Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
14 - 20 November 2006

The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim–Western relations. CGNews-PiH is available in Arabic, English, French and Indonesian.
For an archive of past CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org.
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).

Inside this edition

1) by El Hassan bin Talal

Prince Hassan bin Talal, brother of the late King Hussein of Jordan and chairman of several Jordanian organisations, looks at Europe’s recent co-existence efforts and acknowledges our joint responsibilities in a fast-paced, globalised world. Recognizing the importance of political and technological imperatives of co-existence efforts, he warns that coherent strategy must not omit culture as a key element of constructive human relations.
(Source: Jordan Times, 7 November 2006)

2) by Rehan Rafay Jamil

Rehan Rafay Jamil, a senior at Oberlin College in Ohio, argues that despite Pakistan’s recent economic and social advancements, a change in governmental leadership is needed to facilitate an eventual “transfer from military to civilian rule in the country.” To this democratically-inspired end, the US should re-evaluate its current support of General Pervez Musharraf, who is both Pakistan’s standing President and Army Chief, and encourage fair and free elections in the upcoming year.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 14 November 2006)

3) by Patrick Seale

British writer and author of The Struggle for Syria, Patrick Seale, considers recent comments by Richard Haass, one of America's leading foreign policy specialists, who pronounced that “the American era in the Middle East… has ended.” Suggesting that there may be something behind Haass’s comments, he proposes a plan of action for the United States.
(Source: Al Hayat, 3 November 2006)

4) by Mohamed Elmenshawy

Mohamed Elmenshawy, editor of the information and news service Taqrir Washington, looks at the growth, and growing pains, of Al Jazeera, and critiques its coverage of the United States and American society. He challenges it, as a young news outlet with great influence, to take specific steps to report not only on “America the superpower” but also on “America the complex, diverse and democratic society.”
(Source: International Herald Tribune, 6 November 2006)

5) by Ranty Islam

Ranty Islam, a Berlin-based contributor to the Christian Science Monitor, believes that Europe can learn from the United State when it comes to multi-culturalism and pluralism. Highlighting the U.S. Embassy program “Windows on America” which aims to give European students of migrant backgrounds a better picture of U.S. society, he brings the discussion around to the German integration debate, particularly when it comes to the large Muslim community which is an essential part of Germany.
(Source: Christian Science Monitor, 3 November 2006)
   

1) Will Europe capture the moral high ground?
El Hassan bin Talal

Berlin - As I write this piece in this formerly divided city, I can only feel hope that walls built between populations must inevitably fall to the communal needs of peoples with an equal right to justice and security.

Last week, I began my trip to a so-recently divided Europe with a visit to Copenhagen where I was delighted to declare my full support for the Nordic Council’s Co-existence Agenda. Whether European or Asian, we all have a strong vested interest in the success of any initiative that recognises the importance of dialogue.

Co-existence of Civilisations is an international project that grew out of Denmark’s recent cartoon controversy. In response to the crisis, the country’s leading economic and political newsletter, Monday Morning, devised the initiative to mobilise regional and global media to promote understanding, debate and engagement.

I was honoured to take the baton as patron of an expedition of understanding launched by the initiative and to be the first outsider to address a plenary session of the regional Nordic Council, a consultative body representing five Nordic countries and three autonomous territories (Danish parliament, Copenhagen, November 1, 2006). The countries’ prime ministers, ministers and politicians agreed almost unanimously to promote multicultural development through the co-existence project.

It is perhaps timely to remember that the notion of co-existence was formed in the dangerously divided era of the cold war. It marked the start of a process of rapprochement in fractured Europe. Similarly, the Nordic Co-Existence Initiative aims to reach past mere co-existence towards true partnership — of people, of ideas and of governments.

Many in Europe agree with my urgent belief that the time has come to reassess the responsibilities of a fast-paced, globalised world. The various crises facing our peoples should serve to remind governments and policy-makers alike that rights emanate from and affect not only the European and American contexts but the entire family of cultures that comprise our human civilisation. Crucially, our quest for co-existence must look beyond technological, market-driven imperatives to achieve a lasting reconciliation of cultures and peoples.

