Tuesday 23 June 2009

Be Careful What You Mean, If You Know What I Mean!







At the Tallberg Foundation in Stockholm, President Nasheed spoke about “Saving Paradise”, and I joined him in a Panel Discussion thereafter. After a while, we opened the floor for discussion and a gentleman in a grey jacket on the far left raised his hand. The moderator said, “Yes, sir, the coloured gentleman in the back, please go ahead.” The gentleman promptly joked, “Well, we are all coloured one way or another,” and proceeded to ask the question.

The incident reminded me of a few incidents where I had had difficulty using the right word.

I remember a conversation I had long ago with a young Maldivian who was going to school in India. We could never agree on what the word “indigenous” meant! He insisted that it meant “made in India”, and when I explained to him that it meant that something was native to a country or produced in that particular country, he simply uttered, “exactly!” We were in India and there was no way I could win the argument.

But I seemed to have learned nothing from that experience. A young Maldivian, I must say quite an educated person, angrily confronted me on the street one day, in February 2005, claiming that I had used disparaging language in reference to his beloved party, the MDP, in a BBC interview. He was furious and accused me of calling MDP a “suthulhi goani” – or, gunny bag! I told him that I said no such thing, but he insisted that I had called his party a “gunny bag” or "jute bag"!

Well, I told him that I had not used any insulting language but simply said that MDP was a “rag bag”. And rag bag simply means an assortment of unconnected things.

The point I was making was that, at that time, in my view,( and I see it differently today), MDP were a diverse group who shared a common hatred of Gayoom but not much besides, if you consider that there were mullahs and secular liberals in the party.
Rag bag is not a pejorative term. Granted that “rags” are not complimentary; and neither are bags, perhaps. But a rag bag is not just the addition of two words. I told him that “rag bag” was an idiom, although by now I was feeling a bit like an idiot for having used this particular idiom.

Some words have serious consequences. On 16 September 2001, speaking from the White House, President Bush said, “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is gonna take a while.” This immediately sent shivers through the Middle East and Europe, where the “crusades” referred to the wars over holy lands between Muslim Middle East and Christian Europe. Bush insisted that it was not a war against Islam, but the word played into the hands of the Jihadists in the Middle East. The statement was played time and time again over the airwaves in the Middle East, and it evoked fears of a clash of civilisations.

The term “secular” is also a similarly loaded word. For most Muslims, the word evokes enemy images, a forceful trampling upon of the rights of Muslim communities, of forced exile, imprisonment, torture and worse. Isn’t that what happened in Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Iraq? “Secular modernisers” ravaged Muslim communities and were autocratic, repressive and brutal. In Europe, however, the experience was quite the reverse, and the European secular ideal rose out of the death and destruction of the religious wars. Experience had taught Muslim communities that secularism produced dictatorships, although intrinsically there is no such association. So when secular liberals in the Maldives talk with Islamists on this subject, they are talking past each other.

“Emergency rule” was another such term. I reckon many of the Old Guard were quite at ease with the use of the term. After all, that is the norm in Egypt. But for me, and for many of my peers, “emergency rule” brings to mind the things that happened in India in 1975-77, when India was under emergency rule. I am sure the Old Guard never understood that many people had developed allergies to emergency rule.

Today, “privatisation” is becoming a confusing word in the Maldives. For some it is a reference to the Chicago School and Milton Friedman, and to a proven strategy to increase prosperity for all. For others, as recently argued by Dr Riffat Afeef in an article in Miadhu, it evokes images of imperialism, greed and corruption. It would be good to clarify what we mean exactly in this evolving debate, before the people develop allergies to it.

When President Nasheed used the term “nulafaa” during the recent parliamentary campaign, I thought he meant “mean”. But I was surprised that many of his own supporters translated that to mean “ruthless”! Democratically-elected presidents do not have the wherewithal to become ruthless; but all politicians can be mean. And that is not the same thing.

Anyone for a red herring?

