Common Ground Newsbulletin: 10-16 November 2009
Dear HumanDHS network friends
Please find below the Common Ground Newsbulletin: 10-16 November 2009.
Kind regards
Brian Ward
Common Ground Newsbulletin
Inside this edition 10 - 16 November 2009
Lebanese ombudsman bridges divisions amongst youth
by Johanna Hawari-Bourgély
In this fourth article in a series exploring the evolving role of ombudsmen as conflict resolvers in changing times, Johanna Hawari-Bourgély, founder and manager of the Professional Mediation Centre at St. Joseph University in Beirut, discusses the role of an ombudsman in bridging divisions among Lebanese youth.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 November 2009)
Open religious discourse can prevent a future Fort Hood
by Asma Uddin
Asma Uddin, an international legal fellow at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and editor-in-chief of altmuslimah.com, considers the immediate reaction by media and Muslim American organisations to the Fort Hood shootings and warns against using this event as a means of limiting freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 November 2009)
Enemy-centric approach in Pakistan doesn’t work
by Saira Yamin and Lisa Schirch
Saira Yamin, Pakistani doctoral student at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, and Lisa Schirch, professor of peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University’s Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, introduce specific efforts needed to build trust between the United States and Pakistan in order to achieve shared goals.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 November 2009)
Marching for peace in Bethlehem and around the world
by Rana Al-Arja
As the first-ever World March for Peace and Nonviolence–which reached Bethlehem on 14 October–continues, Rana Al-Arja, coordinator of the Making the Impossible Possible Campaign at Holy Land Trust, considers the implications of this initiative in local communities and across the globe.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 November 2009)
North African women at forefront of legal reform
by Fatima Sadiqi
Professor of linguistics and gender studies Fatima Sadiqi explores how North African women have made their way to the forefront of the Arab world when it comes to individual rights and gender equality.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 November 2009)
Lebanese ombudsman bridges divisions amongst youth
Johanna Hawari-Bourgély
Beirut - Amused, a friend asked me one day: “How can the Lebanese tackle the main course after gorging on that huge mezze, the selection of Lebanese appetizers, which takes up the whole table?”
I answered immediately and almost without thinking: “We rarely ever get to the main course.”
This anecdote has been at the root of a more comprehensive reflection on the psychology of the Lebanese. Communities, like mezze, are so numerous that when brought together, they never get down to the real issues. Lost amongst ancestral prologues and elusive bittersweet memories, real problems are always put off and we deal only with those problems right in front of us.
Parting from this norm, the Professional Mediation Centre (Centre Professionnel de Médiation, or CPM) of St. Joseph University (USJ) in Beirut, whose role is equivalent to that of an “academic ombudsman” but which also operates as a private centre any citizen can go to for conflict mediation, grapples with the problems at hand.
CPM was established at St. Joseph University in 2006. USJ has trained many of Lebanon’s political leaders from before Lebanon’s independence in 1943 until present day, including several presidents of the Republic: Emile Eddé, Béchara El Khoury, Camille Chamoun and Charles El Hélou. Founded in 1875, the university brings together individuals representing the diversity of the Lebanese mosaic: Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics, Sunnis, Shi’ites and Druzes.
One day some of these young students may become leaders whose jobs will be to manage the country’s policies and encourage harmony between its constituent parts.
As an independent centre, CPM provides mediation training to actors from all walks of life in Lebanon. In a few short years, it has already trained more than 70 mediators from all backgrounds and denominations. This includes lawyers, doctors and engineers, and both men and women from the ages of 25 to 77. These mediators voluntarily enrolled in CPM and agreed to its code of ethics, which is designed to serve all Lebanese citizens.
CPM has also undertaken a mediation training project of 75 young Lebanese in five rural districts of the country. Participants stemmed from the Shia, Sunni, Druze and Maronite confessions. Financially supported by the European Community, the project aims to help these youth become mediators of their own conflicts, in their villages and in their daily life–and to no longer see the other through the lens of ethnicity and religion.