At a press conference at the Danish parliament, I stressed the role of the Nordic countries as catalysts for world peace. I believe that the history of Scandinavian, Nordic and Baltic co-operation can act as a model for peaceful interaction in our region. Our cultural, linguistic and existential links in the Levant or Mesopotamia are worth more than many outside the region appreciate.

Nordic governments and civil society activists have a long history of upholding the fundamental rights of humanity and of promoting human security above all else. Their continued involvement in our region will provide much needed moral support for cultural engagement. The region’s governments have recognised that globalisation presents us with a clash of opportunities and challenges. To deal properly with the implications of growing interdependence, we must invest to reconcile diverse cultural and religious values, political ideas and economic regimes.

The Helsinki Process on Globalisation and Democracy and the Barcelona Process for Euro-Mediterranean Dialogue outlined three inter-connected categories of human relations: security, economy and culture. We must integrate these into a coherent strategy in which culture is not merely an afterthought.

For Europe, migration is an inevitable aspect of economic globalisation, bringing the issues faced by far-off populations to the heart of European societies. Ethnic and religious groups are no longer confined to one region as traditional margins shift and groups disintegrate and reintegrate at escalating rates. We have all seen how conflicts arising from repression can spread swiftly from their epicentre.

At the first Middle East-North Africa Summit in Casablanca in 1994, delegates called for the European Union to invest $35 billion in 24 countries over 10 years, to build an infrastructure to encourage a “will to stay”. Providing opportunities at home was cited as the only way to avoid the problems caused by mass migration. Sadly, the European response at the time was “first come, first served”.

It is ironic that the same sum was allocated in one day for Homeland Security in the US following the September 11 attacks. However, supporting a siege mentality in the US or in Europe does nothing to alleviate the chronic problems caused by the inequities of globalisation.

The Nordic Co-Existence Initiative reminds us that the dominance of military response in international relations must be addressed. In the Gulf area alone, there have been no fewer than 22 active border disputes since 1900, all dealt with by military means. The recent war in Lebanon provides yet another example of militarism called into play as a first-resort tactic.

The politics of military supremacy have fuelled massive military spending, augmenting national debts in my region and diverting funds that could have been used to narrow the gap between inclusion and exclusion. It is a telling irony that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the group empowered to uphold peace around the world, together account for some 90 per cent of the world’s arms trade.

The Nordic Co-Existence Initiative marks a positive step in bringing cultural comprehension into the globalisation process, both at home and abroad. Managing cultural complexities through a framework for dialogue must become the norm in inter-state and inter-regional relations. Participation rather than exclusion must underpin security and freedom, while freedom of expression must come with a responsibility to protect the livelihoods and beliefs of all.

###

* HRH Prince Hassan bin Talal, brother of the late King Hussein of Jordan, is chairman of several organisations in fields which include diplomacy, interfaith studies, human resources, and science and technology. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Jordan Times, 7 November 2006, www.jordantimes.com
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

2) ~Youth Views~ Pakistan’s President Musharraf walks a tightrope with the United States
Rehan Rafay Jamil

Oberlin, OH- As General Pervez Musharraf closes his seventh year as President of Pakistan, the debate rages over how long he can remain at the helm of power. In October 1999, he overthrew the civilian government of Nawaz Sharif, continuing Pakistan’s pattern of alternating between military and civilian rule and making him the fourth military ruler in the country's short history. Pakistan’s leading opposition parties argue it is unconstitutional for the serving President to be Army Chief at the same time. In 2005, Musharraf reneged on his pledge to step down from the position as head of the Armed Forces and confirmed that he would remain as both head of state and army.

For Musharraf’s supporters, he is the saviour of the country, the man who prevented Pakistan from becoming a failed state and perhaps, as has recently come to light, from being bombed by the United States. Indeed, Musharraf, who prides himself on being the master “tightrope walker”, made a dramatic change in Pakistan’s foreign policy following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon of 9/11.

