| 23 October 2004 | Saturday | 08 Ramazan 1425 |
Light at the end of the tunnel
American Muslims & Nov 2 polls
The war on terror
Suspicion and impatience still hang heavy over Istanbul, the most European of Turkish cities in spite of the best report on EU entry that Turkey has ever received. The European commission has just recommended that when Europe's leaders hold their next summit in December, they should decide to open accession negotiations at last. Though the talks themselves will take years, as happens with every applicant, Turkey's decades-long wait in the EU's anteroom appears almost over.
However, instead of rejoicing, Turkish supporters of EU entry are not yet convinced. Even if the summit says yes in principle, they fear no date will be named despite earlier promises that, once agreed, talks would start "without delay".
They see rising Turkoscepticism in France and Germany. They note the commission's warning that Brussels could suspend negotiations unilaterally at any time. They hear voices calling for Turkey to get a special status or "privileged partnership" instead of full membership.
"It's important not to create new reservations, and impossible for us to accept that transition mechanisms become blocking efforts," Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, said here this week at a special conference of Greens from the European parliament.
Nowhere is mistrust stronger than among Turkey's rapidly expanding civic movements. Outside the country there is a widespread view that Turkey's drive for EU membership is largely motivated by economic factors and that the union has used this dream of prosperity to extract political change.
It is certainly true that governments in Ankara have started on the path of political reform in recent years, and none more vigorously than the moderate Islamists who swept into power just under two years ago. They have enacted measures to end torture, abolish the state security courts and reduce the political role of the military.
But human rights activists argue that this analysis underplays grassroots pressures for change. It is not just the EU's requirements that have made governments clean up their acts, they say. Public opinion has also played a major role - a sign that Turkey is already more democratic than most Europeans realize.
Pinar Ilkkaracan, an organizer with Women for Women's Human Rights, proudly recalls the energetic campaign in the late 1990s for reform of the country's civil code. Key proposals were to give a wife equal rights to household property and end the need to get her husband's consent to work outside the home.
Nationalists and religious conservatives claimed these were disastrous measures that would increase divorce rates and destroy Turkish society. The then government was pushing for EU membership and as long ago as 1999 won agreement from EU leaders that Turkey be considered a "candidate country" (but without any promise of access talks).
In spite of this step forward, it balked at bringing the civil code into line with European standards. "So we had to fight with our own lobbying," says Ilkkaracan. "Over 120 women's groups from all over Turkey demonstrated, and we won."
Other activists point to last year's marches to reverse the government's decision to allow American troops to go through Turkey to invade Iraq. Although elite opinion, including most major newspapers and all television channels supported the government, the public was against it.
Some saw the war as a Christian crusade against a Muslim country. Others expected the war would lead to instability in Iraq and feared it could seriously affect Turkey's economy, as happened with the first Gulf war.
"Opposition to US troops going through Turkey was a sudden issue where we had to act fast without much debate or going into nuances. We put together a wide coalition," says Sinan Gokcen, project coordinator for the Turkish branch of the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, a pan-European civil rights group. The street protests helped to persuade parliament to reject the government's line with dozens of MPs defying the whips.
"It was the first time MPs had voted in such numbers against a party leadership," Gokcen says. It was a more dramatic sign of parliamentary democracy than anything seen in Westminster in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Traditionally a strong US ally, the vote aligned Turkey with France and Germany, the main European opponents of the Iraq war. It also reinforced Turkey's move towards a more balanced foreign policy with better links to Iran and its Arab neighbours in place of what Ziya Onis, an international relations professor, calls "the US-Israel-Turkey triangle". Turkey's shift from a coercive to a benign international posture was clear over Cyprus, where even the Turkish military changed course and promoted the UN peace plan.
Whether this means Turkey can be a model for the Arab world as a modern secular democracy which respects religious freedoms is doubtful. Countries develop according to their own dynamics depending on culture, history and internal demands for change.
