On a trip of friendship

PRESIDENT Hamid Karzai’s three-day visit to Pakistan was the latest in a series of exchanges at the top government level the two countries have had in the post-9/11 period. This was the Afghan president’s seventh trip in the past four years and it has certainly promoted greater understanding between the two countries on the various sensitive issues that mark relations between them, the key one being security. Considering the continuing insecurity in several parts of Afghanistan and the turbulence on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which has been the scene of violence in recent months, it is not surprising that the two neighbours feel unease over how the war on terror is being conducted. While Pakistan has had to suffer many attacks from across the Durand Line meant ostensibly to destroy alleged Taliban strongholds in the tribal areas, Kabul has complained of “terrorists” entering Afghanistan from the Pakistani side to destabilize the country. It is a welcome development that the leaders of the two sides expressed their satisfaction over the matter at their talks in Islamabad.

Although Kabul and Islamabad are members of the trilateral commission along with the United States, it has been a matter of concern that the degree of understanding needed between them in their common struggle against terror has been missing. One hopes that this will now be possible because the two countries need each other politically, economically and geostrategically. Moreover, without fostering active mutual cooperation in all fields, neither of them can hope to prosper and achieve stability. Their immediate need is to pacify and stabilize the region where they are located by eliminating the threat from the terrorists they face. This not only calls for a coordinated military approach, but political conciliation too which is as important as the need for economic cooperation. This was acknowledged by both sides. President Musharraf emphasized the need for a three-pronged strategy envisaging political, administrative and economic collaboration to fight terrorism. The Afghan president told the National Defence College that true “strategic depth” was one that was built on strong economic, trade and political ties. It is therefore important that in keeping with this approach, Pakistan and Afghanistan should consolidate further their non-military relationship. Last year, when President Karzai was in Pakistan, the two sides had concluded five agreements and a protocol for enhancing bilateral cooperation in the fields of tourism, culture and the media. The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan gas pipeline which is under discussion at the moment will also help forge closer ties between these countries as will the communication network being developed in Balochistan which should give a boost to transit trade through Afghanistan.

These are significant measures. With Afghanistan having been accepted as a full-fledged member of Saarc, one hopes that these activities will give a boost to regionalism in this area and thus introduce a new dimension to relations in South Asia. The experience of many of the countries in South and Central Asia in their fight against terrorism should clearly show that they will have to recast the nature of their ties and rethink their approach to security if they are to be successful in bringing peace, security and progress to their people. It is a positive development that Pakistan and Afghanistan have made a beginning towards this end.

EU on cartoons

THE European assembly’s resolution on media limits raises a question or two that deserve careful examination. Nobody will disagree with the EU when it says that freedom of expression and independence of the press are universal rights that cannot and should not be allowed to be undermined by an individual or group offended by a certain publication. Its implied criticism of violent demonstrations in some Muslim countries against the offensive Danish cartoons is justified when it says that the redress for hurt should be sought in courts. In these columns we have said time and again that Muslims offended by the sacrilegious cartoons had every right to protest but not in a violent form. The EU is wrong, however, when it refers to “degrading and humiliating cartoons of Jews” in Iran and Arab countries.

For decades, the European media has been printing cartoons against Arabs that are in bad taste, but there have been no protests because such caricaturing has been accepted as part of the western media’s persistent campaign to malign and humiliate Arabs in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Shown fat and filthy-rich, with pronounced aquiline noses, and surrounded by scantily-clad women, Arabs — and Palestinian guerillas with blood dripping from daggers — are presented regularly to the western public as the stereotype Arab out to harm the Zionist good boys in the occupied territories. The present anger stems from what Muslims believe to be a direct attack on the last of the prophets (may peace be on them).We know that many European countries have laws that militate against freedom of the press. Anyone challenging the Nazi persecution of Jews faces prosecution. One such person, Mr David Irving, was recently arrested in Austria for his views on the Holocaust. Obviously, these laws impinging on press freedom were enacted because of the sensitivity of the Jewish people in Europe. Muslims now number over 20 million in Europe and their sensitivities and religious sentiments need to be taken into consideration by the European media. It must realize that most countries on the continent now have multi-religious societies.

