Post by maruf on Jul 7, 2004 23:49:09 GMT -5
In summary, this article talks about the American failed foreign policy in the Middle East and in Afghanistan. An important point the article makes is that U.S. has been hypocritical in their call for Democracy, in the sense that government would be for the people by the people, let us not mention that this is Haraam to Muslims. The article mentions that Muslims have heard this call before by the U.S. only to have tyrants placed in as puppets of the U.S.
A more important point that the article mentions is that there is a void in the Muslim world for true leadership. It indicates that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not shouting “let freedom reign.” Al-Hamdulillah that the time is right and is ripe for sincere Muslims to step in and fill this political vacuum. May Allah aid the da’wah carriers to be most effective.
Was-salaam
Ma’ruf
Bush and the Muslim predicament
By Ehsan Ahrari
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG08Ak03.html
One of the greatest ironies of these strange times is that US President George W Bush pleaded with America's North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies on June 29 to pull his chestnut out of the fire, and save him from the disastrous outcomes of two failed states over which his administration is currently presiding: Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush knows the chances of his reelection in November depend to some extent on the Iraq situation, which continues to be engulfed in violence. At the same time, the awesome task of rebuilding Afghanistan is running into serious dead ends, and even the involvement of 6,500 NATO forces cannot seem to help. The all-powerful American military has not been able to bring the peace and stability to Iraq or Afghanistan, denying Bush the chance to present them as "trophies" to the American people to help him earn a second term in the White House. Even his diplomatic endeavors could not persuade NATO members at the recent Istanbul summit to commit troops in Iraq - instead they will help with training and equipping local troops.
Iraqi interim President Hamid Karzai - who is pejoratively described as the "mayor" of Kabul - showed up at the Istanbul meeting to plead for an additional 2,200 NATO troopsto be sent to all areas of Afghanistan, not just to the north. Elections in the country have already been rescheduled from June to September to October of this year, and the Istanbul impasse further muddied the timetable for the vote designed to anchor Afghanistan's recovery from decades of war.
Meanwhile, increased attacks by Taliban, al-Qaeda and Afghan resistance forces threaten to derail the elections. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan's special representative, Jean Arnault, has warned that a further postponement of the elections may be warranted due to the deteriorating security situation. In fact, the world body will make a final decision on the timing of the polls later this month.
While in Istanbul, Karzai sounded desperate. "I would like you to please hurry," he urged. "Come sooner than September and provide the Afghan men and women with the chance to vote freely, without fear, without coercion." His speech met with polite applause but no commitment.
In the midst of these depressing developments, Bush decided to change the subject in his speech at the NATO summit. He said "freedom is the future of the Middle East" and that Islamic countries need not fear the spread of democracy. Even his regular use of the word "freedom" raises hackles in the Middle East, since it is a throwback word. a reminding of the enslaved polities under communism. Middle Eastern countries are mostly ruled by authoritarian regimes that are harsh in their rule. However, those who are being ruled - as much as they might want a participatory system for their countries - do not envision themselves as enslaved masses a la their counterparts of the communist polities. More to the point, the exhortation for democracy from an American president who has been so consistently one-sided on the Palestine-Israeli conflict sounds disingenuous and hypocritical to Arab people.
Here is an American president who told the Palestinians about two years ago that if they wanted American support and economic assistance, they had better elect someone other than Yasser Arafat. Today, Arafat - a democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people - is under virtual house arrest under the regime of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whom Bush has referred to as a "man of peace". The continued isolation of Arafat by the US and Israel has yet to produce another legitimate leader in the occupied territory. President Jacques Chirac of France reminded the American president during the Istanbul summit of that reality when he said, "People can have whatever opinion they like of President Arafat or any other president. But legitimacy cannot be contested if a different legitimacy is not proposed."
