The United Nations report also cited what it called clandestine support for a so-called antiterrorist coalition, in what appeared to be a reference to the American policy. Somalia's interim president, Abdullahi Yusuf, first criticized American support for Mogadishu's warlords in early May during a trip to Sweden.
"We really oppose American aid that goes outside the government," he said, arguing that the best way to hunt members of Al Qaeda in Somalia was to strengthen the country's government.
“This is slavery, not to speak one's thought.” ― Euripides, The Phoenician Women
Thursday, June 08, 2006
NY Times: US Policies Lost Somalia
A very interesting story in the New York Times today containted this complaint against the US, from Somalia's interim president:
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
EU Aided CIA Torture Flights
The BBC is reporting that fourteen European Union countries helped the CIA with torture flights to secret prisons in Poland and Romania, according to a Swiss report.
The new report says: "It is now clear - although we are still far from having established the truth - that authorities in several European countries actively participated with the CIA in these unlawful activities.
"Other countries ignored them knowingly, or did not want to know."
Spain, Turkey, Germany and Cyprus provided "staging posts" for rendition operations, while the UK, Portugal, Ireland and Greece were "stop-off points", the report says.
It says Italy, Sweden, Macedonia and Bosnia allowed the abduction of residents from their soil.
The most serious charges are levelled at Poland and Romania, where Mr Marty says there is enough evidence to support suspicions that CIA secret prisons were established.
Although the Swiss senator says the US must bear responsibility for the flights, he says the programme could operate only with "the intentional or grossly negligent collusion of the European partners".
The "spider's web" of US rendition flights is based on an "utterly alien" approach that breaches human rights, he concludes.
Henry Kissinger's Moscow Press Conference
Today's newspaper coverage didn't make clear what Henry Kissinger had to say about his meeting yesterday in Moscow with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Luckily, the Kremlin put up an English-language transcript of the Q & A with the Russian press corps, so here it is:
QUESTION: Today many people are talking about Russian-American relations. What do you think is necessary to improve the two countries’ relations? Do you consider that Vice President Richard Cheney’s famous speech damaged relations?
FORMER U. S. SECREATARY OF STATE HENRY KISSINGER (back translation from Russian): First of all I would like to say that I am leaving Russia with a very positive feeling. President Putin and I just had a very friendly, warm meeting. My impression as I leave this country is that there are very significant opportunities for Russian-American cooperation and that next month, when the American and Russian presidents meet, progress will be made in many areas. I think that already in the near future we will be able to talk about the positive state of our relations.
I also think that we are adult enough to understand that that we can differ on certain issues. But our differences of opinion must not stand in the way of our efforts to achieve progress in international relations as a whole and in relations between our two countries. And the cooperation that we saw concerning Iran can, undoubtedly, be expanded into other areas.
QUESTION: Russia is now preparing for the G8 summit and do you think that the fact that Russia is a member of the G8 and holds the G8 presidency represents a victory for the international community? Or do you have some concerns regarding this issue?
HENRY KISSINGER: No, I don’t have any concerns regarding this issue. Russia fully deserves its G8 membership. Decisions that are taken by the G8 would not be possible without Russia’s participation.
QUESTION: What do you think about the fact that certain people express their concern regarding the condition of democracy in Russia?
HENRY KISSINGER: One must think about the evolution that takes place in any country. I have a very positive feeling regarding the evolution that is taking place in Russia. I participated in establishing the G8 in 1975. The issues that we discuss today are better solved thanks to Russia’s participation than those that we discussed in 1975.
QUESTION: Many political analysts predict that there will be a harsh discussion concerning Russian energy policy at the G8 summit. What position do you think the American administration will take on this issue?
HENRY KISSINGER: You must understand that I am simply a citizen and your question should be addressed to government representatives who would be better able to answer it. I am more concerned about the fact that at the summit in St Petersburg they will discuss issues linked with the energy security of all countries and not only one country’s energy policy.
Please excuse me but I must catch my plane. Allow me to use this opportunity to thank all those who gave me such a warm welcome in Moscow and especially here, in Novo-Ogaryovo. And I would like to say that each time I am in Russia I always have the impression that progress has been made during my absence. I will undoubtedly return to Russia again.
Thank you very much.
Inside Higher Ed
A friend of mine just got a job interview for a teaching post, thanks to a listing on Inside Higher Ed. And my favorite Central Asia blog, Registan.net, just linked to Inside Higher Ed's story about professor Frederick Starr.
