MILA Unlimited

Muslims Intent On Learning and Activism (MILA) is a community of Muslims, dedicated to collective action in the way of building, serving, and strengthening our communities through education and activism. This blog is a place for contributors to discuss issues they find relevant or important for the Muslim community.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Islam caught between ‘Talabanization’ and ‘Westoxicosis’

Abu Nimir
November 2, 2006
MILA Unlimited

Polemics about “clash of civilizations” aside, the western mind set has been preoccupied with Islam’s inability to conform to modernity. Enlightenment in the West lead to a secular polity, Islamic enlightenment on which the West has pinned its hopes in this sense is an anathema. Secular world view is the polar opposite to Islam. Sheikh Hakim Murad the British Islamic Scholar highlights the complexity of the current Islamic revival, “The Islamic revival and its attendant struggle is less like the eighteenth century in Europe and more like the sixteenth, the age of Luther”, when Europeans “devoted their efforts to finding in the words of the Bible a meaning for which they were prepared to live and die for”. Muslims today are in the throws of a similar revivalist movement. It is important that this be understood in Islamic terms and not seen with jaundiced eyes colored by “West-East encounters beginning with the first attempts by Christian thinkers to make sense of Islam, a religion they interpreted as a new form of Christian heresy”. If the West genuinely aims to understand Islam and seeks rapprochement with Muslims it must let Muslims find their own meaning.
Muslims today are caught between two unenviable choices; the anachronistic regressive doctrine of the Taliban’s and the ‘monoculturalization’ of the world characterized by the malignant charlatanry of the multinationals and western cultural elites seeking contextual homogeneity. This ‘Westoxicosis’ is a toxic state that seeks a world of wall to wall consumers reveling in the global Wall Mart Super Store. While its antithesis ‘Talibinazation’ is characterized by a pernicious culture of archaic zealotry.
Current state of fossilization in the Muslim World has relegated it to the backwaters of contemporary discourse. This Islamic regression is attributed by the West to Islam or a particular irrational exegesis of its sacred texts. Unfortunately this vector of Western thinking is clouded by over five centuries of colonial hegemony and does not represent the whole truth. The Islamic world’s nadir after a thousand years of splendor is not because of Islam but more likely because Muslims abandoned Islam as the primary contributor to their 'zeitgeist'.
Arnold Toynbee had suggested many years ago that when a dominant civilization comes in contact with a subservient civilization, the subservient civilization has two choices, to follow the path of 'Zealots' or become a 'Herodian'. The Zealots are doomed to failure; their actions are akin to fighting tanks and planes with bows and arrows. The 'Herodians' named after King Herod (73-4 BCE) the nominal ruler of the small middle eastern state under the Roman tutelage, are also doomed because they strive for nothing more, but to copy the dominant culture and copying at its very best can not be additive, it can only produce the object it is copying. The 'Herodian' does not offer humanity a new exemplar on which to anchor civilization into the future. Can Islam present a third way?
An essential endeavor, creative dissonance is fundamental to human development. If the collective human enterprise has to progress it must seek new direction. Unless we subscribe to Francis Fukuyama's view about "The End of History and the Last Man" and believe that in the current Western model man has achieved his penultimate state to ensure future survivability. In the current global milieu we have few uncharted roads that are readily discernable. We must support the Islamic world’s endeavor, as chaotic as it may seem to articulate this ‘third way’.
Seen through non western eyes the state of our ‘Global Union’ may be less sanguine than what it may seem. The "Western model" of consumerism, secularism and ‘corporatocracy’, in its current form irrespective of the intent of its 'founding fathers' is not a sustainable model for human consumption on a mass scale. No matter how we may sweaten it with the mantra of markets without borders, freedom without boundaries and democracy ala carte and cloak it in the mantle of globalization. This is not to reject every thing with a Western source code. Science for one is neither Western nor Eastern but an ocean in which many streams flow. Without question West’s contribution to the sciences in the last five hundred years has been unprecedented in human history. Islam if it has to find its own place in the world order must learn from the western experience but has to secure it in its own context. Civilizations develop as a continuum, a ladder on which you have to climb the first rung before going on to the next. Hellenistic thought added to Q'uranic world view lead to the Muslim era of science and splendor in the middle ages that subsequently contributed towards the European/Western Renaissance. The cycle may have come back full circle.
Any authentic effort that will help the Muslim World out of the current state of 'stagnation' will have to be rooted in 'Muslim history and ideology' other wise it perilously takes the path of the 'Herodian' or will fall prey to the ‘Zealot’, in both cases being doomed at its inception. If Muslims have to progress then they must go back to the oasis of their civilization and build on the fundamentals. If they believe they have a new paradigm to offer? They will have to find it after toiling over their texts and finding meaning not just for them but for the rest of the humanity. The West must provide the Muslim world with the space it needs, recognize legitimate attempts at revival and reform and avoid obscurantist efforts to undermine the process.
The manifestations of Islam’s current malaise are best understood by looking at its leaders with possibly very few exceptions the vast majority can be characterized by 'unenlightened authoritarianism' universally they epitomize King Herod’s benign neglect of their own populace and a reflexive subservience to their Western Masters. The malady afflicting the leaders however is the symptom and not the disease. The etiology of the pathology seems to be the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the elites that have abandoned their tradition and seek solutions that merely aim to replicate someone else's splendor. They continue to exploit the majority of the populace at the expense of maintaining their privileged status. This has resulted in systems skewed towards self perpetuating the ruling class and marginalizing the majority by denying them educational and ultimately economic opportunities. The endgame is creation of a perpetual underclass of servants and mid level bureaucrats that spend their lifetime in servitude oiling their ‘masters’ machine.
In order to change the status quo ante, Islamic movements need to bring about a change in the fundamentals of prevalent thinking. A critical mass of the ‘enlightened elites’ will need to realize that the current system is non sustainable in near terms, an ultimately against their self interest. The movement needs to mobilize and educate the masses to help them regain their self respect and assist them in getting out of the morass of haplessness by presenting sustainable models of Islamic economic growth. An Islamic 'liberation theology' needs to be developed that will steer the Muslim world away from the ideological boondocks and into the ‘Promised Land’.
Q'uranic injunction to Muslims to be 'witnesses for humanity' of what is 'enjoined to be good…' puts a heavy burden on them to strive (Jihad) to seek "Gods will"(Shariah). A dynamic state of tension between the ‘absolute' and the ‘understood'. The whole idea of 'Dawah' (Invite) people to 'The Path' is an essential part of The Deen (Way of life). To ‘invite' is not a coercive process but an incumbent duty to present Islamic ethos to the world as an alternative archetype. Muslim ideologues do not seek a 'unipolar' world but recognize as the Q’uran enjoins "You are made into Nations and Tribes so that you may get to know each other…" God does not want a single path to prevail; Pluralism is a hallmark not the antithesis of Islam. At an individual level Muslims will not be in error if they follow the normative at a given time. The normative is what represents the consensus, plurality; not necessarily 100% but 80% of the views held by scholars/learned men/women of 'the time'. It is by following fringe movements that ‘Talbinization’ becomes a predicament and it is by divorcing from Islam that ‘Westoxicosis’ becomes a malady.
When Islamists says: "Islam is the answer" this is what they mean. The West must develop a mindset that accepts the positive forces that Islam can unleash and if nurtured instead of hindered would be a windfall to humanity. Those of us who live in the West get bound to the prevailing logic, while touting the merits of pluralistic societies we are unable to sometimes see that what we seek is not pluralism but merely clones of ourselves. What is good for the 'goose' may not be good for the 'gander' and is unlikely to be good for communal harmony in the twenty-first century.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

End the Silence Over Chechnya
By Václav Havel, Prince Hassan bin Talal, George Soros, André Glücksmann, Karel Schwarzenberg, Frederik Willem de Klerk, Mary Robinson, Yohei Sasakawa, and Desmond Tutu.

The Project Syndicate
It is extremely difficult for an honest observer to break through the closed doors that separate Chechnya from the rest of the world. Indeed, no one even knows how many civilian casualties there have been in ten years of war.

According to estimates by non-governmental organizations, the figure is between 100,000 (that is, one civilian out of ten) and 300,000 (one out of four). How many voters participated in the November 2005 elections? Between 60 and 80%, according to Russian authorities; around 20%, reckon independent observers. The blackout imposed on Chechnya prevents any precise assessment of the devastating effects of a ruthless conflict.

But censorship cannot completely hide the horror. Under the world’s very eyes, a capital – Grozny, with 400,000 inhabitants – has been razed for the first time since Hitler’s 1944 punishment of Warsaw. Such inhumanity cannot plausibly be described as “anti-terrorism,” as Russian President Vladimir Putin insists. The Russian military leadership claims to be fighting against a party of 700 to 2,000 combatants. What would be said if the British government had bombed Belfast, or if the Spanish government bombed Bilbao, on the pretext of quelling the IRA or the ETA?

And yet the world remains silent in the face of the looting of Grozny and other Chechen towns and villages. Are Chechen women, children and all Chechen civilians less entitled to respect than the rest of mankind? Are they still considered human? Nothing can excuse the seeming indifference displayed by our worldwide silence.

In Chechnya, our basic morality is at stake. Must the world accept the rape of girls who were kidnapped by the occupying forces or their militias? Should we tolerate the murder of children and the abduction of boys to be tortured, broken, and sold back to their families, alive or dead? What about “filtration” camps, or “human firewood”? What about the villages exterminated to set an example? A few NGO’s and some brave Russian and Western reporters have witnessed countless crimes. So we cannot say “we did not know.”

Indeed, the fundamental principle of democracies and civilized states is at issue in Chechnya: civilians’ right to life, including the protection of innocents, widows, and orphans. International agreements and the United Nations Charter are as binding in Chechnya as anywhere else. The right of nations to self-determination does not imply the right of rulers to dispose of their people.

The fight against terrorism is also at stake. Who has not yet realized that the Russian army is actually behaving like a group of pyromaniac firefighters, fanning the fires of terrorism through its behavior? After ten years of a large-scale repression, the fire, far from going out, is spreading, crossing borders, setting Northern Caucasus ablaze and making combatants even more fierce.

How much longer can we ignore the fact that, in raising the bogeyman of “Chechen terrorism,” the Russian government is suppressing the liberties gained when the Soviet empire collapsed? The Chechen war both masks and motivates the reestablishment of centralized power in Russia – bringing the media back under state control, passing laws against NGO’s, and reinforcing the “vertical line of power” – leaving no institutions and authorities able to challenge or limit the Kremlin. War, it seems, is hiding a return to autocracy.

Sadly, wars in Chechnya have been going on for 300 years. They were savage colonial conflicts under the Czar and almost genocidal under Stalin, who deported the whole Chechen population, a third of which perished during their transfer to the Gulag.

Because we reject colonial and exterminating ventures, because we love Russian culture and believe that Russia can bloom in a democratic future, and because we believe that terrorism – whether by stateless groups or state armies ­– should be condemned, we demand that the world’s blackout on the Chechen issue must end. We must help Russia’s authorities escape from the trap they set for themselves and into which they fell, putting not only Chechens and Russians, but the world at risk.

It would be tragic if, during the G8 summit scheduled for St. Petersburg, Russia, in June 2006, the Chechen issue were pushed to the side. This dreadful and endless war needs to be discussed openly if it is to end peacefully.

