Common Ground Newsbulletin: 28 October - 3 November 2008
Dear HumanDHS network friends
Please find below the Common Ground Newsbulletin: 28 October - 3 November 2008.
Kind regards
Brian Ward
Common Ground Newsbulletin
Inside this edition 28 October - 03 November 2008
Keeping our friends in the Muslim world: it’s not about the feel-good factor
by Jim Sciutto
Jim Sciutto, senior foreign correspondent for ABC News and the winner of the 2007 George Polk Award for Television Reporting, identifies the roots of the Muslim world’s mistrust of the United States and the challenge this presents for the next US president.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 28 October 2008)
Why the fight in Balochistan matters
by Saba Jamal
Filmmaker, socio-political analyst and Pakistani talk show host, Saba Jamal, explains why the conflict in Pakistan’s largest province has regional implications, and outlines steps for a lasting resolution.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 28 October 2008)
Microfinance empowering Egyptian women
by Iman Bibars
Iman Bibars, chairperson of the Association for the Development and Enhancement of Women (ADEW), considers how to grow the positive effects of microfinance loans in Egypt.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 28 October 2008)
Do we need “A Common Word”?
by Sheikh Ali Gomaa
The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, recently spoke at Cambridge University’s Churchill College, highlighting verses from the Qur’an and other texts capturing the words of the Prophet Muhammad that promote an openness towards the “other”.
(Source: Radical Middle Way, 12 October 2008)
Beware of non-violence; it’s dangerous!
by Jonathan Power
Columnist, filmmaker and writer Jonathan Power points to a change in Western society’s attitude to war and considers the use of non-violent resistance as the policy tool of the future.
(Source: Khaleej Times, 22 October 2008)
Keeping our friends in the Muslim world: it’s not about the feel-good factor
Jim Sciutto
London - Covering developments in Pakistan in recent weeks, I’ve been struck by how many Pakistanis blame the United States for the disturbing turn their country is taking. Standing inside the gutted Islamabad Marriott late September, some eyewitnesses saved their most bitter remarks not for the suicide bomber, but for Washington.
A few believed the outrageous conspiracy theory that the CIA was behind the bombing – to justify further US raids inside Pakistan, they claimed. But more saw the attack as Taliban payback for those American raids. So, by their logic, Pakistanis were again paying the price for US actions unconnected to their interests. They were angry.
As the military conflict in the tribal areas grows more intense, many Pakistanis see their country descending into a war that they believe is of America’s making.
The situation in Pakistan demonstrates the mountain the next US president has to climb in the Muslim world. America is faced with the task not only of fighting terrorists, but also of winning back a far larger segment of the population who see the United States as a greater threat than the extremists.
Today, a remarkable variety of Muslims believe in a grand Western conspiracy against Islam, led by America and bent on punishing Muslims for 11 September 2001. For them, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most pointed examples. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and America’s continuing relationships with Middle Eastern dictatorships are also cited as evidence. The increase in Islamic fundamentalism is an enormous problem, but for many Muslims, it is American policies, not religious beliefs, that drive their anger.
And so I hear that anger even from people we’d expect to be our allies.
In Egypt, it’s Gameela Ismail, the wife of jailed opposition leader Ayman Nour. The Bush administration encouraged her husband to challenge President Hosni Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections – Egypt’s first multi-candidate presidential election in decades – but has barely protested since Mubarak sent him to jail soon after. For three years, she’s rallied for his release, with no help, she says, from US officials.
In Iraq, it’s the trauma surgeon who welcomed the US military with real hope. But after five years of piecing together the war’s victims, he now blames America for failing to deliver the type of country it promised him.
At times, he even suspected that the US planned the violence to justify a long-term military presence. The success of the surge has tempered that suspicion. But to him, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis have been too high a price for his country to pay.
In Iran, it’s the pro-democracy student leader, Babak Zamanian, who risks his life fighting for American-style freedom in Iran but wants no American help. In fact, he says the United States is hurting his cause by threatening war, which he believes strengthens Iran’s hard-liners.
There is a contradiction at the root of much of this resentment. Muslims have admiration for the American system. And polling consistently shows Muslims’ priorities mirror ours: family, economic opportunity and a political system they can participate in. It’s just that today they see us standing in the way of those values rather than promoting them.
