Common Ground News Service Bulletin: 01 - 07 August 2007
Dear Friends of the HumanDHS network
Please find below the 1-7 August 2007 Commonground News Bulletin.
Kind regards
Brian Ward
Common Ground News Service
Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
01 - 07 August 2007
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) Turkey: a maturing democracy by Nigar Goksel
Nigar Goksel, senior analyst at the European Stability Initiative in Turkey and Editor of Turkish Policy Quarterly, looks at the electorate in Turkey to understand the success of Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the July elections. Lauding this as a sign of healthy democratisation in Turkey, she considers the necessary next steps.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 31 July 2007)
2) Turkey’s post-election outlook by Sezin Morkaya Slaats
Political scientist and freelance journalist Sezin Morkaya Slaats responds to those who believe that the recent election results in Turkey will lead to increased tensions between Turkey and the West, considering both the record of the party to date, and Turkey’s history of engaging the West.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews)/Yunus News, 31 July 2007)
3) As American as you are by Mohja Kahf
Mohja Kahf, author of the novel, The Girl in the Tangerine Scarf, defends a “certain Middle Eastern religion” much maligned in the United States – Christianity. A Muslim herself, she makes the case that “people of faith [be they evangelical Christians or conservative Muslims] do no signify the apocalypse for democracy”.
(Source: Washington Post, 22 July 2007)
4) After Lal Masjid by Ijaz Hussain
Ijaz Hussain, former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University, reflects on the recent events at the “Red Mosque” in Pakistan, and offers Pakistan a choice of how to enforce the kind of Islam it wants to have – “through peaceful means or by use of force” – and what steps the ulema and Pakistan’s government can take to achieve this.
(Source: Daily Times Pakistan, 18 July 2007)
5) Search for a Common Jerusalem by Hady Amr and Joel H. Samuels
Hady Amr, fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, and Joel H. Samuels, assistant professor of law at the University of South Carolina, consider the controversial issue of Jerusalem, in light of President Bush’s recent call for a multinational peace conference on Israel and Palestine, and the reason why so many Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are ready to share the Old City.
(Source: The Washington Post, 21 July 2007)
1)Turkey: a maturing democracy
Nigar Goksel
Istanbul - Despite efforts by political rivals to spin the 22 July elections as a confrontation between Islamism and secularism (and the convenient adoption of this rhetoric by some in Europe who conceptualise global affairs and Turkey’s EU membership along these lines), the focus in Turkey was largely on democratisation, economic growth and stability.
The conservative Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has tackled problems that have been lingering on Turkey’s agenda for decades. And economic growth has been unprecedented. Many factors came together to trigger the virtuous cycle the country has experienced. One need not resort to ideological reasoning to understand why the electorate voted for more of the same, with almost one of every two voters opting for the AKP. One also need not romanticise the AKP. It is a “majority government” with a pragmatic approach seizing the opportunities that international and domestic trends offer.
The EU anchor has played an important role in bringing about predictability in policies and thus confidence to businesspeople. Increased freedoms, coupled with the sense of direction, has been motivating and reassuring, with political, social and economic implications–each reinforcing the other. A virtuous circle was triggered by positive expectations based on the EU integration process and the structural changes it involves.
Despite complications revolving around the Cyprus issue, and the loss of motivation as the Turks watch politicians who run their campaign on anti-Turkey rhetoric win power one by one in European states, the opposition parties were mistaken in betting so heavily on EU-scepticism. Riding the wave of rising nationalism, the AKP’s rivals, practically in chorus, criticised the government for ’surrendering’ the country to the ‘mercy’ of Brussels at the expense of sovereignty, unity and security. Invoking notions of pride and honour was assumed to be the way to sway public opinion. Given the election results, it seems this style of populism does not impress the people; they have moved on, and the political class needs to catch up.
The political opposition failed to tackle the real issues. Rather than debating issues such as the need for a new constitution, the merits of the proposed public administration reform or the government’s deficiencies with regards to freedom of expression, the opposition provoked nationalist sentiments, made absurd pledges as to how low they would price fuel-oil if they obtained power, and created controversy over issues such as the headscarves worn by the wives of the AKP’s core team. And the statement issued by the military implying their readiness to intervene if the main tenants of the Republic were further threatened by the AKP only backfired, increasing support for the AKP in the name of civilian politics.
It is not about secularism. AKP supporters include the growing middle class, businesspeople wanting to safeguard their investments, Kurds seeking increased rights, the average citizen who wants better performance from public institutions, the liberals concerned with inward-looking reactionism, young people who have felt patronised by the establishment, and the pious Muslims who have felt excluded by other circles.