MIKE DAVIS

MIKE DAVIS
FEAR AND MONEY IN DUBAI
‘As your jet starts its descent, you are glued to your window. The scene below is astonishing: a 24-square-mile archipelago of coral-coloured islands in the shape of an almost-finished puzzle of the world. In the shallow green waters between continents, the sunken shapes of the Pyramids of Giza and the Roman Colosseum are clearly visible. In the distance, three other large island groups are configured as palms within crescents and planted with high-rise resorts, amusement parks and a thousand mansions built on stilts over the water. The ‘Palms’ are connected by causeways to a Miami-like beachfront crammed with mega-hotels, apartment skyscrapers and yachting marinas.
‘As the plane slowly banks toward the desert mainland, you gasp at the even more improbable vision ahead. Out of a chrome forest of skyscrapers soars a new Tower of Babel. It is an impossible half-mile high: taller than the Empire State Building stacked on top of itself. You are still rubbing your eyes with wonderment as the plane lands and you are welcomed into an airport shopping emporium where seductive goods entice: Gucci bags, Cartier watches and one-kilogram bars of solid gold. The hotel driver is waiting for you in a Rolls Royce Silver Seraph. Friends had recommended the Armani Inn in the 170-storey tower, or the 7-star hotel with an atrium so huge that the Statue of Liberty would fit inside it, and service so exclusive that the rooms come with personal butlers; but instead you have opted to fulfill a childhood fantasy. You always have wanted to play Captain Nemo in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea.
‘Your jellyfish-shaped hotel, the Hydropolis, is, in fact, exactly 66 feet below the surface of the sea. Each of its 220 luxury suites has clear plexiglass walls that provide spectacular views of passing mermaids and of the famed ‘underwater fireworks’: a hallucinatory exhibition of ‘water bubbles, swirled sand and carefully deployed lighting’. Any initial anxiety about the safety of your sea-bottom resort is dispelled by the smiling concierge. The structure has a multi-level fail-safe security system which includes protection against terrorist submarines as well as missiles and aircraft.
‘Although you have an important business meeting at Internet City with clients from Hyderabad and Taipei, you have arrived a day early to treat yourself to one of the famed adventures at the ‘Restless Planet’ themepark. After a soothing night’s sleep under the sea, you board a monorail for this Jurassic jungle. Your first encounter is with some peacefully grazing brontosaurs. Next you are attacked by a flock of velociraptors, the animatronic beasts—designed by experts from the British Natural History Museum—so flawlessly lifelike that you shriek in fear and delight. With your adrenaline pumped up by this close call, you round off the afternoon with some snowboarding on the local indoor snow mountain (outdoors, the temperature is 105°). Nearby is the world’s largest mall—the altar of the city’s famed Shopping Festival, which attracts millions of frenetic consumers each January—but you postpone the temptation. Instead, you indulge in some expensive Thai fusion cuisine. The gorgeous Russian blonde at the restaurant bar stares at you with vampirish hunger, and you wonder whether the local sin is as extravagant as the shopping . . . ’
Fantasy levitated
Welcome to a strange paradise. But where are you? Is this a new Margaret Atwood novel, Philip K. Dick’s unpublished sequel to Blade Runner or Donald Trump on acid? No. It is the Persian Gulf city-state of Dubai in 2010. After Shanghai (current population 15 million), Dubai (current population 1.5 million) is the planet’s biggest building site: an emerging dreamworld of conspicuous consumption and what the locals boast as ‘supreme lifestyles’. Despite its blast-furnace climate (on typical 120° summer days, the swankier hotels refrigerate their swimming pools) and edge-of-the-war-zone location, Dubai confidently predicts that its enchanted forest of 600 skyscrapers and malls will attract 15 million overseas visitors a year by 2010, three times as many as New York City. Emirates Airlines has placed a staggering $37-billion order for new Boeings and Airbuses to fly these tourists in and out of Dubai’s new global air hub, the vast Jebel Ali airport. [1] Indeed, thanks to a dying planet’s terminal addiction to Arabian oil, this former fishing village and smugglers’ cove proposes to become one of the world capitals of the 21st century. Favouring diamonds over rhinestones, Dubai has already surpassed that other desert arcade of capitalist desire, Las Vegas, both in sheer scale of spectacle and the profligate consumption of water and power. [2]
Dozens of outlandish mega-projects—including the artificial ‘island world’ (where Rod Stewart has reportedly spent $33 million to buy ‘Britain’), the earth’s tallest building (Burj Dubai, designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill), the underwater luxury hotel, the carnivorous dinosaurs, the domed ski resort and the hyper-mall—are already under construction or about to leave the drawing board. [3] The 7-star hotel, the spinnaker-shaped Burj Al-Arab—looking much like the set of a James Bond film—is already world-famous for its $5,000 per-night rooms with 100-mile views and an exclusive clientele of Arab royalty, English rock stars and Russian billionaires. And the dinosaurs, according to the finance director of the Natural History Museum, ‘will have the full stamp of authority of the Museum in London, and will demonstrate that education and science can be fun’; and profitable, since the ‘only way into the dinosaur park will be through the shopping mall’. [4]
The biggest project, Dubailand, represents a vertiginous new stage in fantasy environments. Literally a ‘themepark of themeparks’, it will be more than twice the size of Disney World and employ 300,000 workers who, in turn, will entertain 15 million visitors per year (each spending a minimum of $100 per day, not including accommodation). Like a surrealist encyclopaedia, its 45 major ‘world class’ projects include replicas of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Taj Mahal and the Pyramids, [5] as well as a snow mountain with ski lifts and polar bears, a centre for ‘extreme sports’, a Nubian village, ‘Eco-Tourism World’, a vast Andalusian spa and wellness complex, golf courses, autodromes, race tracks, ‘Giants’ World’, ‘Fantasia’, the largest zoo in the Middle East, several new 5-star hotels, a modern art gallery and the Mall of Arabia. [6]
Gigantism
Under the enlightened despotism of its Emir and ceo, 58-year-old Sheikh Mohammed al-Maktoum, Dubai has become the new global icon of imagineered urbanism. Multi-billionaire Sheikh Mo—as he is known to Dubai’s expats—has a straightforward if immodest goal: ‘I want to be Number One in the world’. [7] Although he is an ardent collector of thoroughbreds (the world’s largest stable) and super-yachts (the 525-foot-long ‘Project Platinum’, which has its own submarine and flight deck), his consuming passion is over-the-top, monumental architecture. [8] Indeed, he seems to have imprinted Scott and Venturi’s bible of hyper-reality, Learning From Las Vegas, in the same way that pious Muslims memorize the Qur’an. One of his proudest achievements, he often tells visitors, is to have introduced gated communities to Arabia, the land of nomads and tents.
Thanks to his boundless enthusiasm for concrete and steel, the coastal desert has become a huge circuit board upon which the elite of transnational engineering firms and retail developers are invited to plug in high-tech clusters, entertainment zones, artificial islands, glass-domed ‘snow mountains’, Truman Show suburbs, cities within cities—whatever is big enough to be seen from space and bursting with architectural steroids. The result is not a hybrid but an eerie chimera: a promiscuous coupling of all the cyclopean fantasies of Barnum, Eiffel, Disney, Spielberg, Jon Jerde, Steve Wynn and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Although compared variously to Las Vegas, Manhattan, Orlando, Monaco and Singapore, the sheikhdom is more like their collective summation and mythologization: a hallucinatory pastiche of the big, the bad and the ugly.
The same phantasmagoric but generic Lego blocks, of course, can be found in dozens of aspiring cities these days (including Dubai’s envious neighbours, the wealthy oil oases of Doha and Bahrain), [9] but al-Maktoum has a distinctive and inviolable criterion: everything must be ‘world class’, by which he means Number One in the Guinness Book of Records. Thus Dubai is building the world’s largest theme park, the biggest mall (and within it, the largest aquarium), the tallest building, the largest international airport, the biggest artificial island, the first sunken hotel and so on (see below). Although such architectural megalomania is eerily reminiscent of Albert Speer and his patron’s vision of imperial Berlin, it is not irrational. Having ‘learned from Las Vegas’, al-Maktoum understands that if Dubai wants to become the luxury-consumer paradise of the Middle East and South Asia (its officially defined ‘home market’ of 1.6 billion), it must ceaselessly strive for visual and environmental excess. If, as Rowan Moore has suggested, immense, psychotic assemblages of fantasy kitsch inspire vertigo, then al-Maktoum wants us to swoon. [10]
From a booster’s viewpoint, the city’s monstrous caricature of futurism is simply shrewd branding for the world market. As one developer told the Financial Times, ‘If there was no Burj Dubai, no Palm, no World, would anyone be speaking of Dubai today? You shouldn’t look at projects as crazy stand-alones. It’s part of building the brand’. [11] And its owners love it when architects and urbanists, like George Katodrytis, anoint it as the cutting edge:
Dubai is a prototype of the new post-global city, which creates appetites rather than solves problems . . If Rome was the ‘Eternal City’ and New York’s Manhattan the apotheosis of twentieth-century congested urbanism, then Dubai may be considered the emerging prototype for the 21st century: prosthetic and nomadic oases presented as isolated cities that extend out over the land and sea. [12]
In its exponential quest to conquer the architectural record-books, moreover, Dubai has only one real rival: China—a country that now has 300,000 millionaires and is predicted to become the world’s largest market for luxury goods (from Gucci to Mercedes) in a few years. [13] Starting from feudalism and peasant Maoism, respectively, both have arrived at the stage of hyper-capitalism through what Trotsky called the ‘dialectic of uneven and combined development’. As Baruch Knei-Paz writes in his admirable précis of Trotsky’s thought:
In appending new forms the backward society takes not their beginnings, nor the stages of their evolution, but the finished product itself. In fact it goes even further; it copies not the product as it exists in its countries of origin but its ‘ideal type’, and it is able to do so for the very reason that it is in a position to append instead of going through the process of development. This explains why the new forms, in a backward society, appear more perfected than in an advanced society where they are approximations only to the ‘ideal’ for having been arrived at piecemeal and with the framework of historical possibilities. [14]
In the cases of Dubai and China, all the arduous intermediate stages of commercial evolution have been telescoped or short-circuited to embrace the ‘perfected’ synthesis of shopping, entertainment and architectural spectacle, on the most pharaonic scale.
As a sweepstake in national pride—Arabs versus Chinese—this frantic quest for hyperbole is not of course, unprecedented; recall the famed competition between Britain and imperial Germany to build dreadnoughts in the early 1900s. But is it an economically sustainable strategy of development? The textbook answer is probably not. Architectural gigantism has always been a perverse symptom of economies in speculative overdrive, and each modern boom has left behind overweening skyscrapers, the Empire State Building or the former World Trade Center, as its tombstones. Cynics rightly point out that the hypertrophic real-estate markets in Dubai and urban China are the sinks for global excess profits—of oil and manufacturing exports, respectively—currently being pyramided by rich countries’ inability to reduce oil consumption and, in the case of the United States, to balance current accounts. If past business cycles are any guide, the end could be nigh and very messy. Yet, like the king of the enigmatic floating island of Laputa in Gulliver’s Travels, al-Maktoum believes that he has discovered the secret of eternal levitation.
The lodestone of Dubai, of course, is ‘peak oil’ and each time you spend $50 to fill your tank, you are helping to irrigate al-Maktoum’s oasis. Fuel prices are currently inflated by industrial China’s soaring demand as well as growing fears of war and terrorism in the global oil patch. According to the Wall Street Journal, ‘consumers will [have paid] $1.2 trillion more in 2004 and 2005 together for oil products than they did in 2003’. [15] As in the 1970s, a huge and disruptive transfer of wealth is taking place between oil-consuming and oil-producing nations. Already visible on the horizon, moreover, is Hubbert’s Peak, the tipping point when new petroleum reserves will no longer offset global demand, and thereafter oil prices will become truly stratospheric. In some utopian economic model, perhaps, this windfall would become an investment fund for shifting the global economy to renewable energy while reducing greenhouse gas output and raising the environmental efficiency of urban systems. In the real world of capitalism, however, it has become a subsidy for the apocalyptic luxuries that Dubai is coming to epitomize.
Miami of the Persian Gulf
According to his hagiographers, Dubai has arrived at its blessed state thanks largely to the entrepreneurial vision that al-Maktoum inherited from his father, Sheikh Rashid, who ‘committed himself and his resources to turning his emirate into a modern world-class entrepôt where free enterprise flourished’. [16] In fact, Dubai’s irresistible rise, like that of its parent, the United Arab Emirates, owes as much to a sequence of fortuitous geopolitical accidents. Dubai’s chief regional advantage, paradoxically, has been its modest endowment, now rapidly being exhausted, of offshore oil. With a tiny hinterland lacking the geological wealth of Kuwait or Abu Dhabi, Dubai has escaped poverty by a Singaporean strategy of becoming the key commercial, financial and recreational hub of the Gulf. It is a postmodern ‘city of nets’—as Brecht called ‘Mahagonny’—where the super-profits of the international oil trade are intercepted and then reinvested in Arabia’s one truly inexhaustible natural resource: sand. (Indeed, mega-projects in Dubai are typically measured by volumes of sand moved: one billion cubic feet in the case of the ‘island world’.) If the current mega-project blitzkrieg, exemplified by Dubailand, succeeds as planned, Dubai will derive all of its gdp from non-oil activities like tourism and finance by 2010. [17]
The platform for Dubai’s extraordinary ambitions has been its long history as a haven for smugglers, gold dealers and pirates. A late-Victorian treaty gave London control over Dubai’s foreign affairs, keeping the Ottomans and their tax collectors out of the region, but otherwise allowing the al-Maktoum dynasty to exploit their ownership of the only natural deepwater port along 400 miles of what was then known as the ‘Pirates’ Coast’. Pearl fishing and smuggling were the mainstays until oil wealth began to generate increased demand for Dubai’s commercial savvy and port services. Up to 1956, when the first concrete building was constructed, the entire population lived in traditional ‘barastri’ homes made from palm fronds, drawing water from communal wells and tethering their goats in the narrow streets. [18]
After the British withdrawal from East of Suez in 1968, Sheikh Rashid joined with the ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Zayed, to create the United Arab Emirates in 1971, a feudal federation bound together by the common threat of the Marxists in Oman and, later, the Islamists in Iran. Abu Dhabi possessed the greater share of the uae’s oil wealth (almost one-twelfth of the world’s proven hydrocarbon reserves) but Dubai was the more logical port and commercial centre. When the city’s original deep-water ‘creek’ proved too small to handle burgeoning trade, the uae’s leadership used some of their earnings from the first ‘oil shock’ to help Dubai finance construction of the world’s largest man-made port, completed in 1976.
Following Khomeini’s revolution in 1979, it also became the Persian Gulf’s Miami, providing refuge to a large community of Iranian exiles, many of whom specialized in smuggling gold, untaxed cigarettes and liquor to their puritanical homeland, and to India. More recently, Dubai under the tolerant gaze of Tehran has attracted large numbers of wealthy Iranians who use the city—more like Hong Kong than Miami —as a base for trade and bi-national life-styles. They are estimated to control as much as 30 per cent of Dubai’s current real-estate development. [19] Building on such clandestine connections, Dubai in the 1980s and early 1990s became the Gulf’s principal dirty-money laundry as well as a bolthole for some of the region’s most notorious gangsters and terrorists. As the Wall Street Journal recently described the city’s underside:
Its gold and diamond souks, houses of barter and informal cash-transfer storefronts have long formed an opaque business world based on connections and clan allegiances. Black-market operators, arms dealers, terrorist financiers and money launderers have taken advantage of the freewheeling environment, even if the vast bulk of business is legitimate. [20]
In early 2006 the us Congress erupted in a furore over Dubai Port World’s imminent takeover of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which operates docks from New York to Miami. Despite support from the Bush Administration, Dubai was forced to withdraw from the deal after a firestorm of accusations on cable news programmes and radio talk-shows about the supposed dangers of ceding control of American commercial ports to a Middle Eastern government. Much of the controversy was unquestionably fuelled by anti-Arab bigotry pure and simple (us port operations are already largely under management of foreign-owned firms), but Dubai’s ‘terrorist connection’, an outgrowth of its role as the Switzerland of the Gulf, has been well documented.
Indeed, since 9/11 a huge investigative literature has explored Dubai’s role as ‘the financial hub for Islamic militant groups’, especially al-Qaeda and the Taliban: ‘all roads lead to Dubai when it comes to [terrorist] money’, claims a former high-ranking us Treasury official. Bin Laden reportedly transferred large sums through the government-owned Dubai Islamic Bank, while the Taliban used the city’s unregulated gold markets to transform their opium taxes, paid in gold bullion, into laundered dollars. [21] In his best-selling Ghost Wars, Steve Coll claims that after the catastrophic al-Qaeda bombings of the us embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, a cia scheme to target bin Laden with cruise missiles while he was falcon hunting in southern Afghanistan had to be aborted because he was in the company of unnamed Emirati royalty. Coll adds that the cia ‘also suspected that C-130s flying out of Dubai carried weapons to the Taliban’. [22]
In addition, al-Maktoum for almost a decade provided luxurious sanctuary for Bombay’s Al Capone, the legendary gangster Dawood Ibrahim. His presence in the sheikhdom in the late 1980s was hardly low-key. ‘Dubai’, writes Suketu Mehta, ‘suited Dawood; he re-created Bombay in lavish parties, flying in scores of the city’s top film stars and cricketers as guests, and took a film starlet, Mandakini, as his mistress’. [23] In early 1993, according to the Indian government, Dawood, working with Pakistani intelligence officials, used Dubai as a base for organizing the infamous ‘Black Friday’ bombings in Bombay that killed 257 people. [24] Although India immediately requested Dubai to arrest Dawood, he was allowed to flee to Karachi, where he is still sheltered by the Pakistani government; his criminal organization, ‘D-Company’, meanwhile, has reportedly continued to be active in the sheikhdom. [25]
War zone
Dubai now enjoys high marks from Washington as a partner in the War on Terror and, in particular, as a base for spying on Iran; [26] but it is probable that al-Maktoum, like the other Emirati rulers, still keeps a channel open to radical Islamists. If al-Qaeda so desired, for example, it could presumably turn the Burj Al-Arab and Dubai’s other soaring landmarks into so many towering infernos. Yet so far Dubai is one of the few cities in the region to have entirely avoided car-bombings and attacks on Western tourists: eloquent testament, one might suppose, to the city-state’s continuing role as a money laundry and upscale hideout, like Tangiers in the 1940s or Macao in the 1960s. Dubai’s burgeoning black economy is its insurance policy against the car-bombers and airplane hijackers.
In many complex and surprising ways, Dubai actually earns its living from fear. Its huge port complex at Jebel Ali, for example, has profited immeasurably from the trade generated by the us invasion of Iraq, while Terminal Two at the Dubai airport, always crowded with Halliburton employees, private mercenaries and American soldiers en route to Baghdad or Kabul, has been described as ‘the busiest commercial terminal in the world’ for America’s Middle East wars. [27] Post-9/11 developments have also shifted global investment patterns to Dubai’s benefit. Thus after al-Qaeda’s attacks on America, the Muslim oil states, traumatized by the angry Christians in Washington and lawsuits by wtc survivors, no longer considered the United States the safest harbour for their petrodollars. Panicky Saudis alone are estimated to have repatriated at least one-third of their trillion-dollar overseas portfolio. Although nerves are now calmer, Dubai has benefited enormously from the continuing inclination of the oil sheikhs to invest within, rather than outside, the region. As Edward Chancellor has emphasized, ‘unlike the last oil boom of the late 1970s, relatively little of the current Arab oil surplus has been directly invested in us assets or even deposited in the international banking system. This time much of the oil money has remained at home where a classic speculative mania is now being played out.’ [28]
In 2004, the Saudis (500,000 of whom are estimated to visit Dubai at least once a year) were believed to have ploughed at least $7 billion into al-Maktoum’s major properties. Saudis, together with investors from Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Iran and even emulous Qatar, bankroll the hubris of Dubailand (officially developed by Dubai’s billionaire Galadari brothers) and other colossal fantasy projects. [29] Although economists stress the driving role of equity investment in the current Gulf boom, the region is also awash with cheap bank credit thanks to a 60 per cent increase in the local deposit base and the slipstreaming of the us Federal Reserve’s easy money policies (the currencies of the Gulf emirates are all linked to the dollar). [30]
Much of this money, of course, dances to an old tune. ‘A majority of new Dubai properties’, explains Business Week, ‘are being acquired for speculative purposes, with only small deposits put down. They are being flipped in the contemporary Miami manner.’ [31] But what is too often ‘flipped’, some economists predict, may ultimately flop. Will Dubai someday fall from the sky when this real-estate balloon bursts, or will peak oil keep this desert Laputa floating above the contradictions of the world economy? Al-Maktoum remains a mountain of self-confidence: ‘I would like to tell capitalists that Dubai does not need investors; investors need Dubai. And I tell you that the risk lies not in using your money, but in letting it pile up.’ [32]
Dubai’s philosopher-king (one of the huge offshore island projects will actually spell out an epigram of his in Arabic script) [33] is well aware that fear is also the most dynamic component of the oil revenues that turn his sand dunes into malls and skyscrapers. Every time insurgents blow up a pipeline in the Niger Delta, a martyr drives his truck bomb into a Riyadh housing complex, or Washington and Tel Aviv rattle their sabres at Tehran, the price of oil (and thus Dubai’s ultimate income) increases by some increment of anxiety in the all-important futures market. The Gulf economies, in other words, are now capitalized not just on oil production, but also on the fear of its disruption. According to a recent survey of experts by Business Week, ‘the world paid the Persian Gulf oil states an extra $120 billion or so last year because of the premium in prices due to fear of unexpected supply disruptions. Some cynics argue that oil producers welcome the fear of disruption because it boosts their revenues’. ‘Fear’, according to one of the senior energy analysts that the magazine consulted, ‘is a gift to oil producers’. [34]