Oddly, that sense of profound disappointment offers some reason for hope. These are people we can talk to, people we can win back.
Late last month, 34 American leaders from government, business and academia signed a report calling for a new kind of engagement with the Muslim world. Called Changing Course, the report recommends more diplomatic engagement, even with Iran and other adversaries, economic investment in Muslim countries to create jobs for alienated youth, the renunciation of torture and a new commitment to Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Most of all, the report recommends diplomacy, not military force, as the primary tool for interaction with the Muslim world. This echoes the principal complaint I’ve heard from Muslims – that far too often they experience America only at the point of a gun.
But, why should we care?
This is not about the feel-good factor. It’s about advancing US interests. Many of our most important goals in the region – from keeping young Muslims from joining extremist groups, to promoting political reform, to fighting the Taliban in Pakistan – are impossible without local support.
While there are some in the Muslim world who will never be our friends and for whom military force is necessary – like the captured Al Qaeda fighters I have met – the majority of Muslims are not fundamentalists but remain convinced of America’s bad intentions.
They could be our friends, but today see us as a disappointment and a threat.
###
* Jim Sciutto is the senior foreign correspondent for ABC News. He is the author of Against Us: The New Face of America’s Enemies in the Muslim World. This article originally appeared in The Chicago Tribune and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 28 October 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Why the fight in Balochistan matters
Saba Jamal
Islamabad - The scarred Pakistani province of Balochistan has been suffering from conflict with the central government since the country’s inception in 1947. Steeped in violence and deprivation, bitterness, hunger and frustration are everyday realities.
Apart from the humanitarian aspect of this conflict, why is Balochistan a concern for the rest of the world?
Balochistan is a strategically important region bordering Iran and Afghanistan. Left unchecked, this conflict between the Baloch people and the Pakistani government over the province’s resources – combined with the increasing Talibanisation of the northern parts of Pakistan – could wreak havoc on the country by propelling it into a state of instability.
A protracted conflict could also destabilise the surrounding region, politically and economically. Balochistan is rich with gas, natural resources and some of the rarest mineral reserves. Large portions of two proposed gas pipelines – one between Iran, Pakistan and India and another between Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India – would pass through Balochistan. International powers like the United States, China, Iran and India are already looking to this region for increased access to gas and use of Balochistan’s Gwadar port, at the entrance of the Persian Gulf, for international trade.
But Balochs have long argued that they do not see their fair share of the revenue – in the form of development and employment – from these resources. The Pakistani government has been fighting various Baloch insurgencies for decades, claiming that they want unwarranted autonomy and even independence.
Recently, however, there have been encouraging developments. No terrorist attacks or acts of sabotage have been carried out in Balochistan since three Baloch militant organisations, namely the Baloch Liberation Army, the Baloch Republican Army and the Baloch Liberation Front, announced a surprising ceasefire in early September.
Can we expect peace to return to Balochistan under these circumstances?
The success or failure of this resolve will depend on how quickly and effectively the new Pakistani government seizes this opportunity to set things right. Now is the time for the Baloch people to heal their psychological wounds and assuage political grievances through dialogue.
The intriguing decision to cease hostilities is proof of these groups’ willingness to work towards resolving the conflict with meaningful words, not gunfire.
It is crucial that the two sides view this conflict not as a win-lose, but a win-win situation. For this to happen, three basic conditions must be met: Acknowledgment, Acceptance and Adaptability – the “Three A’s” of conflict resolution, according to mediation trainers Judith Warner and Thomas Crum.
Both the Pakistani government and the Baloch resistance movements must acknowledge the conflict’s existence, rather than trying to avoid or deny it, and accept each party’s involvement.
Adaptability requires openness to ideas that could lead to viable solutions. A firm commitment and resolve, with the flexibility to make concessions, will determine how those solutions will be implemented.
Many in Pakistan hope to implement a peace deal similar to the Aceh Peace Agreement in August 2005, which brought an end to a 29-year long conflict in Indonesia.
Through this pact, the Indonesian government agreed to cede power to Acehnese in all public sectors, except in foreign affairs, external defence, national security and fiscal matters. Instead of continuing their fight for full independence the Acehnese settled for local self-rule.
The people of Balochistan would be happy with a similar settlement. Violence will only continue to hamper a consensus between the Baloch people and the central government.