Since 9/11, Pakistan has emerged as a frontline state indispensable to the Bush administration’s self-styled “War on Terror”. It severed its long-standing links with the Taliban in Afghanistan, paving the way for the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance to come to power in Kabul. The Pakistani government has also provided the United States with unprecedented military and intelligence support and is jointly carrying out a controversial military operation to find Osama Bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan, which has resulted in scores of unaccounted for civilian deaths.

When Musharraf came to power, Pakistan – a declared nuclear state since 1998 - was on the verge of bankruptcy. Today with the help of U.S. financial assistance and the competent leadership of the former international banker turned Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, Pakistan has foreign reserves in excess of 11 billion dollars. The commercial capital, Karachi, which hosted one of Asia’s best performing stock exchanges last year, is symbolic of this new-found affluence, as an emerging middle class and nouveau riche become more visible in the city.

In comparison to its Middle Eastern neighbours to the west, Pakistan has never been a police state even under periods of military rule. Under President Musharraf’s government, Pakistani electronic media has experienced an unprecedented boom, with dozens of new private channels springing up, many of which air opinions and debates that are openly critical of his government.

President Musharraf often justifies his rule by saying that he is paving the way for “true democracy” in Pakistan. Unfortunately, he is not the first military leader to espouse such noble intentions. But under his rule, many of the country’s civilian institutions critical to the re-establishment of democracy in the country have been weakened, not strengthened. Today, the leaders of Pakistan’s two main political parties, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, are in exile. Parliament is divided between a political faction loyal to the President and the main opposition parties who have become increasingly united on one issue: to end Musharraf’s rule and completely restore civilian rule in the country. The President has promised to hold national elections in 2007, but many skeptics argue it will be eyewash so long as the American government continues to have faith in Musharraf.

For many Pakistanis, the current situation carries a sense of déjà vu from the 1980s when another Republican administration of the United States aligned itself with a military ruler in Pakistan. That, of course, happened during the final years of the Cold War when President Ronald Reagan conveniently ignored the lack of democratic credentials of the government of General Zia-Ul-Haq in return for his support for U.S efforts to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. Supporting armed jihad and Islamic fundamentalism in those days was part of explicit U.S policy in the battle against the godless “evil empire”, as Reagan called the Soviet Union – a policy that eventually came back to haunt the United States. Today, President Musharraf is viewed by many in the West as the best and only defence against Islamic extremism in Pakistan, a fear his critics in Pakistan argue has been over-stated to justify his continued rule.

Supporting Musharraf is the easy, but certainly not only, option. It is in the long-term interest of the United States to support democracy and return civilian rule to Pakistan, and to nudge Musharraf towards undertaking such reforms. The unprecedented cooperation the U.S government has received from the Pakistani military in its search for Al Qaeda cannot come at the expense of sacrificing democracy in Pakistan. The U.S. government should make it clear that it will work to empower civilian governments in Pakistan and that continued foreign and military aid will be contingent upon democratic reform in the country.

The Pakistani case is illustrative of the wider contradictions of American foreign policy in the Muslim world. The United States champions the cause of democracy and human rights around the world while continuously aligning itself with authoritarian governments in the Muslim world. It is this perceived hypocrisy in U.S foreign policy that enrages many in the Muslim world. Today, Musharraf critics routinely rebuke him for being America’s puppet in the region, a perception that only further strengthens the idea that the United States is not seriously committed to furthering democracy in the region.

For many Pakistanis, the choice between military rule and the corrupt civilian governments of the past is a dismaying one. What is certain is that one of the most pivotal countries of the Muslim world’s future cannot be left in the hands of one individual. Free and fair elections in 2007 are just one part of what should be a complete transfer from military to civilian rule in the country. Rejuvenating Pakistan’s shattered political institutions and ending the complex power struggle between its civilian and military leadership is going to be an even greater challenge.