Those who are desirous of democracy in the Middle East are not exactly elated that Bush - a much-hated person in that part of the world - is making an argument for it. Viewed from the Middle East, even two years after the fall of the Taliban, democracy is far from becoming a reality in Afghanistan. Iraq does not look too promising either. Besides, many in the Arab world are fully aware of the selective exhortation for democracy on the part of the current Bush administration. This is the same administration that continues to support some of the worst tyrants in the world of Islam, in Central Asia.
Bush is also wrong in stating that Islamic countries "fear" democracy. This alleged fear of democracy in Islamic countries is not on the part of the masses. Rather, it is on the part of the rulers, most of whom are the US's long-time friends and allies. Bush is hoping that the "liberation" of Iraq is but the first step toward the transformation of the entire region. However, viewing what is currently transpiring in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, a potential ouster of current regimes is not likely to result in a resonance of the slogan: "let freedom reign". Instead, another autocrat is likely to take over. Only the next autocrat is likely to be a hardline Islamist.
The terror attacks on the US triggered American actions that are beyond anyone's control. The struggle within Islam has been almost a never-ending phenomenon, except in the wake of American militarism in Afghanistan and Iraq, militants are gaining popularity in the Muslim world at large. As an outside, but a very powerful force, the US will continue to influence the world of Islam. However, the sad part of America's involvement is that it is also likely to influence that region negatively - ie, most, if not all, of its actions will create anti-American reactions, defeating the chances of democracy, more under the Bush presidency than under his successor's.
The current administration appears to have never bothered to understand the Muslim predicament. Muslims want a good life as much as anyone else. However, their greatest obstacle has been the absence of democracy, and their resultant backwardness in the realm of economic development. The US has always been a supporter of the anti-democratic status quo in the world of Islam. Only since September 11 has it, rather haphazardly and inconsistently, decided to become an advocate for democracy. However, for Muslims, Afghanistan and Iraq are as much reminders of the American failure to implement democracy, as the Islamic republics in Iran, Pakistan and Sudan are arguments against the establishment of Islamic rule anywhere else.
Now the Muslim predicament is about how to create political systems that represent the best of the East and the West. They know that their own autocracies are the greatest obstacles in the achievement of that noble goal. But America remains the second, but even more powerful obstacle in their path.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
A more important point that the article mentions is that there is a void in the Muslim world for true leadership. It indicates that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not shouting “let freedom reign.” Al-Hamdulillah that the time is right and is ripe for sincere Muslims to step in and fill this political vacuum. May Allah aid the da’wah carriers to be most effective.
Was-salaam
Ma’ruf
Bush and the Muslim predicament
By Ehsan Ahrari
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG08Ak03.html
One of the greatest ironies of these strange times is that US President George W Bush pleaded with America's North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies on June 29 to pull his chestnut out of the fire, and save him from the disastrous outcomes of two failed states over which his administration is currently presiding: Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush knows the chances of his reelection in November depend to some extent on the Iraq situation, which continues to be engulfed in violence. At the same time, the awesome task of rebuilding Afghanistan is running into serious dead ends, and even the involvement of 6,500 NATO forces cannot seem to help. The all-powerful American military has not been able to bring the peace and stability to Iraq or Afghanistan, denying Bush the chance to present them as "trophies" to the American people to help him earn a second term in the White House. Even his diplomatic endeavors could not persuade NATO members at the recent Istanbul summit to commit troops in Iraq - instead they will help with training and equipping local troops.
Iraqi interim President Hamid Karzai - who is pejoratively described as the "mayor" of Kabul - showed up at the Istanbul meeting to plead for an additional 2,200 NATO troopsto be sent to all areas of Afghanistan, not just to the north. Elections in the country have already been rescheduled from June to September to October of this year, and the Istanbul impasse further muddied the timetable for the vote designed to anchor Afghanistan's recovery from decades of war.