But it is a gift that the oil rich would rather spend in a tranquil oasis surrounded by very high walls. With its sovereignty ultimately guaranteed by the American nuclear super-carriers usually berthed at Jebel Ali, as well as by whatever secret protocols (negotiated during falcon hunting trips in Afghanistan?) govern the Emiratis’ relationship to Islamic terrorism, Dubai is a paradise of personal security, from the Swiss-style laws governing financial secrecy to the armies of concierges, watchmen and bodyguards who protect its sanctums of luxury. Tourists are customarily ordered away by the security guards if they attempt to sneak a peek at Burj Al-Arab on its private island. Hotel guests, of course, arrive in Rolls Royces.
Milton Friedman’s beach club
Dubai, in other words, is a vast gated community, the ultimate Green Zone. But even more than Singapore or Texas, it is also the apotheosis of the neo-liberal values of contemporary capitalism: a society that might have been designed by the Economics Department of the University of Chicago. Dubai, indeed, has achieved what American reactionaries only dream of—an oasis of free enterprise without income taxes, trade unions or opposition parties (there are no elections). As befits a paradise of consumption, its unofficial national holiday, as well as its global logo, is the celebrated Shopping Festival, a month-long extravaganza sponsored by the city’s 25 malls that begins on 12 January and attracts 4 million upscale shoppers, primarily from the Middle East and South Asia. [35]
Feudal absolutism—the Maktoum dynasty owns the land area of Dubai —meanwhile has been spruced up as the last word in enlightened corporate administration, and the political sphere has been officially collapsed into the managerial. ‘People refer to our crown prince as the chief executive officer of Dubai. It’s because, genuinely, he runs government as a private business for the sake of the private sector, not for the sake of the state’, says Saeed al-Muntafiq, head of the Dubai Development and Investment Authority. Moreover, if the country is a single business, as al-Maktoum maintains, then ‘representative government’ is besides the point: after all, General Electric and Exxon are not democracies and no one—except for raving socialists—expects either to be so.
The state, accordingly, is almost indistinguishable from private enterprise. Dubai’s top managers—all commoners, hired meritocratically—simultaneously hold strategic government portfolios and manage a major Maktoum-controlled real-estate development company. ‘Government’, indeed, is really an equities management team led by three top players who compete with one another to earn the highest returns for al-Maktoum (see Table 2). ‘In such a system’, writes William Wallis, ‘the concept of a conflict of interest is barely recognized’. [36] Because the country has one ultimate landlord, and myriad streams of rent and lease payments all flow to a single beneficiary, Dubai is able to dispense with most of the sales, customs and income taxes essential to governments elsewhere. The minimal tax burden, in turn, leverages the sale or lease of Dubai’s golden sands. Oil-rich Abu Dhabi, meanwhile, subsidizes the residual state functions, including foreign relations and defence, entrusted to the Emirates’ federal administration—itself a condominium of the interests of the ruling sheikhs and their relatives.
In a similar spirit, personal liberty in Dubai derives strictly from the business plan, not from a constitution, much less ‘inalienable rights’. Al-Maktoum and his executives have to arbitrate between lineage-based power and Islamic law, on the one hand, and Western business culture and recreational decadence on the other. Their ingenious solution is a regime of what might be called ‘modular liberties’ based on the rigorous spatial segregation of economic functions and ethnically circumscribed social classes. To understand how this works in practice, it is necessary briefly to survey Dubai’s overall development strategy.
Although tourist development and its excesses generate most of the ‘buzz’ about Dubai, the city-state has extraordinary ambitions to capture as much value-added as possible through a series of specialized free-trade zones and high-tech clusters. ‘One of the ways that this trading town along a creek has reformulated itself into a megalopolis’, writes an abc News commentator, ‘is by throwing in everything and the kitchen sink as incentives for companies to invest in and relocate to Dubai. There are free-trade zones where 100 per cent foreign ownership is allowed, with no individual or corporate taxes or import/export duties whatsoever.’ [37] The original free-trade zone in the port district of Jebel Ali now has several thousand resident trading and industrial firms, and is the major base for American corporations selling to the Saudi and Gulf markets. [38]
Most future growth, however, is expected to be generated within an archipelago of specialized ‘clusters’. The largest of these cities-within-the-city are Internet City, already the Arab world’s principal information technology hub, with local subsidiaries of Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and others; Media City, home to the Al Arabiya satellite network and various international news organizations; and the Dubai International Financial Centre, whose dfix al-Maktoum hopes will grow into the largest stock exchange between Europe and East Asia as foreign investors rush to tap the Gulf’s vast reservoir of oil earnings. In addition to these mega-enclaves, each with tens of thousands of employees, Dubai also hosts or is planning to build a Humanitarian Aid City, as a base for disaster relief; a free-trade zone dedicated to the sale of used cars; a Dubai Metals and Commodities Centre; a ‘Chess City’ headquartering the International Chess Association and designed as a vast chess board with two ‘King’ towers, each 64 storeys high; and a $6 billion Healthcare Village, in collaboration with the Harvard Medical School, that will offer the wealthy classes of the Gulf region state-of-the-art American medical technology. [39]
Other cities in the region, of course, have free-trade zones and high-tech clusters, but only Dubai has allowed each enclave to operate under regulatory and legal bubble-domes tailored to the specific needs of foreign capital and expat professionals. ‘Carving out lucrative niches with their own special rules’, claims the Financial Times, ‘has been at the heart of Dubai’s development strategy’. [40] Thus press censorship (flagrant in the rest of Dubai) is largely suspended inside Media City, while internet access (regulated for content elsewhere) is absolutely unfettered inside Internet City. The uae has permitted Dubai to set up ‘an entirely separate, Western-based commercial system for its financial district that would do business in dollars, and in English’. Although not without ensuing controversy, Dubai even imported British financial regulators and retired judges to bolster confidence that dfix plays by the same rules as Zurich, London and New York. [41] Meanwhile, to promote the sell-off of Palm Jumeirah mansions and the private islands that make up the ‘island world’, al-Maktoum in May 2002 announced a ‘freehold revolution’, unique in the region, that allows foreigners to buy luxury property outright and not just as a 99-year lease. [42]
In addition to these enclaved regimes of greater media and business freedom, Dubai is also famously tolerant of Western vices, with the exception of recreational drugs. In contrast to Saudi Arabia or even Kuwait City, booze flows freely in the city’s hotels and expat bars, and no one looks askance at halter tops or even string bikinis on the beach. Dubai—any of the hipper guidebooks will advise—is also the ‘Bangkok of the Middle East’, with thousands of Russian, Armenian, Indian and Iranian prostitutes controlled by various transnational gangs and mafias. The Russian girls at the bar are the glamorous façade of a sinister sex trade built on kidnapping, slavery and sadistic violence. Al-Maktoum and his thoroughly modern regime, of course, disavow any collusion with this burgeoning red-light industry, although insiders know that the whores are essential to keeping the 5-star hotels full of European and Arab businessmen. [43] When expats extol Dubai’s unique ‘openness’, it is this freedom to carouse and debauch—not to organize unions or publish critical opinions—that they are usually praising.
An indentured, invisible majority
Dubai, together with its emirate neighbors, has achieved the state of the art in the disenfranchisement of labour. In a country that only abolished slavery in 1963, trade unions, most strikes and all agitators are illegal, and 99 per cent of the private-sector workforce are immediately deportable non-citizens. Indeed, the deep thinkers at the American Enterprise and Cato Institutes must salivate when they contemplate the system of classes and entitlements in Dubai.
At the top of the social pyramid, of course, are the al-Maktoums and their cousins who own every lucrative grain of sand in the sheikhdom. Next, the native 15 per cent of the population (many of them originally Arab-speakers from southern Iran) constitutes a leisure class whose uniform of privilege is the traditional white dishdash. Their obedience to the dynasty is rewarded by income transfers, free education, subsidized homes and government jobs. A step below are the pampered mercenaries: more than 100,000 British expatriates (another 100,000 uk citizens own second homes or condos in Dubai), along with other European, Lebanese, Iranian and Indian managers and professionals, who take full advantage of their air-conditioned affluence and two months of overseas leave every summer. The Brits, led by David Beckham (who owns a beach) and Rod Stewart (who owns an island), are probably the biggest cheerleaders for al-Maktoum’s paradise, and many of them luxuriate in a social world that recalls the lost splendour of gin-and-tonics at Raffles and white mischief in Simla’s bungalows. Dubai is expert at catering to colonial nostalgia. [44]
The city-state is also a miniature Raj in a more important and notorious aspect. The great mass of the population are South Asian contract labourers, legally bound to a single employer and subject to totalitarian social controls. Dubai’s luxury lifestyles are attended by vast numbers of Filipina, Sri Lankan and Indian maids, while the building boom (which employs fully one-quarter of the workforce) is carried on the shoulders of an army of poorly paid Pakistanis and Indians, the largest contingent from Kerala, working twelve-hour shifts, six and a half days a week, in the asphalt-melting desert heat.
Dubai, like its neighbours, flouts ilo labour regulations and refuses to adopt the international Migrant Workers Convention. Human Rights Watch in 2003 accused the Emirates of building prosperity on ‘forced labour’. Indeed, as the Independent recently emphasized, ‘the labour market closely resembles the old indentured labour system brought to Dubai by its former colonial master, the British.’ ‘Like their impoverished forefathers’, the London paper continued, ‘today’s Asian workers are forced to sign themselves into virtual slavery for years when they arrive in the United Arab Emirates. Their rights disappear at the airport where recruitment agents confiscate their passports and visas to control them.’ [45]
In addition to being super-exploited, Dubai’s helots—like the proletariat in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis—are also expected to be generally invisible. The local press (the uae ranks a dismal 137th on the global Press Freedom Index) is restrained from reporting on migrant workers, exploitative working conditions, and prostitution. Likewise, ‘Asian labourers are banned from the glitzy shopping malls, new golf courses and smart restaurants.’ [46] Nor are the bleak work camps on the city’s outskirts—where labourers are crowded six, eight, even twelve to a room, often without air-conditioning or functioning toilets—part of the official tourist image of a city of luxury, without poverty or slums. [47] In a recent visit, even the uae Minister of Labour was reported to be shocked by the squalid, almost unbearable conditions in a remote work camp maintained by a large construction contractor. Yet when the labourers attempted to form a union to win back pay and improve living conditions, they were promptly arrested. [48]
Dubai’s police may turn a blind eye to illicit diamond and gold imports, prostitution rings, and shady characters who buy 25 villas at a time in cash, but they are diligent in deporting Pakistani workers who complain about being cheated out of their wages by unscrupulous contractors, or jailing Filipina maids for ‘adultery’ when they report being raped by their employers. [49] To avoid the simmering volcano of Shiite unrest that so worries Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, Dubai and its uae neighbours have favoured a non-Arab workforce drawn from western India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and the Philippines. But as Asian workers have become an increasingly restive majority, the uae has reversed course and adopted a ‘cultural diversity policy’—‘we have been asked not to recruit any more Asians’, explained one contractor—to reinforce control over the workforce by diluting the existing national concentrations with more Arab workers. [50]
Discrimination against Asians, however, has failed to recruit enough Arabs willing to work at the lowly wages ($100 to $150 per month) paid to construction labourers to meet the insatiable demands of the exploding skyline and half-built mega-projects. [51] Indeed the building boom, with its appalling safety record and negligence of workers’ most basic needs, has incubated Dubai’s first labour rebellion. In 2004 alone, Human Rights Watch estimated that as many as 880 construction workers were killed on the job, with most of the fatal accidents unreported by employers or covered up by the government. [52] At the same time, the giant construction companies and their subcontractors have failed to guarantee minimum facilities for sanitation or adequate supplies of potable water at remote desert labour camps. Workers also have been exasperated by longer commutes to worksites, the petty tyranny (often with a racial or religious bias) of their supervisors, the spies and company guards in their camps, the debt-bondage of their labour contracts, and the government’s failure to prosecute fly-by-night contractors who leave Dubai or declare bankruptcy without paying back wages. [53] As one embittered labourer from Kerala told the New York Times, ‘I wish the rich people would realize who is building these towers. I wish they could come and see how sad this life is.’ [54]
The first tremor of unrest came in fall 2004 when several thousand Asian workers courageously marched down the eight-lane Sheikh Zayed Highway toward the Ministry of Labour, only to be met by riot police and officials threatening mass deportations. [55] Smaller demonstrations and strikes, protesting unpaid wages or unsafe working conditions, continued through 2005, drawing inspiration from a large uprising of Bangladeshi workers in Kuwait during the spring. In September, an estimated 7,000 workers demonstrated for three hours, the largest protest in Dubai history. Then, on 22 March 2006, bullying security men ignited a riot at the vast Burj Dubai tower site.
Some 2,500 exhausted workers were waiting after the end of their shift for long overdue buses to take them back to their dormitories in the desert, when the guards began to harass them. The enraged labourers, many of them Indian Muslims, overwhelmed and beat the guards, then attacked the construction headquarters: burning company cars, ransacking offices, destroying computers and smashing files. The following morning, the army of labourers defied police to return to the site, where they refused to work until Dubai-based Al Naboodah Laing O’Rourke raised wages and improved working conditions. Thousands of construction workers at a new airport terminal also joined the wildcat strike. Although some minor concessions along with draconian threats forced most of the labourers back to work at the Burj Dubai and the airport, the underlying grievances continue to fester. In July, hundreds of labourers at the Arabian Ranches project on Emirates Road rioted to protest the chronic shortage of water for cooking and bathing at their camp. Other workers have held clandestine union meetings and reportedly threatened to picket hotels and malls. [56]
The unruly voice of labour echoes louder in the deserts of the uae than it might elsewhere. At the end of the day, Dubai is capitalized just as much on cheap labour as it is on expensive oil, and the Maktoums, like their cousins in the other emirates, are exquisitely aware that they reign over a kingdom built on the backs of a South Asian workforce. So much has been invested in Dubai’s image as an imperturbable paradise of capital that even small disturbances can have exaggerated impacts on investors’ confidence. Dubai Inc. is thus currently considering a variety of responses to worker unrest, ranging from expulsions and mass arrests to some limited franchising of collective bargaining. But any tolerance of protest risks future demands not just for unions, but for citizenship, and thereby threatens the absolutist foundations of Maktoum rule. None of the shareholders in Dubai—whether the American Navy, the Saudi billionaires, or the frolicking expats—want to see the emergence of a Solidarnosc in the desert.
Al-Maktoum, who fancies himself the Gulf’s prophet of modernization, likes to impress visitors with clever proverbs and heavy aphorisms. A favourite: ‘Anyone who does not attempt to change the future will stay a captive of the past’. [57] Yet the future that he is building in Dubai—to the applause of billionaires and transnational corporations everywhere—looks like nothing so much as a nightmare of the past: Speer meets Disney on the shores of Araby.
A version of this essay will appear in Mike Davis and Daniel Monk, eds, Evil Paradises: The Dreamworlds of Neo-Liberalism, to be published by New Press in 2007.
[1] Business Week, 13 March 2006.
[2] ‘Dubai overtakes Las Vegas as world’s hotel capital’, Travel Weekly, 3 May 2005.
[3] ‘Ski in the Desert?’, Observer, 20 November 2005; Hydropolis: Project Description, Dubai, August 2003, www.conway.com.
[4] See the Mena Report 2005, at www.menareport.com.
[5] As a Dubai tourist official once complained to an American journalist about Egypt: ‘They have the pyramids and they do nothing with them. Can you imagine what we’d do with the pyramids?’ Lee Smith, ‘The Road to Tech Mecca’, Wired Magazine, July 2004.
[6] Official Dubailand faqs (from the marketing department). ‘It’s as if a list of all known human pastimes have been collected on PowerPoint slides and then casually voted on by a show of hands.’ Ian Parker, ‘The Mirage’, The New Yorker, 17 October 2005.
[7] Parker, ‘Mirage’.
[8] The Maktoums also own Madame Tussaud’s in London, the Helmsley Building and the Essex House in Manhattan, thousands of apartments in the Sunbelt states, enormous ranches in Kentucky and what the New York Times describes as a ‘significant stake in DaimlerChrysler’. See ‘Royal Family of Dubai Pays $1.1 Billion for 2 Pieces of New York Skyline’, 10 November 2005.
[9] Saudi Arabia’s ‘King Abdullah Economic City’—a projected $30 billion development on the Red Sea—will in fact be a satellite of Dubai, built by Emaar, the giant real-estate company owned by the Maktoum dynasty. See ‘opec Nations Temper the Extravagance’, New York Times, 1 February 2006.
[10] Rowan Moore, ‘Vertigo: the strange new world of the contemporary city’, in Moore, ed., Vertigo, Corte Madera, ca 1999.
[11] ‘Emirate rebrands itself as a global melting pot’, Financial Times, 12 July 2005.
[12] George Katodrytis, ‘Metropolitan Dubai and the Rise of Architectural Fantasy’ Bidoun, no. 4, Spring 2005.
[13] ‘In China, To Get Rich Is Glorious’, Business Week, 6 February 2006.
[14] Baruch Knei-Paz, The Social and Political Thought of Leon Trotsky, Oxford 1978, p. 91.
[15] ‘Oil Producers Gain Global Clout from Big Windfall’, wsj, 4 October 2005.
[16] Joseph Kechichian, ‘Sociopolitical Origins of Emirati Leaders’, in Kechichian, ed., A Century in Thirty Years: Shaykh Zayed and the uae, Washington dc 2000, p. 54.
[17] Jack Lyne, ‘Disney Does the Desert?’, 17 November 2003, online at The Site Selection.
[18] Michael Pacione, ‘City Profile: Dubai’, Cities, vol. 22, no. 3, 2005, pp. 259–60.
[19] ‘Young Iranians Follow Dreams to Dubai’, New York Times, 4 December 2005. There is also a dramatic recent influx of wealthy Iranian-Americans and ‘some Dubai streets are beginning to resemble parts of Los Angeles’.
[20] wsj, 2 March 2006.
[21] Gilbert King, The Most Dangerous Man in the World: Dawood Ibrahim, New York, ny 2004, p. 78; Douglas Farah, ‘Al Qaeda’s Gold: Following Trail to Dubai’, Washington Post, 18 February 2002; and Sean Foley, ‘What Wealth Cannot Buy: uae Security at the Turn of the 21st Century’, in Barry Rubin, ed., Crises in the Contemporary Persian Gulf, London 2002, pp. 51–2.
[22] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, New York 2004, p. 449.
[23] Suketu Mehta, Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found, New York 2004, p. 135.
[24] S. Hussain Zaidi, Black Friday: The True Story of the Bombay Bomb Blasts, Delhi 2002, pp. 25–7 and 41–4.
[25] See ‘Dubai’s Cooperation with the War on Terrorism Called into Question’, Transnational Threats Update, Centre for Strategic and International Studies, February 2003, pp. 2–3; and ‘Bin Laden’s operatives still using freewheeling Dubai’, usa Today, 2 September 2004.
[26] Ira Chernus, ‘Dubai: Home Base for Cold War’, 13 March 2006, Common Dreams News Centre.
[27] Pratap Chatterjee, ‘Ports of Profit: Dubai Does Brisk War Business’, 25 February 2006, Common Dreams News Centre.
[28] Edward Chancellor, ‘Seven Pillars of Folly’, wsj, 8 March 2006; on Saudi repatriations, ame Info, 20 March 2005.
[29] ame Info, 9 June 2005.
[30] Chancellor, ‘Seven Pillars’.
[31] Stanley Reed, ‘The New Middle East Bonanza’, Business Week, 13 March 2006.
[32] Lyne, ‘Disney Does the Desert?’.
[33] Viewed from space, 1060 Water Homes at The Palm, Jebel Ali, will read: ‘Take wisdom from the wise people. Not everyone who rides is a jockey.’
[34] Peter Coy, ‘Oil Pricing’, Business Week, 13 March 2006.
[35] Tarek Atia, ‘Everybody’s a Winner’, Al-Ahram Weekly, 9 February 2005.
[36] William Wallis, ‘Big Business: Intense rivalry among the lieutenants’, Financial Times, 12 July 2005.
[37] Hari Sreenivasan, ‘Dubai: Build It and They Will Come’, abc News, 8 February 2005.
[38] Pacione, ‘City Profile: Dubai’, p. 257.
[39] Smith, ‘The Road to Tech Mecca’; Stanley Reed, ‘A Bourse is Born in Dubai’, Business Week, 3 October 2005; and Roula Khalaf, ‘Stock Exchanges: Chance to tap into a vast pool of capital’, Financial Times, 12 July 2005.
[40] Khalaf, ‘Stock Exchanges’.
[41] William McSheehy, ‘Financial centre: A three-way race for supremacy’, Financial Times, 12 July 2005.
[42] ‘A Short History of Dubai Property’, ame Info, August 2004.
[43] Lonely Planet, Dubai: City Guide, London 2004, p. 9; and William Ridgeway, ‘Dubai, Dubai—The Scandal and the Vice’, Social Affairs Unit, 4 April 2005.
[44] William Wallis, ‘Demographics: Locals swamped by a new breed of resident’, Financial Times, 12 July 2005.
[45] Nick Meo, ‘How Dubai, playground of business men and warlords, is built by Asian wage slaves’, Independent, 1 March 2005.
[46] Meo, ‘How Dubai’.
[47] Lucy Williamson, ‘Migrants’ Woes in Dubai Worker Camps’, bbc News, 10 February 2005.
[48] See account posted on 15 February 2005, at secretdubai.blogspot.com.
[49] On the jailing of rape victims, see Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants, News Digest, September 2003.
[50] Meena Janardhan, ‘Welcome mat shrinking for Asian workers in uae’, Inter Press Service, 2003.
[51] See Ray Jureidini, Migrant Workers and Xenophobia in the Middle East, un Research Institute for Social Development, Identities, Conflict and Cohesion: Programme Paper No. 2, Geneva, December 2003.
[52] ‘uae: Abuse of Migrant Workers’, Human Rights Watch, 30 March 2006.
[53] Anthony Shadid, ‘In uae, Tales of Paradise Lost’, Washington Post, 12 April 2006.
[54] Hassan Fattah, ‘In Dubai, an Outcry from Asians for Workplace Rights’, New York Times, 26 March 2006.
[55] Julia Wheeler, ‘Workers’ safety queried in Dubai’, bbc News, 27 September 2004.
[56] Fattah, ‘In Dubai’; Dan McDougall, ‘Tourists become targets as Dubai’s workers take revolt to the beaches’, Observer, 9 April 2006; and ‘Rioting in Dubai Labour Camp’, Arab News, 4 July 2006.
[57] Quoted in Lyne, ‘Disney Does the Desert?’.