CPM also created within USJ a mediation unit in order to facilitate communication and to assist in resolving daily disagreements. Like in any other university, it is common that conflicts, resulting from provocations, defamation or political insults, arise between students especially when it comes to electing student officials.
In practice, our work is carried out through mediation sessions in which young participants have a neutral and discreet environment to express themselves freely. Treated as equals, they are listened to without prejudice and understood without judgment. Their opinions are respected and, perhaps for the first time in their lives, they can contemplate throwing off the weight they have carried since childhood: having to answer for their community or their family.
In this context, members of different communities begin to see common behaviours and similar goals, such as belonging to the same country and the same nation. Mediation therefore represents a solution for Lebanese youth. It is a “social project”, especially in Lebanon.
There must be waged, especially in Lebanon, a war on war. As Victor Hugo wrote so aptly: “War is a war of men; peace is a war of ideas”. What is nobler than an idea that puts two people face-to-face, not to make war with each other but to seek peace?
Although the concept of an ombudsman remains relatively new in Lebanon, there is no doubt that the institutionalised practice of mediation within universities will experience an important development in the years to come, both in Lebanon and in the greater Middle East.
###
* Johanna Hawari-Bourgély is the founder and manager of the Professional Mediation Centre at St. Joseph University in Beirut. This article is part of a series exploring the evolving role of ombudsmen as conflict resolvers in changing times written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 November 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
Open religious discourse can prevent a future Fort Hood
Asma Uddin
Washington, DC - In the immediate aftermath of the 5 November Fort Hood killings, some media commentators, alerted by gunman Major Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan’s Muslim name, immediately described the murders as a manifestation of his religious beliefs, reinforcing many Americans’ fears about Islam. In a moment like this one, the topic of religious freedom might be one we wish to avoid, but protecting it is essential to preventing another such tragedy. All Americans–both Muslims and non-Muslims–now have a role to play in ensuring that the country moves forward productively and peacefully.
Soon after the attack, Muslim American individuals and organisations, such as Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), responded by unequivocally condemning the murders as reprehensible and outside the domain of Islam.
According to CAIR, “No political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. We Muslim Americans stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”
The attack has spurred Muslim organisations to urge non-Muslims to refrain from viewing the incident through the prism of religion.
As facts continue to emerge, it appears that Hasan’s actions may be rooted in causes other than religion, including mental illness. Yet the Muslim element cannot be dismissed. For example, National Public Radio recently reported that during Grand Rounds, a regular session where doctors present on a medical topic, Hasan used his presentation slot a few years ago to give a lecture on the Qur’an, describing for the group a litany of tortures that he said awaited unbelievers in hell. And six months ago, several postings about suicide bombings surfaced on the Internet under Hasan’s name. Investigators are still looking into whether they are attributable to him.
Both Muslim and non-Muslim Americans have work to do. It is incumbent upon non-Muslim Americans to refrain from treating Muslim Americans as complicit in Hasan’s actions. And while Hasan’s action is one that most Muslims find reprehensible, it is equally incumbent on the Muslim American community to recognise that vulnerability to extremism remains present in their community–and to continue to take steps to ameliorate it.
Muslim Americans have the duty to protect the vulnerable among them–including Muslim servicemen–from those who preach extremism and violence. Muslim Americans must proactively seek out and get professional help for their co-religionists who have violent views and demonstrate suspicious or distressed behaviour before such tragic incidents occur.
Along with the Muslim response to Fort Hood, a broader American response is also necessary. In the aftermath of the shooting, the government may be inclined to view Muslim Americans in the military with greater suspicion, making Muslim military personnel more reluctant to open up about their faith. While it may be necessary to regulate speech at fora such as Grand Rounds, which is intended for medical rather than religious presentations, it is important to protect religious speech in private conversations between government employees, regardless of their religious background.