Saving Moenjodaro

THE federal government’s approval of a master plan for conservation work at Moenjodaro has come not a moment too soon given the deplorable state of one of the country’s most important archaeological sites that also figures on Unesco’s world heritage list. The neglect of Moenjodaro over the past decades by successive governments is appalling and speaks of the official attitude towards the preservation and protection of national heritage and culture. Except for homilies now and then about how important it is to preserve our heritage, not much has been done to prevent even the rapid deterioration of many ancient sites whose condition has worsened with each passing year. One hopes the latest master plan does not meet the same fate as previous ones which failed to accomplish any of the goals. Over the years, walls and pillars in Moenjodaro have collapsed and the museum is in a bad state of maintenance. But the greatest threat to this site comes from the nearby Indus river and the rising ground-water level and salinity. In spite of a number of protection methods put forward by experts — like installing tubewells to pump out the excess water or mud-coating the crumbling walls — nothing has proved effective in stopping the decay. In 2002, international experts recommended salt-resistant plants which would act like wind-breakers and prevent salt from reaching the site.

Those in charge of the master plan should explore all conservation methods before settling on the most cost-effective and practical solution. Enough time has been wasted on long-winded and unrealistic strategies that have borne no results. This year Sindh is due to take over 128 protected monuments. It should prioritize which ones need the most urgent attention and ensure that all preservation work is carried out in an efficient manner that does not destroy the essential character of the buildings and monuments concerned.

The rage and fury over cartoons

AFTER weeks of violence and much fraught soul-searching, European Union governments are hoping that Muslim outrage over the publication of the caricatures of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) will soon die down. Muslims have now vented their fury over the insult, say hopeful EU policymakers, while European politicians and commentators — who have been stoking the fires of racial confrontation over the last few weeks — have started worrying about the arrival of bird flu in Europe rather than threats to press freedom posed by Muslim extremists.

But while skilful diplomacy may have defused Muslim fury and eased European alarm at Muslim extremists’ violent reaction to the cartoons, it is much too early to cry victory. The current crisis may blow over, but the long-term damage done to relations between the West and Islam by the publication of the caricatures cannot be easily repaired.

Over the last few weeks, I have been quizzed and interrogated repeatedly over the affair with many of the people I have met and talked to admitting that apart from their Turkish grocer or the Arab baker, I am the only Muslim they know and can really talk to.

But being thrust into the role of informal ambassador for Islam is no easy task. It is also an increasingly depressing one. My conversations with friends and colleagues have convinced me that while this may not be the dreaded clash of civilizations we have all been braced for, it is a clear reflection of the increasing misunderstanding and acrimony between Europe and Islam. Deeply-held prejudices on both sides are now stronger and more entrenched than in the past.

More than ever before, Europeans are now convinced that most Muslims — both at home and abroad — are a fanatical, backward and violent people determined to undermine Europe’s hard-won liberties of press and expression.

On the other side, many Muslims in Europe believe just as strongly that the publication of the caricatures in Denmark and other European newspapers is another manifestation of the tide of anti-Islamic feeling which has been sweeping through Europe since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York.

Destroying these stereotypes and replacing them with an accurate portrayal of how the so-far silent majority of people feel on both sides of the debate is going to be an uphill task — and one that not many in Europe or in the Islamic community on the continent appear ready to take on. As the current crisis has illustrated, finding shelter in prejudice is a great deal easier than facing up to the complexities of the real world.

But if the current rift is to be bridged, Europeans must recognize that while the cartoons certainly did cause offence to Muslims, the mobs that attacked European embassies represented a minority, manipulated by a few self-serving governments and groups.

The majority of Muslims vented their anger by writing letters of protest to their local newspapers or by doing what consumers the world over have always done to express their dissatisfaction: refusing to buy products produced by certain companies.

For their part, Muslims also require more convincing that for many Europeans, satire and the freedom to poke fun at religion is a fundamental right.

Second, if Europe-Islam relations are going to get better, the focus must move beyond foreign policy and diplomacy to a closer look at European governments’ relations with the 20 million Muslims living — increasingly uncomfortably — in Europe.