###

* Rehan Rafay Jamil is a senior at Oberlin College where he is majoring in Politics & History. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 14 November 2006, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been granted for republication.

3) Has America “lost” the Middle East?
Patrick Seale

Paris - Richard Haass, one of America's leading foreign policy specialists, has pronounced that “the American era in the Middle East… has ended.” His controversial judgement - which President George W. Bush would certainly not agree with -- is to be found in the very first paragraph of an article he wrote in the November-December issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious journal of the New York-based Council of Foreign Relations, of which Haass is President.

Haass argues that in the Middle East's recent history, America's supremacy can be seen as the fourth period of domination by outsiders. The first period was Ottoman control up to the First World War, then British and French colonial rule between the wars, followed by the Cold War, in which Moscow and Washington competed for influence and shared out the region between them. The collapse of the Soviet Union some 16 years ago ushered in a period when America ruled supreme, enjoying what Haass calls “unprecedented influence and freedom to act”.

But now, he says, this era too is drawing to a close, and may indeed already be over. He predicts that the region is entering a phase “in which outside actors have a relatively modest impact and local forces enjoy the upper hand.”

Is Haass right? Or is he being a little hasty? Are his gloomy conclusions unduly influenced by the misjudgements, omissions and foreign policy blunders of the Bush presidency? Could America recover its authority under a new administration? These are questions of considerable interest to the region.

Perhaps the first thing to say is that, in spite of its recent failures, the United States is still not seriously challenged in the Middle East by any other external power or group of powers. The Iraq war may have all the makings of a major disaster, but what other power could afford to spend $500 billion dollars and deploy an army of 140,000 men for an indefinite period half way across the world?

The European Union, which many had hoped would serve as a counterweight to the United States, has conspicuously failed to forge a common foreign and defence policy. Its members pull in different directions. They are divided on major issues such as the war in Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict and on how best to confront the threat of Islamic militancy. On Iraq, Britain chose to side with the United States rather than with its principal European partners, splitting the EU down the middle.

Because of its spectacular economic growth, China is emerging as a strategic challenger to the United States, particularly in East Asia. It is certainly a formidable competitor in the feverish world-wide search for raw materials. It has made deep inroads into Africa, where some 500,000 Chinese are already at work, many of them on construction sites.

But China's economic partnerships and alliances have still not been translated into the sort of naked power the U.S. can project by means of its numerous deep-water fleets, its global network of military bases and its technological supremacy.

Russia's economy, in turn, has improved on the basis of oil and gas revenues, but it is still very far from recovering the considerable influence it used to have in the Middle East as an arms supplier and great power protector of several Arab states.

As for local actors, which Haass predicts will soon “enjoy the upper hand”, it is hard to see whom he has in mind. All too often at odds with each other, the Arabs are even more divided than the Europeans. Their oil wealth - their main material asset -- has still not been put to any consistent political purpose.

Iran poses a more serious challenge to American power, but its ambitions would seem to be purely local and defensive. It seeks to break out of the artificial isolation the US has imposed on it. It wants to be recognised as a major Gulf power, and as the protector of Shi'a communities everywhere. Militarily, it seeks the means to confront or deter an attack on itself - to avoid devastation such as Iraq has suffered - rather than to attack others.

As for non-state actors like Hizbullah and Hamas, they pose no credible challenge whatsoever to the United States. Their quarrel is with Israel - and with what the United States has allowed Israel to do in Lebanon and Palestine. Their ambitions are strictly limited to their own societies. If their legitimate grievances were addressed, they would cease to be any sort of a threat.

As the United States faces no serious challenger in the immediate future, either from inside or outside the region, could it recover its authority? There is no doubt that the United States is now deeply unpopular in the Arab and Muslim world, even an object of loathing in many quarters. Militant groups would like to strike at it, if they could.

Many Arabs look back with nostalgia to the era of President Eisenhower, who put an end to the Anglo-French-Israeli aggression at Suez in 1956 and, more recently, to the presidency of Jimmy Carter who, although he only managed to do half the job - by forging the Egyptian-Israeli peace -- made a valiant effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict in its entirety.

