Thursday, August 19, 2004


Posted here Thursday, August 19, 2004 at 5:33:13 PM    

And there are counter pressures, always worth remembering that when a problem emerges into visibility, those closest to it are already working on solutions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0819/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2

Other nations are also looking at ways to promote more moderate views. The International Herald Tribune reported recently that Spain has begun discussions on a proposal that would see the government funding mosques in order to free them from financial dependence on "outside" sources. Spanish investigators say the terrorists who blew up trains in Madrid on March 11, killing 191 people, "attended mosques that had ties to Wahhabism."

Publicly, the proposal is being presented mainly as an egalitarian measure intended to offer all of Spain's major religions the same treatment given the Catholic Church, which has received state funding under a supposedly temporary agreement reached with the Vatican in 1979. But officials in the interior and justice ministries say the proposal is also motivated by a desire to seal off Spanish mosques from the influence of extremists in other countries.

The Christian Science Monitor reported last month on efforts by the Morrocan government to "rein in" radical preachers of Wahhabism and to promote the "modernization of religious education." But critics of this plan say it's unlikely to work.

"It's not enough to control mosques to control [Wahhabism]," argues Mr. Darif. "The problem of the mosques is a fake problem. If we could put an end to this Islamist rise through the control of mosques, we would have done it [way before]." The key issue today is how to control clerics without discrediting their state-sanctioned speech and frustrating the population. If you exercise too much control, "you loose the commitment, the charisma. It is a problem posed to all religions. There's an equilibrium that has to be found," says Mohamed Tozy, a university professor and an expert on political Islam.

Stanley A. Weiss, chairman of Business Executives for National Security (a non-partisan group that promites US national security), wrote Tuesday in The International Herald Tribune about Indonesia, which he believes is a key location in the battle of "ideas" between moderate and extremist Islam. Indonesia, the largest Muslim democracy in the world, is another country where Saudi Arabia has spent millions of dollars to promote Wahhabism.

Weiss argues that education which helps create employment in poor Muslim countries is one of the best ways the US can fight the spread of extremist ideas, a suggestion also made in the report of the 9/11 commission. But Weiss says the US is not spending near enough to help countries in this situation.

Muslim nations must make education a priority, and the United States must help. The final report of the Sept. 11 commission called on Washington to "offer an agenda of opportunity that includes support for public education and economic openness." But American resources currently don't match the rhetoric. William Frej, director in Indonesia for the US International Agency for Development, said, "Americans think they spend something like 10 percent of their budget on foreign aid, when the real figure is less than 1 percent."

Finally, the Independent recently profiled Saudi Arabia itself and finds a country "racked by fundamentalism and political unrest." But, the Times writes, there is also hope for the future, as the pressures exerted on the Saudi government by foreign sources, and the need to "save the economy and meet the challenges of the modern world" have finally given reformers a stronger voice. Those reformers are arguing that the best way to "marginalize the militants" is to give Saudis a greater say in the running of their own country.


********

Posted here Thursday, August 19, 2004 at 4:00:57 PM    

 

Pasted from <http://www.zwire.com/site/news.asp?brd=2318&;pag=460&dept_id=483214>

Throwing down the gauntlet

By Sean-Paul Kelley

 

 

 

Indian activist Arundhati Roy pursues her indictment of globalization in thoughtful conversations with David Barsamian

 

What I remember most about India is the heat and the crowds. It's the kind of heat that claws at your lungs and squeezes every last drop of sweat from your pores. All the while, you're fighting crowds of loud, exuberant people. Sadhus and snake charmers dance around while shopkeepers shout and rickshaws dodge the cows meandering in the streets: It's the kind of unrelenting urban raucousness that either drives a person insane or to a higher level of consciousness. This is the environment that Arundhati Roy, the controversial Indian activist and writer, grew up in. Perhaps this is why she is, in her own words, "an extremely troublesome citizen."

 

The Checkbook and the Cruise Missile is a new a collection of interviews with Roy conducted by David Barsamian, producer of the award-winning syndicated radio program Alternative Radio. His subject will challenge and assault the reader's well-guarded assumptions, but The Checkbook and the Cruise Missile is not a polemic: It is a thinker's book, one sadly out of place in today's jingoistic and ideologically driven politics. It's full of passion, nuance, and insight. It's also an easy read. The prose is smooth, conversational, and rich with the sugary colloquialisms of Indian English.