The government must look sympathetically at the demands of Balochistan and be open to a political solution to the conflict. Most Pakistanis are inclined to provide more autonomy to the provinces than is granted under the current constitution, so that peace can prevail and provincial disparities are done away with.
Where there’s a will there’s a way. With a new democratic government in place, now is the time to institutionalise a change for Balochistan, by amending the constitution to give Balochs the rights they deserve and the limited control that the Pakistani government requires for sovereignty.
A peace deal between Islamabad and Balochistan could even serve as a model for the Northwest Frontier Provinces and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas within Pakistan. Most importantly, however, it will pave the way for long-lasting peace in the region.
###
* Saba Jamal ( sabajamal@yahoo.com ) is a filmmaker, socio-political analyst and Pakistani talk show host. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 28 October 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
Microfinance empowering Egyptian women
Iman Bibars
Cairo - The Association for the Development and Enhancement of Women (ADEW) embarked on its operations over 20 years ago in Mainsheet Nasser, at that time one of the largest unrecognised illegal settlements in Egypt.
Field experience and academic research indicated that it was particularly difficult for women who head their own households to access credit and employment, and research conducted by ADEW showed that there were no lending programs that considered the conditions of these women.
Within the microfinance framework, women are afforded the opportunity to start small businesses in and around their homes so they are not compelled to leave their children at home alone. Examples of such businesses include selling vegetables, other groceries, self-made clothing items or accessories. Women are thus able to provide sustenance, education and medical care for their children, providing them with the opportunity for improved social and professional standing.
In Egypt, microfinance loans are offered to groups of at least five women without the need for collateral or guarantees, provided that each of the women has committed to working on a specific project.
In order to obtain loans, women should have either an existing business or ideas for an intended one. Field research is then carried out by specialised researchers depending on the nature of each project to ensure they are profitable and suitable for the area in which they are established.
Quite well known in the world of microfinance globally but less so outside it, the loan repayment rate among women who are recipients of these loans is stunningly high – 99 percent in the case of Egypt.
This is so even though interest rates in microfinance are unusually high compared with those of conventional loans, as recipients typically have no credit history or even bank accounts. Furthermore, women who receive loans often succeed in establishing and expanding private projects.
Unfortunately, however, there are obstacles facing the microfinance sector in Egypt. For example, there are no specific microfinance laws in Egypt comparable to other countries in the Middle East, such as Morocco, which institutionalised legal frameworks for microfinancing NGOs within which they could operate.
There is also a lack of information about the programme and as a result, about 80 percent of the Egyptian population is not aware of the lending processes currently in place, or the opportunities available to them.
A gender quota is much needed because these loan programs, while aimed at both genders, are granted mostly to men because many women lack identity cards or other official documents.
In addition, there is very little collaboration between NGOs or other institutions regarding loans. For Egypt to overcome these obstacles and ensure that microfinancing is made available to more people in need, institutional coordination is required. Commercial banks with no microfinance divisions might consider providing NGOs with special loans that would allow these NGOs to identify microfinance customers themselves, broadening the reach of credit to the poor while also increasing the margins of lending institutions.
Diversification of microfinance services to include group loans, training, technical support and feasibility studies, and lifting restrictions on lending activities beyond conventional loans, could also increase the scope and benefit of initial microfinance successes.
The establishment of a specialised information centre to document borrowers’ credit history, and holding training courses for those working in microfinance programmes, would also help improve the system.
For example, ADEW is calling for coordination among practitioners and the Social Fund for Development, a joint initiative between the Egyptian government and the United Nations Development Programme, which designs development programmes and provides funding for various development initiatives.
Lending is not a function of banks alone. NGOs working in microfinance are already playing a principal role in the development process in Egypt through their extensive knowledge of remote and marginalised areas not targeted by the commercial banking sector.
NGOs like ADEW are therefore in a unique position to reach marginalised beneficiaries and promote awareness about lending processes to individuals otherwise out of reach. The close relationship with marginalised communities as well as the cooperation with bilateral and multilateral donors makes NGOs a natural actor in lending processes.
While these loans will not alleviate Egypt’s poverty completely, or bring about imminent economic development, they are an innovative means of survival and sustainable employment for many Egyptians and can play an important role in Egypt’s overall development.