What then should the US do to regain trust and credibility? It should perhaps begin by recognising its many mistakes.

Perhaps the greatest mistake over the past 25 years was to allow Israel to expand its settlements on occupied Palestinian territories. There is no greater obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to Israel's integration into the region, than the nearly half a million Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The relentless erosion of the rump of Arab Palestine has created the militant movement Hamas and has aroused hostility to the US throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

Another mistake, made under Ronald Reagan's presidency, was to allow Israel to invade Lebanon in 1982, killing over 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinians. The US even attempted to reward Israel for its invasion by forcing Lebanon to conclude a separate peace which would have put it in Israel's orbit. When that attempt failed, the US allowed Israel to remain in south Lebanon for the next 18 years until 2000 - an invasion and occupation which created the militant movement Hizbullah.

A third mistake was the failure to re-establish friendly relations with Iran in the 27 years since the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution, and indeed to have backed Iraq in the long and brutal Iraq-Iran war (1980-88.) Instead, outraged at the seizure and incarceration of its diplomats for 444 days at the start of the Iranian revolution, the US allowed itself to be trapped in a posture of unrelenting hostility towards a major regional power - and is now paying for that mistake by Iran's defiance over the nuclear issue.

A fourth mistake which dwarfs the others was America's rash and intemperate reaction to the traumatic terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The war against Iraq, waged on false and fraudulent premises, has proved a catastrophic error. It was driven by a wish, in the heat of the moment, to teach the Arabs a lesson about America's military power; by the ambition to control Iraq's vast oil resources; and also - and perhaps primarily in the minds of pro-Israeli officials in the U.S. administration -- by a bid to improve Israel's strategic environment by smashing a major Arab state.

Not only has the war - and the “Global War on Terror”, of which it is a part - squandered America's human and material resources, it has also done tremendous, perhaps irreversible, damage to America's moral standing.

What should the US now do? It should regain the independence of its foreign policy by freeing itself from the pressures of lobbies and special interest groups. It should punish those responsible for gross human rights abuses, such as torture. It should announce a firm date for its withdrawal from Iraq. And it should bend every effort - and every resource - to solving the Arab-Israeli conflict on a basis of equity and justice.

George W Bush has two more years in office. Can he -- will he -- act? Or will Haass' prediction of an end to the American era come true?

###

* Patrick Seale is a British writer on the Middle East and the author of The Struggle for Syria. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Al Hayat, 3 November 2006, english.daralhayat.com
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

4) How Al Jazeera can go up a gear
Mohamed Elmenshawy

Washington, D.C. - Last week, the Arabic-language satellite news channel Al Jazeera celebrated its 10th anniversary. In the years since its first broadcast on Nov. 1, 1996, Al Jazeera has become a popular news outlet that no government or opinion shaper can afford to ignore. The Qatar-based station has created a home-grown forum for free speech and controversial debates after decades of government control over the news outlets in the region.

Of course, the huge success of Al Jazeera, which is owned by the royal family of Qatar, has come with plenty of controversy. Critics in the West, particularly in the United States, have called its aggressive journalistic style biased in favour of Arab causes. Top Bush administration leaders have called the station's coverage inflammatory and misleading.

Al Jazeera has also agitated many of the elites of Arab governments. Despite (or perhaps because of) its controversial coverage, Al Jazeera's success has become a strong vehicle for change in the Arab world, putting serious pressure on entrenched autocratic leaders. Its reporters have been banned in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Most recently, the Tunisian government recalled its ambassador from Qatar in protest of an aired interview with an exiled Tunisian opposition figure.

Anti-Western or not, Al Jazeera has secured a front-row seat in the international media arena, right next to CNN and BBC. If there is one news outlet that can shape the opinions and perspectives of Arab audiences, it's Al Jazeera. In short, Al Jazeera has done its job, and done it well.