Friday, May 05, 2006

After Neoconservatism

After Neoconservatism
By
FRANCIS FUKUYAMA (NYT) 4646 words Published: February 19, 2006As
We approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems very unlikely thathistory will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly. By invadingIraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replacedAfghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, withplenty of American targets to shoot at. The United States still has a chance of creating aShiite-dominated democratic Iraq, but the new government will be very weak for years to come;the resulting power vacuum will invite outside influence from all of Iraq's neighbors, includingIran. There are clear benefits to the Iraqi people from the removal of Saddam Hussein'sdictatorship, and perhaps some positive spillover effects in Lebanon and Syria. But it is veryhard to see how these developments in themselves justify the blood and treasure that the UnitedStates has spent on the project to this point. The so-called Bush Doctrine that set the framework for the administration's first term is now inshambles. The doctrine (elaborated, among other places, in the 2002 National Security Strategyof the United States) argued that, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, America would have tolaunch periodic preventive wars to defend itself against rouge states and terrorists withweapons of mass destruction; that it would do this alone, if necessary; and that it would workto democratize the greater Middle East as a long-term solution to the terrorist problem. Butsuccessful pre-emption depends on the ability to predict the future accurately and on goodintelligence, which was not forthcoming, while America's perceived unilateralism has isolated itas never before. It is not surprising that in its second term, the administration has beendistancing itself from these policies and is in the process of rewriting the National SecurityStrategy document. But it is the idealistic effort to use American power to promote democracy and human rightsabroad that may suffer the greatest setback. Perceived failure in Iraq has restored theauthority of foreign policy ''realists'' in the tradition of Henry Kissinger. Already there is ahost of books and articles decrying America's naïve Wilsonianism and attacking the notion oftrying to democratize the world. The administration's second-term efforts to push for greaterMiddle Eastern democracy, introduced with the soaring rhetoric of Bush's second InauguralAddress, have borne very problematic fruits. The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood made a strongshowing in Egypt's parliamentary elections in November and December. While the holding ofelections in Iraq this past December was an achievement in itself, the vote led to theascendance of a Shiite bloc with close ties to Iran (following on the election of theconservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran in June). But the clincher was thedecisive Hamas victory in the Palestinian election last month, which brought to power a movementovertly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. In his second inaugural, Bush said that''America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one,'' but the charge will be madewith increasing frequency that the Bush administration made a big mistake when it stirred thepot, and that the United States would have done better to stick by its traditional authoritarianfriends in the Middle East. Indeed, the effort to promote democracy around the world has beenattacked as an illegitimate activity both by people on the left like Jeffrey Sachs and bytraditional conservatives like Pat Buchanan. The reaction against democracy promotion and an activist foreign policy may not end there. Thosewhom Walter Russell Mead labels Jacksonian conservatives -- red-state Americans whose sons anddaughters are fighting and dying in the Middle East -- supported the Iraq war because theybelieved that their children were fighting to defend the United States against nuclearterrorism, not to promote democracy. They don't want to abandon the president in the middle of avicious war, but down the road the perceived failure of the Iraq intervention may push them tofavor a more isolationist foreign policy, which is a more natural political position for them. Arecent Pew poll indicates a swing in public opinion toward isolationism; the percentage ofAmericans saying that the United States ''should mind its own business'' has never been highersince the end of the Vietnam War. More than any other group, it was the neoconservatives both inside and outside the Bushadministration who pushed for democratizing Iraq and the broader Middle East. They are widelycredited (or blamed) for being the decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq, and yet itis their idealistic agenda that in the coming months and years will be the most directlythreatened. Were the United States to retreat from the world stage, following a drawdown inIraq, it would in my view be a huge tragedy, because American power and influence have beencritical to the maintenance of an open and increasingly democratic order around the world. Theproblem with neoconservatism's agenda lies not in its ends, which are as American as apple pie,but rather in the overmilitarized means by which it has sought to accomplish them. What Americanforeign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulationof a ''realistic Wilsonianism'' that better matches means to ends. The Neoconservative Legacy How did the neoconservatives end up overreaching to such an extent that they risk underminingtheir own goals? The Bush administration's first-term foreign policy did not flow ineluctablyfrom the views of earlier generations of people who considered themselves neoconservatives,since those views were themselves complex and subject to differing interpretations. Four commonprinciples or threads ran through much of this thought up through the end of the cold war: aconcern with democracy, human rights and, more generally, the internal politics of states; abelief that American power can be used for moral purposes; a skepticism about the ability ofinternational law and institutions to solve serious security problems; and finally, a view thatambitious social engineering often leads to unexpected consequences and thereby undermines itsown ends. The problem was that two of these principles were in potential collision. The skeptical stancetoward ambitious social engineering -- which in earlier years had been applied mostly todomestic policies like affirmative action, busing and welfare -- suggested a cautious approachtoward remaking the world and an awareness that ambitious initiatives always have unanticipatedconsequences. The belief in the potential moral uses of American power, on the other hand,implied that American activism could reshape the structure of global politics. By the time ofthe Iraq war, the belief in the transformational uses of power had prevailed over the doubtsabout social engineering. In retrospect, things did not have to develop this way. The roots of neoconservatism lie in aremarkable group of largely Jewish intellectuals who attended City College of New York(C.C.N.Y.) in the mid- to late 1930's and early 1940's, a group that included Irving Kristol,Daniel Bell, Irving Howe, Nathan Glazer and, a bit later, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The story ofthis group has been told in a number of places, most notably in a documentary film by JosephDorman called ''Arguing the World.'' The most important inheritance from the C.C.N.Y. group wasan idealistic belief in social progress and the universality of rights, coupled with intenseanti-Communism. It is not an accident that many in the C.C.N.Y. group started out as Trotskyites. Leon Trotskywas, of course, himself a Communist, but his supporters came to understand better than mostpeople the utter cynicism and brutality of the Stalinist regime. The anti-Communist left, incontrast to the traditional American right, sympathized with the social and economic aims ofCommunism, but in the course of the 1930's and 1940's came to realize that ''real existingsocialism'' had become a monstrosity of unintended consequences that completely undermined theidealistic goals it espoused. While not all of the C.C.N.Y. thinkers became neoconservatives,the danger of good intentions carried to extremes was a theme that would underlie the life workof many members of this group. If there was a single overarching theme to the domestic social policy critiques issued by thosewho wrote for the neoconservative journal The Public Interest, founded by Irving Kristol, NathanGlazer and Daniel Bell in 1965, it was the limits of social engineering. Writers like Glazer,Moynihan and, later, Glenn Loury argued that ambitious efforts to seek social justice often leftsocieties worse off than before because they either required massive state intervention thatdisrupted pre-existing social relations (for example, forced busing) or else producedunanticipated consequences (like an increase in single-parent families as a result of welfare).A major theme running through James Q. Wilson's extensive writings on crime was the idea thatyou could not lower crime rates by trying to solve deep underlying problems like poverty andracism; effective policies needed to focus on shorter-term measures that went after symptoms ofsocial distress (like subway graffiti or panhandling) rather than root causes. How, then, did a group with such a pedigree come to decide that the ''root cause'' of terrorismlay in the Middle East's lack of democracy, that the United States had both the wisdom and theability to fix this problem and that democracy would come quickly and painlessly to Iraq?Neoconservatives would not have taken this turn but for the peculiar way that the cold warended. Ronald Reagan was ridiculed by sophisticated people on the American left and in Europe forlabeling the Soviet Union and its allies an ''evil empire'' and for challenging MikhailGorbachev not just to reform his system but also to ''tear down this wall.'' His assistantsecretary of defense for international security policy, Richard Perle, was denounced as the''prince of darkness'' for this uncompromising, hard-line position; his proposal for adouble-zero in the intermediate-range nuclear arms negotiations (that is, the completeelimination of medium-range missiles) was attacked as hopelessly out of touch by thebien-pensant centrist foreign-policy experts at places like the Council on Foreign Relations andthe State Department. That community felt that the Reaganites were dangerously utopian in theirhopes for actually winning, as opposed to managing, the cold war. And yet total victory in the cold war is exactly what happened in 1989-91. Gorbachev acceptednot only the double zero but also deep cuts in conventional forces, and then failed to stop thePolish, Hungarian and East German defections from the empire. Communism collapsed within acouple of years because of its internal moral weaknesses and contradictions, and with regimechange in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact threat to the Westevaporated. The way the cold war ended shaped the thinking of supporters of the Iraq war, including youngerneoconservatives like William Kristol and Robert Kagan, in two ways. First, it seems to havecreated an expectation that all totalitarian regimes were hollow at the core and would crumblewith a small push from outside. The model for this was Romania under the Ceausescus: once thewicked witch was dead, the munchkins would rise up and start singing joyously about theirliberation. As Kristol and Kagan put it in their 2000 book ''Present Dangers'': ''To many theidea of America using its power to promote changes of regime in nations ruled by dictators ringsof utopianism. But in fact, it is eminently realistic. There is something perverse in declaringthe impossibility of promoting democratic change abroad in light of the record of the past threedecades.'' This overoptimism about postwar transitions to democracy helps explain the Bush administration'sincomprehensible failure to plan adequately for the insurgency that subsequently emerged inIraq. The war's supporters seemed to think that democracy was a kind of default condition towhich societies reverted once the heavy lifting of coercive regime change occurred, rather thana long-term process of institution-building and reform. While they now assert that they knew allalong that the democratic transformation of Iraq would be long and hard, they were clearly takenby surprise. According to George Packer's recent book on Iraq, ''The Assassins' Gate,'' thePentagon planned a drawdown of American forces to some 25,000 troops by the end of the summerfollowing the invasion. By the 1990's, neoconservatism had been fed by several other intellectual streams. One came fromthe students of the German Jewish political theorist Leo Strauss, who, contrary to much of thenonsense written about him by people like Anne Norton and Shadia Drury, was a serious reader ofphilosophical texts who did not express opinions on contemporary politics or policy issues.Rather, he was concerned with the ''crisis of modernity'' brought on by the relativism ofNietzsche and Heidegger, as well as the fact that neither the claims of religion nor deeply-heldopinions about the nature of the good life could be banished from politics, as the thinkers ofthe European Enlightenment had hoped. Another stream came from Albert Wohlstetter, a RandCorporation strategist who was the teacher of Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad (the currentAmerican ambassador to Iraq) and Paul Wolfowitz (the former deputy secretary of defense), amongother people. Wohlstetter was intensely concerned with the problem of nuclear proliferation andthe way that the 1968 Nonproliferation Treaty left loopholes, in its support for ''peaceful''nuclear energy, large enough for countries like Iraq and Iran to walk through. I have numerous affiliations with the different strands of the neoconservative movement. I was astudent of Strauss's protégé Allan Bloom, who wrote the bestseller ''The Closing of the AmericanMind''; worked at Rand and with Wohlstetter on Persian Gulf issues; and worked also on twooccasions for Wolfowitz. Many people have also interpreted my book ''The End of History and theLast Man'' (1992) as a neoconservative tract, one that argued in favor of the view that there isa universal hunger for liberty in all people that will inevitably lead them to liberaldemocracy, and that we are living in the midst of an accelerating, transnational movement infavor of that liberal democracy. This is a misreading of the argument. ''The End of History'' isin the end an argument about modernization. What is initially universal is not the desire forliberal democracy but rather the desire to live in a modern -- that is, technologically advancedand prosperous -- society, which, if satisfied, tends to drive demands for politicalparticipation. Liberal democracy is one of the byproducts of this modernization process,something that becomes a universal aspiration only in the course of historical time. ''The End of History,'' in other words, presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existenceof a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy ratherthan communism. In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative positionarticulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed thathistory can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedyin its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States.Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something Ican no longer support. The Failure of Benevolent Hegemony The Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters did not simply underestimate thedifficulty of bringing about congenial political outcomes in places like Iraq; they alsomisunderstood the way the world would react to the use of American power. Of course, the coldwar was replete with instances of what the foreign policy analyst Stephen Sestanovich callsAmerican maximalism, wherein Washington acted first and sought legitimacy and support from itsallies only after the fact. But in the post-cold-war period, the structural situation of worldpolitics changed in ways that made this kind of exercise of power much more problematic in theeyes of even close allies. After the fall of the Soviet Union, various neoconservative authorslike Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and Robert Kagan suggested that the United Stateswould use its margin of power to exert a kind of ''benevolent hegemony'' over the rest of theworld, fixing problems like rogue states with W.M.D., human rights abuses and terrorist threatsas they came up. Writing before the Iraq war, Kristol and Kagan considered whether this posturewould provoke resistance from the rest of the world, and concluded, ''It is precisely becauseAmerican foreign policy is infused with an unusually high degree of morality that other nationsfind they have less to fear from its otherwise daunting power.'' (Italics added.) It is hard to read these lines without irony in the wake of the global reaction to the Iraq war,which succeeded in uniting much of the world in a frenzy of anti-Americanism. The idea that theUnited States is a hegemon more benevolent than most is not an absurd one, but there werewarning signs that things had changed in America's relationship to the world long before thestart of the Iraq war. The structural imbalance in global power had grown enormous. Americasurpassed the rest of the world in every dimension of power by an unprecedented margin, with itsdefense spending nearly equal to that of the rest of the world combined. Already during theClinton years, American economic hegemony had generated enormous hostility to anAmerican-dominated process of globalization, frequently on the part of close democratic allieswho thought the United States was seeking to impose its antistatist social model on them. There were other reasons as well why the world did not accept American benevolent hegemony. Inthe first place, it was premised on American exceptionalism, the idea that America could use itspower in instances where others could not because it was more virtuous than other countries. Thedoctrine of pre-emption against terrorist threats contained in the 2002 National SecurityStrategy was one that could not safely be generalized through the international system; Americawould be the first country to object if Russia, China, India or France declared a similar rightof unilateral action. The United States was seeking to pass judgment on others while beingunwilling to have its own conduct questioned in places like the International Criminal Court. Another problem with benevolent hegemony was domestic. There are sharp limits to the Americanpeople's attention to foreign affairs and willingness to finance projects overseas that do nothave clear benefits to American interests. Sept. 11 changed that calculus in many ways,providing popular support for two wars in the Middle East and large increases in defensespending. But the durability of the support is uncertain: although most Americans want to dowhat is necessary to make the project of rebuilding Iraq succeed, the aftermath of the invasiondid not increase the public appetite for further costly interventions. Americans are not, atheart, an imperial people. Even benevolent hegemons sometimes have to act ruthlessly, and theyneed a staying power that does not come easily to people who are reasonably content with theirown lives and society. Finally, benevolent hegemony presumed that the hegemon was not only well intentioned butcompetent as well. Much of the criticism of the Iraq intervention from Europeans and others wasnot based on a normative case that the United States was not getting authorization from theUnited Nations Security Council, but rather on the belief that it had not made an adequate casefor invading Iraq in the first place and didn't know what it was doing in trying to democratizeIraq. In this, the critics were unfortunately quite prescient. The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States fromradical Islamism. Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed withweapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflatedthis with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem moregenerally. The misjudgment was based in part on the massive failure of the American intelligencecommunity to correctly assess the state of Iraq's W.M.D. programs before the war. But theintelligence community never took nearly as alarmist a view of the terrorist/W.M.D. threat asthe war's supporters did. Overestimation of this threat was then used to justify the elevationof preventive war to the centerpiece of a new security strategy, as well as a whole series ofmeasures that infringed on civil liberties, from detention policy to domestic eavesdropping. What to Do Now that the neoconservative moment appears to have passed, the United States needs toreconceptualize its foreign policy in several fundamental ways. In the first instance, we needto demilitarize what we have been calling the global war on terrorism and shift to other typesof policy instruments. We are fighting hot counterinsurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq andagainst the international jihadist movement, wars in which we need to prevail. But ''war'' isthe wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and haveclear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a ''long, twilightstruggle'' whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts andminds of ordinary Muslims around the world. As recent events in France and Denmark suggest,Europe will be a central battleground in this fight. The United States needs to come up with something better than ''coalitions of the willing'' tolegitimate its dealings with other countries. The world today lacks effective internationalinstitutions that can confer legitimacy on collective action; creating new organizations thatwill better balance the dual requirements of legitimacy and effectiveness will be the primarytask for the coming generation. As a result of more than 200 years of political evolution, wehave a relatively good understanding of how to create institutions that are rulebound,accountable and reasonably effective in the vertical silos we call states. What we do not haveare adequate mechanisms of horizontal accountability among states. The conservative critique of the United Nations is all too cogent: while useful for certainpeacekeeping and nation-building operations, the United Nations lacks both democratic legitimacyand effectiveness in dealing with serious security issues. The solution is not to strengthen asingle global body, but rather to promote what has been emerging in any event, a''multi-multilateral world'' of overlapping and occasionally competing internationalinstitutions that are organized on regional or functional lines. Kosovo in 1999 was a model:when the Russian veto prevented the Security Council from acting, the United States and its NATOallies simply shifted the venue to NATO, where the Russians could not block action. The final area that needs rethinking, and the one that will be the most contested in the comingmonths and years, is the place of democracy promotion in American foreign policy. The worstlegacy that could come from the Iraq war would be an anti-neoconservative backlash that coupleda sharp turn toward isolation with a cynical realist policy aligning the United States withfriendly authoritarians. Good governance, which involves not just democracy but also the rule oflaw and economic development, is critical to a host of outcomes we desire, from alleviatingpoverty to dealing with pandemics to controlling violent conflicts. A Wilsonian policy that paysattention to how rulers treat their citizens is therefore right, but it needs to be informed bya certain realism that was missing from the thinking of the Bush administration in its firstterm and of its neoconservative allies. We need in the first instance to understand that promoting democracy and modernization in theMiddle East is not a solution to the problem of jihadist terrorism; in all likelihood it willmake the short-term problem worse, as we have seen in the case of the Palestinian electionbringing Hamas to power. Radical Islamism is a byproduct of modernization itself, arising fromthe loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a modern, pluralist society. It is noaccident that so many recent terrorists, from Sept. 11's Mohamed Atta to the murderer of theDutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh to the London subway bombers, were radicalized in democraticEurope and intimately familiar with all of democracy's blessings. More democracy will mean morealienation, radicalization and -- yes, unfortunately -- terrorism. But greater political participation by Islamist groups is very likely to occur whatever we do,and it will be the only way that the poison of radical Islamism can ultimately work its waythrough the body politic of Muslim communities around the world. The age is long since gone whenfriendly authoritarians could rule over passive populations and produce stability indefinitely.New social actors are mobilizing everywhere, from Bolivia and Venezuela to South Africa and thePersian Gulf. A durable Israeli-Palestinian peace could not be built upon a corrupt,illegitimate Fatah that constantly had to worry about Hamas challenging its authority. Peacemight emerge, sometime down the road, from a Palestine run by a formerly radical terrorist groupthat had been forced to deal with the realities of governing. If we are serious about the good governance agenda, we have to shift our focus to the reform,reorganization and proper financing of those institutions of the United States government thatactually promote democracy, development and the rule of law around the world, organizations likethe State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment for Democracy and the like. The UnitedStates has played an often decisive role in helping along many recent democratic transitions,including in the Philippines in 1986; South Korea and Taiwan in 1987; Chile in 1988; Poland andHungary in 1989; Serbia in 2000; Georgia in 2003; and Ukraine in 2004-5. But the overarchinglesson that emerges from these cases is that the United States does not get to decide when andwhere democracy comes about. By definition, outsiders can't ''impose'' democracy on a countrythat doesn't want it; demand for democracy and reform must be domestic. Democracy promotion istherefore a long-term and opportunistic process that has to await the gradual ripening ofpolitical and economic conditions to be effective. The Bush administration has been walking -- indeed, sprinting -- away from the legacy of itsfirst term, as evidenced by the cautious multilateral approach it has taken toward the nuclearprograms of Iran and North Korea. Condoleezza Rice gave a serious speech in January about''transformational diplomacy'' and has begun an effort to reorganize the nonmilitary side of theforeign-policy establishment, and the National Security Strategy document is being rewritten.All of these are welcome changes, but the legacy of the Bush first-term foreign policy and itsneoconservative supporters has been so polarizing that it is going to be hard to have a reasoneddebate about how to appropriately balance American ideals and interests in the coming years. Thereaction against a flawed policy can be as damaging as the policy itself, and such a reaction isan indulgence we cannot afford, given the critical moment we have arrived at in global politics. Neoconservatism, whatever its complex roots, has become indelibly associated with concepts likecoercive regime change, unilateralism and American hegemony. What is needed now are new ideas,neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world --ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but withoutits illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about.