###
* Dr. Iman Bibars is chairperson of the Association for the Development and Enhancement of Women (ADEW, www.adew.org/adew ) and an international gender and development expert. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 28 October 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Do we need “A Common Word”?
Sheikh Ali Gomaa
Cambridge, England - Sheikh Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt, spoke at Churchill College, Cambridge University on 12 October 2008. The gathering was organised by the Radical Middle Way, a Muslim grassroots initiative articulating a mainstream understanding of Islam, in partnership with the Cambridge University Islamic Society. This is an excerpt.
I greet you all with the greeting of Islam: peace be with you all.
I would like to present you with some statistics from the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad). The Qur’an has roughly 6000 verses. Three hundred of those verses address matters of law–roughly 5 percent.
We have about 60,000 Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad). Out of those, 2000 speak to matters of law – about 3%.
So what do the rest of the Qur’an and the Hadiths speak to? They speak to matters of etiquette. And these matters of etiquette and manners, in the realm of the shari’a (Islamic principles), are connected with theology.
This means that 97 percent of our religion is composed of etiquette and manners which are related to matters of faith.
At the pinnacle of our faith and theology is the concept of the oneness of God. And at the top of the list of values are the values of compassion and mercy.
We say before reciting or reading any part of the Qur’an, “In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.”
So the concept of mercy is repeated twice. God has many different attributes – there are attributes of greatness and there are those of beauty. It is very possible for God to begin the chapters of the Qur’an with an attribute of this and an attribute of that: for example, “In the name of God, the Avenger, the Compassionate.”
But God says instead, “In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.” This means that man’s relationship with God is between Mercy and Mercy.
A Hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) says, “The merciful ones receive mercy from the Merciful, exalted be He.
Show mercy on earth and you will receive Mercy from the One in Heaven.” In this Hadith, the Prophet is telling us to show mercy toward one another.
So mercy is the basis for etiquette and manners in Islam, and what is borne out of this concept is the attribute of love.
When we speak with others, we speak about the manners and etiquette that are linked with our faith because this is the foundation upon which our religion is built and this is the common ground between others and us.
Speak to them about this 95 percent or 97 percent of our religion.
This is what drove us clerics, scholars and intellectuals to write the document, “A Common Word”, which declares the common ground between Christianity and Islam. It is based on love of God and love of one’s neighbour. We have to remember that this is the basis of our religion.
That is why this is a good method of correcting some of the misconceptions people have about Islam. And it clarifies, to ourselves as well as to the world, who we are.
The word wasatiyya, or middle way, in the Qur’an has a very gentle and subtle meaning. God says, “We have appointed you a nation of the middle way so you can be witnesses unto mankind, and so the Prophet [peace be upon him] can be a witness unto you” (Qur’an 2:143).
Some of the scholars say that this word, wasat, or middle, is the pinnacle of the mountain. As you ascend the mountain and then descend, the pinnacle is in the middle. And while we are at the top of mountain, we can see everyone and everyone can see us.
Another word used in this verse is “witness”, which in Arabic means the one who is seen, and is not restricted to the one who is seeing. It is a strange word that brings both these concepts together.
It indicates interaction between you and others. This idea of witnessing, of being a witness, has a very deep civilisational meaning.
We have to understand that we are a people of an open religion; we have no secrets. Our relationship with others is based on this good example. This is what is meant by love of God and love of one’s neighbour.
“A Common Word” is a long-term strategy for Muslims living in the 21st century. It does not create a veil between the Creator and creation.
We do not dispute or argue with God that he has created differences amongst people – we do what He and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) command us to do. The Prophet is the one who said, “Narrate from me even if it may be [just] one verse.”
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “The Archangel Gabriel kept reminding me of my neighbour to the extent that I thought he would inherit from me.” He has given us a programme of change, on how we can change our lives for the better.
He said begin with yourself and then with those close to you. He said, “Will you see the small error in the person in front of you and forget the huge error in yourself?” So we should return to the Prophet’s example and begin with ourselves in this change, and open our arms to others the way our religion calls for.
An open heart was the basis for constructing this document and this initiative: “A Common Word”.
###
* Sheikh Ali Gomaa is the Grand Mufti of Egypt. For more information on “A Common Word”, visit www.acommonword.com . This adapted article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from Radical Middle Way.