Ahmed Shaheed for the OSA

Sunday 21 June 2009

Iran: More than an Election Outcome


Last week, as I accompanied President Nasheed out of the Royal Palace in Stockholm, we heard loud chants coming from a crowd of people with placards just at the foot of the castle. We could read some of the placards in English saying, “Where is my vote?”, and instantly knew that this was about the vote in Iran. It is said that politicians are drawn to crowds like bees to honey -- we made our way towards the crowd.
Dressed in formal wear in a warm Stockholm mid-summer evening, the crowd instantly surmised that there was a VIP amongst us, someone who could broadcast their plea. As a small section of the crowd tore away and approached us, we introduced ourselves, and we gave them a “three-in-one” “instant mix” of the political struggles in the Maldives on democracy, free elections and people power.
The crowd were in fact protesting against Ericsson, pleading them not to provide the means with which the Iranian authorities were jamming the communication abilities of the Iranian people – we had just had chit-chats with the CEO of Ericsson up in the Kings Garden at the Reception for the participants of Volvo Ocean Race, which the Ericsson team had just won.
I feel for the Iranian people—quite apart from who won or lost the elections. It is a nation of great potential, but on the knife-edge of a number of tipping points. And when I heard about the election results and the responses in Iran to those announcements, I recalled an Iranian I had shared an office with for three years in Brisbane, in the early 1990s.
His name was Hossein, and, like me, he was doing a PhD at the University of Queensland. His thesis was a bomb: “How and Why One Party State Regimes Fall?” Of course, in the frenzy of the post-Cold War world, his comparative study was focussed on the dictators that were falling like ten-pins those days. And he also included in his study the fall of the Shah.
I agreed to proof-read his work. Over the three years, I got to read and re-read the chapters that he was writing, and I attended the seminars that he was required to hold on his research. His work was good.
But I did not realise just how good his research and hypotheses were until I had to put them to test in the Maldives from 2004 to 2008, to contribute to managing a disintegrating political order and then to tip over: to repair Humpty Dumpty long enough for a peaceful transition, and then to secure that transition.
Hossein’s thesis held its ground in the “soft power” showdown with the Gene Sharps and the Ot Pors, who could not match Hossein’s work for its intensity, clarity, and objectivity. I am not saying that there is a direct contradiction amongst them, but that whereas Sharp and Ot Por were focussed on advocacy of their point of view, Hossein’s was a dispassionate research which examined the topic from competing perspectives. I dare say that insights from Hossein’s research accounted for the confidence and conviction with which I took on the old guard, pushing for change from within to create space for people power, and then moving on to join the people in that space. To Hossein and his research I owe a great debt.
I have not kept in touch with Hossein for a number of years now. Whatever happened to his thesis, the events unfolding in Iran now are going to judge his thesis. What is unfolding in Iran right now is not about who won or lost the election; but about what will prevail – people power or state power? Do state institutions have enough credibility to exert sufficient authority? Or will any attempts to exert such authority only strengthen those who oppose the regime? Or would the failure to exert such authority not result in conceding more ground to the protestors? Or would not the assertion of control just become the tipping point?
Will the regime not crack under the pressure of widespread protests? Are not dissenting opinions among senior clerics the first signs of this? The question then is: does the regime have enough authority to exercise sufficient power AND enough power to exercise the necessary authority? Will soft power draw enough credibility to defeat hard power? Or could there be a role for what is today called smart power?
Judging by Hossein’s thesis, as of Saturday, Iran has not yet reached the tipping point. Things can still go either way. And things are moving very fast—and at this moment, it looks like they can take a life of their own, tipping the balance in favour of people power.
And of course, whichever way the events go, what is at stake is not Hossein’s thesis. What is at stake is something of great strategic significance, which could bring about a historic triumph or calamitous tragedy to the Muslim Ummah.
And at the end of the day, what drew President Nasheed and me to that crowd protesting outside the Royal Castle in Stockholm was that recognition—that either a great tragedy or historic triumph was in the making. Where human life is at risk, doing nothing is never an option for a politician who just picked up the Anna Lindh Prize for Human Rights, or for any human being who believes in the sanctity of life and people power.

Submitted by Ahmed Shaheed for the OSA
____________

Sunday 14 June 2009

Murder Most Foul

The abuse, torture and murder of an 8-month baby is the sickest story I have ever come across in the Maldives. I was utterly shocked and outraged by what I heard. How can people descend to such cruelty?

I had heard that Hon Nasheed MP had submitted a bill to the parliament to address some of these issues. Good, I thought. Of course, there must be greater legal protection given to children and requisite changes made to the legal framework. But changing the legal framework alone will not be enough.

We must really ask ourselves how safe our children are? Does the government have appropriate policies to detect abuse and deter abuse? And is there something that we, the people, can do? A successful strategy must essentially focus on detection, deterrence and prevention.

I suppose no one was surprised to hear that drug abuse was related to the horrible crime. A society in which drug abuse is so widespread will provide safety to no one. Life will be cheap in a country where drug kingpins ostensibly operate with impunity. A polity in which corruption pays will throw up unspeakable crimes.

The brutal murder must make us all stop and think about where the country is headed to, why we have reached this horrible point, and what we are doing wrong. Is life becoming so cheap in this country? Have we lost our souls?