Naturally, I wanted to know more about this web publication, so I toured their website's "About Us" section. Turns out at least one of the founders is a veteran of the Chronicle of Higher Education--namely, Scott Jaschik. He did a great job as editor of their news section, and I was surprised when the Chronicle let him go a while back. I had met him in another context, along with someone I know and trust, and we both were impressed with his intelligence, good taste, and reasoned approach to things. So, it's good to see he's back in the saddle, and from the blurb on Inside Higher Ed's website, taking on the Chronicle mano a mano. Unlike the Chronicle, it's free. And free access is one of their stated principles:
Naturally, I wanted to know more about this web publication, so I toured their website's "About Us" section. Turns out at least one of the founders is a veteran of the Chronicle of Higher Education--namely, Scott Jaschik. He did a great job as editor of their news section, and I was surprised when the Chronicle let him go a while back. I had met him in another context, along with someone I know and trust, and we both were impressed with his intelligence, good taste, and reasoned approach to things. So, it's good to see he's back in the saddle, and from the blurb on Inside Higher Ed's website, taking on the Chronicle mano a mano. Unlike the Chronicle, it's free. And free access is one of their stated principles:
So we conceived of Inside Higher Ed with a few underlying principles:Well, I'll start by adding Inside Higher Ed to my blogroll...
Excellence. We believe deeply in the many missions of colleges and universities: shaping minds, training workers, engaging in discovery. To carry out those missions, the people who work in higher education need the best news and information possible about their professional world. By “best,” we mean above all accurate, thorough, and reliable. We also care about history, about context, about nuance — one of the reasons we love being part of higher education is that the toughest issues here aren’t simple. But that doesn’t mean that you’ll necessarily like everything we publish on this site: We take our watchdog role seriously and will do plenty of hard-hitting investigative reporting, sparing no sacred cows. And just because information is authoritative doesn’t mean it has to be bland or boring: We want you to have a little fun when you visit Inside Higher Ed, which is why you’ll find cartoons and humor columns amid our breaking news, incisive commentary and freewheeling blogs.
Accessibility. You don’t need an expense account any more to get the best news, information and career services. At Inside Higher Ed, we’ve eliminated or lowered barriers based on cost. All of our content is free — so everyone can be an insider. Job seekers, too, can use virtually all of our services without paying a dime. And employers will find a comprehensive suite of jobs services at prices that every institution can afford. In every way, this is a site for everyone in higher education.
Community. If we’re doing our jobs well, everyone who works in or cares about higher education should feel, every day, that this site is produced for them. This is a gathering place for all of the many constituents and diverse institutions that make up the rich web of higher education. At Inside Higher Ed, you’ll find no pecking orders or second-class citizens. We invite you — no, actively encourage you — to add your views to our mix. Comment on an article. Submit a letter to the editor. Send article ideas or tips to our staff members. If you have a computer (or heck, a piece of paper and a stamp), you’ve got a voice here.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Make the Legal Case Against Iran at the UN
Today's Washington Post also has this really interesting oped:A Legal Case Against Iran
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey. Their bottom line:
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey. Their bottom line:
So far U.S.-led efforts to have the Security Council directly condemn and impose sanctions on Iran under Chapter VII for its nuclear ambitions have not succeeded. That's why seeking the council's intervention on Iran's illegal threats to use force makes excellent diplomatic sense. Such an approach would provide multiple and reinforcing benefits.
First, it would broaden the international dialogue beyond Tehran's breach of nonproliferation obligations, focusing on the real underlying problem: the bellicose nature of the Iranian regime and the use it might make of nuclear weapons. And since Tehran's violations of the U.N. Charter are, by their nature, issues that can be handled only by the Security Council, bringing them to the council would counter Iran's efforts to displace the U.N. framework in favor of direct negotiations with the European Union and the United States. Indeed, a serious debate on Ahmadinejad's illegal threat would give the United States a unique opportunity to focus the Security Council on the shrill anti-Israeli rhetoric emanating not just from Iran but also from numerous other Islamic countries. This rhetoric fosters regional tensions and nurtures the dangerous "jihadist" sentiments.
