Month: February 2009

By B. R. Gowani

There cannot be two opinions regarding the US presence in Afghanistan. It’s clearly an occupying force with imperial objectives, whose central goal is to strengthen the US Global Empire through any means necessary. The US has to leave Afghanistan – or has to be forced out — whether this is done through diplomatic or violent means is the choice left at the discretion of the Afghan people.

The violent resistance against the US and NATO forces is currently coming from the Taliban, but also, from many other Islamic outfits. Included in these are Al Qaeda fighters, on both sides of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, whose fight has gained them immense sympathy and support from local and non-local Muslims. Also, the civilian casualties resulting from the bombardment of the US drones have helped strengthen this opposition enormously. Many moderate and not outwardly practicing Muslims feel threatened regarding their religion, thus strengthening their suspicion that the US is waging a war against Islam.

The militants’ counteroffensive against the US war is one aspect of their struggle. Their aspirations, however, are dual: one is to drive out the US and the other is to take over power. This second aspect is troubling. It would have been different if Osama bin Laden (that is, if he is still alive) and Mullah Omar were of the Fidel Castro and Che Guevara mold; but that is not the case. They are the exact opposites; neither progress nor human rights are their forte. They are just in a haste to impose a barbaric rule in which half of the society — the women — would be confined to the four walls of their houses. Minorities will be outcasts, and the other sects in Islam will be declared infidels in their brand of government. Education will be restricted to the study of just one book, the Qur’an.

One would not have any reason to lose sleep if these militants were a fringe of the population. But that is not so. On the contrary, their number is on the rise. Let us not forget their connected and unconnected offshoots that have sprung up in many Muslim countries. Some of them have joined hands with the local Muslim zealots and have become a problem for many governments; including those of the corrupt US supported dictators. In some parts of Pakistan these militants have become a parallel mainstream, while in places such as Swat they have overshadowed the government. Things are so bad in Pakistan that there is open talk of the country’s disintegration. (The latest development is another ominous sign: Supreme Court has barred the main opposition leader Nawaz Sharif from elected office.)

Although Pakistan has become the Mecca for these Muslim fanatics, one should take note that it is not solely a Pakistan problem. This is the monster that can readily devour all the Muslim countries (and countries with substantial Muslim population). In this urgency, what is needed is for Pakistan’s liberal segment to join hands with counterparts in other Muslim and non-Muslim countries (such as India, England, United States, etc.) and fight the militants with the following arguments:

1. The freedom to pray should mean that nobody stops you from praying, that is, if you want to pray. It does not mean that you force people (not wanting to pray) to pray. The freedom to ‘not pray’ should be respected.
2. The freedom to fast should mean that nobody force-feeds you to break your fast, that is, if you want to fast. It does not mean that you force people (not wanting to fast) to fast. You cannot force restaurants to remain closed from sunrise to sunset (the fasting time). Those people who want to eat in public during Ramadan (the month of fasting) should have the full freedom to do so without any fear of harassment, intimidation, or arrest. Others should not go hungry for your faith.
3. There should be no prayer calls from the mosque minarets five times a day (Muslims are required to offer five prayers at different times of the day) as people could be sleeping or sick or studying or performing intimate acts. There are all sorts of alarm clocks available in the markets, including the ones which have pre-recorded prayer call.
4. All the sects of Islam (Shia and Sunni) should have full freedom to coexist and the followers of those sects should be at liberty to practice their religion in a way they deem fit.
5. Members of minorities (that is non-Muslims) should have the same rights, with total equality, as all other citizens. They should also be permitted to run for the highest office.
6. Women should be granted total equality, not just in the constitution, but also in the realities of every day life. Any veil which covers the face should be banned completely. Women should have freedom to dress the way they want to.
7. There should be no prohibition on alcohol. What is needed instead is the de-glamorization of alcohol and prohibition on its advertisements. (Liquor is banned in Pakistan but you can have as much of it as you want, even delivered at home. This is true in many countries where it is restricted.)
8. Ahmadi Muslims, who were declared non-Muslims in 1974, should be readmitted into Islam. A ban should be announced on such anti Muslim declarations, because no one has a right or authority to make such declarations. The militants today want all Shias to be declared non-Muslims. Tomorrow this can extend to the moderate Sunnis, too.