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Insulting an Islamic Center

Friday, June 17, 2005
Insulting an Islamic center -and American valuesBurned Qurans are in line with an ugly, intolerant nativism creeping into U.S. discourse.Hate crime or not, the deposit of a bagful of burned Qurans on the steps of the Islamic Center of Blacksburg was an act of profound contempt.
Whoever was responsible obviously was contemptuous of Muslims. But the scorn expressed extends to principles that maintain America's social fabric: tolerance and respect for fellow human beings. Adherence to those ideals has waxed and waned through U.S. history. Foreign wars, economic upheaval and social change have repeatedly sparked nativist hostility and dehumanization of the "other."
Roman Catholics and Jews, Irish and Chinese, Hispanics and Japanese - all have been targets of popular resentment, discrimination and even violence, typically abetted by religious and political demagogues.
Since 9/11, America's unrelieved anxiety over war and terrorism has made Muslims the most prominent "other." Like Roman Catholics before them, their faith supposedly makes all Muslims an inherent threat to freedom. Or perhaps, like the Chinese and Irish, their presumed innate inferiorities disqualify them for respect and tolerance.
Prominent voices on the right keep that message sounding. Religious leaders such as Franklin Graham condemn the Muslim faith outright. Subtly and not so subtly, Cal Thomas, Ann Coulter and others suggest a Muslim in America is a threat to America. (For Thomas, so are illegal Hispanic immigrants, dehumanizingly depicted in a recent column as a disease-bearing horde.)
It is a belief born of fear and ignorance. Divisions within Islam of liberals, moderates, conservatives and fanatics are disregarded, as are widely divergent beliefs among Muslim sects. Peaceful or not, U.S. citizen or not, loyal American or not, all Muslims are the latest "other" - and the enemy.
Law alone cannot preserve a pluralistic society in freedom and peace. It also requires a common willingness to compromise, cooperate and, yes, respect and tolerate each other. The burning of Qurans is an assault on far more than Islam.(C)2005 The Roanoke Times
Friday, June 17, 2005
Insulting an Islamic center -and American valuesBurned Qurans are in line with an ugly, intolerant nativism creeping into U.S. discourse.Hate crime or not, the deposit of a bagful of burned Qurans on the steps of the Islamic Center of Blacksburg was an act of profound contempt.
Whoever was responsible obviously was contemptuous of Muslims. But the scorn expressed extends to principles that maintain America's social fabric: tolerance and respect for fellow human beings. Adherence to those ideals has waxed and waned through U.S. history. Foreign wars, economic upheaval and social change have repeatedly sparked nativist hostility and dehumanization of the "other."
Roman Catholics and Jews, Irish and Chinese, Hispanics and Japanese - all have been targets of popular resentment, discrimination and even violence, typically abetted by religious and political demagogues.
Since 9/11, America's unrelieved anxiety over war and terrorism has made Muslims the most prominent "other." Like Roman Catholics before them, their faith supposedly makes all Muslims an inherent threat to freedom. Or perhaps, like the Chinese and Irish, their presumed innate inferiorities disqualify them for respect and tolerance.
Prominent voices on the right keep that message sounding. Religious leaders such as Franklin Graham condemn the Muslim faith outright. Subtly and not so subtly, Cal Thomas, Ann Coulter and others suggest a Muslim in America is a threat to America. (For Thomas, so are illegal Hispanic immigrants, dehumanizingly depicted in a recent column as a disease-bearing horde.)
It is a belief born of fear and ignorance. Divisions within Islam of liberals, moderates, conservatives and fanatics are disregarded, as are widely divergent beliefs among Muslim sects. Peaceful or not, U.S. citizen or not, loyal American or not, all Muslims are the latest "other" - and the enemy.
Law alone cannot preserve a pluralistic society in freedom and peace. It also requires a common willingness to compromise, cooperate and, yes, respect and tolerate each other. The burning of Qurans is an assault on far more than Islam.(C)2005 The Roanoke Times


Friday, June 17, 2005
Insulting an Islamic center -and American valuesBurned Qurans are in line with an ugly, intolerant nativism creeping into U.S. discourse.Hate crime or not, the deposit of a bagful of burned Qurans on the steps of the Islamic Center of Blacksburg was an act of profound contempt.
Whoever was responsible obviously was contemptuous of Muslims. But the scorn expressed extends to principles that maintain America's social fabric: tolerance and respect for fellow human beings. Adherence to those ideals has waxed and waned through U.S. history. Foreign wars, economic upheaval and social change have repeatedly sparked nativist hostility and dehumanization of the "other."
Roman Catholics and Jews, Irish and Chinese, Hispanics and Japanese - all have been targets of popular resentment, discrimination and even violence, typically abetted by religious and political demagogues.
Since 9/11, America's unrelieved anxiety over war and terrorism has made Muslims the most prominent "other." Like Roman Catholics before them, their faith supposedly makes all Muslims an inherent threat to freedom. Or perhaps, like the Chinese and Irish, their presumed innate inferiorities disqualify them for respect and tolerance.
Prominent voices on the right keep that message sounding. Religious leaders such as Franklin Graham condemn the Muslim faith outright. Subtly and not so subtly, Cal Thomas, Ann Coulter and others suggest a Muslim in America is a threat to America. (For Thomas, so are illegal Hispanic immigrants, dehumanizingly depicted in a recent column as a disease-bearing horde.)
It is a belief born of fear and ignorance. Divisions within Islam of liberals, moderates, conservatives and fanatics are disregarded, as are widely divergent beliefs among Muslim sects. Peaceful or not, U.S. citizen or not, loyal American or not, all Muslims are the latest "other" - and the enemy.
Law alone cannot preserve a pluralistic society in freedom and peace. It also requires a common willingness to compromise, cooperate and, yes, respect and tolerate each other. The burning of Qurans is an assault on far more than Islam.(C)2005 The Roanoke Times
Friday, June 17, 2005
Insulting an Islamic center -and American valuesBurned Qurans are in line with an ugly, intolerant nativism creeping into U.S. discourse.Hate crime or not, the deposit of a bagful of burned Qurans on the steps of the Islamic Center of Blacksburg was an act of profound contempt.
Whoever was responsible obviously was contemptuous of Muslims. But the scorn expressed extends to principles that maintain America's social fabric: tolerance and respect for fellow human beings. Adherence to those ideals has waxed and waned through U.S. history. Foreign wars, economic upheaval and social change have repeatedly sparked nativist hostility and dehumanization of the "other."
Roman Catholics and Jews, Irish and Chinese, Hispanics and Japanese - all have been targets of popular resentment, discrimination and even violence, typically abetted by religious and political demagogues.
Since 9/11, America's unrelieved anxiety over war and terrorism has made Muslims the most prominent "other." Like Roman Catholics before them, their faith supposedly makes all Muslims an inherent threat to freedom. Or perhaps, like the Chinese and Irish, their presumed innate inferiorities disqualify them for respect and tolerance.
Prominent voices on the right keep that message sounding. Religious leaders such as Franklin Graham condemn the Muslim faith outright. Subtly and not so subtly, Cal Thomas, Ann Coulter and others suggest a Muslim in America is a threat to America. (For Thomas, so are illegal Hispanic immigrants, dehumanizingly depicted in a recent column as a disease-bearing horde.)
It is a belief born of fear and ignorance. Divisions within Islam of liberals, moderates, conservatives and fanatics are disregarded, as are widely divergent beliefs among Muslim sects. Peaceful or not, U.S. citizen or not, loyal American or not, all Muslims are the latest "other" - and the enemy.
Law alone cannot preserve a pluralistic society in freedom and peace. It also requires a common willingness to compromise, cooperate and, yes, respect and tolerate each other. The burning of Qurans is an assault on far more than Islam.(C)2005 The Roanoke Times

Friday, April 29, 2005

Security Council Reform

Security Council Reform ! No Seat for a Billion Muslims?

By Dr. Farooq Hassan
April 28, 2005

The Security Council: World War II victors' club?
From 1997 until today, an international debate about enlarging the numerical strength of the Security Council has been in evidence. Demands and proposals by diverse institutions have advocated that the enlargement in both permanent and non-permanent categories be such that the Council grows from 15 to somewhere around 22, or even 24. In this context, an impetus of considerable dynamic was witnessed when then-President Clinton, in his September 22, 1997 address to the General Assembly, expressed strong "support for expanding the Security Council to give more countries a voice in the most important work of the UN."1 But the US President was well aware that before embracing any workable proposal for enlarging the Security Council, many tough questions would have to be answered—which he carefully avoided.
Enlarging the Security Council is very much a practical desirability, but the difficulty lies in a settlement of the necessary details. The Clinton administration had originally suggested expanding the permanent membership to include only Germany and Japan. While this would extend permanent status to two currently highly industrialized former “enemy states,” it would not resolve issues of wider representation. Accordingly, the attention of the concerned countries and institutions turned to the notion of a Council composed of permanent members representing all continents and regions; that is, not just from North America, Europe, and Asia (China), as it presently stands.

The Year of Reform?
The present year is very important to Security Council reform from the perspective of this article, since it is hoped by many that some progress will be made by the time the General Assembly session is convened in the fall of 2005. The raison d’etre of the UN system was grounded in the World War II defeat of the Axis powers and the consolidation of the victors' power. Paradoxical as it may now seem, it is primarily through the efforts of Germany and Japan, World War II's defeated "enemy states," that the major thrust for reforming the UN Charter has emerged.
The designation of 2005 as a critical year for Security Council reform was determined by the Secretary-General when, in a major report to the UN in early 2005, he called for genuine reform to break the hegemony of the victors of World War II in the Security Council, calling for a decision before September for its enlargement.2 An examination of Annan's report began in April 2005, in New York. It was seen as an endorsement of the efforts of Germany, Japan, Brazil, and India for a vote this summer on adding six new permanent seats to the Council (seats that would include the four countries lobbying for the expansion). In his report to the UN General Assembly unveiling his latest reform proposals, Mr. Annan urged a swift decision by the 191-member General Assembly: "Member states should agree to take a decision on this important issue before the summit in September 2005." Mr. Annan hopes to obtain support for his comprehensive reform package, which aims to overhaul collective security in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, at the summit in New York.
With the end of the Cold War, the Security Council became more active, attracting more criticism.
Despite the fact that the Secretary-General's report was couched in diplomatic language and did not explicitly mention the German-led campaign for a vote on Security Council enlargement in the summer, Mr. Annan made it abundantly clear he would support a vote if no consensus could be reached. "It would be very preferable for member states to take this vital decision by consensus, but if they are unable to reach consensus this must not become an excuse for postponing action," he said.
Under the UN Charter the Security Council is imbued with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. At the time of the creation of the UN in 1945, the Security Council had eleven members, including the P5, out of a total membership of 51 states. After a subsequent amendment to the Charter in 1963, the number of non-permanent members was increased from six to ten.
While the 80s remained an inconvenient time for discussing reform, the atmosphere changed dramatically in the nineties. With the end of the Cold War, the Security Council became more active, attracting more attention, and consequently, more criticism. This was witnessed in the controversy that lingers until today about the invasion of Iraq, two years after US President Bush stated that the war had ended.3 Even then, the United States had to resort to the Council for approval of various measures taken after the fall of Saddam.