Neither reform nor revolution can be imported. But Turkey's newly confident civil-society groups are already forging links with their neighbours, regardless of whether the country joins the EU.
In Istanbul, the EU notion of using Turkey as a "bridge" to the Middle East also appears simplistic. Some champions of EU entry argue that once Turkey is inside the union the Arab states will have less interest in it.
They are making their own association agreements with Brussels in any case. The EU's best "bridge" to the Middle East is to develop a stronger and more independent line on Israel's conflict with the Palestinians.
The EU also needs to give full and equal rights to the millions of Turks, Kurds and Arabs who live in its midst. Those who practise Islam must be free to do so with dignity. This is more likely to impress Europe's Muslim neighbours than bringing Turkey into the EU.
But that does not imply that blocking Turkey's EU entry would not matter. While arguing that the EU did not start the liberalization process, human rights activists in Turkey say it has clearly accelerated it.
They want this alliance with Europe to continue, and they applaud the fact that the commission promised special efforts to develop a dialogue with Turkish civil society, not just with the government.
The EU has gone so far towards accepting Turkey that a halt would be both a betrayal of the country's democrats as well as a terrible signal to the region and the entire Muslim world. It would be widely interpreted as an affront to Islam and a new strike in the "clash of civilizations".
Almost every Kurd in Turkey has opted for Europe as the best chance of getting their identity accepted and respected. Turks are more divided, but a large majority wants to enter Europe. After years of saying "yes if" and "yes when", Europe can't suddenly say no. - Dawn/The Guardian News Service
Light at the end of the tunnel
Of all the military dictators I have met in Pakistan, I have found President General Pervez Musharraf the brightest. General Ayub Khan, the first one, was stodgy, General Yahya Khan clueless and General Ziaul Haq devious. But the problem with Musharraf is that he has come to believe that he has a solution to every problem. All that a ruler has to do is to "show courage" and people will follow him.
Democracies, I am afraid, function on the basis of consensus, not by dictation, however courageous the ruler may be. Musharraf says confidently that he has a solution to Kashmir in his mind.
He even spells it out: identify the area, agree upon its status and demilitarize it. He does not tell me the area he has in view but describes it as the one where religion, geography and ethnicity meet.
He has probably the valley and the surrounding Muslim majority area in mind. Is it bifurcation or trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir? What about the "Azad Kashmir" under Pakistan? He assures me that geography can be the criterion to identify the area, if not religion.
Status reminds me of the offer Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah had made to Sheikh Abdullah before the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India. It was the Sikkim-like position, then British India's protectorate, which the Sheikh had spurned.
When I conveyed Musharraf's thinking to Majid Nizami, chief editor of Nawa-i-Waqt and The Nation, he says it is "too confusing." He would rather have the status quo. Nizami, respected as well as feared, has always held the view that Kashmir's integration with Pakistan is the unfinished agenda of partition.
Musharraf should know that the Kashmiris on either side say "let there be plague on both houses." They want independence. Yet he is confident that they will step back when some concrete proposals are on the table. Musharraf, however, underlines the necessity to associate the Kashmiris with the talks. Let the Kashmiris on both sides meet; their dialogue may throw up something.
"Why don't you send the Kashmiri leaders in the first bus from Srinagar to Muzaffarabad?" he proposes. It is apparent that the two countries have sorted out their differences over the bus service.
The passport is out. Passengers will use documents from the place where they live. "How can we agree to a passport," asks Sardar Qayyum Khan, former prime minister of "Azad Kashmir", when I check with him. "It amounts to accepting Kashmir as part of India."
The bus is not the nettle, but Kashmir is. Musharraf is all focused on that. Our talk spreading over an hour hovers around Kashmir. When I tell him that if the confidence-building measures were to be implemented, they would generate so much goodwill that Kashmir might not pose any problem.
He does not minimize the importance of confidence-building measures. But, at the same time, he seems to believe that "the progress made on Kashmir" will determine how far the two countries have covered the distance to normalization.