For me, a rude awakening came in 1997, when the government put 14 new islands to tender as tourist resorts. There was a frantic rush by ministers to team up with businessmen to bid for these islands. And there were businessmen frantically trying to enlist Ministers to team up with them to submit bids. To me it seemed that businessmen believed that without a Minister as a partner, they would not win a resort. And worse than that, the Ministers seemed to believe that their name would help secure a resort! What I am saying? The elites of this country had sold their souls, for corruption and material greed.

Such has been the greed and spiritual decay of the elites of this country that it has catapulted entire sections of society into despair, destitution, decadence, and drug abuse. Ours therefore is a society coming apart at the seams, descending into a nightmarish hell. It is one that is unable to care for the weak, vulnerable and helpless, because its strong and powerful have sold their souls to reckless greed, rampant corruption and other shameful deeds. There is so much anger, so much violence and so much hatred just bubbling beneath the surface, that so many of us are probably randomly-timed walking bombs.

For too long, our laws have been used to help the near and dear and punish others. For too long, justice has only served the interests of the powerful. For too long we have allowed our children to be consumed by drugs and violence. For too long we have blatantly promoted double standards and used ethical standards as a tool of social and political hegemony. For too long, the Maldives has been a tale of two cities. In a society in which priority is given to the protection of the rich and powerful, the weak and vulnerable are exposed to the most heinous and unspeakable crimes.

So a bill in parliament, while necessary, is not enough. It is time that we begin to really care about people, promote civil society groups, and allocate enough resources to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable.

Thursday 11 June 2009

Freedom of Expression and Defamation: the Kosovo Test Case

OSA welcomes that initiatives being taken in the Maldives to strengthen the freedom of expression. It also welcomes the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr Frank La Rue and his calls for measures to strengthen freedom of expression in the Maldives.

The OSA would like to note the contributions that its patrons continue to make to promote freedom of expression in the Maldives. As Frank La Rue noted, the former Attorney-General, Dr Hassan Saeed had parked the provisions in the penal code that criminalised defamation- an extremely difficult thing to do at a time when Dhivehi Observer and Koimala were taking press freedom to the gutter.

Former Justice Minister Jameel was quite enthusiastic about providing civil remedies for defamation – as an alternative to criminalising slander and libel.

Former and current Foreign Minister Shaheed always spoke in defence of a free press, and had indeed invited Frank La Rue to undertake the visit to the Maldives. It was he who began to celebrate Press Freedom Day in the Maldives, back in 2006.

Despite being champions of freedom of expression, Dr Shaheed last week filed a defamation suit against Umar Naseer. This has come as a surprise for some people, who had hoped that Dr Shaheed would not take anyone to court on a defamation suit. It was he who had demanded in 2007, when civil remedies for defamation were being introduced, that all ministers must make a public declaration never to pursue even civil proceedings against defamation.

So last week came surprising U-turn, or so it would appear, until his statements and actions in this matter are closely scrutinised.

In filing the suit, Dr Shaheed’s lawyer, Dr Jameel said that one of the purposes of the suit was to set some legal precedents in the country. Although one fears that Dr Shaheed’s lawsuit could limit the scope for freedom of expression, it can, on the contrary, expand the boundaries of free expression in the country. No one will argue that it is time that the judiciary set certain standards for litigation in defamation.

Dr Jameel is amply qualified to aim at those high standards which should make his PhD supervisors at the University of London very happy indeed.

In fact, Dr Shaheed’s handling of the case has already been different from the older methods of dealing with defamation. The first of these is that he voluntarily chose the civil lawsuit over criminal proceedings. He could have easily chosen criminal litigation, but to the surprise and delight of many journalists, chose to seek civil remedies.

The second is that he chose not to take any of the journalists or media outlets to court on the matter. A number of media platforms repeated or disseminated the defamatory allegations. This distinction that Dr Shaheed is making has significant implications for strengthening press freedom in the country, for a firm legal basis for this distinction is likely to be established in the court.

And the third is that he speaks about setting legal precedents. So far in the Maldives, there is no distinction made between alleged defamation of public figures and private citizens, between compensatory and punitive damages, and between contemptuous damages and aggravated damages. Neither has the usual defences for defamation, such as fair comment and public interest, been cited or contested in court. Nor have mitigating or aggravating circumstances been discussed. At least some, if not all, of these concepts are likely to be discussed in a defamation suit.

