialogue conducted in the service of a permanent set of negotiations. This concept has been hard for the United States, especially this administration, to embrace. America's diplomacy has been shaped by its experiences, none more so than the cold war.

The primary objectives of the cold war era were focused on security: containment of communism and its national proponents, and military deterrence. Diplomacy and gentle persuasion withered on the vine while might and muscle determined America's relationship with other countries.

America didn't need to be diplomatic: countries were made to choose between the West and the East. If a country chose the former, the United States funded them generously; if they chose the latter, the United States contained, undermined and spied upon them. The lesson of the era is that diplomacy is not nearly as effective as ultimatums and bribes, and anything else simply took too long.

The end result is that diplomacy is seen in America as a lost art, an old, almost dead language, spoken by few and generally not very useful except when dealing with relics.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Diplomatic actions, such as talks between Iran and the United States, may not bring a solution to the variety of issues creating the chasm between the two countries. But the other options only increase enmity and raise the possibility of conflict and bloodshed.

Ahmadinejad's letter is not the solution. It is the beginning of finding a solution, but only if the United States can remember how to play the game in a skilful fashion.

###
* Neil Stormer and works in conflict resolution and foreign policy in Washington, D.C. This article was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Jordan Times, May 17, 2006
Visit the website at http://www.jordantimes.com/
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 3
Winning the war of words in the campaign against terrorism
John Hughes

New York – The war against terrorism is also a war of words - words that capture the ideals and beliefs of the warring factions.

That the terrorists understand this was never made clearer than in the letter written by Osama bin Laden's principal lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, last year to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the insurgent leader in Iraq.

"More than half of the battle is taking place on the battlefield of the media", Mr. Zawahiri wrote. "We are in a media race for hearts and minds."

And last week came the 18-page letter from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush, the first from an Iranian leader to an American president in 27 years. It is clearly cast as a significant salvo against the United States, asserting the failure of Western-style democracy and the superiority of Islam.

The Iranian president concedes that Saddam Hussein (who engaged Iran in a long and costly war) was a "murderous dictator". But he suggests that Mr. Bush cannot be a "follower of Jesus Christ", for having gone to war in Iraq at terrible human cost.

Mr. Ahmadinejad also has harsh words for Israel, which he says has no credibility to exist. The Israeli "regime", he claims, shows no mercy "even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison." Is (U.S.) support for this Israeli regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ, he asks.

The Iranian president says Hamas represents the Palestinian electorate and suggests that attempts to get Hamas to recognise Israel are "unbelievable".

He says the attacks of 9/11 on the United States were horrendous and the killing of innocents was appalling. But he makes no mention of the Muslim terrorists' role in the attacks and instead joins the conspiracy theorists who say orchestrating them was "not a simple operation", and could not have been planned and executed "without intelligence and security services".

His main thesis, clearly addressed to the Islamic world, is that Western-style democracy has failed and that "those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."

To counter such fanciful arguments from the Islamic world, the U.S. government has been strengthening its response. Bush has installed his principal media adviser, Karen Hughes, as undersecretary for public diplomacy at the State Department. U.S. government radio broadcasting to the Islamic region, particularly Iran, has been ramped up. But years of downgrading and neglect since the end of the cold war have taken their toll on the government's once-effective structure for conducting public diplomacy throughout the world.

A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the quality of government efforts to engage Muslim audiences abroad points up some serious deficiencies. Some 30 percent of public diplomacy specialists at diplomatic posts in the Islamic world lack the language skills to communicate with their target audiences. Dangerous security threats in many of those countries hinder attempts to reach out. Tours of duty are shorter than in more secure countries, resulting in much turnover and shortages of personnel.

Perhaps the most telling GAO criticism is that there is a lack of overall coordination where core messages, strategies, tactics, and in-depth research and analysis are concerned - a communication plan that would "bring it all together". The GAO suggests that government could take some tips from the private sector in the careful integration of public relations planning.

One of the bright spots is a program that has brought 600 high school students from the Muslim world to study in the United States and 170 college students for two years of academic study at American colleges or universities.

While such numbers are relatively small, programs like this, operated both by the government and the private sector, are effective in planting a friendlier view of America and Americans among a sliver of Muslim communities. Last week I attended a board meeting here of the non-profit International Center for Journalists which specialises in training programs, both on-site and in the United States, for journalists from less-developed countries.