The former director of the Human Rights Commission Pakistan, Mr. I. A. Rehman, doubts if declaring certain areas of Pakistan as Shariah zone will restrict the Islamic militancy from spreading to other areas. (See the following article.)

If the arguments do not penetrate the thick headed militants then there are a couple of alternatives: either,

1. The moderates of the Muslim world should jointly issue a fatwa against the extremists and declare them to be outside the fold of Islam,
Or,
2. They should declare themselves outside the militants’ version of Islam. They should announce their version of Islam as Islam (LP), i.e., Liberal & Pluralistic Islam; and the militant version as Islam (WT), i.e., Wahhabi Taliban Islam.

B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com

I. A. Rehman is a leading human rights advocate, a prominent art critic, and a well-known columnist. He is also a founding member of the Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy, and a councilmember of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

I.A. Rehman speculates on the challenges which face this country in future years as part of Dawn.com’s launch special ‘Flash Forward Pakistan: where do we go from here?’

The civil war underway in the tribal areas and a large part of the Frontier province, including Swat, presents the biggest challenge Pakistan has ever faced. At stake is not only the integrity of the state but also the nature of its polity. The odds are heavily stacked against Pakistan’s survival as a democracy.

This grave situation has been created by a combination of several factors. The authors of the Pakistan demand may not have wanted to establish a religious state, but their argument was derived wholly from the religious identity of the population of the designated territory. Soon after the new state came into being, enforcement of Shariah rule was demanded. This demand has never been opposed. Instead, the state has been yielding to the clerics throughout its 61 years.

Between 1949, when the Objectives Resolution was adopted, and 1979, when the Federal Shariat Court was established with powers to strike down any law considered to be repugnant to Islamic injunctions, Pakistan repeatedly affirmed its constitutional obligation to enforce the Shariah.

In addition, the armed forces were indoctrinated in a religious context as General Ziaul Haq’s rule to reserve senior posts for genuine Islamists remained in force for a decade. These historical precedents are enough to convince a militant in Swat that he is only asking the state to honour its constitutional pledge.

On another point, the state chose to avoid integrating the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) with the rest of the country. In 1994, when a movement for enforcing Shariah in place of the archaic Frontier Crimes Regulation began in PATA, the government obliged by setting up Qazi courts. This did not satisfy the clerics and they were accommodated further in 1999. Dissatisfied again, the agitators decided that instead of asking the state to enforce the Shariah, they would do the job themselves.

Meanwhile, world powers failed to ensure the establishment of a government of national unity in Afghanistan after the fall of the Najibullah regime. The vacuum was filled by religions militants who had been trained, among other things, to carry out terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings. Thus, over the last few years, a vast territory comprising Afghanistan, FATA, and the former PATA districts, has become a theatre of a war. US and Nato forces are fighting the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and the Pakistan Army is battling with the tribal militants, the self-styled Pakistani Taliban.

As things stand, the US’s ability to win the new Afghan war in coming years seems doubtful. Neither the US nor Nato has an exit strategy. Only two possibilities emerge: either the messy war will continue for another decade, or the Taliban will be brought into the ruling coalition which they will eventually dominate. In either case, Pakistan will be buffeted by almost irresistible storms.

Read More

By BRETT ZONGKER
Source: Associated Press

Lebanese dancers, a Shakespeare production from Kuwait portraying Saddam Hussein as “Richard III” and incredible wedding dresses from the Arab world are showcased in an unprecedented arts festival opening at the Kennedy Center.

The $10 million, three-week festival, “Arabesque: Arts of the Arab World,” began Monday. It will feature 800 artists from 22 different countries including Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Somalia and Sudan. Organizers say that makes it the largest presentation of Arab arts ever in the United States.

The hundreds of visual and performing artists, hailing from well-established theaters and more isolated places, “are excited that America is going to take their cultural work seriously,” said Michael Kaiser, president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The goal, he said, is “to get to understand Arabs as people, as opposed to Arabs as political entities.”

A 120-member children’s choir from Syria struck Kaiser during some of his travels as the perfect fit for a U.S. audience, which may hold negative political images about Syria.