In fact, free and open religious discourse among employees can not only increase understanding, but may also make it easier to detect and counter extremist rhetoric and to report any suspicious behaviours or attitudes to the appropriate authorities. Only when religious speech is treated as a normal part of human discourse can individuals engage in it comfortably rather than avoiding it as politically incorrect–and, in the process, overlooking critical red flags.
In the wake of the Fort Hood tragedy, it is important to focus on preventative measures. Muslim Americans have a special duty to protect their co-religionists from falling prey to radicalism, while all Americans–Muslim and non-Muslim alike–must work toward fostering an environment where religious freedom is not only protected but also used as a tool against violent extremism.
###
* Asma T. Uddin is an international legal fellow at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and editor-in-chief of altmuslimah.com. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 November 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
Enemy-centric approach in Pakistan doesn’t work
Saira Yamin and Lisa Schirch
Washington, DC - During her recent visit to Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emphasised the need to foster a relationship of respect between the United States and Pakistan. Although Pakistan’s civilian government and military establishment are closely allied with the United States in efforts to stop Al Qaeda, relations between the two countries are fraught with a lack of confidence and miscommunication, creating major obstacles to achieving shared goals.
Military, political or humanitarian confidence building measures taken to reduce tensions between the US and Pakistani governments could help transform negative public perceptions of the United States in Pakistan and elicit support for shared security objectives.
A survey of Pakistani public opinion conducted by the International Republican Institute in March 2009 suggests that approximately 70 per cent of Pakistanis do not support US military incursions in Pakistan. Confidence building efforts must take into account the history of mistrust between the two countries and demonstrate that the United States is taking a new approach to security. The United States must ensure that policies, actions and resources focus on population-centric security and a community-based approach to policing, rather than the enemy-centric approach that has led to further militancy in the past.
Drone strikes are a clear example of an enemy-centric approach to security. Pakistanis consider these strikes as further destabilising the region. Discontinuing them, particularly in heavily populated areas, could serve as a signal to Pakistan that the United States is acknowledging and responding to Pakistani public opinion, and respects the country’s territorial sovereignty.
Moving towards population-centric security could involve other measures as well, such as establishing a coordination centre between US and Pakistani agencies–especially the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s equivalent of the Central Intelligence Agency. It would also include creating hotlines for joint intelligence geared towards protecting civilians.
Members of the ISI have often been accused of sympathising with and even supporting the efforts of certain Taliban factions, a claim that Pakistani government agencies vehemently deny. Such claims should be investigated transparently–and reforms implemented as necessary—to restore the confidence of both the Pakistani public and the international community.
The United States could do more to acknowledge Pakistan’s political interests in the region given its strong partnership with India. India’s growing influence in Afghanistan is perceived as a threat to Pakistan’s stability and has led to accusations of India supporting insurgents in Balochistan, a conflict-ridden province of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.
A holistic international diplomatic effort that recognises the interlocking nature of conflicts in the region, and includes both high-level principled negotiation and local level reconciliation efforts in its plan to solve them, could pay conflict resolution dividends.
Likewise, a robust diplomatic process to address outstanding political issues between Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the movement of militant groups, small arms and narcotics across borders, and Afghanistan’s accusation of Pakistani interference in its domestic matters, is also necessary to build trust.
The United States should ensure a continuous and efficient supply of relief assistance and development aid for the rehabilitation of communities and reconstruction of infrastructure damaged by Pakistani and US military operations against the Taliban. It should also ensure transparency and assist in planning, implementing and monitoring humanitarian and development initiatives. Pakistani civil society groups and relief agencies could help carry out such initiatives, creating a further avenue for cooperation.
Developing a comprehensive plan for reconstruction efforts should be the centrepiece of humanitarian confidence building between the United States and Pakistan. Such measures will positively impact perceptions on both sides, creating an environment more conducive to cooperation and long-term stability.
Evolving a meaningful strategic partnership to successfully eliminate the common threat of terrorism requires clearer and more inclusive communication, nurturing better political and social relationships, and demonstrating that counterterrorism interventions will not be at the expense of Pakistan’s internal security and displaced communities.
