Dear HumanDHS network friends
Please find below the Common Ground News Bulletin: 14-20 October 2008.
Kind regards
Brian Ward
Common Ground News Bulletin: 14-20 October 2008
Inside this edition 14 - 20 October 2008
Standing together against Obsession
by Christina Zola
Director of communications at the Arab American Institute, Christine Zola argues that getting more involved in one’s community is the best response to defuse the impact of divisive initiatives, such as the controversial DVD Obsession, which was distributed to thousands households in US swing states earlier this month.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 14 October 2008)
A role for Mecca in Afghanistan?
by Michael Shank
In light of recent unofficial talks between the Taliban and Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government, Michael Shank, communications director at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, considers whether Saudi Arabia could serve as a “game-changer” in stalled US-Afghanistan relations.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 14 October 2008)
Respect and honour for Pakistan’s women
by Muhammad Hayat
Mohammad Hayat, a human rights activist in Pakistan, discusses violence against women in Pakistan and argues for continued change in the country to prevent future incidents from occurring.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 14 October 2008)
A French rebel in the Arab world: an interview with Robert Ménard
by Rania Massoud
Well-known co-founder of Reporters without Borders, Robert Ménard, discusses his move to the Arab world to begin a new venture as the head of the Doha Centre for Media Freedom in this interview with L’Orient le Jour reporter Rania Massoud.
(Source: L’Orient le Jour, 6 October 2008)
Mainstream Muslims act out against terror
by Claude Salhani
Political analyst and editor of The Middle East Times, Claude Salhani assesses a recent speech by Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, which was described as a “scream” for action and calls upon mainstream Muslims to consider various initiatives to fight terrorism and extremism.
(Source: Middle East Times, 7 October 2008)
Featured Video
US-Muslim Engagement project
This short documentary illustrates the bipartisan, process that led to the publication of “Changing Course: A New Direction for US Relations with the Muslim World” - a policy brief developed by a distinguished group of American leaders to transform the United States’ relationship with the Muslim world. The report can be downloaded by clicking here.
Standing together against Obsession
Christina Zola
Washington, DC - Twenty-eight million copies of the DVD Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West were distributed in direct mail and newspaper insert campaigns to swing states throughout America in the weeks surrounding the 7th anniversary of 9/11.
The film claims to be an educational documentary about the threat of terrorism in the name of Islam to the United States. Many people, however, consider the DVD to be anti-Muslim propaganda that does not do enough to differentiate terrorists from the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.
The criticism surrounding Obsession raises a number of issues, including the secrecy surrounding the Clarion Fund, the non-profit organisation responsible for its production, and what many believe is a thinly veiled attempt to influence voters in this year’s elections. Many are concerned that this film abuses its non-profit status to sow fear and doubt in swing states across the United States, just weeks before the presidential election.
The sheer magnitude of this campaign – at a time when the country needs to come together – is daunting. But there are concrete steps that concerned citizens can take to combat this. We are not helpless. We do not have to tolerate in silence.
No matter your faith or heritage, if Obsession offended you, then speak out. Engage in open conversations with interfaith groups and cultural forums. We must, as a nation, present a unified front against scare tactics and attempts to dehumanise, belittle or marginalise any segment of our population.
Support initiatives for positive change, like the online group trying to raise money to distribute On Common Grounds in the same swing states targeted by the Obsession DVD. In a clear and refreshing contrast to the message of Obsession, this hour-long documentary “tells the story of three groups, Jewish, Christian and Muslim who attempt to overcome their differences by building a house for a poor family in Mexico… in one day!” The film offers a format for non-Muslims to learn about Muslims in a positive way.
Use every opportunity to educate people about different cultures and religions, but especially our youngest citizens, so that they may grow up to be citizens of the world, able to govern with compassion and wisdom.
Get involved. Who will speak for us in January if we don’t make our voices heard on the 4th of November? Support the representatives who speak on our behalf – in the state legislature, in the halls of Congress and in the White House.
Understand the issues that affect your community, and research the candidates’ stances. Run for the local school board or city council seat – or aim higher if your aspirations so desire.
Register to vote in this year’s elections, and encourage friends, family, and neighbours to do the same.
