Convergence of interests and values

Today's Zaman, Sunday, March 27, 2011


Convergence of interests and values
by Parvez Ahmed*

It happens once in a blue moon -- the convergence of Western military action with Arab and Muslim public opinion. The last time we witnessed such convergence was during the US-led interventions in the Balkans, which stopped an ethnic cleansing and eventually brought peace to a troubled region of the world. Contrary to assertions from some, Libya 2011 is not Iraq of 2003.

Whereas the war in Iraq lacked any international legitimacy, the military intervention in Libya has legal authority in the form of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. In addition, enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya also has the support of the Arab League, symbolic as that support may be. But most importantly, unlike 2003, there are no mass demonstrations either in Arab or Western capitals opposing another Western military adventure in yet another Muslim majority country.

The lack of opposition should not be mistaken for a lack of concern. The history of Western military interventions in the region has been largely perceived as neocolonial imperialism. The fact that Iraq remains a bloody mess and Afghanistan a quagmire adds to the anxiety. And yet the hope that has sprung from the peaceful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt gives us reason to believe that military intervention in Libya, as abhorrent as the idea may be, was the right thing to do in order to thwart the brutality of yet another Arab dictator. Something has fundamentally changed in the Arab and Muslim world. The rest of the world is now being forced, albeit reluctantly, to contend with that reality.

Speaking to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, US Sen. John Kerry gave voice to the optimism being felt by many, despite lingering concerns. “If liberation can be translated into lasting democracy, then the new Arab awakening will carry a vital message: simply, that ordinary people everywhere have the ability to determine for themselves how they are governed. The developments in Egypt and Tunisia also represent a dramatic blow against the extremism that we have been struggling with this past decade or more -- a blow against extremism that we could not have dealt ourselves.”

Sen. Kerry went on to say, “But just as the Berlin Wall could not be rebuilt, so we know that the old order of the Middle East cannot be restored.” To stop the restoration of the old order, military intervention in Libya became necessary. If the Muammar Gaddafi regime had overrun Benghazi, as they were poised to do, the Arab spring could have prematurely ended amidst deep suspicion that the West could have stopped the massacre but chose not to. This would have further emboldened the brutal repressions already under way from Yemen to Bahrain. In Yemen the defection of a senior military leader provides hope that if Western powers abandon their realpolitik and finally align their interests with their values, not only the people but also the extant power establishment may reject their brutal overlords.

Michael Gerson, speechwriter to former US President George W. Bush, in a recent op-ed to The Washington Post wrote: “When a government engages in genocide, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity -- effectively waging war against its own citizens -- other nations have the right and duty to intervene. In Libya, this abstract norm became a basis for action. The Obama administration deserves credit for its part in establishing this precedent.” The Arab spring has offered a Sputnik moment for US foreign policy. It appears that President Obama is slowly warming up to the idea that transformative change not only requires moral leadership of words but unfortunately necessitates the use of force when force becomes the only way to stop crimes against humanity. Rwanda still haunts us.

The reticence of emerging democratic powers such as Turkey, Brazil and India to join hands in this effort remains a source of concern. Although negotiations remain the preferred way to end this standoff, Gaddafi’s intransigence coupled with his threat to go door to door to clean out “rebels” offers scant hope for a peaceful resolution.
The extraordinary convergence of Western policy and Arab/Muslim public opinion needs further cementing. Sen. Kerry wants to introduce legislation to financially support “new and fledgling democracies in the region.” Sen. Kerry asserts, “We ought to be helping governments reform their security sectors, building transparency into the fabric of government ministries, strengthening the rule of law and helping leaders to incorporate the views of their public in the day-to-day work that they’re engaged in.”

Turkey, with its long history of democracy and its experience as part of its European Union accession process as well as with enacting changes that brings laws and policies to the standards expressed by Sen. Kerry, must play a pivotal role going forward. Only then can Turkey’s aspiration of zero problems with its neighbors become a sustainable policy.