Second, demands that Iran withdraw its threat and acknowledge its obligation to peacefully resolve any dispute it may have with Israel would be firmly grounded in international law -- so much so that Security Council members Russia and China would be hard-pressed to oppose the effort. Both of those countries have routinely cloaked their objections to E.U.-U.S. policy toward Iran in the language of international law, arguing, for example, that Iran has a legal right to pursue civilian nuclear activities. No country, of course, is entitled to violate the U.N. Charter.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is how the U.N. system was, and is, supposed to work. When a clear threat to peace arises, it is incumbent upon the Security Council to act in defense of the threatened party to head off the unilateral use of force and to advance "collective security." This imperative is particularly compelling when the very legitimacy of the threatened party and its right to independent national existence have been challenged. Such a challenge goes beyond the violation of Article 2.4 and raises the specter of the most heinous international crimes, including genocide.
Washington's Somali Community Follows Events on the Web
A Washington Post reporter asked the local Somali community what's going on, and learned they get news from websites like Hiiraan.com:
Mogadishu has been the scene of some of the worst clashes since U.S. soldiers withdrew from Somalia in 1994 after a failed intervention.
But unlike then, the chaos in the East African homeland is closer than ever for thousands of Somalian immigrants in the Washington region and across the nation. Technology is propelling the conflict into their living rooms and offices, providing a painful ringside view of the crisis as well as ways to help relatives in danger.
It's the latest manifestation of how immigrants in the region, from Ethiopians to Salvadorans, from Liberians to Iranians, are increasingly connected in real time to violence and political upheavals unfolding in their home countries.
"Everything that happens in Somalia is now instantaneous," said Dahir Amalo, 43, a mortgage banker.
Today, several dozen Internet sites follow every twist and turn of the conflict. They post digital photos of the chaos, blogs and round-the-clock news. It's easy to listen to online radio and video broadcasts from the BBC and Voice of America.
Expatriates have bankrolled Internet cafes in Somalia and helped build one of the most reliable and inexpensive phone networks in Africa, where cellphone and online use is rapidly growing. It's cheaper for Somalis in Mogadishu to phone the United States than the other way around, said immigrants here. And they use text messaging, e-mail and instant messaging to further cut costs.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
"Smartest Boy in America" (of 1929) Dies
Wilber Huston and Arthur Williams pose with Thomas Edison
According to his obituary in today's Washington Post,in 1929 Wilber B. Huston passed a written and oral examination given by Thomas Alva Edison. He quit working for Edison a short while after graduation from MIT. After spending some time in evangelical missions for "moral rearmament", Huston went to work for the US government at the start of World War II, spending his career as a rocket scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Center.
According to his obituary in today's Washington Post,in 1929 Wilber B. Huston passed a written and oral examination given by Thomas Alva Edison. He quit working for Edison a short while after graduation from MIT. After spending some time in evangelical missions for "moral rearmament", Huston went to work for the US government at the start of World War II, spending his career as a rocket scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Center.
In New Jersey, the 49 rivals toured Edison's scientific laboratories, rode through the recently opened Holland Tunnel and visited Coney Island. The four-hour exam at Edison's old battery laboratory covered math, physics, chemistry and "general knowledge." Huston recalled that two questions in the last category included "Who is Jenny Lind?" and "When do you consider a lie permissible?" Most of the boys knew the name of the 19th-century "Swedish Nightingale." A lie is permissible, Huston said, "in case of serious trouble, pain and grief, and you do not benefit yourself in any way."Here's a link to the MIT webpage about the Edison scholarshipThere's also a nice tidbit in the Arizona Republic:
Ten years later, it was revealed that four other boys finished so close to Huston in the written test that Edison decided to add an oral exam.
No contemporary applicant to Harvard, Stanford or Chicago has faced a panel of judges who compare to those who grilled Huston and his rivals the day after their exam. Besides Edison, they included film-and-camera company founder George Eastman, automaker Henry Ford, industrialist Harvey Firestone, aviator Charles Lindbergh, the headmaster of Phillips Exeter Academy and the president of MIT.
After the quiz, the group immediately announced Huston the winner. A moment of silence was followed by cheers, then the other boys hoisted him on their shoulders. The whole group hustled off to a trip around New York on the mayor's yacht and had dinner in a fancy restaurant. "I was impressed by the dinner as well as the check of which I managed to catch a glimpse: $20.00. (Remember, this was 1929)," Huston said in a family memoir that his son has posted on his Web site.
The student awoke the next morning to a transatlantic telephone call from a London newspaper. Huston's photo was on Page 1 of the New York Times, accompanied by a long article and multiple photos inside the paper. The movie newsreels, having missed the announcement, came to his hotel for interviews. The media, which had created a hullabaloo around the event, dubbed Huston "the smartest boy in America," and unwanted publicity dogged him for years.