In terms of setting legal precedents, a lot will depend on how Dr Jameel lays out the arguments. One hopes that the argumentation will provide for the adoption of modern standards of defamation proceedings. If that is indeed the case, by the time the lawsuit ends, journalists might feel more secure about reporting on matters of public interest, without reckless disregard for the truth.

One also hopes that Dr Jameel’s argumentation will introduce to the Maldivian judiciary new concepts in the domain of freedom of expression and set a very high bar on defamation, through a discussion of legitimate defences against defamation, the concept of malice and reckless disregard, of libel per se and aggravated damages.

At the least, we should hear how the Foreign Minister responds to the call by Frank La Rue that state officials do not pursue any defamation lawsuits. What is the international norm on this? Let us hear this in the Court.

Wednesday 10 June 2009

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: 10TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE

CSID Report

How to Improve Relations with the Muslim World - Challenges and Promises Ahead


CSID's 10th Annual ConferenceTuesday, May 5, 2009Sheraton Crystal City Hotel
Conference Report



The election of President Barack Hussein Obama on November 4, 2008, meant perhaps more for the rest of the world than it did for the United States. It signified a turn away from the divisive politics of the past administration and the start of a new era of American politics grounded in the principles of justice, freedom, and good governance, both in domestic as well as foreign affairs. It is with the hope of the positive changes this new administration will bring in terms of its relationship with the governments and people of the Muslim World that the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) held its 10th Annual Conference in the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, centered on the very timely topic of "How to Improve Relations with the Muslim World: Challenges and Promises Ahead."

To facilitate the introduction and pursuant discussion on this complex topic, the conference was divided into four separate panels, with special lunch and banquet dinner sessions.

The first session of the conference event addressed the issue of "Developing Democracy in the Muslim World." The first speaker on this panel was Ms. Geneive Abdo, a foreign policy analyst at the Century Foundation, whose research focuses on contemporary Iran and political Islam. Her presentation discussed the importance of United States engagement with the Islamic movements of the Middle East, particularly to ease tensions between the United States and Iran. While "policy makers focus on the result, rather than on the process" of integration and open dialogue, she said that it is "important to engage not only Iran, but Islamic political movements" within Iran, and indeed around the Arab World, as they have widespread constituencies and are the most popular political parties in the Middle East.

Ms. Cecile Coronato, a legislative assistant with the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) focused on Iranian civil society [paper] and the encouraging signs that point to promising democratic reforms in the future. "Iran's well-educated, young, vibrant population has the potential to encourage democracy," said Ms. Coronato as she discussed the vibrant, progressive, yet often overlooked civil society thriving within Iran. "In a world where security interests often trump respect for human rights, the US should make sure it does not forget the Iranian people in order to improve relations with the Iranian government," which is something the Obama Administration ought to keep in mind as it moves forward in improving relations with the Islamic Republic.

Dr. Sudha Ratan,Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Augusta State University in Georgia presentation was titled "Integrating Women into Democratic Governance: A comparison of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India." [paper] In Pakistan and Afghanistan, she said, the governments have "taken a series of measures to reserve seats for women in elections, which has proven to be quite effective" in increasing the visibility of women in politics; despite these efforts, however, the women, once in office, often find themselves "unable to develop an effective strategy" to carry out their agendas. In Pakistan, women are in a bit of a better position due to the strong civil society movement, although the tensions between the various interpretations of Islam and the role of women in politics has become an increasing problem for these women to handle. In India, there is a large number of women in government at the local level, as opposed to the realities of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which has been supported by Muslim reform movements and links to the Gulf States.

In the second session, titled "Prospects for Peace in the Middle East," focused on the 62-year long Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Each of the speakers on this panel will offer their own unique perspectives on the present state of affairs and their hopes for a just resolution. Dr. Halim Rane,Deputy Director of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit and lecturer in the National Centre of Excellent in Islamic Studies in Australia, gave his presentation on "Trading Rockets for Resolutions: Restructuring Palestinian Resistance in the Context of International Legal and Political Dynamics." [paper] Dr. Rane insisted that a just resolution of this conflict is central to improving relations between the United States and the Muslim World, as "the Palestinian cause is popularly seen as synonymous with an Islamic religious cause" Indeed, he said, "the peace process is in need of a framework, guidelines, and basic standards," but he remains highly optimistic for a just peace in the Middle East.

Dr. Mohamed Nimer, Assistant Professor at the School of International Service at American University
address was titled "Hamas, Likud, and the Obama Quet for Peace in the Middle East," [paper] and focused primarily on the impact of the prominent political parties within Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, namely Likud and Hamas, respectively. He said that "the problem is not that there is an entity called Israel, the problem is that the Palestinian state is not existent. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians need to change their narrative. Once peace takes hold, people will be conditioned by it and you will no longer have people who have spent their entire existence in a state of conflict."