Meanwhile, increased attacks by Taliban, al-Qaeda and Afghan resistance forces threaten to derail the elections. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan's special representative, Jean Arnault, has warned that a further postponement of the elections may be warranted due to the deteriorating security situation. In fact, the world body will make a final decision on the timing of the polls later this month.
While in Istanbul, Karzai sounded desperate. "I would like you to please hurry," he urged. "Come sooner than September and provide the Afghan men and women with the chance to vote freely, without fear, without coercion." His speech met with polite applause but no commitment.
In the midst of these depressing developments, Bush decided to change the subject in his speech at the NATO summit. He said "freedom is the future of the Middle East" and that Islamic countries need not fear the spread of democracy. Even his regular use of the word "freedom" raises hackles in the Middle East, since it is a throwback word. a reminding of the enslaved polities under communism. Middle Eastern countries are mostly ruled by authoritarian regimes that are harsh in their rule. However, those who are being ruled - as much as they might want a participatory system for their countries - do not envision themselves as enslaved masses a la their counterparts of the communist polities. More to the point, the exhortation for democracy from an American president who has been so consistently one-sided on the Palestine-Israeli conflict sounds disingenuous and hypocritical to Arab people.
Here is an American president who told the Palestinians about two years ago that if they wanted American support and economic assistance, they had better elect someone other than Yasser Arafat. Today, Arafat - a democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people - is under virtual house arrest under the regime of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whom Bush has referred to as a "man of peace". The continued isolation of Arafat by the US and Israel has yet to produce another legitimate leader in the occupied territory. President Jacques Chirac of France reminded the American president during the Istanbul summit of that reality when he said, "People can have whatever opinion they like of President Arafat or any other president. But legitimacy cannot be contested if a different legitimacy is not proposed."
Those who are desirous of democracy in the Middle East are not exactly elated that Bush - a much-hated person in that part of the world - is making an argument for it. Viewed from the Middle East, even two years after the fall of the Taliban, democracy is far from becoming a reality in Afghanistan. Iraq does not look too promising either. Besides, many in the Arab world are fully aware of the selective exhortation for democracy on the part of the current Bush administration. This is the same administration that continues to support some of the worst tyrants in the world of Islam, in Central Asia.
Bush is also wrong in stating that Islamic countries "fear" democracy. This alleged fear of democracy in Islamic countries is not on the part of the masses. Rather, it is on the part of the rulers, most of whom are the US's long-time friends and allies. Bush is hoping that the "liberation" of Iraq is but the first step toward the transformation of the entire region. However, viewing what is currently transpiring in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, a potential ouster of current regimes is not likely to result in a resonance of the slogan: "let freedom reign". Instead, another autocrat is likely to take over. Only the next autocrat is likely to be a hardline Islamist.
The terror attacks on the US triggered American actions that are beyond anyone's control. The struggle within Islam has been almost a never-ending phenomenon, except in the wake of American militarism in Afghanistan and Iraq, militants are gaining popularity in the Muslim world at large. As an outside, but a very powerful force, the US will continue to influence the world of Islam. However, the sad part of America's involvement is that it is also likely to influence that region negatively - ie, most, if not all, of its actions will create anti-American reactions, defeating the chances of democracy, more under the Bush presidency than under his successor's.
The current administration appears to have never bothered to understand the Muslim predicament. Muslims want a good life as much as anyone else. However, their greatest obstacle has been the absence of democracy, and their resultant backwardness in the realm of economic development. The US has always been a supporter of the anti-democratic status quo in the world of Islam. Only since September 11 has it, rather haphazardly and inconsistently, decided to become an advocate for democracy. However, for Muslims, Afghanistan and Iraq are as much reminders of the American failure to implement democracy, as the Islamic republics in Iran, Pakistan and Sudan are arguments against the establishment of Islamic rule anywhere else.
Now the Muslim predicament is about how to create political systems that represent the best of the East and the West. They know that their own autocracies are the greatest obstacles in the achievement of that noble goal. But America remains the second, but even more powerful obstacle in their path.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)