Take your inspiration from people like Majid Al-Bahadli, the only Iraqi delegate on the floor of the Democratic National Convention this past August. In a recent interview with LA Weekly, Majid reminded us all of how good we’ve really got it in a country that has never had to vote in a dictatorship: “Where I come from, it was one ballot and one name. You guys don’t know what you have here with democracy. Half the country doesn’t participate! I don’t get it. You vote for who you want and have no fear of being killed. This is an incredible luxury.”
Arab American Institute president James Zogby tells a similar tale of a conversation several years ago in Ohio. When asked if he was organising Arab Americans to vote because they come from countries where people cannot vote, Dr. Zogby replied, “No. I’m organising Arab Americans to vote because they came to a country where people do not vote.”
It is up to each and every one of us to answer the question originally posed by Lebanese poet and Arab American Khalil Gibran, and later paraphrased by US President John F. Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” It is the duty of every American to vote this year; the stakes have truly never been higher.
Don’t give people, like those behind Obsession, the power to silence us. It’s our voice. It’s our future.
###
* Christina Zola is director of communications at the Arab American Institute (www.aaiusa.org) and has extensive experience in marketing, communications and public relations. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 14 October 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
A role for Mecca in Afghanistan?
Michael Shank
Washington, DC - Wandering seven long years in the mountains of Afghanistan with hardly an end in sight, the United States has just been offered a most fortuitous fix. It likely eludes America’s current president and queuing candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, but not for long.
The fix is found in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Long considered the most stable of US allies in the Middle East, the Kingdom appeared this week best positioned to play a leadership role in the region after hosting a series of non-official talks between Afghanistan’s oppositional leaderships: those formally sanctioned in Kabul under Afghan President Hamid Karzai and those informally sanctioned, yet arguably equally powerful, under the Taliban.
Just as Qatar’s good offices ably brought Beirut’s embattled to the table to turn stalemate into starting point, Saudi Arabia can similarly serve as intercessor here.
Talks with the Taliban were never a non-starter with the Afghan government, nor is Kabul’s careful communicative overture new. The Afghan ambassador to the United States, whom I interviewed this spring, cited “different degrees of engagement [with the Taliban] right now” and reaffirmed Kabul’s continued willingness to communicate. This tone and tactic has long been untenable for the US administration, and so Afghanistan has been left to its own dialogical devices.
But now even Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defense, acknowledges that talks with the Taliban are necessary. “There has to be, ultimately, and I’ll underscore ‘ultimately’, reconciliation as part of a political outcome to this”, Gates said on Thursday. “That’s ultimately the exit strategy for all of us.”
The entrance of Saudi’s King Abdullah as acting arbiter, therefore, serves as a game-changer in the US-Afghanistan seven-year stalemate. Not only would Saudi-officiated talks save US face from a seeming capitulation, but Mecca is measurably more meritorious as neutral ground than Kabul could ever be.
Suppose talks ensue. Will this suffice, as some speculate, in severing linkages with Al Qaeda, taming the Taliban, or solving the country’s internal haemorrhaging? Surely not, but it will begin to force accountability among Afghanistan’s feuding politicos, leverage a more effective hand in dealing with Pakistan and ameliorate the misguided modus operandi of foreign forces.
This last point is of particular importance. America’s current solution to Afghanistan’s insecurity is solidly military, while political and economic solutions, not unlike in Iraq, are put on the backburner by Washington. Less than a dime of every US dollar spent on the country is committed to non-military assistance.
This Bush doctrine under the leadership of Condoleezza Rice will soon become the Obama or McCain doctrine, as projected aid by both candidates has amounted to no greater a percentage. Yet after seven years of a predominantly military mission, Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen stated in September his doubts as to whether the United States is winning.
Clearly a change in tack is necessary, but in what direction?
Politically and economically, Afghanistan is in collapse. Additional troops, redeployed from Iraq, have little to safeguard as the country’s infrastructure continues to rot. At the local level, the average Afghan – whether a shopkeeper, doctor, farmer, governor, teacher, judge, imam, taxi driver, policeman or other civil servant – must be equipped with the financial and technical means for basic survival.
After being siphoned off by handlers from Washington to Kabul, American aid flows feebly on the ground, making it nearly impossible for the average Afghan to see visible improvement. Without tangible benefits in a country struggling with over 40 percent employment, 28 percent literacy and two-thirds living on less than $2 a day, the formation of alternative allegiances outside government auspices is hardly surprising.