Dr. Nathan Funk, assistant Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Waterloo in Canada spoke on "Peacemaking between America and the Muslim World: Beginning a New Chapter in U.S.-Islamic Relations?" [paper] His presentation focused on the necessary steps the new Obama Administration ought to embrace in mending the strained relations between the United States and the Muslim World. He said that "what has happened in the past cannot be changed, but the overall meaning of those events is subject to change," and added that "finding the political courage for this kind of thing is not easy as there is an overwhelming temptation and tendency to preserve political capital," but that it is not only possible, as the new President himself as exemplified, but is imperative, and must continue to sculpt future policies.

The luncheon and roundtable session centered around a discussion on the future prospects on the coexistence of Islam and Democracy in the Muslim World. The first speaker was Dr. John L. Esposito,University Professor and Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. Dr. Esposito noted that "what we see is that in many parts of the world the majority of Muslims want what we call 'democratization.' But many of them want a notion of modernization that includes religious values, in one way or another, that includes shari'ah as they see it, shari'ah that limits government and guarantees the moral values of society", which he adds is not so different than what most Americans want in their government. "The challenge facing us," he said "is to re-imagine what it is to talk about democracy, democracy in the Muslim world, the role that governments in and outside the Muslim world need to play. We need a new paradigm."

Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Maldives, was the second luncheon speaker. "There are those who reject outright any notion of compatibility between Islam and Democracy, and many of them see a colossal confrontation between the two," [paper] says Dr. Shaheed, which many may see as discouraging in the struggle for democratization in the Muslim World. While "democracy has not yet become entrenched" in the Arab World, there is cause for hope,as seen in the recent democratic transition in the Republic of Maldives, which was facilitated both by strong foreign actors as well as "unrelenting domestic, internal pressure." The challenge for the rest of the Muslim World, primarily the Arab World, is the need to develop a "change in mentality" so that a transition away from autocratic regimes to democratic governments is made possible and permanent.

The topic of the third panel discussion was "The Role of Religion in Developing Democracy." The first speaker on this topic was Dr. Laith Kubba, Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa Program at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). His presentation was titled "Is Islam Relevant to Democracy Building in Muslim Countries," gave the example of the Turkish budding democracy and its failure of excluding Islam from the process. "The reality is that Islam strongly influenced the lives of nearly 100 nations for more than one thousand years and it is an inseparable component of their cultural identity;" thus, the debate now, within Turkey is "no longer about whether or not Islam should be addressed in public life but it is about what form of Islam" ought to be incorporated and why. "Whatever we do has to be culturally sensitive."

Mr. Alejandro J. Beutel, a Junior Fellow at the Minaret of Freedom Institute, and Dr. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmed, the President and Director of the Minaret of Freedom Institute, presented a joint paper on "Religious or Policy Justification for Violence: a Quantitative Content Analysis of Osama bin Laden's Statements." [paper] Mr. Beutel said that "in the same vein that Osama bin Laden plays on the policy issue to manipulate Muslims to join his cause Western nations must address these grievances with substantive action so that they do not provide proof for those who are skeptical about their rhetoric." He highlighted interesting discoveries that came out in the in-depth studies of bin Laden's public speeches and written documents, in which he switches around in using religious and political justifications for violence depending on his target audience.

Ms. Amina Rasul-Bernardo, Lead Convenor of the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy and Managing Trustee of the Magbassa Kita Foundation Inc, whose talk was titled "The Role of Religion in Peacemaking: The Philippines 'Ulama." [paper] "Tensions where religion is invoked... arise not simply between adherence of difference between practices and beliefs, but also between secular and religious groups," which has added to the challenges not only within her native Philippines, but in conflicts around the world. Ms. Rasul-Bernardo notes that "the changes in geo-politics in the Philippines have not only contributed to the conflict, but have put liberties at risk." In seeking a peaceful resolution to the domestic conflicts of the Philippines between the majority Catholic and minority Muslim populations, the religious leaders, both Catholic and Muslim, have been "doing everything they can to resolve the ethnic conflict," as they are seen as the most trustworthy and credible people by the population at large.

Dr. Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, closed this segment of the conference with his presentation titled "Islamist Movements in the Electoral Process in the Arab World." In response to the concerns of Western democracies of the radicalization of some Islamic political parties in the Muslim World, Dr. Brown points out that "it is often the case that behavior produces ideology - if you take a look at the range of political behavior by islamic political actors, you find enormous variation." He added that "the political context in which [political parties] operate is a much better indicator of how they behave than their ideology is." Thus, he insisted that Islam is not the problem; rather, the dire situations in which these political parties operate have unfortunately driven them to extremes. He concluded with the position that "the political party that is allowed to form and is given a long leach will integrate itself as a viable political actor."