He cautions that many in Pakistan have already begun to suspect that India is "again at its old game" and wants to solve "other problems" without conceding anything on Kashmir.
The biggest weakness in Musharraf's approach is the presumption that the Indian prime minister has to be "courageous enough" to spell out the proposal and the rest will follow.
Musharraf is not in favour of any public debate on the proposed agreement before it is signed. "If you propagate it first, there is bound to be opposition in India." He does not see much of a problem in Pakistan. His announcement will be adequate, he says.
My impression is that Musharraf is not familiar with our procedures. True, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh can sign the agreement if and when reached and the cabinet can ratify it. But our parliament will have to approve it before it has any sanction of acceptability. If there has to be a territorial change, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It means the support of two-thirds of majority in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha before the bill is passed. Besides, the Supreme Court of India has the right of judicial review.
"We will have lawyers for consultations when we come to discuss any concrete proposal," says Musharraf. It may take three, four days but he says he is confident that it can be done in a day if "we sit from morning till evening." What impresses me is his enthusiasm. He is overwhelmed by the slightest opportunity and minimizes the impediments in the way. "There is light at the end of the tunnel," he says.
Another welcome development is that Musharraf has "clicked" well with Manmohan Singh whom he finds sincere and straightforward. He recalls with equal warmth his meeting with the former prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee. However, Musharraf regrets that the breakthrough did not come at Agra three years ago. By this time, he believes, the two countries would have normalized their relations.
Musharraf is convinced that former Home Minister L.K. Advani is "95 per cent responsible" for the failure. He recalls that Vajpayee and he had given approval to a draft statement after going over it, word by word. "I even told my wife to prepare for our travel to Ajmer. But when Vajpayee read out the statement, he said something completely different. I was upset and angry. But I could not do anything."
After meeting Manmohan Singh, Musharraf says, he is confident that Pakistan can do business with India. He goes out of the way to say that the problem does not require a military solution. It has to be a political one. As a military man, he should know better than anyone else.
But why is he in a hurry? His response is thus: I have never set any time limit. I know it will take time. But we cannot afford to go on and on. The Pakistanis are eagerly waiting for a solution. The sooner the problem is settled, the better. Even outside powers are looking at us. The present is the most opportune time.
It is now for the liberals on both sides to suggest options, says Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri, present at the meeting. He too feels that if the present opportunity is not grasped, it may not come again. I do not know if he is fair in his expectations. The two governments have already established a back channel through their national security advisers. Non-official efforts are neither encouraged nor recognized.
After meeting Musharraf, I felt that he should know more about the ground realities in India. There is no political party - the ruling Congress, the BJP or any other - that can risk disturbing the Line of Control which Zulfikar Ali Bhutto told me was the "line of peace" even before the Shimla Agreement.
Softening borders or giving more autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir is achievable. Even demilitarization of the valley is possible provided militancy within and without Kashmir ends.
Any other formula seems difficult in a democratic and secular India to sell. The solution on Kashmir should strengthen the Indian polity, not weaken it. Musharraf should realize that there is a point beyond which the Manmohan Singh government cannot go.
The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.
American Muslims & Nov 2 polls
About four million Muslim-Americans are registered voters. National and local polls consistently indicate that 60-70 per cent of them favour the Kerry/Edwards ticket over the incumbent Bush/ Cheney ticket.
Muslims don't support Kerry because they believe that he will ensure their civil rights, nor are they blind to his unstinting support for Bush's imperialistic agenda in Iraq and Afghanistan, or for Sharon's anti-Palestine agenda. In fact, Kerry's Senate voting record has earned him a 100 per cent rating from pro-Israel lobbyists.
To be sure, militant Muslims around the world will continue to retaliate against American and Israeli aggression. They will continue to employ the videos tapes of America's "Shock and Awe" campaigns against unarmed Muslims as an important marketing tool for their newly energized recruitment campaigns.
An unending cycle of violence is most likely to reign in the foreseeable future. Innocent people around the world, in particular Muslims in the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan, will continue to be the main fodder of this mutual animus of American leadership and the militant elements in the Muslim world.