To consolidate change and make this election’s advancements permanent, both the election law and the party law need to be amended. As they currently stand, they create hierarchical political structures and reinforce patronage relationships. This system is not in line with the demands of an increasingly informed and participatory society. Moreover, the broad immunity granted to parliamentarians compromises the social sense of justice and accountability, and needs to be urgently addressed.
Turkey’s problems have not ended, and the AKP will have to work hard to meet its new challenges. It needs to simultaneously bridge the divide between the demands of Kurdish nationalists and the positions of hardliners, and assure liberals that their lifestyles will not be overshadowed by the empowered conservative classes. The new parliament carries the potential either to mend social fault-lines or to further polarise.
In addition, other parties need to take stock and remodel themselves according to the expectations of the people. Turkey needs a strong opposition party to serve as a counterbalance to the AKP, with a fresh outlook and new faces, driven to offer a vision and compete on issues with the AKP.
Turkish democracy has matured in recent years. Europe needs more sophisticated templates to analyze the changes ongoing in the country. And, judging from the miscalculations of the opposition, so do the Turks themselves.
* Nigar Goksel is a senior analyst at the European Stability Initiative in Turkey and Editor of Turkish Policy Quarterly. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
2)Turkey’s post-election outlook
Sezin Morkaya Slaats
Istanbul - The extent of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) victory in Turkey’s parliamentary elections has exceeded everyone’s expectations, including those of the party members themselves. According to final election results, it won 340 of the 550 seats in the parliament, a majority not often witnessed in the Turkish political scene.
Such success, given the party’s roots in Islam and due to its rather controversial historical relations with the secular republic state, will undoubtedly provoke questions regarding Turkey’s relationship with the West – both in Turkey and abroad. Time will tell what course of policy and direction the AKP will take, but as of now, there seems to be no point in anticipating any possible tension in its relationship with the West, particularly with Europe.
Chances are quite high that the AKP will continue its pro-European outlook, emphasising the importance of European Union membership as it did before the elections. As a matter of fact, by relying on the importance that much of the EU places on religious freedoms, the AKP regards the EU accession process as a legitimate and helpful platform from which to face the hard-core secular elements of the state. Thus, it is of no surprise that at the beginning of its previous term in parliament, the AKP showed considerable enthusiasm in backing the EU adjustment bills known as “Democratisation Packages”.
These packages aim to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria for EU membership. They are legal reforms intended to enlarge the scope of certain fundamental rights and liberties to strengthen the functioning of democratic institutions. The enactment of these packages started in 2001 before the AKP’s rule, and has continued under it.
Further reasoning for not fearing the development of tensions between Turkey and the Western world lies in the fact that Turkey itself has deep-rooted secular traditions and a Western outlook, as firmly stated in the main principles of the republic. These traits help to prevent any one party from harming its relations with Europe.
Indeed, there has been a Western-oriented modernisation project in Turkey tracing back to a period of reformation (Tanzimat) during the Ottoman Empire . This project gained ground after the Republic of Turkey was created based on the vision of a secular nation state modelled after European states. Thus, the demand for accession to the EU could be considered a logical extension of this long-term modernisation project.
The AKP thus far seems to be accepting the deep-rooted nature of this modernisation process. In addition, according to many political analysts and prominent journalists, the last elections show that the AKP, which was politically more on the right, has started to act like a centre-right party, suggesting that it will now be more moderate in regard to the Islamic ideology of the party’s grassroots that aim to place more Islamic symbols in the political realm. The AKP has also developed a tendency to represent the conservative right segments of the country that support a secular, West-facing outlook.
Also, the idea that the Turkish military’s recently expressed concerns regarding the presidential elections had an impact on the AKP’s victory in the parliamentary elections is misplaced. The AKP’s success is more due to the lack of an alternative centre-right party in the eyes of the Turkish public rather than a mere reaction to the military’s stepping in to express some concerns.
Because of the AKP’s religious roots, its victory in the latest elections can easily be misrepresented as a victory against secularism. But in fact, the AKP’s victory should not be seen as a sign that Turkey will become a radicalised country. Although Turkey’s population is predominantly Muslim, the country is far from choosing a political system based on Islamic law.
Regardless of the ideology of the ruling party, Turkey has for some time been an example of how a majority-Muslim country can exist as a secular state, and these past elections have not changed that fact. This point was clearly emphasised by Prime Minister Erdogan in his post-election speech in which he said the AKP respects the different views that exist in Turkish society and recognises the importance of secular values that constitute one of the main principles of the republic.