Dr. Osama Kadi,the founder and president of the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies (SCPSS), spoke on "Improving Relations between the U.S. and the Muslim World." [paper] His presentation was titled "Improving American-Syrian Relations: Toward a Strategic Plan," which begins by pointing out that, in recent history, "the US State department tailored its relationship with Syria based on its political interests and ignored all other aspects of the potential relationships." After highlighting a countless number of successful joint projects between the European Union and the Syrian Arab Republic in recent years, in the areas of business, gas, energy, banking, and institutional and infrastructural modernization, Dr. Kadi expressed his hope that "the United States will purse principled and sustained with all the nations in the region, and that will include Iran and Syria," for the mutual benefit of both sides.

Mrs. Sara Khorshid, Egyptian journalist and managing editor of IslamOnline.net's "Politics in Depth" section, talked about "The U.S. Favoring of Liberal Opposition, Pro-Good Governance Forces in the Muslim World: Assessment of the Past and Recommendations for the Future." [paper] Mrs. Khorshid's position on the flagrant U.S. support and backing for liberal individuals and forces in Egypt is that it is counter-productive to the push for democracy as Liberal Egyptians are the least popular and favorable in the country. She addresses not only the "pro-democracy policies of the US government, but also pro-liberalism attitudes and positions in US media and culture." She posits that it is because of the "fear of Islamists" and the American definition of democracy that excludes other variations, that the United States continues to support these unpopular forces.

Mr. Atef Saadawi, managing editor of the Democracy Review Quartely, a publication of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, spoke about "Promoting Democracy in the Arab World: New Ideas for U.S. Policy." [paper] Mr. Saadawi begins by pointing out that "within the Arab world, there are three groups of main political actors: current governing regimes, secular parties both liberal and leftist, and Islamist parties," and the successful implementation of democracy will depend on the integration and balance between these three groups. If the United States is to earnestly press for democracy, it must allow for a natural balance to take place between these three forces; it must not impose any particular outcome out of its own preferences. Mr. Saadawi ends with a reminder to the new Administration to "recognize that military force is the least effective way to promote democratic change abroad. Military force should never be presented as an effort to promote democracy abroad."

Dr. Anwar Haddam,President and co-founder of the Movement for Liberty and Social Justice (MLJS) in Algeria, presented a paper titled "The Obama Administration: Engaging the Muslim World with a New Mindset; Challenges and Opportunities." [paper] Dr. Haddam began with what he called "a historical statement" made by President Obama in his inaugural address: "To the Muslim World, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Dr. Haddam continued to comment that "Islam is the major element of the Muslim identity. Obama's inauguration speech was the first time a president recognized that." He noted that President Obama's inaugural address was critical in that it openly admitted to the realities that "there has been erosion of trust between the Muslim and Western worlds, particularly in the last seven years," but insisted that true positive change must come from internal pressure in Washington.

At the final session, the Hesham Reda Memorial Lecture and Annual Banquet Dinner, centered around the topic of "Building Bridges of Understanding between the U.S. and the Muslim World." Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison opened the banquet dinner with his speech about the importance of building and maintaining these bridges by recognizing commonalities. "We live in a world that is so incredibly inter-connected, said the Congressman. "As Americans, of whatever faith, we have to be the kind of people who seek the new relationship..." and not shun away from that which is perceived as foreign or different. He continued to say that "bridging the gap is not us building bridges over here; it's building bridges on both sides," and calls on the entire world community to make the necessary concessions in order to be able to build a future of mutual respect and freedom.

Ms. Madelyn E. Spirnak,Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and overseer of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), the Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) initiative, and the Near East Bureau's Press and Public Diplomacy Office, underlined and reiterated a new era of policy toward the Middle East. [paper] Ms. Spirnak highlighted that President Obama is committed to building bridges with the Muslim world and seeks a new dialogue on the full range of issues we face and that "he speaks of new partnerships on issues of education, healthcare, livelihoods," and more. "Both he and Secretary of State Clinton focus on the fact that the challenges we face are too great to limit our responses to interactions between governments." She reminded everyone that "public diplomacy lies at the heart of the country's smart power," and that "true public diplomacy is about engagement, about listening as much as talking," which is something this Administration is absolutely committed to doing.