Rep. King's unAmerican Hearings

Published in the Gainesville Sun, Tallahassee Democrat. Other newspapers around the state are also likely to publish this.

Ahmed, Romberg and Schlakman: Rep. King's unAmerican hearings
Published: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 1:46 p.m.

Before assuming the chairmanship of the House Homeland Security Committee in January, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) announced his intention to hold congressional hearings on "the radicalization" of the Muslim community. The hearings begin on Capitol Hill this week.

According to a recent poll, while a majority of Americans support King's hearings, a larger majority says the hearings should focus upon extremism generally rather than upon the American Muslim community exclusively.

Some have observed that leveraging Congress this way is, "akin to racial profiling...that would unfairly cast suspicion on an entire group," and that these hearings offend America's proud tradition of religious pluralism and inclusion.
Others say this harkens back to congressional hearings in the 1950s that afforded Senator Joseph McCarthy a platform to exploit the public's fears by brandishing lists of alleged communists in what he characterized as his patriotic quest to ferret out unAmerican activities, with little regard for civil rights and civil liberties.

King contends, "When I meet with law enforcement, they are constantly telling me how little cooperation they get from Muslim leaders." But law enforcement professionals may not be called to testify. Perhaps he is unwilling to subject his underlying premise to their scrutiny in open proceedings.

King also asserts that, "Over 80 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by radical imams," but Pew survey data indicates Muslims are "decidedly American in their outlook, values and attitudes" and that Muslims in America are "largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate."

Moreover, a two-year study by Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina concluded that American mosques actually deter the spread of extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing the curriculum being taught.

It was a Muslim street vendor who thwarted the Times Square bomber, and Muslims in Irvine, California, concerned about the conduct of a fellow Muslim and his apparent efforts to incite violence reported him to the police, only to learn that he was an FBI informant. The so-called underwear bomber was reported to authorities by his father, who worried that his son posed a threat, and placed the safety of others over his own paternal instincts.

Such examples of intervention prompted U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to serve in the U.S. Congress, to note "about a third of all foiled al-Qaida-related plots in the U.S. relied on support or information provided by members of the Muslim community."

Can the Muslim community in America do more? Certainly, but this is not a one-way street. It will take more than congressional hearings to encourage American Muslims to be more proactive. Government officials must place additional emphasis upon developing relationships that build trust and confidence.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder tasked America's U.S. Attorneys to prioritize this kind of engagement. Pamela Marsh, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Florida, has taken a number of constructive steps toward this end. Secretary Janet Napolitano has established similar priorities for the Department of Homeland Security. So have others. However, many members of Congress haven’t even visited their local Islamic centers.

These issues are not limited to the federal government. State and local officials also have important roles to play.

The irony is that King's congressional hearings conceivably could result in more significant repercussions than Pastor Terry Jones' rather bizarre "International Burn A (Quran) Day," the fringe group event that was to take place at Dove World Church in Gainesville, FL, on September 11 last year, or his "International Judge the (Quran) Day" that is slated for March 20th.

While Pastor Jones' actions test the limits of free speech in America, King's congressional inquiry runs the risk of stigmatizing an entire community and carries the imprimatur of the U.S. government and misses a significant opportunity to explore meaningful and appropriate policy options to deter all forms of extremism by focusing exclusively on American Muslims.

The vast majority are presumably outraged when extremists commit heinous acts of terror in the name of Islam, and increasingly vulnerable to backlash in the aftermath.

Parvez Ahmed, is a Fulbright Scholar (2009-10) and associate professor at the University of North Florida and a frequent writer the American Muslim experience. Rabbi Jack Romberg leads Temple Israel (a Reform congregation in Tallahassee) and is a commentator on a range of social justice issues. Mark Schlakman is a lawyer and serves as senior program director at The Florida State University Center of Advancement of Human Rights.