Over the years it has built up an impressive worldwide network of journalists steeped in the traditions of a free press. They are potential opinion makers in their homelands and are now better prepared to detect what is truth and what is fiction in the war of words consuming many of their countries.

More of these kinds of exchange programs are essential.

###
* John Hughes, a former editor of the Monitor, is editor and chief operating officer of the Deseret Morning News. This article was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Christian Science Monitor, May 17, 2006
Visit the website at www.csmonitor.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright © The Christian Science Monitor. For reprint permission, please contact lawrenced@csps.com.

**********

ARTICLE 4
Bad news for everybody
Yossi Alpher

Tel Aviv - There appear to be a number of possible explanations why the Palestinian Authority could collapse into anarchy. Some observers argue that the Palestinians have proven themselves essentially ungovernable and uniquely inclined to make all the wrong decisions at the national level. Others that Israel and its occupation, directly and indirectly, are the primary catalyst of chaos. Still others fault the Oslo accords for generating a bad solution for Palestinian needs.

The school of thought informing and justifying the drive to impose the harshest possible economic sanctions on the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority argues, in a Leninist fashion, that the worse things get in Palestine, the better they will eventually become. In other words, economic chaos will breed social, political and security chaos, bring down the Hamas government and produce something better in its place. To its credit the Olmert government, though inheriting the mantle of a policy that certainly contributed to the Palestinians' current plight, does not subscribe to this all-out approach. Together with the Quartet, it is now looking for ways to spend Palestinian monies and donor funds for the benefit of Palestinians, somehow hoping that this will prevent starvation and chaos but also not help Hamas solidify its rule.

The principal external actors, then, don't want a total collapse of the PA: only a partial collapse--enough to either discredit and replace Hamas or oblige it to moderate its attitude toward Israel, violence and a two-state solution. But one way or another, because we are dealing with an unprecedented situation in the annals of the conflict--indeed, in the annals of the modern Middle East--and because the economic and security situation in the West Bank and particularly Gaza is deteriorating rapidly, collapse is possible. Nor can we safely predict what "collapse" would look like: a Somalia-like situation, a Hamas-Fateh civil war or genuine socio-economic distress in a political void. At a minimum, it would be characterised by a severe setback for Palestinian democracy and large-scale human suffering.

This is bad news for Palestinians. But the potential consequences of collapse for those outside Palestine are also likely to be highly negative. First, the distress inside Palestine would generate unrest and agitation among large Palestinian populations living next door, in Israel and Jordan. This could have political consequences in both countries, particularly the Hashemite kingdom. Inside Palestine the situation would invite extremism, including Islamic extremism led by Hizbollah and al-Qaeda, both of whom have already been targeting and infiltrating the Palestinian conflict. This would affect the security situation among Palestine's neighbours.

Second, whatever remains (following the counterproductive elections in Iraq and Palestine) of the American democratic reform drive in the Arab world would be further discredited, having proven itself selective, anti-Islamic and ultimately destructive. The consequences for U.S.-Middle East policy would be felt from Morocco to Iraq. Moderate Arab reformers in those countries and in Egypt, Lebanon and Tunisia, a small but important group of embattled secular democrats, would also be disgraced.

Assuming orderly governance was not quickly restored, Israel would come under heavy pressure from some international and domestic circles to, in effect, renew military government in order to stem the chaos and provide sustenance. Alternatively, or in parallel, pressure would increase for an "international solution" involving both foreign military forces and a major donor effort. Egypt and Jordan, which have thus far maintained their distance both politically and militarily, might now be called upon, against their better judgment, to play a major role.

Could something good also emerge from a collapse of governance in Palestine? Theoretically, it is possible that an alliance of Fateh-oriented strongmen (at least two: one for Gaza, one for the West Bank) could, with a little help from Israel, take over and even strike a peace deal that satisfies all of Jerusalem's territorial and national needs. Yet judging by the course of Palestinian history and the mood of the Palestinian street, this is highly unlikely.

Certainly it would be disastrous for all concerned if someone in Israel or elsewhere thought they could engineer such a productive coup in Palestine. If we have learned anything in nearly 40 years of occupation, it is that such schemes never turn out the way they're planned. Better that we devote our energies to preventing collapse--for lack of constructive alternative.