Impetus for Change
Today, it seems to be universally acknowledged that some kind of reform is both necessary and urgent; consensus on what shape this reform should take is, however, still far from visible. Times have changed; yet the size and composition of the UN Security Council remains unchanged. With UN membership now at 191 countries, the political dynamics of international affairs have grown so complex that an increase in Council size is essentially a substantive requirement of the current era.
Many in the rest of the world view their exclusion from the Council, whose discussions have vitally affected their particular regions and areas, as unfair. Africa, Latin America, and the Muslim world, for example, have no permanent voice on the Council. But since the UN took up the matter of Security Council reform in April 2005, there is a sense that now may not be the best time to push for reform, given the situation in Iraq. Yet, it is precisely because of the Iraq war that the issue of reform has picked up so much steam, since many countries, politically important or otherwise, realized that they have no voice in fundamental problems of war and international peace, given the present structure of the UN.
Even if the timing were better though, analysts predict that significant difficulties will continue to hamper reform efforts. Currently, the resolutions of the 15-member Council carry the weight of international law, or something akin to it. But the resolutions pass only if they manage to avoid a veto from any of the permanent five (P5), and gather at least nine votes in favor. The Council's ten non-permanent seats are presently allotted regionally; three to Africa, two each to Asia, Latin America, and Western Europe, and one to Eastern Europe. The non-permanent members rotate through the Council, each elected to a two-year term.
The Security Council's debates on Iraq in 2003 indicate that a genuine process of reform, one that seeks to fulfill the aspirations of the people of the world, is urgently needed. This was made obvious by the visible cleavages between the views of the various governments, their populations, and the countries not represented in the Council. The global clamor against the war was simply ignored by Council members while making their addresses.4 Except for France and Germany, none of the members dared to espouse a vehemently anti-war position in the Council.
It is universally acknowledged that Security Council reform is both necessary and urgent.
At the doctrinal level, the addresses of many countries in these debates was quite astonishing. First, the purely legal questions as to whether the Council could sanction such a war, having been primarily created to prevent hostilities or threats thereof, was never really examined. Even if the Council could do so, the “threat” to world or regional peace posed by Iraq’s alleged non-compliance with Resolution 1441 was never analyzed. Furthermore, the call for war was taking place despite worldwide demonstrations against war.5 In the UK, where the largest anti-war rally ever witnessed in Western history occurred in February 2003, the British government chose to proceed with seeking authorization for war. Similarly, Pakistan, where the anti-war mood of its 150 million plus population was made apparent by demonstrations, failed to adopt a stand that represented Pakistani public opinion.
Apart from the Iraqi situation, there is the reality of the political quid pro quo that takes place among Security Council members. It was so visible that it made the mission entrusted to the Security Council by the Charter lose meaning. It showed the extent to which transnational politics are governed by real politik, by exigencies and political affiliations, rather than by adherence to principles of law or the institutional requirements of the Charter.
It is the hope of many who support such “reforms’ that the increase in Council membership may result in future debates being more balanced and more inclined towards justice and legality. But with international politics still being influenced by a largely unipolar power structure, it is a moot point as to whether increased membership would make any difference to a powerful country determined to have its way in the Council.

Models and Alternatives
At the Open Ended Working Group on Council Reform (OEWG) in May 2004, set up in 1999, India called for an end to the "unrepresentative and anachronistic" character of the Security Council, and urged that reform efforts be given the “highest priority.” Simply put, India advocated that new Council membership should represent India's rightful democratic credentials in the politics of the contemporary international community. In other words, it was India’s contention that diversity was necessary to ensure the Council would be representative.
This came close on the heels of the Kofi Annan's call for expanding the size of the 15-member Council. The issue of making the Council more democratic is thus an important criterion being assessed for the envisaged enhancement.
Annan wants to overhaul collective security
Several models and alternatives have been debated; some propose expansion only in the non-permanent category; others propose the creation of a third category of members that would have longer terms but no veto power. The most popular models envisage increases in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. Perhaps the most comprehensive of these plans is the so-called Razali Proposal. Under this proposal, there would be an addition of five permanent seats for Germany, Japan, an African state, an Asian state, and a Latin American state, and four non-permanent seats (Asian, Latin American, African, and Eastern European), increasing total membership to 24. While enjoying the widest support, this proposal has not yet mustered the sufficient number of votes required for a UN Charter amendment, i.e. two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent Security Council members.
There are only two articles of the UN Charter that establish criteria for non-permanent membership of the Security Council. First, under Article 18, the election of such members by the General Assembly is classified as an “important question” requiring a mandatory two-thirds vote. Then, under Article 23, two criteria for non-permanent membership are mentioned:
(1) The contribution of members to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the UN; and,
(2) The election of new non-permanent members should be on the basis of equitable geographical distribution.
Since the first of these requirements is entirely subjective and dependent on the political evaluations of the powers that be, it can be safely stated that the only workable criteria is thus the second one, relating to geographical distribution. Usually, the states of the regions from which the new non-permanent member is to be elected decide (de facto if not de jure) the issue among themselves before seeking the formal approval of the General Assembly.6
The various proposals now being discussed raise a host of questions as to which state or states from each region should be given permanent status. For South America, should the representative be Portuguese-speaking Brazil, the largest and most populous nation in the region and one of the top-ten contributors to the UN’s regular budget, or say, Spanish-speaking Argentina? For Africa, should the representative be Nigeria, Africa's most populous state, multiracial South Africa, or Egypt, one of the region's oldest UN member states and a Muslim-majority country? For non-Chinese Asia, should the representative be India, a democracy of over one billion people, or Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim state? Should the current memberships of Great Britain and France be merged into a single European Union seat? Or should a single seat be given to the 60 plus countries described as “Muslim,” with a focus on nuclear-capable Pakistan?

Religious Representation?
One peculiar aspect of the issue of enlargement needs immediate focus. Non-permanent seats in the Council have been given, since the Council's inception, to “geographical regions.” But at the height of the Cold War, a consensus arose that, in the European context, a seat would be allotted to a communist bloc state.7 Thus, although there is no historical basis whatsoever to suggest that Council seats were ever given on a religious basis, in practice, some accommodation was made, during elections to non-permanent seats, for political ideologies considered at variance with the rest, with a view to making the Council's final composition more equitable.8 Therefore, a question can be raised with some justification: If different but important political ideologies can be accommodated in the allocation of Council seats, why can't there be representation based on religious grounds?
In view of the above facts and the established conventions of UN practice in electing non-permanent members of the Security Council, I will now examine this idea from the perspectives of Muslim countries. Can and should a case be made for having a permanent seat allocated for Muslim countries?
Important political ideologies can be accommodated in Council seats; can't there be representation based on religious grounds?
Numerically, the Organization of the Islamic Conference's (OIC) 57 members and three observer countries make it the largest single inter-governmental institution in the world. In addition, there are states like India, which has the largest Muslim population after Indonesia, the most populous Muslim-majority country. But quite apart from the numerical strength of the Muslim states, most recent important political events with very far-reaching consequences and international repercussions have emanated from or are intimately connected with Muslim-majority areas. In the last quarter of a century, the most serious international crises which often led to actual war were associated with Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, and the Middle East. Lesser hostilities were connected with Muslim populations in Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Pakistan, India, and Lebanon.
However, it was the Council's debates on Iraq, with the perennial Palestinian question in the background, that led to widespread disenchantment with the real politik that is the status quo of the UN system. As a result, the call for a permanent seat for a Muslim state in the Security Council has gained nominal momentum.
It is manifestly clear that most of the “problem areas” where the UN Security Council is most likely to intervene have Muslim-majority populations. The genesis of most of these problems is connected with the rights of the peoples of occupied territories, or with the nationalist aspirations of unprivileged sections of the societies in which these Muslim populations live. Yet, proposals for expanding Security Council membership have not, until now, proffered a seat to a Muslim state. While there is considerable talk of “equitable” or “representative” distribution, it is primarily connected with and directed by considerations of geography.
In this context, an OIC Foreign Ministers meeting was held in New York on September 28th, 2004, at the same time the 59th annual session of the General Assembly was convening. Acutely aware that there was no real international interest in supporting a bid for a permanent Muslim seat on the Council, the Final Communiqué of the Annual Coordination Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of OIC Member States said, in paragraph 56:
“The Meeting reiterated the OIC’s stance in support of the principle of the United Nations reform, including the expansion of the Security Council’s membership, in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and taking into consideration the principles of sovereign equality of all States and the need to ensure equitable geographical distribution. It also called for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects so as to make it more democratic, representative, transparent and accountable. The Meeting declared that any reform proposal, which neglects the adequate representation of the Islamic Ummah in any category of members in an expanded Security Council will not be acceptable to the Islamic countries.”
For obvious reasons, this “Islamic stand” has not been forcefully disseminated or followed up on. In September-October 2004, the first major open debate on the issue of Security Council expansion took place in the General Assembly. Regrettably, this point of view was not adequately propounded by Muslim countries. In the more recent April 2005 debates, articulations on this OIC ministerial declaration were conspicuously absent.

"Muslim" Candidates
Taking the above into account, it appears that there are only two Muslim countries that would enjoy any “outside” support for a membership bid. First, Egypt, which has been mentioned primarily on account of its historical association with the UN, its importance as an Arab country, and its location in Africa; and second, Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, whose name has been mentioned by Australia, its southern neighbor. However, based on their addresses in the most recent session of the General Assembly, it is less than clear if these two states are interested in pressing for their candidacy on the basis of their Muslim populations. While Indonesia certainly qualifies on that basis, it is also one of the largest countries in its geographic region, and Jakarta, it seems, has not considered it wise to emphasize the religious angle per se.
Pakistan is the only contender which has lobbied, albeit halfheartedly, for membership based on its Islamic heritage; however, this has been done mostly through indirect semantics and innuendos. Unsurprisingly, it has received little overt help, even from the Muslim states at the UN.
Although Egypt is not a considered a direct contender for a permanent Council seat, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit made a strenuous appeal for the addition of African seats in the Security Council. He pointedly referred to the 1997 Harare Declaration, which demanded that African countries should be granted two permanent and three non-permanent Security Council seats. As such, because of the core role it plays in African and Arab affairs as well as in the Muslim world, Egypt is arguably qualified to undertake the responsibility of permanent Security Council membership.
The Syrian ambassador said the Council’s lack of objectivity and its double standards might well undermine its role and the international legitimacy to which it aspired, stressing that reform of the Council and the expansion of its membership should be part of a comprehensive, integrated project that takes geographical representation and equitable distribution into account. While ambassadors of Muslim states such as Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Kazakhstan, and Bahrain spoke out in these debates, they merely addressed generalities about the need for the Council to be more “representative” and “democratic,” and made no reference to the need for a permanent seat for a Muslim country.
In the latest Pakistani statement to the UN, on April 7th, 2005, Pakistan lamented that the Secretary-General’s report on reform of the Charter "does not fully address the most important and existential threat to peace arising from foreign occupation, denial of self-determination, territorial disputes, interventionist policies and the excessive accumulation of increasingly lethal conventional and non conventional armaments." But significantly, it added: "Nor is the troubled relationship between Islam and the West addressed in the report." The reference to Islam is critical to this analysis, as it indirectly raises the issue of a Muslim seat in the Council.
While Africa and Latin America have made a persuasive case for permanent representation in the new enlarged Council, the 60 plus Muslim states, representing over a billion people, have not. It critical at this important phase of contemporary world history that Muslim countries undertake efforts to that end. If they do not, then they are effectively settling for the continuation of their secondary role in UN affairs for at least another half a century.

**Dr. Farooq Hassan is a specialist in international law, with doctorates from Oxford, Columbia, and Harvard. He is a barrister at law (UK), an attorney at law (US), and a senior advocate Supreme Court (QC) of Pakistan. He is also Professor and Visiting Fellow of the Law School Human Rights Program & Center for International Affairs at Harvard University, and the President of the American Institute of South Asian Strategic Studies, Boston. He was also Pakistan's ambassador to the UN for five years.

[1] This author attended that session of the UN General Assembly and was present during the address.
[2] The General Assembly is currently considering, in different clusters, Secretary-General Kofi Annan's report on UN reform, entitled "In Larger Freedom: Towards development, security and human rights for all."
[3] On April 1st, 2003, President Bush formally announced after militarily occupying Iraq that the “mission had been accomplished."
[4] The Council Members, during the period January to March 2003, in apparent support of the US-UK draft Resolution in the Security Council pursuant to Resolution 1441, but without actually agreeing to vote affirmatively with the sponsors were: Algeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Chile, Brazil, Romania, Angola, and Benin. Only Spain was known to have intended to vote affirmatively; the Russian Federation and China were ambivalent in their articulations, but were likely to vote for the US-UK draft had it come to such a stage.
[5] Many countries asked to speak in these debates (from February 19th, 2003 to March 2003) while not being formally in the Council.
[6] However, there are occasions when such arrangements were not followed, leading to repeated ballots, in which the President of the Assembly can play a critical role. Such abnormal cases are, for instance, in 1955, when 36 ballots were need to elect Yugoslavia over the Philippines, and 1951, when 19 votes were taken to elect Greece over Byelorussia. However, in recent times the “larger groups” in the relevant region decide such candidacy as they deem appropriate.
[7] See International Organizations, D.C. Blisdell, p. 52-53, 1966 Edition. According to the “gentlemen’s agreement” of 1946 in London, the P5 agreed to allow the division of the world into five regions, which would provide the eventual election of non-permanent members in the Council. Under this “agreed formula” there were two seats for Latin America, one each for the British Commonwealth, the Middle East, Western Europe, and one for Eastern Europe. The Soviets maintained that this agreement was for “indefinite duration,” but the US said it was only for that year. See further, Repertory of UN Practice, Vol. II, NY, 1955, p. 8.
[8] It is clear, however, that this “formula” was not technically observed over Soviet objections. However, in practice a tendency of “bloc voting in the General Assembly” became more marked with the admission of many new states as members from Asia and Africa. See generally, The General Assembly of the UN: A Study of Procedure and Practice, NY Frederic Praeger Inc. 1964 Chapter ii.

Friday, April 08, 2005

Following is a long article but worth reading. Whatever the author said about Musharraf and Pakistan is applicable to the whole Muslim world from Morocco to Indonesia.
Prof. Khurshid Ahmad is an economist; he is the founder of Islamic Foundation, Leicester, England, translator of many of Maulana Mawdudi’s books and author of many of his own books. He is the founder and Director of Institute of Policy Studies in Islamabad and editor of Tarjuman Al-Qur’an, Lahore.
_______________________________
Whose Islam?
The ‘Islam’ of Bush &Musharraf Or The Islam of the Holy Prophet!?