Source: Radical Middle Way, 12 October 2008, www.radicalmiddleway.co.uk
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Beware of non-violence; it’s dangerous!
Jonathan Power
London - The non-violent tactics of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King are pushing at an open door. Even the Pentagon has begun to look at their value in situations of conflict and political impasse.
Today’s news is covering the essentially non-violent struggle of the opposition in Zimbabwe to push aside the dictatorial regime of Robert Mugabe. Despite the provocations of the police and the army, the opposition has turned the other cheek (unlike in Kenya) and in doing so won over almost 100 percent of foreign opinion.
In another example, exiled Iranian opposition activists are studying and training in techniques of non-violent conflict, emulating the success of the recent movements for change in the Ukraine and Serbia.
One shouldn’t be surprised by this turn of events. The 20th century is rightly described as the bloodiest century of mankind. But it was also the most creative in terms of alternatives to violence – not only Martin Luther King and Gandhi (with the anti-British Pathans in South Asia joining his movement, a historical development somehow overlooked today by the NATO armies in Afghanistan), but also the work of Chief Albert Lithuli and Archbishop Desmond Tutu in South Africa, Archbishop Helder Camara in Brazil and Bishop Carlos Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta in East Timor.
Then there were the 1950s marches against nuclear weapons that helped persuade President John Kennedy to push for the Test Ban Treaty. And later the massive protests against the Vietnam War.
There is no way one can put a precise finger on it. But there has been a sea change in Western society’s attitude to war. Despite the headlines, there are fewer wars now than ever before in history. The number of wars conducted between democracies since the end of World War II is zero.
The industrialised, richer, democratic nations have mostly abandoned armed conflict as a way of conducting their relations with other countries. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the only exceptions. There is only a small constituency in the West that supports a strike against Iran.
Even in poorer countries where warfare is rife, war is waged by a remarkably small group – mainly criminals, bullies and warlords, often easily defeated by UN-type military intervention, perhaps combined with outside political pressure, except in rare cases like Afghanistan where the Pathans have a deep and almost unique culture of resistance.
In only the United States and Russia is military intervention a constant topic of conversation and serious ongoing preparedness.
Take a close look at Holland, Sweden and Switzerland if one doubts how war-making cultures can change. At the end of the 18th century, Holland and Sweden each had armies larger than those of Britain or Austria and far larger than Prussia. Holland was one of the great seafaring, imperialistic countries of the world. But for the last two and a half centuries Holland has been far from warlike.
From 1415 to 1809, Scandinavian countries were almost permanently at war. But since Sweden’s defeat by Russia in 1809 they have more or less withdrawn from violent conflict, as has Switzerland, which in 1500 was a feared warrior nation.
If the militaristic atmosphere of past ages is beginning to change one shouldn’t be surprised at the greater role that non-violent campaigns have played over the last 60 years. And they tend to be successful, too.
A recent study by Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, reported in Harvard’s quarterly journal International Security, finds that large-scale non-violent campaigns of civilian resistance have achieved success 53 percent of the time. In contrast, terrorist campaigns achieved their objectives only 7 percent of the time.
Success comes from many factors, not least of all persistence. But it also comes from an enhanced domestic and international legitimacy of such movements and alienation of the regimes, as happened in the Ukraine three years ago. Second, public opinion at home – repulsed by violence – finds a non-violent movement increasingly appealing. Repression by heavily armed police and army helps turn public opinion against the regime.
This happened in the Philippines where violent opposition had failed. When two million people rallied peacefully to oust dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the Reagan administration pushed for him to step down.
One can point to numerous situations where non-violence could be made to work today. But no situation is riper for it than the Israel-Palestine dispute. If the Palestinians could drop their guns and stones and organise an effective non-violent movement, they might find a million Israelis supporting them.
John Mueller, professor of political science at Ohio State University has written that warfare was once regarded as “natural, inevitable, honourable, thrilling, manly, invigorating, necessary, glorious, progressive and desirable.” It could well be that this era is approaching its close and non-violent resistance is becoming the main tool of radical, even revolutionary, change.
* Jonathan Power is a columnist, filmmaker and writer. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from Khaleej Times.
Source: Khaleej Times, 22 October 2008, www.khaleejtimes.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.