“When you see beautiful little children singing,” he said, “it’s very hard to think of those children as being evil.”

Read More

Sunday 1st March At 2pm

Discussions:

Blaming Foreign Workers For The Crisis

The Latest Developments In Nepal

The US/UK Attack On Afghanistan

Come and discuss people’s struggles around the world

Venue: 100 Flowers Cultural Centre, above 24 Stoke Newington Road, Dalston, N16 (side entry)
Close to Dalston/Kingsland
(Submitted by WPRM)

A scene from the 1998 movie Dil Se (From the Heart). Manisha Koirala is a suicide bomber from the North eastern region of India and Shahrukh Khan is an All-India Radio journalist from Delhi. The occasion is India’s 50th Independence Day celebration (1947-1997). Mani Ratnam is the writer/director. Music is by A. R. Rahman, singer is Sonu Nigam, and poet is Gulzar. The couplet means:
Let me sleep in the lap of death
Let me drown my body in your soul

The film’s website
The film’s website describes that the film’s progression is similar to the seven shades of love enumerated in ancient Arabic literature: attraction, infatuation, love, reverence, worship, obsession, and death. (ed.)

By Richard Tanter

Summary
By virtually every measure, the war in Afghanistan is getting much worse for both the western coalition and for the Afghan civilian population. The strategic benefits are minimal to non-existent, the risks of a widening war alarming, and the moral and humanitarian consequences appalling. Strategic confusion, institutional inertia and self-interest provide most of the answer as to why the US remains in Afghanistan. Australia’s commitment shares the same strategic confusion, mixed with a diffuse paternalistic enthusiasm not too far distant from a nineteenth century imperialist ideal of civilising the natives. The US, and its allies, will leave, without any definable or honourable victory. The Afghans will stay. If the current logic of expansion of the war engulfs Pakistan, withdrawal and defeat will take place eventually, but later, and after an infinitely more catastrophic and dangerous war. Could a new US administration transform these outcomes?

Introduction
On September 22, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1833 (2008) extending the authorization of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan for a further year until 13 October 2009.[1] Yet the matter was barely mentioned in the Australian press, and no peace organisation put its head above ramparts to note the legal extension of the war. This resolution and its predecessors, invoking Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, binding on all member states, provide the legal basis for the deployment of Australian military forces in Afghanistan, and those of its partner countries operating as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) or in the parallel United States-commanded Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). This overwhelmingly western military coalition now fields 52,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, up from 36,000 at the beginning of 2007, including almost 1,100 from Australia.[2]

Defence officials of Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Britain and the United States regularly cite three reasons why their troops are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan, in increasing numbers and with increasing numbers of civilian casualties.[3] Two of those reasons are essentially arguments about strategic interest: preventing the return of safe havens for international terrorist networks in Afghanistan, and ensuring that country does not become a narco-state. In the language of UNSC 1833, like that of both the Howard and Rudd governments, coalition forces are mandated to combat the increased violent and terrorist activities by the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, illegally armed groups, criminals and those involved in the narcotics trade, and the increasingly strong links between terrorism activities and illicit drugs.

The third rationale for the continuing western presence in Afghanistan, seven years after the destruction of the Al Qaeda bases and overthrow of the Taliban government, is based less on strategic interests than a claim of moral or humanitarian responsibility for Afghan democracy and protection of human rights. This now amounts to unquestioning support for the Karzai government in Kabul, elected under UN auspices in 2004.

By virtually every yardstick, the war in Afghanistan is getting much worse for both the western coalition and for the Afghan civilian population.[4] The number of districts under Taliban influence[5], the number of “security incidents”[6], the number of suicide attacks[7], the number of regions that are “No Go zones” for UN and aid workers[8], the number of coalition dead[9], the number of civilian dead and wounded[10], the number of insurgent attacks on civilians[11], the number of coalition air strikes[12], the number of insurgent roadside bombs attacks[13], the number of insurgent attacks on government officials, especially police, the size of the opium crop[14], the number of households involved in opium production[15], the size and sophistication of transnational heroin production and export networks[16] – all have increased or worsened markedly in the past two years.