The infamous Helmand province, for example, has upwards of 80 percent unemployment in some places, with two poorly stocked hospitals supplying healthcare for over 700,000 persons, and it remains the nation’s hottest province in terms of Taliban activity and poppy production. Illicit political and economic operations flowering in the country’s poorest province is hardly coincidental when Kabul is utterly uncompetitive.
The best salve, then, for this seven-year burn, treats the fragile, fertile ground that foments violence. Saudi’s hand, if extended to the Taliban, will undoubtedly be directed toward this goal. If manoeuvred deftly, King Abdullah provides the tribal Pashtuns (rallied under the Taliban) a much needed voice in long-unrepresented Kabul, secures an ally in cooling Pakistan’s border, and creates a pretext for holding culpable Mecca’s negotiators.
Meanwhile, America’s hand, if played in the pursuit of political and economic solutions, begins to build the basis of a country worth living, not dying, for.
###
* Michael Shank is communications director at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. This article first appeared in The Guardian and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 14 October 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
Respect and honour for Pakistan’s women
Muhammad Hayat
Layyah, Pakistan - Living in a village in southern Punjab, 13-year-old “Naila” graduated from her 6th grade class and received a marriage proposal from a neighbouring boy from a well-to-do family. Her father, a poor vender at a local bus stop, rejected the proposal on grounds that the boy was from a different clan and was also jobless.
Where cast and family are major considerations for settling marriages, rejection was not unusual. But for Naila this decision sealed her fate. Following her father’s refusal to accept the proposal, as she was returning from school one day, Naila became a victim of an acid attack. The perpetrator – the same boy who had proposed to her – threw acid on her face, putting both her life and future in jeopardy.
Unfortunately, incidents like this one colour the way the world sees Pakistan, creating the image of a country that does not respect women and that allows vigilantism that results in physical harm against girls and women, and sometimes even death, in the name of family honour – and even religion.
According to estimates by the human rights organisation Ansar Burney Trust, “as many as 70 percent of women in Pakistan experience domestic violence. This violence can range from beatings, to sexual violence or torture, to broken bones and very serious injury caused by acid attacks or burning the victim alive.”
In the words of a prominent lawyer and human rights activist Hina Jilani, “The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions.”
Why is this the case, especially in this age of widespread information and worldwide campaigns for women’s emancipation? In most of the cases the perpetrators are boys or men, destroying the future of those women who refuse to marry them or give in to their sexual advances.
Fortunately, a few NGOs in the region are doing work to sensitise their communities about violence against women through awareness campaigns and other projects. The Depilex Smile Again Foundation, Acid Survivors Association, Action Aid, Social Youth Council of Patriots and other such organisations in different parts of Pakistan are helping victims of acid or kerosene oil attacks, providing them with free reconstructive surgery, rehabilitation and vocational training.
The goal of empowering women with the respect and honour they were born with, can be achieved through legal measures, national action and international cooperation in such fields as economic and social development, education and social support.
Under the Qisas and Diyat law of Pakistan which dictates how cases of retribution for violent crimes are compensated under Pakistani law, the perpetrator must suffer the same fate as the victim. Bangladesh, another country grappling with the same issues, introduced the death penalty for people perpetrators of acid attacks and passed laws in 2002 restricting the sale of acid.
But these laws have not eliminated acid crimes, partly because of the inefficiency of local law enforcement. State indifference, discriminatory laws and the gender bias of many in the country’s police force and judiciary have ensured virtual impunity for perpetrators of violence against women.
Ultimately what is required is a shift in the traditionally ingrained mindset of the Pakistani population to respect and demand equal rights for women.
In Naila’s case, after being moved from hospital to hospital, she and her parents contacted the Pakistan Welfare Society (PWS) that, with the assistance of the Acid Survivors Association in Islamabad, provided her with full medical treatment and trauma healing assistance.
PWS also established a Legal Aid chapter in the Layyah district of Punjab to provide legal help to victims of acid attacks and domestic violence. PWS pursued Naila’s case in court which resulted in a 15-year sentence for the criminal and monetary compensation for the victim.
But helping one person, as important as it is, is only addressing the symptoms of gender bias and inequality. The root causes must be also be addressed so that acid attacks become a thing of the past, and girls like Naila no longer need to seek help.