###
* Saira Yamin is a doctoral student from Pakistan at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Lisa Schirch is professor of peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University’s Center for Justice and Peacebuilding. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 November 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
Marching for peace in Bethlehem and around the world
Rana Al-Arja
Bethlehem, Palestinian Authority - A million people around the world are marching for peace. In the past few weeks alone, they walked through the streets of Sarajevo, Zagreb and Gendema, on the Sierra Leone-Liberia border. At the same time, halfway around the world, others marched in Mexico City.
Next on the agenda? New York, Paris, Freetown and Santiago.
The first-ever World March for Peace and Nonviolence–a grassroots initiative which aims to bring people throughout the globe together in support of peace and an end to physical, economic, racial, religious, cultural, sexual and psychological violence–began its journey in New Zealand on 2 October, the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi.
The nearly 160,000 kilometre peace march, which reached Bethlehem on 14 October, will continue until January 2010 through most of the world’s major cities.
The march was initiated by World Without Wars, an international organisation launched by the Humanist Movement, which was founded in 1969 by Mario Rodriquez Cobos in Argentina. The Humanist Movement promotes non-violence through five official organisations, hundreds of locally established councils and newspapers. As the march tours the globe, local individuals and civil society groups host World March representatives and organise marches, meetings and cultural events.
Prominent politicians, academics and celebrities have given their endorsements to the march. A group of Nobel Peace Laureates, including Mikhail Gorbachev, the Dalai Lama and Shirin Ebadi, drafted a charter for a World Without Wars, calling for the creation of “a more peaceful, civilized world order in which more effective and fair governance, respectful of human dignity and the sanctity of life itself, may become a reality.” The charter will be presented to the promoters of the World March on 11 November during the World Summit of Nobel Prizes in Berlin.
The main actors of this global event, however, are not notable academics, politicians or celebrities. They are ordinary people who take to the streets of their communities on the designated dates to send a message of peace and hope that one day wars will become obsolete, weapons will be eradicated, and inequality and discrimination will become nonexistent.
The goal is to create a new global consciousness that opposes any forms of violence and discrimination.
Nowhere has the significance of this message been more symbolic and salient than in Israel and Palestine, the holy land for three monotheistic religions, which has not seen peace for over six decades. The initiative to hold the march in Bethlehem was undertaken by the Holy Land Trust, a locally based non-governmental organisation that seeks to spread the principles of non-violence, empower the Palestinian community and strengthen dialogue.
Since its establishment in 1998, the Holy Land Trust has worked to empower the Palestinian community through workshops and training programmes on non-violence, which has long been a meaningful part of the Palestinians’ struggle for statehood.
Today, the vast majority of Palestinian individuals and organisations are working to non-violently combat the occupation of Palestine through weekly peaceful demonstrations, the rebuilding of demolished houses and other activities. A recent United Nations Development Programme report indicated that the majority of Palestinians do not support violence. In fact, 70 per cent of Palestinian youth oppose it as a means to resolve conflict with Israel.
Non-violence goes deeper than pacifism: it embraces peaceful coexistence, active citizenship, resilience and creativity. The celebration of these ideas united both Muslim and Christian Palestinians as they marched through Bethlehem.
Local officials, including Bethlehem Governor Abdul Fattah Hamael and Mayor Dr. Victor Batarseh, took part in the demonstration. Giorgio Schultze, European Union spokesperson of the World March, and Luisa Morgantini, vice president of the European Parliament, participated in the march, as did Archbishop Atallah Hanna of the Greek Orthodox denomination and Sami Awad, executive director of the Holy Land Trust. All expressed their vision of peace in the Holy Land and a shared Jerusalem.
The World March also made stops in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem—embodying the hope for unity and peace.
>From Russia’s icy Moscow to Uruguay’s sunny Montevideo, from Bethlehem to New York, the march will continue its way, drawing more supporters and peace advocates. Though it might not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the march is a potent symbol of hope and non-violence for both sides.