Read more

By CHRISTIAN WRIGHT

If ever you find yourself in a debate with an evolutionist, be aware that your opponent might attempt to seduce you with “facts” and “science.” He* will point toward a variety of “evidence,” and state that the community of “real” scientists around the globe overwhelmingly believes that the theory of evolution is a fact.
You must resist!

Instead, commit yourself fervently to spreading the truth of Creation—even though most evolutionists obviously don’t want to hear it. That’s okay. Remember that every minute you can keep an evolutionist busy in a debate is another minute in which he can’t be spewing his foul mistruths to those who might believe him. In that sense, even though it might appear to be a waste of time, you are, in fact, doing God’s work.

Of course, before you enter into this sort of discussion, it pays to be prepared. You have a duty to present the case for Creation in a sensible, logical manner. To that end, below are a few talking points that can help you achieve a resounding victory.

However, before we continue, a quick aside: there are some Christians who insist that Creation and evolution are somehow compatible, that they can coexist peacefully, side by side, in a melding of God and science. If you buy into that misconception, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But keep in mind that this view is akin to denouncing Genesis altogether, and, as a result, you will burn for eternity in the fire of a thousand suns.

Now that we have that unpleasantness out of the way, here are several rebuttals that will help you prove the case for Creation.

Read More

By Allan Tacca

On at least two occasions, we have learned from Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s humorous assessment of himself that he is next to God. And if, like me, you have incurable doubts about the existence of God, then President Museveni must be just about the top honcho in the universe. In a manner of speaking, he is the Acting God.

It was therefore not surprising that when the Ministry of Public Service announced the new allowances for Uganda’s big public officials, those for the President were not indicated. Presumably, the President gets what he wants more or less at will; he does not need allowances in the strict sense that we would understand.
If, for instance, the President heard worrying rumours about Uganda’s milk and wanted a glass of fresh clean Rwakitura milk at an odd hour, someone at State House would make frantic telephone calls, until the relevant official in Rwakitura got hold of the First Herdsman and ensured that the latter had identified a cow that had never drank water from a dirty pond.

The cow will be milked, and (of course!) no water from a dirty pond will be added to the milk. A high speed vehicle will be availed, and in a couple of hours the President would have his milk.

If it is something less eccentric and less troublesome, like a new Gulf stream jet, the plane would be ordered – indeed one has been ordered – and the formalities examined and streamlined later.

Read More

By Mirela Xanthaki

“An AK-47 is not made for a kid. It is not made for a human being, let alone a kid,” said Kon Kelei, a former child soldier from Sudan. Kelei was taken to a camp when he was four or five years old — he is not precisely sure — and trained to fight in battle.

“What we need is to focus and advocate for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation made me who I am today and what I am saying today,” he stressed.

Kelei and other former child soldiers, along with youth leaders who have firsthand experience in conflict zones, this month launched a new Global Network of Young People Formerly Affected by War (NYPAW) at U.N. headquarters in New York.

The group is led by UNICEF advocate Ismael Beah, who wrote the international bestseller “A Long Way Gone, Memoirs of a Child Soldier”, where he describes his experience as a child soldier in Sierra Leone. Beah served in the Sierra Leonean army for almost two years — a reminder that it is not only rebel groups which recruit children.

The objective of the network is to demand accountability and to promote rehabilitation and empowerment of young people who are affected by armed conflict.

“The reason why we believe that change is possible is not because we are idealists but because we believe we have made it, so other people can make it as well,” Kelei said.

With an estimated 250,000 children around the world recruited to serve in armed conflicts as soldiers, messengers, spies, porters, cooks, for sexual services or even as suicide bombers, this is a pressing social issue that needs to be better addressed by the international community, advocates say.

“From the Democratic Republic of Congo to the Gaza Strip and from Afghanistan to Somalia, too many children are suffering from the consequences of conflict,” said Radhika Coomaraswamy, special representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.

“War violates every right of the child. Everybody has a role to play to stop these violations. We cannot let war continue to destroy childhood,” she said, adding that, “The power of resilience of these children should give us the strength to continue to mobilise the international community to do more to stop this terrible phenomenon.”
Read More