For a still-young news station of this magnitude and influence, expectations are high. And despite the respect many observers hold for the courageous journalists of Al Jazeera, myself included, these growing expectations have yet to be met.

For one thing, Al Jazeera's coverage of the United States has yet to offer viewers a complete picture of American society. Since 11 September 2001, interest in America has risen noticeably in the Arab world, and not a single Arab media outlet has satisfied this demand. Everyone reports on America the superpower, but no one reports on America the complex, diverse and democratic society.

Decisions that affect daily life in the Arab world are made in Washington, but the politics and dynamics that shape those decisions are found elsewhere in America.

Only Al Jazeera's journalists hold the qualifications, capabilities and credibility to fill this gap. The station should broadcast a program focused on life outside the U.S. capital to provide viewers with a more nuanced understanding of what America is all about.

U.S. and other Western media outlets have not performed any better in their coverage of the core Arab societies, but this should not deter Al Jazeera from reaching this next level of excellence.

Al Jazeera must also transform itself from a forum dominated by Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to a platform that is equally accessible to political voices, whether Islamist, leftist, nationalist or liberal. A great deal of programming has been devoted in the past to Islamist thinkers and leaders like Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, without balancing views from opposing voices.

Al Jazeera could also improve by adding some local coverage. The station will lose viewers to locally oriented television stations like Dream TV in Egypt, or LBC and Al Manar in Lebanon, if it persists in focusing on regional issues like Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict at the expense of other important local issues.

For example, Al Jazeera did not employ the daring style for which it is known in its reporting about recent cases of sexual assault in Cairo. Dream Television was much more willing to unravel the story.

Finally, Al Jazeera's reporters and anchors should minimise the airtime devoted to their own views, and focus more on reporting the story. In doing so, Al Jazeera must divorce itself from the sensibilities of its main financier, the emir of Qatar, and focus on reporting on, as opposed to engaging in, politics.

As Al Jazeera prepares for another year of restless noise-making, its staff must not lose track of the expectations of the Arab viewer, and the need to match the quality of its reporting with the level of controversy it evokes.

###

* Mohamed Elmenshawy is the editor of Taqrir Washington, a Washington-based Arabic-language information and news service sponsored by the World Security Institute. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: International Herald Tribune, 6 November 2006, www.iht.com
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

5) German Muslims laud US diplomat's style
Ranty Islam

Berlin - The last time high-schoolers in Berlin's Neukölln district made headlines was this spring, when teachers wrote an official letter to politicians essentially declaring a state of emergency over a violent student body - 80 percent of whom come from immigrant backgrounds.

But Jazan, a 16-year-old student at Neukölln's Ernst-Abbe high school, got his moment in the media limelight this week for an entirely different reason: along with nine other students, he'd just returned from a 10-day trip to America sponsored by the U.S. Embassy.

What most impressed him?

"People in the US can start driving at the age of 16 - why do we have to wait till 18 in Germany?" he says, laughing. But then, more serious, he adds, "Arabs, Jews and Muslims [in the US] walk on the street next to each other and nobody tells them how to dress or what to do."

Such a change in perspective is exactly what U.S. Ambassador William R. Timken Jr. is looking to accomplish with the embassy's "Windows on America" programme.

Funded by corporate donors, the project aims to gives students from migrant backgrounds a clearer picture of the US, the ambassador says. While some see Windows on America as a thinly veiled PR campaign, Muslim leaders have lauded Mr. Timken's pragmatic approach to engaging Muslims as a useful model for their own politicians.

In September, during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, Timken broke the fast with Muslims at a mosque near the western city of Düsseldorf, as well as with a number of Muslim representatives invited to the Frankfurt residence of U.S. Consul General Jo Ellen Powell.

Previously Ms. Powell, together with the ambassador's wife, Sue Timken, had organised a round-table discussion with Muslim women leaders working with immigrants.

The embassy also hosted a symposium with roughly 100 students from schools in Berlin's minority districts to discuss political, cultural, and educational issues of concern to them.