The EU’s response to the crisis so far has been typical. Worried about the deteriorating state of their trade and political relations with key oil producing Muslim countries, EU leaders dispatched their chief diplomatic troubleshooter Javier Solana to the Middle East this week for an emergency fence-mending tour. Articulate, thoughtful and a master in creative diplomacy, Solana certainly put forward a strong case for keeping EU-Islam relations on an even keel.

But while sending Solana to try and ease strains with Arab kings and presidents is undoubtedly a good move, EU governments must make a similar attempt to rebuild bridges with ordinary Muslims living inside Europe.

The current crisis has shown just how little ordinary Europeans understand the faith and sentiments of Muslims living in their midst. Unless a stronger effort is made to reach out to Europe’s Muslim minority and enact tougher anti-discrimination policies, the EU’s reputation as an Islam-unfriendly group of nations will continue to gain currency.

The EU’s centre for monitoring racism has said repeatedly in past years that more and more Muslims are the targets of widespread discrimination since 9/11, the March 11 railway bombings in Madrid in 2004 and the attacks on the London underground last July.

Meanwhile, the controversy over the banning of the Muslim headscarf by the French government and the killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a young Muslim have also spotlighted the problems of integration and discrimination facing Europe’s Muslim communities.

EU governments have, however, been reluctant to recognize the need to combat Islamophobia. As a result, extremist far-right European parties have continued to use virulently anti-Muslim rhetoric and commentators and politicians regularly equate Islam with terrorism, poverty and backwardness.

Faced with such hostility, many Muslims in Europe are either withdrawing into closed societies or taking up more extremist forms of Islam, popularized by often foreign-trained imams with no interest in helping European Muslims integrate into their host societies

The focus of politicians and of the media is not on Muslim success stories but on highlighting the differences that exist between people. European politicians have been especially slow to wake up to the problems of Europe’s Muslim minorities and failed to make a stronger case in favour of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious Europe. This failure of political leadership means that the public is given little guidance on how to relate to Muslims and Islam.

The divide between Muslims and Europeans is also due to other factors. First, Europe is an increasingly secular society, with church attendance on the decline. As such Muslims who practise their religion in public and in private are highly visible and noticed.

Second, unlike the Muslims who immigrated to the United States and Canada, most Muslims in Europe came as labourers. Over the years, although many have climbed up the social ladder, the majority remain part of a poor underclass.

Third, Muslims in Europe have a long history of being seen as hostile people from another, more fanatical world which poses a threat to Europe. Islamophobia may be a new phenomenon, but the sentiments of suspicion go back to the Moors in Spain, the Crusades and the Ottoman empire. Islam in Europe has long been seen as an enemy, not a partner.

Fourth, Muslims in Europe come from the continent’s former colonies — they, therefore, continue to be seen as second-class citizens, just as in the colonial times.

Muslims also face the challenge of living in such a multi-cultural environment — of keeping their traditions but adapting to their countries of adoption.

The good news is that Muslims in Europe are becoming more self-confident and taking up their rightful place as full-fledged citizens. They have also become more assertive, are forming political groups and associations, fighting back against racists and demanding their rights. Muslims are gradually also becoming more visible — as actors, singers and journalists and increasingly also as politicians.

And although the process is slow and painful, as Muslims become voters, European politicians are paying more attention to their demands and requirements.

While leaders like Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen may wish to think otherwise, the current furore is a powerful reminder that in an increasingly globalized world, the treatment meted out to Europe’s own Muslim communities cannot be separated from Europe’s image and standing in the wider Islamic world.

The message is hammered home to me each time I travel to Asia and the Middle East where students, journalists and diplomats always ask the same question: Why are EU governments not doing more to combat Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslims? The publication of the caricatures means that my interlocutors’ questions will be tougher next time. The fact remains that integration and tolerance are a two-way street and that for social harmony to prevail Europeans and Muslims must accommodate the views of the other.

But if EU governments continue to ignore the demands for respect and equal treatment being made by European Muslims, the task of those preaching dialogue and understanding will be much harder.