Dr. Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute began his address by reminding the conference attendees of the significance of the present-day and its role as a turning point in history: "This an important moment to reflect on how we can revise the post-9/11 prism through which Americans look at the Muslim world." He posited that most people see the world through what he called "prisms of pain": "The Arab-Israeli issue remains the prism of pain through which Arabs see America. It is a psychological predisposition to evaluate America primarily through this prism." Standing for democracy and human rights "is one of the strengths of America," says Dr. Telhami, as he expresses his excitement and hope that the current Administration will follow through with its promises.

Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Professor of Political Sociology and a visiting Professor at Harvard University, but better known as a human rights defender and democracy activist in Egypt and across the Arab World highlighted three burdens of Muslim Americans: "There is no escape from the burdens by virtue of being Americans and being Muslims. Your first burden should be to this country. For first duty is to be a good American, a good Muslim American. Always vote." He then reminded everyone to count their blessings "in being part of an open, democratic society," a luxury that most of the world does not enjoy. In relation to the past Administration's restriction of certain rights to Arab and Muslim Americans, he reminded the conference attendees that their "freedom is never secure or enjoyable" if their fellow citizens do not also have it. He ended by saying that "we must use our liberty to secure our liberty for all," and continue to struggle for the successful and permanent transition from authoritarian, oppressive regimes in the Muslim World to great democracies.

A very significant aspect of every CSID annual conference is to present a "Muslim Democrat of the Year" award to a very honorable and deserving recipient. This year's recipient was Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Maldives, for his great sacrifice and instrumental role in the long and difficult struggle to transform his country into a democracy. Dr. Shaheed dedicated the award to everyone in the Maldives, to his family, to his colleagues in the former cabinet who joined him in creating a more democratic Maldives. To the current president for relentlessly challenging autocratic order, and to the outgoing president for having the good grace to step down after he lost the election.

After a long day of inspiring and engaging presentations and pursuant discussions on the various topics presented, the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy celebrated the successful completion of its 10th Annual Conference. As many notable attendees and panelists had noted throughout the event, the fact that CSID was able to continue its important work relentlessly for the past ten years is an accomplishment in and of itself. There have certainly been very difficult times endured in the past ten years, but it is with the hopes that the new Obama Administration brings, in addition to the renewed commitment of politicians, scholars, and ordinary citizens from around the world, that CSID looks to the future and continues in its pursuit for justice, respect, and equality for all people.

This report was written by Mariem R. Masmoudi, currently a CSID intern and a student in International Politics, at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

J-Curve and the Maldives: From the Horse's Mouth

The article below was published on The New ForeignPolicy.com
http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/04/call_as_go_the_maldives_so_goes_the_world


Call: As go the Maldives, so goes the world

Mon, 05/04/2009 - 7:42pm
By Ian Bremmer
Three years ago, I wrote a book called The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall. The J curve is a visual representation of the relationship between a country's "stability" and its "openness." Stability is a measure of a government's ability to weather a crisis. Openness is a measure of the extent to which ideas, information, people, money, goods and services flow freely across a state's borders and within the country itself.
Some states (North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and others) are stable only because they're relatively closed. In these countries, a governing elite works hard to isolate citizens from the outside world -- and, where possible, from one another. Other countries (Canada, Italy, India, Germany, the United States, Japan, Norway and dozens of others) are stable precisely because they're open.
When a country that is stable only because it is closed finally begins to open up, it slides down the left side of the curve toward the dip in the J, a point of maximum instability. You can't move from left (closed) to right (open) along the J without passing through that dip. In the real world, that means that if relatively closed countries like Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, or Burma decided to open up a bit by holding genuinely free and fair national elections with full coverage in local media, they would almost certainly reap the whirlwind. That's why the governments of closed states work so hard to keep them closed.
Which brings us, of course, to the Maldive Islands.
The Republic of Maldives is best known as an absurdly beautiful string of pearls adorning the Indian Ocean about 400 miles southwest of Sri Lanka. It's a nation composed of more than a thousand small islands in danger of slipping beneath the waves as global warming raises sea levels.
Last weekend, the country's foreign minister, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, discussed The J Curve during an interview to illustrate why his former political party, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), will plunge the country into chaos while his new party, the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), will help the country avoid this risk. Here's an excerpt of what he said:
"The J-Curve ... speaks of countries which are autocratic and undemocratic and when they democratize, they go through a J-Curve and you go through a little dip. That dip is when things are unstable and things are a bit chaotic but then you eventually improve to become more stable. So we are in an unstable period. The danger is in some countries, they move back towards the left and go straight back to autocracy. So if DRP comes back in we'll go back towards the left of the curve. And we can forget about democracy for the next 30 years because they will tell us that democracy produced a government that didn't work.
I cite this comment for two reasons. First, it's kind of gratifying to have a country's foreign minister like your work -- and help make an argument that you believe in. Second, and more to the point, though I don't entirely share Dr. Shaheed's view that an authoritarian country can't become more open to the rest of the world (so far so good for China), he's making a point that applies awfully well to the risks that the global financial crisis now poses for dozens of countries around the world.
Worsening economic conditions have exacerbated pre-existing political problems in Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, Turkey, Mexico, Argentina and many other countries. All these states have begun to slide toward the dip in the J curve and the turmoil it represents. And all those who hold political power in these countries must decide how their governments should respond. They can hunker down, build new walls, and favor near-term stability at the expense of investment in longer-term prosperity. Or they can double down on the power of free markets and international trade to expand their economic horizons and continue to engage with other governments in finding solutions to seemingly intractable common problems.
There is nothing inevitable about globalization's progress. There are plenty of political officials around the world, insecure in their positions, with obvious motives to advance populist/nationalist/protectionist arguments at the expense of trade, foreign investment, and immigration. But if a state's leaders and lawmakers turn their backs on the increasingly free exchange of ideas, information, people, money, goods and services, its citizens -- and the global economy -- will only be the poorer for it.