Prof. Khurshid Ahmad

The Muslim Ummah is beset today with so many internal and external problems and challenges from all over. Its heart has been torn almost into smithereens by the deadly darts of the strangers as well as of its own near and dear ones. There are, however, three most serious challenges of basic nature that need to be taken into cognizance and a suitable approach and strategy be devised and pursued to squarely face them. The Ummah’s survival, strength and progress would very much depend on this response. The threat is to the Muslims, not Islam as such, whose safety and survival, the Lord, Who revealed this eternal message of human emancipation has Himself guaranteed. If a nation fails to do its job in this regard, He is All-Powerful to raise another in its place for shouldering the responsibility of this trust, as He has done in the past and to which Allama Iqbal has so brilliantly eluded to in a famous couplet:
Don’t you reflect on the episode of the Tartars, Whose marauding hoards tore Muslim lands into tatters? (Yet, the conquerors were conquered by the very faith they fought to destroy)Ka’bah got new sentinels from the Home of Idols!
Iqbal has also made a very succinct observation when he said that the lesson he has learnt from the Islamic history can be summed up by saying that it is Islam that has saved the Muslims not the other way round.
The real issue, therefore, is not that of Islam’s survival — it is the issue of our own survival and success as a nation and an international community. It is the responsibility of all the right- thinking Muslims and those with the vision to correctly realize and assess the enormity of the challenges and threats facing our national and social existence and make the best end endeavors we can to reawaken, reorganize and mobilize the Muslim Ummah so that it may valiantly brave the politico-ideological Tsunamis challenging its survival.
Internal Scene:
The prime challenge to our national existence is due to our own internal situation, affecting all aspects of life, from our individual self to the social environment and politico-economic order. The Muslim individuals as well as the society today are miles apart from even the minimum level of Islamic standards, our tall claims notwithstanding. The image we are offering of Islam to the world is definitely not the image of the Religion of Truth. We do have good examples among us and perhaps it is due to these that we have been granted the opportunity to survive. It is, however, a fact that in spite of all our Prayers, Fasts, Zakat, Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages, our individual and collective life, by and large, remains enchained by the shackles of ignorance, indifference, hypocrisy, selfishness, injustice, self-worship and materialistic pursuits. Most of us are content with personal piety, whose influence does not fashion public conduct. Consequently, our perception about the religion itself has become blurred and confused. We feel no prick of our conscience over the life’s paradoxes and contradictions. Islam itself is the most oppressed entity in a country that was created in its name with the blood-sacrifice of millions of men, women and children. The Islamic injunctions are being openly flouted. The Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is not just being ignored, but flagrantly defied, and we remain unmoved. The situation is such that neither our life, honor and property are safe today, nor even our faith. Those who are supposed to enforce the law are out to openly violate it. Crimes are rampant and there is nobody to come to the help of the oppressed. The poor is getting poorer and the moral degradation has reached to a level that the criminals have the liberty to masquerade around unchecked. Suicides had never been a known phenomenon in the Muslim society, are now rising on an alarming scale, while the affluent classes in authority and power are callously enjoying their recluse. The individual corruption has risen to the scale of social corruption. Those at the helm of affairs are lost in their own world of make-believe. They are not just indifferent towards poverty, squalor and corruption all around them, but are also serving as patrons of all the forms of villainy and unscrupulousness. Its latest and most shameless demonstration was seen on the eve of the recent Basant fanfare in Lahore. In the backdrop of the Tsunami playing havoc in South-East Asia and rains and snowfall causing terrible damage to life and property in our own country, and the 5th of February being nationally observed as the day of solidarity with the oppressed people of Kashmir, it was considered necessary, with the active assistance of the multinational companies and the world media, to celebrate the Basant bonanza the same day, resulting in death of over forty persons, serious injuries to over two hundred, at a cost of over two thousand million rupees in one single day. And this was done under the active support and patronage of the highest in the land, in spite of the fact that the festival, as also the way it is being observed, is of Hindu origin, having nothing in common with the Islamic way of life, which stands for decency, modesty and spiritual rejuvenation. The most serious aspect of this all-pervasive degradation is that our social norms and values are being deliberately tampered with. That which is ugly is being presented as the beautiful, the obnoxious as the most attractive and the deadly as the most delightful. Our national objectives, principles, values and traditions are being sacrificed at the alter of the so-called ‘enlightenment’ and ‘moderation’. This social degradation has become our enemy number one. Unless a brake is applied to the headlong dash to this perfidy and efforts are made to safeguard our moral and ethical values and socio-cultural norms, nothing would save us from disaster, the divine law of the rise and fall of nations and the Sunnatu-Allah, the time tested Tradition of Allah Subhanahu wa Taala.
The Role of Leadership and The Ruling Elite:
Our leadership and the ruling elite are the greatest hurdle in the way of any improvement and reform of the current malaise. This is true about Pakistan in particular and the Muslim Ummah in general. Though the individual members of the Muslim society are accountable as well for this state of affairs, the onus, however, falls ultimately on the shoulders of those ruling the roost. Those at the helm of affairs have failed at all levels to play their due role in this regard. The government and the country’s elite remain the fount-head of corruption and malaise in the society. It is they who are guilty of violating the constitution, subverting all norms, rules and regulations, and disregarding social and moral values and traditions. The conglomerate of Pakistan’s military top brass, moneyed classes, bureaucracy and the so-called liberal and secular political forces top the list of those who are playing havoc with our polity, unity and national existence. It is this class that occupies all the positions of power and authority, which it is using in its narrow personal interests and taking the community towards social and moral corruption, confrontation, injustice and chaos. While all previous leaderships, mostly secular, share the responsibility for this state of affairs, presently it is Gen. Pervez Musharraf and his associates who are playing a key role in making this national catastrophe. During the five and a half years of his rule, the social rot, misuse of power and corruption has surpassed all earlier limits. Ideological confusion, moral anarchy, social injustice, economic oppression and exploitation, political nepotism, selfishness and unscrupulousness have gone to a level where dozens of poor daughters of the community are subjected to rape and even gang-rape and the rulers stand by the side of the powerful culprits. A senior Grade-22 Registrar of the Supreme Court commits serious financial corruption and is not subjected to any punishment, except simple retirement. The Federal Cabinet includes Ministers, who are wanted by the NAB, some even under trial in the superior courts. The Chief Minister of a province expels one of his senior Ministers on the charges of corruption and the dismissed Minister in turn accuses the Chief Minister himself of corruption, while the ruling Party’s leadership counsels both to keep quiet and maintain ‘cease fire’. On top of it all, a retired Major heading a senior position in the NAB itself is caught red-handed and that too while trying to cover up the corruption charges worth billions of rupees of two other retired military officers. Hardly any day passes when there is no case involving a police officer or a government official trying to abuse the law and misappropriate national resources. Unfortunately, nothing eventually happens to anyone of them and they go scot-free. The national army is being used against its own citizens and the distance between the armed forces and the masses is gradually increasing. There is an alarming rise in poverty, inflation and unemployment, but the ruling class is busy increasing its perks and privileges. In the name of national (better-to-say personal) security, fleets of bulletproof Mercedes cars and Land Cruisers are being imported at an enormous cost of billions of rupees, while the corrupt practice of performing Umrah on the national expense is being followed ‘religiously’.
The Myth of Economic Stability:
Those who are never tired of announcing the good news about the rise in Pakistan’s exchange reserves do not apparently feel the pinch of their own conscience towards the common man’s plight. Our common man is deprived of even the basic necessities of life. He is caught in the whirlpool of corruption, dishonesty and indifference that has poisoned all the walks of our national existence. On the one hand, there are tall claims about having broken the begging bowl and on the other the poor nation is being burdened on a large scale by the fresh load of foreign debts. During the last five years alone the new loans obtained by Musharraf Government are around six billion dollars. The State Bank of Pakistan’s latest report plainly states that the country’s foreign debts have crossed the thirty-six billion dollar mark. The World Economic Forum of Davos (Switzerland), at whose annual sessions Gen. Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz blew the trumpet of Pakistan’s economic exploits, in its latest reports, “The Global Competitiveness Report: 2004-05” has drawn a rather dismal picture of Pakistan’s economy. The Forum has been publishing its Global Reports since last five-six years classifying the countries of the world under the following three categories: ‘Growth Competitiveness Index, ‘Technology Index’ and ‘Public Institutions Index’. Its latest Report, in the compilation of which over one hundred research institutions took part and which is based on 160 indicators places Pakistan at No.91 among 104 countries. This means that in spite of all our tall claims, we are at the bottom line of the countries in the competitiveness struggle, ahead just of 14 nations. India occupies the 55th position in this Index, while 11 Muslim countries are ahead of us and only two figures behind Pakistan. In South Asia, Pakistan lags behind India and Sri Lanka. More shameful is the fact that according to the 2003 Report Pakistan was at 73rd position among 101 nations and now in the present Report it has gone down much below. This shows how far the Government is justified in making fantastic claims, which the bare facts do not substantiate. Like our ‘progress’ index, our performance on the anti-corruption front is equally dismal. According to the Corruption Index of the universally acclaimed ‘Transparency International’, Pakistan was placed at No. 92 in a list of 133 countries of the world during 2003. ! It had received 2.5 out of 10 marks. This ‘envious’ position has gone down further during 2004 and the country today stands at No.129 of 145 countries, securing 2.1 out of 10. This is the picture of our performance that Gen. Musharraf is trying to camouflage by describing it as ‘corruption of tactical nature’, while claiming to have eliminated the ‘high level corruption of strategic significance’. As we analyze the factors and causes of the Muslim world’s current malaise, it becomes crystal clear that the real responsibility for this state of affairs lies with the national leaderships both in Pakistan and the world of Islam. They are the root cause. These leaderships place themselves before their nations and pursue their personal interests. They always keep their personal whims over and above the law, the national constitution, the rules and regulations and all ethical and moral values. This leadership is neither from the people, nor is accountable before them. On the contrary, their interests are in fact at variance with those of their peoples. The current ruling coterie in Pakistan is actually a political conglomerate of the military leadership, civil bureaucracy, economic elites and the political groups whose sole concern is to cling to power at all cost. The second biggest challenge to our national existence is this very leadership.
The US and Its World Politics:
The third major challenge facing Pakistan and the Muslim Ummah is the present US leadership and its role in world politics. Islam, the Muslim world and Pakistan are the principal targets of its aggressive designs. During the first four years of his tenure as the US President, George W. Bush succeeded in devising a strategy and detailed war plans for consolidating the US domination and rendering ineffective every possible power that could challenge the American supremacy, or its surrogate in the Middle East: Israel. Now, at the outset of his second term, he has presented his grandiose plan, after lot of fine-tuning, in his very first ‘State of the Nation’ address to the US Congress. During his twenty-minute inauguration speech he used the words ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ forty two times and reaffirmed his resolve to impose his concept of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ all over the world. In his address, President Bush described ‘freedom’ as ‘a fire in the mind of man’ and added: “His mission was to bring the war of freedom to the darkest corners of the world”. This is actually not a movement for freedom but a bloody game to push the world in the name of freedom to the raging fire of war.
Tristram Hunt in his recent article in the Guardian of London has quoted the following remarks of a Senior Bush Advisor, reported by the US journalist Ron Suskind:“ We are an empire now and when we act we create our own reality. As you are studying that reality we will act again, creating other new realities. We are history’s actors….. And you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” (The Guardian of London, reproduced in the Nation, Lahore, February 18, 2005).
The arrogance and audacity, now the hallmark of the US foreign policy posture, have removed the mask from the real face of the neo-colonial order being imposed on the Muslim World in the name of freedom and democracy. Colin Powell had demonstrated the same arrogance much before 9/11, when he rebuffed the then Ambassador of Pakistan to US Sayyida Abida Hussain, as she tried to defend Pakistan’s right to nuclear deterrence. To her remarks that Pakistan had just one or two ‘footballs’, while America had thousands of bombs in its arsenal, the then Chief of US Central Command, Gen. Colin Powell had curtly replied “ Madame! We are America”.
It is a fact that the ‘Champion of Liberty’ America is out to give command, which our rulers are there to merely re-echo. The sermons being dished out to us about ‘Enlightened Moderation’ are nothing but an attempt to make our contours more appealing to the US in pursuance of the dictates of its new world order. From the US Vice President Dick Cheney, the new Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and the 9/11 Commission’s Report, to the reports of a dozen US think-tanks, the CIA think-tank ‘National Intelligence Council’ and the US Congress Research Service, have declared in unison that America would have to brain-wash the Muslims, and fight what they regard as Islamic extremism, fundamentalism and the Islamic infrastructure that produces the spirit of Jihad in the Muslim world, something the US regards as its biggest threat. They have gone to the extent of pronouncing that the real threat to US and its new world order was not from terrorism, nor even from the Islamic terrorism, which they view as mere symptoms. To them, the real source of this threat is Islam itself and its concept of Jihad that gives rise to what they describe as ‘Political Islam’. The Political Islam, they believe, targets Secularism and aims at rebuilding the state and its social order according to Islam as a way of life.
The essence of all that has come from the US policy-makers and institutions by way of reviews and analysis is that the hatred found in the Muslim world against America originates from Islam and its revolutionary approach to life that rejects the duality of the state and religion and aims at establishing the state and society on moral and spiritual values of Islam, ensuring their unity and harmony. President Bush had astounded the Muslim world when he spoke of ‘Crusade’ immediately after the 9/11 tragedy. To make amends, he went then to Washington’s Islamic Center, where he advanced the idea of ‘Moderate Islam’. All important reports that have since been emanating from the US intellectuals and institutions have made it a point to drive a wedge between the ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ Islam. Efforts are also being made discretely to promote secularism in the Muslim world. The 9/11 Commission was a high-powered US body. It declared President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s notion of “Enlightened Moderation” as the most important concept in the US interest. At page 369 of the Commission’s Report, it recommended the following, which has been described as the US state policy by the Fact Sheet issued from the White House on July 30, 2004:“If in his war of survival for himself and for Pakistan Pervez Musharraf remains firm on his policy of enlightened moderation, America would have to be then ready for difficult decisions. It would have to establish long-term relationship in the context of its strategy for Pakistan’s future. In addition to continuing its current assistance, the U.S. would have to increase its support to Pakistan in its war against extremism. This support should be in a comprehensive form, taking into its ambit the areas from the military assistance to the provision of resources for a better education. And this cooperation should continue till such time the Pakistani leadership remains committed to difficult decisions”. (USIS journal ‘Khabar-o-Nazar’, August 2004, Vol: II). The 9/11 Commission Report has the following recommendation for the “The US and Our Muslim Friends” in the Islamic world: “The US and its friends enjoy a significant position and we can give them a perception that can improve the future of the younger generation. If we pay attention to the views of the leaders of public opinion in the Arab and the Muslim world, a consensus, based on moderation, can be arrived at.”(9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 12, Page 276).
On September 2004, President Bush in his address at the UN General Assembly, said:
“Since the last few decades, the world has been witnessing an expansion in the sphere of liberty, peace, security and progress. We have got the historic opportunity now to further expand this sphere so that the menace of fundamentalism and terrorism can be countered justly and with dignity and honor”.
He added:
“ We will have to help the reformists in the Middle East, as they are striving to build a liberal and peaceful democratic civil society.” (USIS journal ‘Khabar-o-Nazar’, October 2004, Vol.I).
On June 22, 2004, the US Deputy Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Christina Rocca, in her statement before the Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives, said:
“Assistance should continue to Pakistan for making it a modern and moderate Islamic Republic. … The objective of all our policies and programs for Pakistan is that it should be helped to emerge as a moderate and progressive country. We are supporting the country through our programs of cooperation in the field of security, promotion of democracy, progress and prosperity. These are the programs, which help in countering extremism and instability. … We are lending considerable support to Pakistan Government’s efforts for educational reforms. It includes reforms in Madaris. … Our programs would also help in reforming the political parties. We are paying special attention to the teachers and the leaders of the civil society, the media, the youth and the Pakistani middle class, who are likely to pose threat to the democratic values”. (USIS journal ‘Khabar-o-Nazar’, July 2004, Vol:1).
Islam: The Main Target:
The sermon that is being given to the Pakistani nation since last two years on “Enlightened Moderation” has thus its origin in the reviews and reform prescriptions of President Bush, his Administration and the US think-tanks. Its sole target is Islam’s philosophy of life, its dictum of the unity of state and religion, the concept of Jihad, the Muslim’s duty of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and the Islamic social order. Prof. Dr. M. Shahid Alam of the North Eastern University of America in his book, appearing this month, “Is There an Islamic Problem?”, has very candidly and courageously exposed the US designs with full documentation. In his recent article Dr. Alam explains the real objectives before the US leadership as follows:
“The American and Israeli designs on the Islamic world — so it appears to a growing number of Muslims — are even greater than they were before 9/11 when they preferred to dominate the Islamic world through surrogates. Their new designs go further; they are now demanding that the Islamic world — and Islam itself — reform itself on American terms”.(‘America’s New Civilizing Mission’, The Dawn, Feb.12/5).
That Islam is the real target can very well be reaffirmed by the fact that the US is keen not just for a change in Deeni Madaris curricula, it is demanding also to secularize the country’s entire educational system. The so called education reforms were initiated by Gen. Pervez Musharraf in 2002. The process was accordingly set in motion to change the country’s academic curricula. The registration of Deeni Madaris and the Agha Khan University Examination Board Ordinance – 2002, are thus part of the same US game plan. The US government documents, recently de-classified and made public under the Freedom of Information Act, include a Policy Paper of 2002, “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from Jehadist Networks of Al-Qaida: Status and Prospects”. The Paper claims that the policy the US Administration is pursuing in Pakistan is in furtherance of the same strategy, which seeks “to build up a secular educational system that ends rural Pakistan’s exclusive reliance on the fundamentalist madrasas”.
Educational ‘Reforms’:
The US Administration is extending support to Pakistan for this purpose under eight different heads, which include change of curricula, teachers’ training, transfer of teachers and students, stipends and scholarships. In spite of the full cooperation from Gen. Pervez Musharraf and the Ministers of Education at the center and in the Provinces, the USA is not ready to completely rely on them. The US Congress has now, therefore, formally introduced a Bill (HR 4818), according to which the 100 million dollars aid being extended by the USA for ‘reforms’ in education sector, would be subject to use by Pakistan for the implementation of the educational reforms of January 2002. Within 90 days following the Congress approval of the Bill, the Secretary of the State will have to inform the House of Representatives that the US assistance has been used actually for the purpose for which it was sanctioned. Those ‘Reforms’ have been defined in the Bill as follows:
“The term ‘education’ reform includes efforts to expand and improve secular education system in Pakistan and to develop and utilize a moderate curriculum for private religious schools in Pakistan”. (The News, Oct. 16, 2004).