So, why are Muslim-Americans casting their lot with a candidate whose ideological stance about Muslim-Americans and the Muslim world is very similar to Bush's? There are two major reasons: they are angry with Bush, and they do not have any other option. Nader may be a favourite of some, but many consider voting for him a waste of valuable votes.
The American Muslim Taskforce (AMT), an umbrella group of 12 influential US Islamic organizations, has been formed to consult the Muslim electorate and to endorse a presidential candidate for the Muslim vote bloc.
Only about 30-40 die hard activists, mostly of Pakistani and some of Bangladesh origin, attended its last meeting in August, partly because the outreach was not actively extended to other ethnic communities and partly because most Muslim New Yorkers do not have a taste for Muslim-American politics.
The low turnout was exacerbated by the fact that none of the AMT member organizations bothered to send a representative. One should note that about one million Muslims live in New York City. Of them, only was in attendance.
This dismal outreach and insignificant turnout leads to two important questions. First, was the last meeting in New York a good sampling of the public meetings conducted by the organization across the nation? Second, is the AMT really serious about input from the masses, or will decisions about the presidential candidate be made behind closed doors, as was the case in the polls of 2000?
Then, Bush was endorsed for the bloc vote because he openly reached out to the Muslim leadership, as opposed to Gore who arrogantly declined their formal invitation to a town hall meeting of the presidential candidates.
Incensed by Gore's public insult, the Muslim leadership fell prey to Bush's deadly embrace, failing to do a background search on Bush's religious beliefs, political motivations and aspirations. What ensued for Muslim-Americans and the Islamic world in the post-9/11 period under the oppressive policies of the Bush administration have proved that Muslim leadership misused public trust.
In the current situation, the leadership has also not conducted a thorough search on Kerry's past and his stance on issues important to Muslim-Americans. They know just as little about Kerry's political and religious underpinnings as they did about George Bush's.
Muslim leaders have no more specific and confidential information about Kerry than their constituents. Given this dismal state of leadership, their closed-door "deliberations" about the candidates are, in fact, nothing more than a rehash of information already available in the media.
Apparently, valuable lessons from the past presidential elections have not been learnt by the leadership. During the preceding four years, they have not laid down the ground rules for future presidential endorsements let alone for local and state ones.
With only days to go before the polls, they are as confused and lost about the presidential choice as their constituents are beginning to be. Nader is still under serious consideration as a viable candidate as demonstrated by his invitation along with Bush and Kerry to the CAIR's 10th anniversary fundraiser on October 2 in Washington, D.C. Muslim leaders did not have a well-articulated endorsement strategy in 2000 nor do they have one now.
Does leadership shape public opinion about issues, concerns, choices and candidates or vice versa? Is it unrealistic to expect some difference of quality of information, knowledge and wisdom between "leaders" and their "followers?"
The writer is executive director of the New York-based American Educational Research Institute. Email: aeriusa@hotmail.com.
The war on terror
The Pakistan government is waging a war against terrorism, extremism and sectarianism on multiple fronts using a variety of means. The country is cooperating with the international community to combat terrorism, sharing intelligence with other nations and benefiting from the experience and competence of those who are confronted with the same menace.
For this purpose, Pakistan has concluded bilateral agreements with a number of countries, which also include the Muslim countries and major countries like the US, the UK, China and Russia. All these countries recognize and acknowledge the critical role Pakistan has played in the war against terrorism.
But terrorism is a complex phenomenon and, as such, needs to be tackled with a multiple strategy. President Pervez Musharraf recently elaborated such a strategy, identifying its various components.
One of these components is the need to eliminate religious extremism and sectarianism in the country. He has repeatedly stressed the need to make all-out efforts to suppress elements who commit acts of terrorism in the country, exploiting the sacred name of religion.
Although the vast majority of Muslims in Pakistan are moderate, tolerant and peaceful, a tiny minority using terrorism and violence as intimidating tactics has tarnished the name of Pakistan and that of Islam.