Obama and New Beginnings

The historic speech delivered by President Obama in Cairo is uplifting for those who have been agonising over the horrible impact of the war on terror on relations between the Muslim world and the West. Such people, of course condemn in the strongest terms the acts of terror that slaughtered thousands of Americans and others right before everyone's eyes on that brutal Tuesday morning on 9 September 2001. Terrorism no doubt had to be combatted. But the experience of the Bush years, particularly the practices at Guantanamo Detention Center and the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath clearly showed that the right thing can be done in an awfully wrong manner.

How much of Obama therefore is real change and how much of Obama is an attempt to recover the lost moral high ground? The Muslim world will judge Obama not by glowing speeches but by what happens on the ground, especially by what happens in the Middle East. To be exact, by what happens to the Palestinians. Obama clearly is showing real interest in resolving the issue, but it would be foolish to think that he can put a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ahead of his own re-election. But that still does not mean that he cannot pursue a more balanced Middle East policy.

But that balance will be tipped not just by those who would be lobbying on Israel's behalf. They could just as well be tipped the wrong way by the Arabs. There is a fundamental dilemma in US policy towards the Muslim world, in particular towards the Middle East. Too often, autocratic governments in the Middle East win the hearts and minds of the American strategists while the demos in the Arab streets frighten US policy-makers. Jeane Kirkpatrick's apt phrase alluded to dictators and double-standards.

Will Obama be able finally to throw caution to the wind, ditch friendly dictators and embrace the Islamist parties in the Middle East? Clearly, such an approach requires a more nuanced understanding of Muslim communities and greater confidence in dealing with Muslim communities. Everything we have seen and heard from Obama to date seems to suggest that he might have the right mindset to just do that.

Bridges are not built from just one side; they must be built on both sides and meet half way. Alignment and symmetry, in terms of height, width, direction, design and material clearly help. The Muslim world must also therefore reach out to the West. There are increasing noises in the Muslim world about democracy, human rights, tolerance and global peace. Even in Saudi Arabia there are powerful voices for reform, moderation and human rights. But there are also disturbing trends and frightening noises.

The Maldives is no longer marginal to this great emerging civilisational discourse. Obama's speech elicited considerable interest in the Maldives, for both the government and the opposition to comment on it. The local media took a lot of interest in the speech delivered by UK Foreign Secretary Miliband calling for fresh engagment between the Muslim world and the west. The US too has taken a lot of interest in the democratic transition in the Maldives, awarding the Foreign Minister with the prestigious Muslim Democrat of the Year Award, a sign that powerful people wish to hold the Maldives as an example for the Muslim world. From Indonesia to Maldives and Morocco, the Muslim world is embracing democracy.

As these countries show, and as Larry Diamond powerfully argues, there is no reason why Muslim countries cannot embrace democracy. Perhaps, all too often, the powers that be found common and convenient strategic convergence with dictators in the Muslim world to the detriment of popular democratic movements.

But with a more confident and nuanced approach to the Muslim world by the US, there is greater prospects for demcoracy in the Muslim world. As many Muslims know, there is nothing inherently un-Islamic in good governance, rule of law and democracy. If Obama keeps up, and if other countries join the Maldives, then a real new beginning between the Muslim Ummah and the West is a real possibility.