 

The four interviews that form this compact book take place over the course of three years, beginning in February 2001 and ending shortly after the "major combat operations" phase of the Iraqi-American war. Barsamian is a skillful interviewer, drawing out the most engaging and provocative aspects of Roy's character. His questions are open-ended enough to allow Roy to move effortlessly from corporate power and personal responsibility to the market's impact on democracy, following it up with a stirring observation about her experiences in the U.S.

 

There is one key issue to which Roy continually returns. "The further and further away geographically decisions are taken, the more scope you have for incredible injustice," she says. She details many examples, including the 56 million people displaced by India's dam-building project, in a country with no official resettlement policy.

 

The Checkbook and the Cruise Missile:

Conversations with Arundhati Roy

Interviews by David Barsamian

South End Press

$16, 178 pages

ISBN: 0896087115

Befitting an Indian in the tradition of Gandhi, Roy is at her most eloquent when discussing personal responsibility versus power in the framework of globalization and its institutions such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization: "How do you break down this [increasingly] centralized and undemocratic process of decision making? How do you make sure that ... people have power over their lives and natural resources?"

 

Roy accuses Americans of ignoring the world at large and the implications of our foreign policy by oversimplifying them into pieties such as "they just hate our freedoms." As Roy describes us, our lives revolve around work, reality TV, Fox News, and sleep. "You don't know what the American government is up to and most ordinary people are too tired to make the effort," she says. She argues that terrorism is a political act, moored in strategy, not only hatred, and that to settle the conflict in which we are now engaged will require more politics and less bombs.

 

Roy's book ultimately challenges us to be better citizens: not docile and obedient, but independent and informed. Conservative or liberal, this book asks you to think more, do more, and try to understand the consequences of your actions, no matter how insignificant you might think they are. •

 

By Sean-Paul Kelley


********

Posted here Thursday, August 19, 2004 at 2:11:59 PM    

As I have said a number of times, don't play checkers with chess players.  China and Iran, to name two, have long traditions of thoughtfulness about strategy. We do not.

IRAN WARNS OF PREEMPTIVE STRIKE TO PREVENT ATTACK ON NUCLEAR SITES AFP August 18, 2004

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&;cid=1512&u=/afp/20040818/wl_afp/iran_nuclear_us_israel_040818201404&printer=1

DOHA - Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us.

Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.


********

Posted here Thursday, August 19, 2004 at 9:41:47 AM    

To get a view of what Sadr is really up to read today's

http://www.juancole.com/

Muqtada has given many sermons and interviews in the past 16 months outlining his goals exactly.

1) He wants the US troops out of the country immediately, which is to say, an end to Occuption. If there have to be foreign troops in Iraq, he wants them under a United Nations command.

2) He refuses to cooperate (he would say "collaborate") with the caretaker government of Iyad Allawi, which he sees as a puppet regime installed by the United States. He insists that no legitimate Iraqi governmental process can begin until the US is out.

3) He wants the reestablishment of a strong central Iraqi government with a strong military, but which has cut all ties with the Baathist past.

4) He wants Iraq to stay together rather than being partitioned, and has denounced Kurdish demands for loose federalism.

5) He wants Iraqi Shiism to emerge from Iran's shadow and to establish its independence from Iran. His movement is rooted in the Shiite ghettos of Iraq and is very indigenous. He is not Iran's catspaw in Iraq, quite the opposite. He is strong Iraqi nationalist.

6) He sometimes talks about "democracy" in post-American Iraq, but probably just means populism. Like Peron and Franco, his populism implies his ability to maintain and direct his own militia, who provide "order" (read puritanical morality imposed by force) to Shiite neighborhoods.

7) In the long term, he would like to see a system in Iraq similar to the regime in Iran. He wants Islamic law to be the law of the land, and he wants clerics to rule. His father studied with Ayatollah Khomeini and accepted the notion of clerical rule. So does Muqtada. That is, there may be a place for elections (as in Iran), but true power would rest in the hands of the clerics. He has admitted all this in Arabic press interviews.

So, I don't understand the widespread puzzlement reported by AP. It may not be a simple set of positions, but they aren't hidden from view or hard to understand.


********