* Sezin Morkaya Slaats is a political scientist, specialised in EU affairs and legal system. She was a former economic editor in Turkey but now works as a freelance journalist. This article was a joint piece by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and Yunus News and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org and www.yunusnews.com .
3)As American as you are
Mohja Kahf
Fayetteville, Arkansas - A certain Middle Eastern religion is much maligned in this country. Full of veils and mystery, it is widely seen as sexist. Often violent, sometimes manipulated by demagogues, it yet has sweetness at the core, and many people are turning to it in their search for meaning.
I’m talking about Christianity.
This Muslim squirms whenever secular friends – tolerant toward believers in Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Native American spirituality – dismiss Christians with snorts of contempt. “It’s because the Christian right wants to take over this country,” they protest.
That may be, but it doesn’t justify trashing the religion and its spectrum of believers. Christianity has inspired Americans to the politics of abolition and civil rights, as well as to heinous acts. Christian values have motivated the Ku Klux Klan to burn houses, and Jimmy Carter to build them. You can’t say that when Christianity informs politics, only bad things happen.
This may strike you as odd coming from a Muslim. But it’s true: people of faith do not signify the apocalypse for democracy. And that goes for believing Muslims as much as for other religious folk. Muslims, in a very specific way, are not strangers in your midst. We are kin. Not just kin in the lovely way that all humans are. We carry pieces of your family story.
I got a phone call one evening from a friend who is a lovable gossip in my home town. “Have you read today’s paper?” she wanted to know. A letter-writing curmudgeon had mouthed off about how U.S. Muslims ought to be expelled, as worthless, dangerous and un-American. “What are we going to do?” she said. We’d worked together on non-pork lunch options for our kids in school – we share that dietary law, as she’s Jewish.
Anyhow, I invited the letter-writer to coffee. Walter declined, but we started writing to each other, his letters bearing a Purple Heart address label; he had been wounded in World War II. Walter was the crotchety, racist American great-uncle I never had. I sent him family photos, as you do to even an ornery relative; he replied that he guessed I was Syria’s loss, America’s gain.
“Huh?” I said.
“Why, you’re a Syrian beauty queen,” the old charmer said.
One day, I found a plastic baggie of asparagus tied to my doorknob. Mystified by this American vegetable, not one I cooked in my heritage cuisine, I brought it in – then noticed, sticking to it, the little address label with the Purple Heart. “Sauté in butter,” Walter advised. He made me promise to come to the cemetery on Veteran’s Day; I did.
A year later, I get a knock at my door. It’s Walter. “La ilaha illa allah!” he says, before “hello.” “You and I worship the same God. I know that now.” He limps into my living room, and we finally sit down to coffee.
Muslims are the youngest sibling in the Semitic family of religions, and we typically get no respect from the older kids – Judaism and Christianity. That our older sisters didn’t stick our pictures in the family scrapbook doesn’t make us less related, sweetheart. And our stories are no less legit just because we have a different angle on family history. Want to know what happened to Hagar after she fades from the Bible story of Abraham and Sarah? Sit, have coffee, we’ll talk.
The Muslim spectrum contains many complex identities, from lapsed to ultra-orthodox. There’s this wisdom going around that only the liberal sort are worthy of existence. No, my dears. Conservative Muslims have a right to breathe as well. Being devout, even if it means prostration prayer at airports, is not a criminal offense.
I grew up Islamist. That’s right, not only conservative Muslim, but full-blown, caliphate-loving Islamist, among folk who take core Islamic values and put them to work in education and politics, much like evangelical Christians. One of the things about the United States that delighted my parents, and many Islamist immigrants, is that here, through patient daily jihad, they could actually teach their children Islam – as opposed to motley customs that pass for Islam in the Old Countries.
Christianity and Islam have the genetic structure of siblings. “Allah” is in the Bible. “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?” the New Testament has Jesus (peace be upon him) asking on the cross. “Eloi,” “Elohim” of the Hebrew Bible and “Allah” are all derived from the same root word for “God”. When I discovered that fixed-time prayer was an early Christian rite, that Christians and Jews once practiced prostration, like Muslim prostration in our five daily salat, it was like recognising my nose on someone’s face in a photograph, then learning that the picture was of my great-grandmother. Joy!
Doctrinal differences abound, and each faith has its sacraments. Exploring these distinctions should be a source of delight, not of one-upmanship. In difference lie blessing and abundance. The Gospels detail many moments in Christ’s life, but for Mary’s own feelings in labour, you’ll want a glimpse of the Koran – and of Muslim hearts where the scene lives.