###
* Muhammad Hayat is a human rights activist who runs the Pakistan Welfare Society in Layyah in the Punjab province of Pakistan. 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), 14 October 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
A French rebel in the Arab world: an interview with Robert Ménard
Rania Massoud
Beirut - After 23-years at the helm of Reporters sans Frontières (Reporters without Borders), Robert Ménard (55) is moving to Qatar, where he will be heading the Doha Centre for Media Freedom (DCMF).
The DCMF, which opened for business last Friday, provides assistance to journalists under threat anywhere in the world. But it also aims to promote freedom of expression in the Arab world. Rania Massoud spoke with Ménard about the many challenges ahead.
Where did the idea for the Doha Centre for Media Freedom originate?
Ménard: The idea was born in Baghdad in October 2007. I went to Iraq as the head of a small Reporters without Borders team in order to provide help to the families of Iraqi journalists who were killed – assassinated most of the time. I was amazed to see that not a single Arab country was helping us do this despite the fact that many of them could well afford it.
An Iraqi colleague suggested that I ask for a meeting with Sheikha Moza Nasser al-Misnad, the wife of the emir of Qatar, which I did. It was supposed to be a 15-minute interview but, in the end, it lasted almost an hour. I explained to her the urgency of the situation and that to help protect these Iraqi journalists who were being threatened and attacked was the very least we could do.
Her response was prompt. Just two days later, she let me know that she had discussed the issue with the emir and that he had agreed to create a centre in Doha.
The centre has already taken in an Afghan journalist who was under threat in her home country. How exactly will the DCMF function?
The centre’s first objective is to come to the aid of journalists anywhere in the world. This aid can be in the form of financial help to media in difficulty. To date, the centre has helped close to 90 journalists worldwide, including 20 or so in Haiti where many media lost their offices in the hurricanes that ravished the country this summer. In Djibouti, we have helped a group of Somali journalists in exile to create their own independent and bilingual news agency.
But the DCMF can also provide help in terms of security. The centre has been set up as a safe house for journalists who are under threat in their own countries. The centre will also provide medical help to journalists wounded on the job, wherever they are in the world.
So the DCMF is a kind of lifeline for any journalist in need?
Not just that. The centre will also serve as a forum in order to promote dialogue – in the first place between the Arab world and the West, particularly in light of the controversy over the cartoons [of the Prophet Muhammad] and later between the Arabs themselves. It is not just governments that attack the media; sometimes the media are fighting among themselves, like in Lebanon. The Doha Centre also wants to be a sort of tribute to all the journalists who have died doing their job. There will be a memorial and a museum dedicated to freedom of expression.
Why did you choose Qatar as the location for the centre?
There are several reasons. First, there are few leaders anywhere in the world who are willing to invest in something like this as Sheikha Moza did. Second, Qatar is practically the only Arab country where journalists from any nationality – including Israeli – can be accommodated. Remember, it was Qatar that provided a base for Al Jazeera and allowed it to turn the image of the media in the Arab world upside down. This experience has greatly influenced Qatar and I think this is a very important development for the Arab world.
What do you ultimately hope to accomplish with this project?
The Arab world is one of the most troubled regions in the world and I have always wanted to become more involved with this region. We are seeing the emergence of a number of independent media organisations. There is significant progress in terms of the freedom of the press in the region, and I hope that the centre will be instrumental in helping to create a real force of independent journalists in the Arab world and in the world at large.
You sound optimistic. Does this optimism stem from your observation of the region in terms of freedom, after 23 years at Reporters sans Frontières?
It’s complicated. The statistics about press freedom in the Arab world are worrying. Take Iraq for example.
But at the same time these statistics show that an independent press is starting to assert itself in this part of the world. Of course, Lebanon is not a good example because it has always been at the vanguard of press freedom in the Middle East. But look at Morocco. The press there has seen a great evolution in the past 20 years. Of course, the situation is still far from good and the Moroccan authorities continue to put pressure on journalists through the courts. But this in itself is proof that a free press is taking shape.
I think it is a question of people wanting it themselves; it is a true battle for freedom of expression.