The government has taken measures to ensure the safety and security of the citizens, and for this purpose, has employed every means at its disposal to unearth terrorists and extremists.
Security in all major cities has been increased and law enforcement agencies continue to conduct raids to apprehend suspected terrorists. But the efforts of the government cannot alone meet the challenge. Cooperation from the people, especially religious leaders and the ulema, is necessary.
In this connection, the government convened a meeting of the leading ulema in Islamabad earlier this month. The meeting was addressed by President Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. They asked the ulema to help promote religious harmony and prevent extremist elements from committing terrorist acts in the country.
They proposed a joint strategy in which both government and ulema should work for unity and religious harmony in the country. This is an important initiative. If the ulema join hands with the government, fringe elements would be further isolated and peace in the country could be ensured.
President Musharraf was right when he said: "We have to forge unity in our ranks, shun discord and develop mutual trust and understanding and stop issuing fatwas against each other, and prevent extremists from imposing their views on others as Islam stands for peace, tolerance and the well-being of all."
The president's remarks came in the context of a series of acts of terrorism and sectarian violence committed by religious extremists in Sialkot and Multan. Dozens of people were killed and many more were injured. The incidents sent a wave of shock and grief throughout the country, creating serious concerns among citizens about the state of law and order in the country.
Fortunately, due to swift and timely steps taken by the government, there was no retaliation or chain reaction from rival sects. The meeting of ulema in Islamabad greatly helped in diffusing the tense situation created by these terrorist incidents.
They strongly condemned the acts of terrorism in Sialkot and Multan. In their speeches, they assured the government of their support and cooperation against terrorism. They also stressed the need for religious harmony, peace, love and tolerance in society. The ulema declared suicide bombings to be against Islam.
The thrust of the president's speech was that instead of becoming the basis of division and discord, religion should play a unifying role. Unfortunately, religion is being used to spread hatred against one another by declaring some sections of Muslim society as kafirs and liable to be murdered (vajibul qatal).
The president appealed to the ulema that this practice should stop forthwith, because everybody who recites the Kalima and believes in the finality of Prophet hood (PBUH) is a Muslim and no other Muslim has any right to call him a non-believer.
It is this that is the root cause of extremism, which gives birth to violence and terrorism. What is happening in our country is that a tiny minority, taking advantage of the people's devotion to religion, is spreading hatred and intolerance through the use of violent acts.
Lack of mobilization and the passivity of the political leadership has led to a situation where the majority is silent and helplessly watches the most horrendous incidents take place.
This silent majority, government leaders have repeatedly stressed, must be mobilized and brought into action, so that the extremists are isolated and rendered ineffective. Religious leaders can obviously play an important role in mobilizing this silent majority.
The other important message to emerge at the Islamabad meeting was that sectarian violence was bringing a bad name to Pakistan. In this age of globalization and revolutionary developments in information and communication technology, no incident in any country remains unreported.
As the president said, "We are not living in isolation from other countries; rather we are part of an interdependent world where all the states and the people, irrespective of their faith and ideology, have to interact with each other for peace, harmony and sustainable development."
Pakistan has become the focus of the international community because of its geographical contiguity to Afghanistan, the Gulf and the Middle East. It is also a Muslim country armed with nuclear weapons.
Hence any political development here is a matter of immediate interest to the international community. A heavy responsibility devolves on us to prove to the world that Islam is a religion of peace, love and harmony. The ulema can play a decisive role in this regard.
Another important aspect that needs to be underlined is the importance of maintaining law and order for achieving our development goals. The prime minister projected the vital link between security and development at the Islamabad meeting.
Explaining the targets of his government as an accelerated growth rate to overcome the problems of poverty, underdevelopment and disparity between various regions of Pakistan, he said that these targets could not be achieved unless we decided to be at peace with ourselves, thus making an important contribution to the creation of a peaceful regional and global environment.
The writer is a senator and minister of state for the interior.