Pious Christian and Jewish values are not inherently in conflict with American civic life, as secular folk tend to forget. Devout immigrant Muslims don’t belong? That ship has sailed. Myles Muhammad Standish and Harriet Halima Tubman are here. Not as strangers out of place, either. This is a letter to your beautiful heart: We are your blood.
* Mohja Kahf is the author of the novel The Girl in the Tangerine Scarf. This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org . The full text can be found at www.washingtonpost.com .
4)After Lal Masjid
Ijaz Hussain
Islamabad - While the debate about the kind of Islam that we want to have in Pakistan is important, it is perhaps even more important to thrash out how it is to be enforced. Is it to be done through peaceful means or by the use of force?
The bloody Lal Masjid operation is over and with it the attempt by the Ghazi brothers to impose shari’a, Islamic law, on Pakistan through the use of force. After what we have gone through since early this year when the crisis broke out, it cannot be business as usual unless we are utterly indifferent to what happens to us as a nation. There is therefore an urgent need for reflection on the event, as suggested by President Musharraf in his speech.
The starting point must be the critical question as to what led to the Lal Masjid tragedy and how we can avoid its repetition in the future.
The crisis erupted when Pakistan’s Capital Development Authority (CDA) demolished seven mosques in Islamabad, leading to the occupation of the adjacent children’s library by Jamia Hafsa students. Soon the protest assumed ominous proportions when the Ghazi brothers unleashed their vigilante brigade on the hapless citizens of Islamabad and called for the imposition of shari’a in the country.
Two things stood out as a result of this development. First, the two brothers wanted Talibanisation in Pakistan, or what Ghazi Rashid euphemistically described as “Islamisation” because of the respectability attached to that term. Secondly, they wanted to achieve their objective through the use of force.
Now, as far as Talibanisation is concerned, it represents a worldview of Islam that is highly illiberal and obscurantist, as shown by the Taliban’s outlook on women, fine arts, human rights and democracy. It is true that not all of our traditional ulema, those versed in Islamic jurisprudence, embrace the Taliban philosophy. However, many of them sympathise with it in varying degrees. Given the fact that the interpretation of Islam that many of our ulema espouse today is incompatible with the requirements of modernity, one wonders how one can live with it in the 21st century. Today’s youth clearly rejects it and our ulema need to ponder how far their retrograde worldview is responsible for making Islam look irrelevant in the contemporary world.
While the debate about the kind of Islam that we want to have in Pakistan is important, we have to decide once and for all whether it is to be done through peaceful means or by the use of force. We know that the ulema are not amenable to easily abandoning the worldview of Islam that they hold. However they can at least agree to introduce it through peaceful means.
One may argue that the ulema apparently subscribe to this viewpoint. However, this is no more than lip-service. Were this the case there would neither be sectarian mayhem nor the Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba (IJT) and the students’ wing of Jemaat-e-Islami (JI) acting like a bull in a china shop in academic institutions.
Ulema should therefore make an unequivocal commitment to pursue their objective of shari’a in Pakistan through peaceful means. They should at the same time commit themselves to ostracising anyone who departs from the non-violent path. To show their seriousness in the matter, they should as a first step denounce the Ghazi brothers for having resorted to violence in pursuit of their objective. This course of action against the brothers is also justified because through their actions they brought Islam, Pakistan and madrassas into disrepute and violated the Islamic precept that entitles only the state to enforce shari’a, to the exclusion of any individual or entity.
Since the Lal Masjid tragedy also took place because of the blunders of the Pakistan government, it should undertake the following steps:
First, Musharraf should decide national issues on the basis of Pakistan’s interests rather than his own. For example, in the present instance a military operation may have been in his personal interest, as he was looking for Bush’s support to stay in power. However it is a moot point that it was in Pakistan’s. If the use of force were the panacea against terrorism the US would be winning in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Secondly, the government should seriously revisit madrassa reform. The government should immediately ensure that madrassa syllabi aim at letting students develop their faculty of independent thinking. More importantly, it should introduce free compulsory education up to matriculation, which will at once raise the literacy rate and dry up the catchment area from where more radical schools recruit pupils.
Thirdly and lastly, the government should seriously address the growing chasm between the “haves” and “have-nots” if it wants to avoid a future blood bath in the country. It is true that Ghazi Rashid talked in terms of shari’a rule in the country. He had to do so because he was a cleric and also because people immediately relate to this idiom. However, while doing so he preached, among others, jihad against rampant poverty, social injustice and corruption in the society, which unambiguously alluded to the affluent strata.