###
* Rania Massoud is a Lebanese journalist working in the international section of L’Orient-Le Jour. Robert Ménard is one of the co-founders of Reporters sans Frontières. This article originally appeared in L’Orient le Jour and is distributed with permission by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: L’Orient le Jour, 6 October 2008, www.lorient-lejour.com.lb
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
Mainstream Muslims act out against terror
Claude Salhani
Washington, DC - King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia stated in a recent speech that Muslims cannot keep remaining silent while other Muslims continue to cause harm to Islam. Abu Dhabi’s Al-Ittihad newspaper followed up Monday with an opinion piece expanding on the king’s speech in an article titled, “Who is Harming Islam?” The Emirates newspaper described King Abdullah’s speech as a “scream” for action.
The Saudi monarch said it was no longer acceptable to “simply complain or condemn.” The time had come for action.
The king’s initiative is a welcome development, particularly coming from a monarch with the status and privilege he carries in the Muslim world. Aside from his royal title, the Saudi king also holds the title of “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”, in reference to Islam’s first and second holiest sites, respectively Mecca and Medina.
The author of the article suggested establishing a central global “Fatwa Institute” to combat the trend of independent fatwas, or religious edicts, which currently plague the Muslim world.
“Fatwa shops”, is how the author of the article described it. Sunni Islam allows for almost anyone to issue fatwas, which at times has the unfortunate result of producing some very odd edicts.
The Sunni branch of Islam does not have a central figurehead. There is no equivalent to, say, the Catholic Church’s pope, or the Grand Ayatollahs found in Shi’a Islam. The closest Sunnis come to a central figure is the Chief Imam of Cairo’s Al Azhar University and mosque, Islam’s most prestigious centre of higher religious education; and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, the King of Saudi Arabia.
While there is something to be said for the truly democratic principle of all imams in the Sunni branch of Islam being equal, the downside is that it leaves the Qur’an and the hadith, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, open to individual interpretation. And of course, much as with the Christian and Hebrew Bibles, the same verse can be understood or misunderstood, interpreted and misinterpreted in multiple ways.
And it is precisely this lack of a clear line of leadership that opens the door to confusion. Last month, Sheikh Muhammad Al Munajid, a Saudi cleric who appears often on various television shows in the Arab world issued a fatwa against Mickey Mouse, calling the famous Disney cartoon character and other mice, “agents of Satan”.
The same sheikh had earlier issued a fatwa against the Beijing Summer Olympics and lashed out at the “immodest dress” worn by female athletes. He is also reported to have issued a fatwa banning women competing in the Olympics; an event he also labelled “satanic”.
Indeed, part of the problem with those religious edicts is that just about anyone can issue them. The author of the Al-Ittihad column concluded Muslims must unite their efforts to disrupt those committing and calling for terrorist acts in the name of Islam, because “no religion has been harmed more by terrorism and extremism than Islam”. He claimed, “It is one thing to protest a government’s policies, but to randomly kill in the name of religion is something that cannot be justified.”
Indeed, terrorists from Muslim countries have killed more Muslims than non-Muslims in their campaigns of bombings and suicide bombings.
The author of the article called for action from Muslim groups in conjunction with the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), describing the grouping as one “hampered by bureaucracy”. He begrudged the OIC for delaying a plan that was meant to develop an ideological strategy outlining steps on how to combat extremism. This plan was meant to be advanced five years ago. It is yet to be introduced.
Meanwhile, the OIC secretary general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, issued a statement last week condemning terrorism and calling for greater tolerance among Muslims.
In what was described as the strongest language to date, Ihsanoglu issued a call to Muslims worldwide to “unite against all forms of terrorism”, according to a US State Department report on terrorism.
The OIC secretary general said terrorism “distorts the image of Islam as a religion of peace, compassion, and tolerance”. He decried the “heinous crimes” against innocents, such as the Islamabad and Sana’a bombings, which “violated the serenity of the holy month and sanctity of human life.”
Ihsanoglu called the acts “atrocious sins” that violate Islamic principles, and must be vehemently condemned, while their commission during Ramadan made them even more barbaric. Ihsanoglu reiterated the OIC’s “steady position” of condemning all forms of terrorism, “irrespective of justification or motivation.”
The organisation’s chief affirmed “unyielding determination” by his organisation to bring the perpetrators to justice and “to combat this scourge by all means, in cooperation with the international community.”
Muslims and non-Muslims need to hear more of that dialogue.
###
* Claude Salhani is editor of The Middle East Times and a political analyst in Washington, DC. This article originally appeared in The Middle East Times and is distributed with permission by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Middle East Times, 7 October 2008, www.metimes.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.