###
* Yossi Alpher is co-editor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications. He is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and a former senior adviser to PM Ehud Barak. This article was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Bitterlemons-international.org (http://www.bitterlemons-international.org/), May 15, 2006
Visit the website at www.bitterlemons-international.org (http://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
There are misperceptions on both sides
Lubna Hussain

Riyadh - During the King Faisal Prize ceremony in Riyadh last week I had an interesting encounter with an American businesswoman who was on her first visit to the Kingdom.

"So how have you found it so far?" I asked curious as to what her initial impressions were.

"I was really very impressed. It's not at all like I had imagined it to be."

This is a sentiment that is echoed by most people who come to Saudi Arabia from other parts of the world. The constant pictures that flood our television screens pertaining to the pitiful situation in Iraq has come to symbolise much of the Middle East for most people who have not otherwise experienced this region firsthand. The fact that our country has been singularly targeted as a nidus for terrorism and a hotbed of fanatics conjures up all sorts of perverse images within people's collective subconscious. I can't say I was surprised by what she had said, but it did leave me feeling a little despondent, especially considering that the Kingdom is a far safer place than most.

"Well, it's not as if the average American really cares about Saudi Arabia anyway", I conjectured.

"Did you use the word 'care'?" she asked astonished.

I nodded my head disinterestedly.

"No! I am sorry, but you are mistaken. They do care", she said emphatically. "In fact, they really care a lot. The biggest problem is that they just don't understand. They really don't."

"Yes, but they don't exactly try very hard to, do they?" I retorted with frustration. "And besides, I just don't think that people in Maine or Nevada are particularly bothered about what is going on here. From what I have seen, there are many Americans who don't even really know about what's going on outside their own state, leave alone in this part of the world. I think that the majority tends to see this country as part of the big amorphous Middle Eastern glob. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman. It's all the same."

"You're right in a way", she agreed, "but I have a question to ask you if I may. What do people here think of America?"

"I can't generalise, but I truly believe that as individuals we think that they are wonderful. It's your government that we have an axe to grind with, not good wholesome good-intentioned average Americans."

"Well, I am glad to hear that you separate the two. But tell me honestly, even though you are educated and seem to know quite a lot, don't you see Americans as being the same across the board?"

I thought about what she had just asked and suddenly realised that I did. I sheepishly admitted to my own short-sightedness and she stunned me further with the comment, "You see, misunderstandings exist on both sides."

What she said struck a chord deep within me. Here was this bright, successful woman who really had no vested interest in trying to unravel what it was that created and perpetuated such animosity, and yet part of the reason for her visiting Riyadh was to do just that. She genuinely wanted to meet with people here and learn from them about what it is that they thought and how it was that they felt.

"I think that my people really don't realise how important Saudi Arabia is as a country", she continued. "The fact that most of our oil and energy comes from here doesn't even occur to them. The fact that so many people in the world look to this country as their spiritual guide really doesn't register with the folks back home. It's only when you point this out to people that they actually begin to see it for what it is."

"I know what you mean", I asserted, "but you also have to recognise that we are a very proud people. We respect your country but this does not imply that we want to be 'liberated' by you or become a clone of you. We have our own code of morality and system of government. Our culture and tradition cannot be usurped by the ubiquitous M sign. Yes, we want to improve ourselves, but we don't want your ideas of what constitutes a democracy superimposed upon us. There is no single magic formula that works for every country. We want to develop our own without being dictated to."

"That's totally right", she confirmed. "And that's another problem of misperception. Because we have had democracy right from the beginning, we don't tend to recognise any other form of workable system. What I think would be far more productive and effective would be to see how we can help you achieve the kind of change that you want to achieve, not the kind of change we want to see."

What ensued over the next hour or so was the development of a greater mutual understanding between us. Rather than reinforcing stereotypes and fortifying our individual positions of sanctimony and belligerence, we began to see things more clearly from the other side. I realised that there must be many individuals like this who aren't consumed by some sort of irrational hatred for us, but are just unaware of who we are and what we want. That at the end of the day if there was more exchange of views and ideas between people from opposing sides that the slight shift in perceptions that this would bring about would eventually culminate in a better understanding of everyone. That if such a thing were to happen then the world would indeed be a much better place, albeit with a lot of unemployed politicians.

###
* Lubna Hussain is a Saudi writer based in Riyadh. This article was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Arab View, April 7, 2006
Visit Arab View online: http://www.arabview.com (http://www.arabview.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 May 24, 2006 04:14 AM