"The ambassador's efforts are warmly welcome," says Aiman Mazyek, secretary-general of Germany's Central Council of Muslims, one of the largest Muslim organisations in the country. "We'd like to see more of those [efforts] from German politicians. But, sadly, a visit by the German president to join Muslims breaking their fast is probably a long way off," he adds.

Burhan Kesici, vice president of Berlin's Islamic Federation, also agrees that German leaders could better emulate Timken's approach. At a joint breaking of the fast last year, hosted by the ambassador in a "private, warm, and welcoming setting", he and the other Muslims "got the impression that we can talk to and respect each other - even if we don't agree with a lot of U.S. politics on the global scale," says Mr. Kesici.

Interactions with German politicians are lacking this warmth, he says, but "with them we can talk to actually get things done and move ahead on the political level, too."

A sign of change came at an unprecedented government-organised conference of German Islamic organisations and leaders last month. At the meeting, Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble called Muslims an essential part of Germany who "belong to us."

But not all Germans see it that way. According to a poll earlier this year by the German news magazine "Stern", 55 percent of Germans consider Islam a valuable part of society - but also a threat.

German Muslims are not insensitive to such sentiments; a more recent Stern poll revealed that almost half of all Muslims in Germany believe that relations with other parts of society have deteriorated over the past few years.

Whether Timken's approach will make a difference to the integration debate in Germany is uncertain, says Torsten Jäger, managing director of Germany's Intercultural Council. Given its limited scope and funding, "the embassy's program seems to be primarily a PR effort."

Is Timken's dialogue a neat PR-campaign to polish America's image or a meaningful effort to get engaged on integration issues in Germany?

A bit of both, says Timken. "We don't tell Germans how to run their country," he declares. “My job is to get people to understand the United States better."

The students at Ernst-Abbe seem interested in getting a better understanding of the United States; the ambassador says that many of them expressed a concern in their essays that their image of the United States is skewed by German media, as well as the movies and TV shows they watch.

"The negative opinions here about the United States are really just about their government," says Sharonda, a 17-year-old at Ernst-Abbe.

The daughter of immigrant parents from Ghana, she was surprised by the attitude of Americans she met on the trip's stops: New York, Washington and Des Moines, Iowa. "The American people are, well, just so different, very open and welcoming."

So despite his reservations, Mr. Jäger says Germany should still consider Timken's initiative and start advertising in a similar way abroad.

"It is not enough for a country to more easily integrate foreigners and strive to become an open, inclusive place," says Jäger. "An immigration country needs to actively advertise this fact in the right places abroad - to make sure it attracts the best."

###

* Ranty Islam is a Berlin-based contributor to the Christian Science Monitor. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Christian Science Monitor, 3 November 2006, www.csmonitor.com
Copyright © The Christian Science Monitor. For reprint permission please contact lawrenced@csps.com

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 Chris Binkley (cbinkley@sfcg.org) for more information on contributing.

About CGNews-PiH
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 constructive, offer hope and promote dialogue and mutual understanding, 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.
The Common Ground News Service also commissions and distributes solution-oriented articles by local and international experts to promote constructive perspectives and encourage dialogue about current Middle East issues. This service, Common Ground News Service - Middle East (CGNews-ME), is available in Arabic, English, and Hebrew. To subscribe, click here. (http://www.sfcg.org/template/lists.cfm?list=cgnews)
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

Email : cgnewspih@sfcg.org
Website : www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/index.php?sid=1&lang=en)

Editors
Emad Khalil (Amman)
Juliette Schmidt (Beirut)
Chris Binkley (Dakar)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Geneva)
Nuruddin Asyhadie (Jakarta)
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Andrew Kessinger (Washington)

Translators
Grégoire Delhaye (Washington)
Rio Rinaldo (Jakarta)
Zeina Safa (Beirut)

CGNews is a not-for-profit news service.

Posted by Evelin at November 15, 2006 06:45 PM