###
* Rana Al-Arja is coordinator of the Making the Impossible Possible Campaign at Holy Land Trust in Bethlehem. She holds a MA in human rights and democratisation from Malta University. This article first appeared in The Sacramento Bee and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 November 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
North African women at forefront of legal reform
Fatima Sadiqi
Fez, Morocco - Women in North Africa have made tremendous progress in promoting and upholding their rights. Women in this region—commonly known as the Maghreb—are at the forefront of the Arab world in terms of individual rights and gender equality, and constitute models for other Arab women to follow. A number of lessons may be drawn from the inspiring experience of women in North Africa, especially in Morocco and Tunisia.
Access to justice has been greatly facilitated by the new Family Courts in Morocco as necessitated by the Moroccan Family Code of 2004. When women marry, they are now able to retain ownership of their property thanks to Article 49 of the code, which allows for a separate contract on property alongside the marriage contract. This is in accordance with Islamic law, in which women may remain the sole owners of their property and have no legal obligation to share it with their husbands.
In addition, mothers married to foreign nationals in Morocco and Tunisia can now pass on their citizenship to their children—a privilege previously allowed only to men.
The countries of the Maghreb have made significant headway in combating violence against women. Almost all Arab countries have signed the most important international convention that bans such violence, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), with exceptions to articles that clashed with a literal interpretation of the Islamic law. But Morocco has recently agreed to the convention in full.
Women are also more visible in economic and academic spheres than before in the Maghreb. Nationwide youth literacy is gradually becoming a reality with women demanding accessible and standardised educational opportunities. And women often spearhead business ventures, are increasingly choosing their professions freely and feeling safer at the workplace as a result of laws that combat sexual harassment, and have better access to clinics and more independence in making decisions about their reproductive health.
Fertility rates have dropped considerably in the region, from well above six children per women in the 1970s to approximately two per woman in Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria, according to the Journal of African and Asian Studies. This reduction is impressive: the Maghreb accomplished in 25 years what took almost 200 years in France.
Women in the Maghreb have also progressed when it comes to exercising their political rights and civic voice, with more and more women becoming members of their nations’ parliaments (43 in Tunisia, 34 in Morocco and 30 in Algeria) and local governing councils (no less than 3,406 in Morocco).
Non-governmental organisations have played an essential role in pushing women’s rights forward in the Maghreb region. Networking between associations at national and grassroots levels ensures that activists can disseminate information and rally multiple groups to help promote new legislation or initiatives that help women.
Support networks, such as Anaruz, a network of Moroccan women’s associations, are getting stronger despite the society’s conservative social norms. Women’s rights organisations and individual activists have helped the government to improve the rights of all women, which the state sees as a way to improve society as a whole.
Another lesson that the Moroccan and Tunisian experiences offer is the importance of the place given to gender and women studies in some universities. These academic programmes have proved instrumental in changing social perceptions, attitudes and structures that obstruct gender equality.
One of the main reasons for the slow progress in women’s rights in the rest of the Arab world is an unfounded fear among conservatives that granting full equality to women constitutes an imposition of Western values and a deviation from Islamic norms. Proponents of women’s rights in the Maghreb, however, have made every effort in their thinking and action to show that it is patriarchy and social norms, and not Islam itself, that constitute the roots of their problems.
Women’s rights are indeed congruent with the spirit of Islam and with universal ideals. Islamic jurisprudence has a tradition of ijtihad—an independent and contextual interpretation of the Qur’an and hadith, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad—which allows consideration of culture as a changing concept.
The countries of the Maghreb strive to reinterpret Islam in modern social contexts through their revised family codes, which secure women’s rights without compromising Islamic values. Tradition and modernity are not lived as mutually exclusive. The future of women’s rights in the Maghreb greatly depends both on the work of civil society activists and continued Islamic legal reform based on universal human rights.
###
* Fatima Sadiqi (www.fatimasadiqi.on.ma) is a professor of linguistics and gender studies and a UN expert on gender. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 November 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.