The foregoing is indeed a heavy agenda, immediate reform on the part of the government and the ulema looks like a doubtful proposition; however, I would love to be proved wrong.
* Ijaz Hussain is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com . This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
5)Search for a Common Jerusalem
Hady Amr and Joel H. Samuels
Washington, DC - Despite recent setbacks, President Bush’s July 16th call for an autumn multinational peace conference on Israel and Palestine underlines both the importance – and the possibility – of a solution. From Iraq, to Kosovo to Lebanon to Israel and Palestine, the United States and the broader international community finds itself struggling to find solutions to ethnic/religious conflict for control over territory.
Central, and evasive, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been finding a solution for Jerusalem – and the holy city remains both the symbol and the cornerstone of the conflict between Israel and the Muslim world. It is also a symbol of America’s failure in the Middle East, and a lynchpin to winning the “war of ideas” with the Muslim world.
At a recent closed-door gathering of former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Washington, one of the concepts that was rapidly and relatively easily agreed upon was the idea of “shared” sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem – known in international law as a “condominium”.
It was quite surprising to many of the seasoned American observers that these veteran Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were so ready to agree to share the holiest and most emotional part of their conflict – what lies between the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem – while they otherwise endorsed a barrier to separate themselves.
But why were they so willing to agree to share Jerusalem – so precious to both – while on other issues, they spent so much time haggling? And why were they not willing to share much else?
The answer: Experience. The Israelis and Palestinians in the room were mostly veteran negotiators who had watched peace talks fail in 2001 and weren’t willing to let that happen again. They had come to realise just how painful the issue of Jerusalem was for both sides, that neither side could feel whole without Jerusalem, and that separation arrangements were unworkable when emotions flared over a few feet of Jerusalem stone.
Although it took a decade, the Israelis realised that they could not be secure from Palestinian rancour if they deprived Muslim and Christian Palestinians of sovereignty over the Muslim Noble Sanctuary and the holy Christian churches. The Palestinian negotiators also acknowledged the corollary Israeli need for sovereignty over not only the Wailing Wall, but also the Jewish Temple Mount.
So far, so good. But when the Americans asked how this would work, the answer was vague: that a joint commission would be set up and the fine points could be worked out later. The absence of focus on a detailed, comprehensive plan, however, does not bode well for the future. Experience shows that the devil is in the details.
The history of efforts at shared sovereignty is replete with unsuccessful experiences such as Trieste after World War II and, more recently, the ongoing struggle to maintain a shared arrangement for Brcko. These experiences do not mean that shared sovereignty cannot work and should not be tried. Instead, they demonstrate the need for complete buy-in at the local level, careful reflection by the parties, and rigorous study of the structure and history of shared sovereignty as a solution to boundary disputes. Moreover that there is a vital role for the relevant international powers, in this case the United States, to play.
To have the greatest chance of success, condominium requires the parties who are sharing sovereignty to have carefully negotiated a framework of laws in advance that both anticipates major issues and provides mechanisms to resolve disputes between the joint sovereigns.
The concept of a condominium dates back at least to the 13th century B.C., when it was adopted by the Hittite Empire and Egypt. And the most successful incarnations occurred in Europe during the 19th century when Germany and Belgium shared territory, and in an island chain in the South Pacific in the 20th (then the New Hebrides, a condominium between England and France; today, the independent nation of Vanuatu). What the success stories tell us is that, when properly conceived and thoughtfully implemented – with buy-in from the sovereigns – shared sovereignty can work.
American leadership on “shared” sovereignty in Jerusalem can help bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians. Equally important is the implicit message this will send to the Muslim world: that “shared” solutions for “shared” U.S. and Muslim world security can be found and that Americans are committed to making that happen.
Sometimes and in some places, conflict is so intractable that all but the most unlikely solutions are fated to fail. In those times and places, we need to try methods that have not been considered in the hopes that unconventional solutions will offer opportunities not available through line-drawing. This is such a time; Jerusalem is such a place; shared sovereignty is such a solution. And the benefits can be global.
* Hady Amr is a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and the Director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. He previously served as Senior Adviser to Search for Common Ground. Joel H. Samuels is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina. This piece first appeared on WashingtonPost.com. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
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 British, Norwegian, Swedish and US Governments, the United States Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy and private donors, the service is a non-profit initiative of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO working in the fields of conflict transformation and media production.
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.