The former US Ambassador to Pakistan Ms. Nancy Powell had played a key role in this regard. On 13 August 2003, the US AID entered into an agreement for the implementation of the Agha Khan University Examination Board Ordinance. According to press reports, 44 million dollars were promised in aid for the purpose. It may be of interest to add that the agreement was signed by the US Ambassador Ms. Nancy Powell and the Agha Khan University representative Shams Lakha, but the chief witness of the occasion was Pakistan’s Minister for Education then, Mohtarama Zubaida Jalal. It was then reaffirmed by the US Ambassador that the aid would continue for the Agha Khan Board till such time it stands on its feet. It may further be of interest to recall that immediately following the occupation of Iraq, the US had introduced on April 10, 2004, its pre-arranged text books in the Iraqi Schools. These books were prepared in June 2002, a year before the US aggression on Iraq.
President Bush in his television interview stated in unequivocal terms that a change is being introduced on his advice in the Pakistani curricula with the US assistance. This writer raised a Point of Order in this regard in the Senate of Pakistan, in response to which the Education Minister had stated that it was “mere propaganda and nobody can dictate us”. The fact is, however, as evident as the broad-day light that every step being taken by the present government, whether in the name of ‘Enlightened Moderation’, ‘War on Terror’, ‘Opposition to Fundamentalism’, or ‘Campaign against Extremism’, is being done at the US’ behest. This is exactly the pattern followed in the historic ‘U’-turn on the Afghan Policy just on a single telephone call of September 13 from Colin Powell. That is how the country’s military leadership has all along done willingly and meekly on the dictates of the US military leadership.
It is unfortunate that each and every front from where Gen. Pervez Musharraf has retreated in the wake of 9/11 has been of immense importance to the country and the nation. He has thus been guilty of apathy or rather betrayal of Afghanistan, distancing from the world of Islam, doggedly serving as a tool in the hands of the US Imperialism and providing his own shoulders for its war machine, abject surrender of Pakistan’s principled stand on Kashmir, betrayal of the Kashmiri Jihad on the Indo-US pressure, surrender on the nuclear front, the ignominious action denigrating the national hero and benefactor Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan and the blind pursuit of the US policies on education, media and even the training of our Parliamentarians. All of these are the most important fields, vital for the defense of Pakistan’s political, economic, strategic and cultural frontiers. The credit for this most ugly ‘U’-turn in our policy posture goes to the carrot and stick approach of the former US Secretary of State Colin Powell and his now successor Condoleeza Rice.
Misplaced Criticism of Islam:
The most serious about-face did by Gen. Pervez Musharraf has been the one over Islam and Pakistan’s ideology. He is using the deceptive term of ‘Enlightened Moderation’ for this pitiable posture. But the language used to define this term, its concept, aims and objectives, is the same as the one used by George Bush and the Members of his Administration. Sometimes, the General is apprehensive of ‘extremism’ and ‘fundamentalism’, at times he is hard against terrorism, and sometimes he is all for modernism, modernity and moderation. In his play of words, he often uses the strongest metaphors in his diction against the ‘Mulla’ and expresses his resentment against beard and the symbol of Islamic modesty for women, the ‘Hijab’. He gathers his spirit then to advocate ‘Secularism’ for Pakistan, which, he believes, has nothing contradictory to Islam and attributes this notion to the Mulla’s conspiracy, from which he would like Islam to be liberated. He is not only active himself on this borrowed agenda but would like the entire OIC to tow the same line. It would be pertinent, therefore to have a deeper look into the General’s pronouncements in order to have a clearer image of his version of the ‘Mulla’s Islam’ and the ‘Islam’ of Bush and Musharraf.
On 24 September 2003, in his address to the UN General Assembly, General Musharraf said:
“Our faith is dynamic, promoting constant renewal and adaptation, through the process of Ijtihad (or interpretation through consultation). Islam’s vision is not trapped in any one period of history; it is modern and futuristic: Islam must not be confused with the narrow vision of a few extremists”.
The General ought to ponder over what he has said knowingly or unknowingly (most likely unknowingly) in this statement, as it is tantamount to striking at the very root and source of the teachings of Islam. The golden era of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the Khulafa Al-Rashideen remains the best example, the criterion, the canon and the role model for the Muslim Ummah. By saying, “trapped in any one period of history”, he has made a sweeping remark against this period as well. Islam is undoubtedly modern and also futuristic, but the era of the Holy Prophet and his Glorious Caliphs is for the Muslims, the world over, according to the very dictates of their Faith, the original source of reference. The Tradition of the Holy Prophet and that of the Four Caliphs remain Islam’s foremost, irreversible and permanent source that cannot be set aside on any pretext.
General Musharraf’s address of January 2004, “OIC – Challenges and Response”, was couched in the diction being doggedly used by George Bush and the critics of Islam in the Western media: linking Islam to Fundamentalism, Fundamentalism to Extremism and Extremism to Terrorism.
Instead of taking each of these one by one and scientifically analyzing its pros and cons, he rejects all of them in one breath and toeing the line followed by Bush and Condoleeza Rice tries to promote his own version of Islam in the garb of “Enlightened Moderation”.
The Sermon of Modernism- Secularism:
In his attempt to make the Western agenda of secularizing Islam plausible for the people of Pakistan, the General proceeds to declare that there was no contradiction between Islam and Secularism. He says:
“ What we need is a renaissance … We have to adopt the path of moderation, a conciliatory approach, a pacific approach, in order to cleanse ourselves of the charge that Islam is a religion of militancy and is averse to modernization, democracy and secularism”.
He leaves no room for his well wishers to interpret his reference to secularism as intended just to satisfy the Western critics. To the West, the word ‘Renaissance’ has a definite connotation of a politico-cultural revolution that seeks to find out, in place of Revelation and the religious values, alternate moorings for the society’s growth on the basis of rationalism and physical sciences and a rebellion against God, Religion, and Tradition. In a signed article in his name published in the Washington Post (which the Pakistani newspapers reproduced faithfully), the General says:
“ I say to my brother Muslims: The time for renaissance has come. The way forward is through enlightenment. We must concentrate on human resource, education, health care, and social justice. If this is our direction, it cannot be achieved through! confrontation. We must adopt a part of moderation and conciliatory approach to fight the common belief that Islam is a religion of militancy in conflict with modernization, democracy and secularism.” (Washington Post, June 1, 2004).
Continuing in the same vein, he took upon himself to explain the West’s position vis-à-vis Islam in his address at the World Economic Forum Seminar of Davos (23 January, 2005):
“What is the West’s perception of Muslims and Islam? First of all, the perception that Islam is a religion of extremism, terrorism, fundamentalism and extremism. Secondly, that Islam is in conflict with democracy, modernism and secularism. And thirdly, that Muslims refuse to assimilate with the global family”.
He then proceeded to dispel the notion that Islam was opposed to democracy, secularism and modernism. As far democracy, he was more or less correct — though he obviously missed to look at his own paradoxical position of having put on the Presidential cloak as well as the Army Chief’s uniform at the same time, which went against all the canons of democracy. Regarding modernism and secularism, he dilated thus:
“When we are talking of modernism, Islam believes in continuous process of reviewing thought, in accordance with time and environment. Therefore, Islam is modern; it remains current, it can never be anchored in the past. And thirdly, as far as secularism is concerned Islam believes in equal rights of minorities. So without going into details, when a country like Pakistan is known as Islamic Republic of Pakistan it inherently implies that we ought to be democratic, we are to be secular and we are to be modern in concept”.
What one can say about these ‘pearls of wisdom’? The way the General has defined modernism and secularism is nothing but paradoxical. In his paranoia, he thinks Muslims as being misfit into the global family, and tries to raise his sword against those whom he views as bigoted Muslims. He says that there are some misguided people who cannot go hand in hand with him; they acquire neither modern education, nor learn English language or enjoy music —— “These are a handful of people. Don’t bother about them”, he tells his patrons in the West.
The Truth about Secularism:
Who can bring home this fact to General Pervaiz Musharraf that just as ‘Renaissance’ has a special historic perspective for Europe, ‘Enlightenment’ too is a well-known term in its civilizational and ideological history! According to the West, ‘Enlightenment’ aims at finding out solutions to all their issues on rational grounds and not in the light of the Revealed Text! To them, the Day of Reckoning and the spiritual side of life have no relevance and the arena of all their activities is entirely this material world. ‘Secularism’ is the third essential part of the trinity, of which ‘Renaissance’ and ‘Enlightenment’ are the other two. Secularism, in its very concept, is opposed to the philosophy of life that calls for reorganizing the affairs of this world on the basis of the knowledge and values acquired through the Religion of Truth and the Revelation. To claim that Secularism stands for religious tolerance and better treatment of the minorities is something that betrays ignorance about the political science and world history.
“An Encyclopedia of Religions”, compiled by Vergilius Ferm and printed by The Philosophical Library of New York, defines ‘Enlightenment’ as follows:
“The Enlightenment: The name of the movement which characterizes the general atmosphere of the 18th century. Its origin is to be sought in the mental climate of age and spiritual emancipation of man in Renaissance era, which, with its materialistic and individualistic tendencies evoke in the minds of people a proud consciousness of the autonomy of reason. As a historic phenomenon, the Enlightenment movement represents the effort of applying the role of reason to actual life”.
Regarding ‘Renaissance’, the same Encyclopedia of Religions has the following to say:“ A venue of intellectual and aesthetic awakening and of secular culture which may be thought of as originating in Italy in the 14th century. …. Whether for better or for worse, the Renaissance certainly had the character of a revolution. Its key note was a secular humanism implying recognition of human and mundane values as having validity unconditioned by theological condition or ecclesiastical approval.” (P. 655-656).
This Encyclopedia explains the meaning of ‘Secularism’ as follows:
“Secularism: Specifically a variety of utilitarian social ethic (named and formulated by G.J.Holyoak , 1817-1906), which seeks human improvement without reference to religion and exclusively by means of human reason, science and social organization.” (P.700).As ‘Secularism’ has the pivotal position in all these terminologies, it may be of interest to quote some more references here in order to determine its real import. Victor Lidz, a Professor of Haverford College of Pennsylvania (USA), in his article in The Social Sciences Encyclopedia, says: “Secularization refers to a displacement of religious beliefs, rituals and sense of community from the moral life of society. Everyday experience in ‘secularized’ society tends to be carried on without routine invocation of the sacred. …. It was however, the philosophy of Enlightenment that provided the pivotal impetus towards thought giving secularization. They propose that society should be founded on moral principles devised by rational enquiries into the universal nature of human social life”.
Charles D. Smith in his article on ‘Secularism’ in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Modern Islamic World (Vol IV), explains the meaning of ‘Secularism’ thus:
“The term secularism signifies that which is not religious. It is rooted in the Latin word saeculum, which initially meant ‘age’ or ‘generation’ in the sense of temporal time. It later became associated with matters of this world, as distinct from those of the spirit directed towards attainment of paradise. … Secularism or secularization process derives from the European historical experience. It meant a gradual separation of almost all aspects of life and thought from religious association and ecclesiastical direction.” (P.20)
Islam Versus Secularism:
It is evident from the above explanatory notes and historical evidences that Islam and Secularism are diametrically opposed to each other. We would like to make it clear that as for the mundane world and issues like human rights, freedom, justice, education, health care, economic progress and the social well-being, these are not only the most desirable aspects according to Islam, but are also an integral part of! the Islamic social order. Similarly, tolerance for the opposition, go od will for the peoples of other faiths, complete safeguard to the rights of the minorities and co-existence with the different cultures and schools of thought, are the essential features of the Islamic polity. The difference between Islam and Secularism is, however, of a fundamental and substantive nature. Islam subordinates everything to the supreme authority of the Divine Revelation, while giving reason its due place. It links the attainment of good in this world with the attainment of good in the Hereafter. There is no place in Islam for living in isolation from the society like a hermit. It wants to reshape and reorganize the entire human life in the light of the revealed guidance on the foundations of truth and justice. Islam thus rejects the philosophy of life that is concerned with the material well-being of this world only and draws its sustenance from reason alone; Islam substitutes this with an all-embracing vision that seeks to rebuild the mundane world and seeks its progress in such a way as to ensure the human being’s ultimate success in the life Hereafter. The injunctions from Allah Subhanahu wa Taala and His Holy Prophet (PBUH) serve as the beacon to guide the humanity towards its ultimate goal of success in both the worlds. This is a vision that is totally at variance with the concept of secularism and, there is no room, therefore, for a patch-work with Islam of the secular ideology which was the product of ‘Renaissance’ and ‘Enlightenment’ in the West and which led to so many conflicts, exploitations, social upheavals and intellectual anarchy in the world.
The Islam of the Holy Prophet:
Islam does not believe in the compartmentalization of life into the spiritual and the temporal. It demands the Believers to enter into the fold of Islam as a unified whole:
“O ye who believe! Enter into Islam wholeheartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the Evil One; for he is to you an avowed enemy.” (S.II! Al-Baqarah, 208).
According to Islam, to look exclusively for the worldly gains and to seek the bliss of both the Worlds are two distinct philosophies of life, having different objectives, temperaments and consequences. Secularism aims exclusively at the worldly gains, while Islam stands for success in this world and salvation in the Hereafter. The Holy Qur’an has succinctly explained the difference between these two distinct philosophies of life as follows:
“There are men who say: ‘Our Lord! Give us (Thy bounties) in this world!’ But they will have no portion in the Hereafter. And there are men who say: ‘Our Lord! Give us good in this World and good in the Hereafter; and defend us from the torment of the Fire!’ To these will be allotted what they have earned; And God is quick in account.” (S.II: Al-Baqarah, 200-202).
Islam in fact means the Way of Life that seeks to bring the human life as a whole under the orbit of total submission to Allah. This is the course He has been pleased to approve for mankind! :
“The Religion before God is Islam (submission to His Will)”. (S.III: Al-i-Imran, 19). And “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).” (S.III: Al-i-Imran, 85).
According to Islam, the Sole Arbiter and Legislator for all the matters concerning human life are Allah Subhanahu wa Taala and His Holy Prophet (PBUH). They are the ultimate Criterion and the Judge to decide in anything concerning the Muslim society, it may relate to the religious tenets, the social interaction, the family relationships, the economic issues, the politics, the judiciary, the domestic matters, or the international relations. God and His Apostle alone have the authority to decide in matters concerning the Halal and Haram (the Permissible and the Forbidden) in all spheres of human life. Iman, or Faith means to surrender and give back this option about ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ to the Lord. He who does not comprehend this point, has no real understanding of Islam.
The Holy Prophet (PBUH) has said: “A Believer is he, who subordinates his personal whims and desires to the Guidance revealed unto me.”
When one does that, his life mirrors the following verse of the Holy Quran:
“Say: ‘ Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death are (all) for God, the Cherisher of the Worlds: No partner hath He: This am I commanded, and I am the first of those who bow to His Will’.” (S.VI: Al-Anam,163-164).
The purpose of this Religion, is on the one hand, to worship the Lord and seek His Pleasure in respect of everything and on the other to establish the order of justice and equity among the people and enrich the human life with goodness and virtue as desired by Him:
“ We sent aforetime Our apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them The Book and the Balance (of Right and Wrong), that men may stand forth in justice”! .(S.LVII: Al-Hadid, 25).
The qualities of Iman (Faith) and Taqwa (Love and Fear of God) are responsible not only for the spiritual growth and proximity with the Lord, but also for the wellbeing of this material world. Allah Subhanahu wa Taala says:“If the people of the towns had but believed and feared God, We should indeed have opened out to them (all kinds of) blessings from heaven and earth”. (S.VII: Al-A’raf, 96).
Islam harnesses the world and its entire potentials for the benefit of the mankind. This is what is meant by the ‘Vicegerancy of man’. The Holy Prophet (PBUH), says that a Muslim is like the horse tied to the peg with a rope, with the result that the parameters of his freedom are determined by the length of the rope with which he has been tied. This means that human beings are definitely free but their freedom is subject to the bounds determined for him by Allah Subhanahu wa Taala and His Holy Prophet (PBUH). This is the difference between the Believer and the Unbeliever. Islam is neither the religion of the Mullah; nor can it be subordinated to the wishes of any Bush or Mush. It is the Eternal and Universal Guidance, revealed by the Lord through His Apostle for the humankind, and only that is authentic which has the sanction from the Lord and His Holy Prophet (PBUH). This is the definition given by the Holy Qur’an of those who believe and are worthy of Allah’s blessings. The Holy Book says:
“Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) , — in the Law and the Gospel; — For He commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); he releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honor him, help him, and follow the Light, which is sent down with him, — it is they who will prosper.
Say: ‘O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Apostle of God! , to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He that gives both life and death. So believe in God and His Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, who believeth in God and his words; follow him that (so) ye may be guided’.”
While following this path, the man willingly surrenders the freedom of all his options to the Will and Command of God and that is what Islam means:
“But no, by thy Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions, but accept them (obediently) with the fullest conviction.” (S. IV: Al-Nisaa, 65).
It is in the very essence of Islam and inherent in the character of a person as a Muslim to totally and unconditionally surrender and accept whatever he has been enjoined to do and stop from whatever he has been forbidden. And that is the real manifestation of Taqwa:
“So take what the Apostle assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he with holds from you. And Fear God; for God is strict in punishment.”(S. LIX: Al-Hashr, 7).
Islam: Pakistan’s Future:
This is the straight path of Allah that Islam guides us to follow. Those who follow this path willingly and wholeheartedly are the true Believers. Islam is just Islam. It has no particular version, neither that of the Mullah, nor that of Musharraf or Bush. It cannot be tailored to fit in the whims of a whimsical, or the trend of a tyrant. It is the path to which the humanity has been guided by the Prophet of Islam Sayyidna Muhammad (PBUH) and has to be followed in letters and spirit till eternity. It is a universal and everlasting truth that accepts no adulteration or arbitrary admixture. A Muslim is he who is firm in his words and deeds according to the demands of the Qur’an and the Sunnah and deviates not an inch from the right track, whether somebody calls him an extremist, or a fundamentalist. The Muslims are ‘Ummat-e-Wasat’, or a ‘Nation Justly Balanced’ and Islam is the path of Justice and Moderation. But this is the moderation that has been pre-determined and well-defined by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala and the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Any attempt to mutilate its teachings by any Tom, Dick, or Harry of this world is not ‘Moderation’— It is Distortion and Deviation.
In the backdrop of these established principles and historically determined facts, it is unfortunate to see how audaciously General Pervez Musharraf refers to the divine injunctions and the Islamic principles while propagating in favor of his borrowed philosophy of ‘Enlightened Moderation’: “He said that ‘Pakistan was a country of moderates, including Muslims and others. …. We don’t need extremist Mullas: Neither does Islam. The government would not allow anyone to impose self styled Islamic values such as wearing veils, or beards, but nobody would be restrained from veils and beard either’. President Musharraf vowed that extremism would not be tolerated in Pakistan at all costs.” (Daily Times, December 18, 2004).
In the garb of their verbiage against Mullas, those who try to belittle the Islamic teachings and symbols perhaps believe that their venomous outbursts would be taken as ‘enlightened moderation’. If someone thinks that under the smoke screen of the dust raised against extremism he can make such outbursts against the well-established social norms, moral values and religious injunctions publicly acceptable, he should be well advised to recall what the Former US Senator Barry Goldwater had said:
“ I would remind you that extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice, and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
To conclude, we may add that Islam is just one and only one, the Islam of Sayyidna Muhammad (PBUH). The Muslim community of Pakistan, as also the entire Muslim Ummah, regards this Islam as the Religion of Truth. It would never permit anybody — Mullah, Musharraf or Bush— to distort the glorious image of Islam to suit his own whims. All such attempts made in the past remained utter failure and any such attempt today, or in future, is also destined to fall flat. This is what has been promised by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, for it is He Who has sent down His glorious message for the guidance of His subjects and it is He Who has taken upon Himself to safeguard it till eternity:
“We have, without doubt sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).” (S. XV: Al-Hijr, 9).
“Their intention is to extinguish God’s Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But God will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).” (S. LXI: Al-Saff, 8