Huston, who had planned to study chemical engineering, switched to physics and graduated in 1933. Unable to get a scholarship for graduate school, he went to work for Edison's son but four years later became fascinated with an evangelist's "moral re-armament" crusade. He worked for that campaign until World War II, when the need for scientists pulled him back to his intellectual home. He ended up with NASA and lived in Bowie until after his retirement.
But in that heady first week of August 1929, Edison sent word to Huston that he wished to have dinner with him. Huston arrived at the grand Edison home to a formal family dinner, with servants in attendance.
"The first course was a soup," Huston wrote in his family memoir. "After a few minutes Mr. Edison said something, and everyone laughed. I asked my dinner partner what he had said. 'I see he tasted his soup before he salted it' was the reply. Mr. Edison is famous for saying, 'I have no use for a man who salts his soup before he tastes it.' So I guess I passed both his examinations."
In 1944, he joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the precursor to National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It was there that Huston met his wife, Dorothy Beadle, a mathematician aide. They married in 1946.
Huston's daughter, Kathryn Grant of Fountain Hills, remembers watching her father deciphering calculations at home. He told her he was figuring out how to put satellites up in space and keep them there.
The New Yorker's Oriana Fallaci Profile
Here. (ht Roger L. Simon) An excerpt:
Fallaci recalled that she found Khomeini intelligent, and “the most handsome old man I had ever met in my life. He resembled the ‘Moses’ sculpted by Michelangelo.” And, she said, Khomeini was “not a puppet like Arafat or Qaddafi or the many other dictators I met in the Islamic world. He was a sort of Pope, a sort of king—a real leader. And it did not take long to realize that in spite of his quiet appearance he represented the Robespierre or the Lenin of something which would go very far and would poison the world. People loved him too much. They saw in him another Prophet. Worse: a God.”
Upon leaving Khomeini’s house after her first interview, Fallaci was besieged by Iranians who wanted to touch her because she’d been in the Ayatollah’s presence. “The sleeves of my shirt were all torn off, my slacks, too,” she recalled. “My arms were full of bruises, and hands, too. Do believe me: everything started with Khomeini. Without Khomeini, we would not be where we are. What a pity that, when pregnant with him, his mother did not choose to have an abortion.”
Canada Busts Ontario Terror Cell
Here's a question: If it is lack of democracy that causes terrorism, as President Bush has said, why are there terror cells operating in Canada? From the Toronto Star:
At a news conference earlier in the day, a CSIS official said a series of terrorist attacks plotted against unspecified targets in southern Ontario were “inspired by Al Qaeda,” adding that the ring of suspects arrested posed a “real and serious” threat.Maybe this document from Canadian intelligence might explain what's going on north of the border. (ht LGF)
Three tonnes of ammonium nitrate, a commonly used fertilizer used to make explosives, were recovered by police, who say that’s three times the amount used in the bombing of a government building in Oklahoma that killed 168 people.
“It was their intent to use it for a terrorist attack,” RCMP assistant commissioner Mike McDonell told a news conference in Toronto.
“If I can put this in context for you, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people was completed with only one tonne of ammonium nitrate.”
“This group posed a real and serious threat,” he added. “It had the capacity and intent to carry out these acts.”
A source who asked not to be named said information provided by U.S. officials played a part in the Canadian arrests.
An FBI affidavit alleges Amercians Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, both from the Atlanta region, travelled to Toronto in March 2005, meeting with others of interest to U.S. authorities. The men supposedly discussed terrorist training and bomb plots against military facilities and oil refineries.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Konstantin on the Essence of Russia
Konstantin says a love of chaos is key to the Russian soul, citing a Moscow News oped by Robert Bridges. An excerpt:
In America, when you go to the doctor's office, for example, you take a number and have a seat in the waiting room. When your number is called, the doctor will see you. Pretty straightforward. In Russia, you walk into a riot, ask who is last, and tell that person to hold your spot and then go shopping or something. You return about an hour later and hop back into line like nothing happened. This drives Westerners nuts. Then (then!), while all this is happening, or not happening, people are attacking the gates from other directions, with all kind of plausible and not so plausible explanations.
Yet, in the midst of this chaos, it seems the Russians truly enjoy the lively debate, the human friction, the feeling of being on the edge of god knows what.
Across the Russian capital, the sound of lawnmowers and the smell of cut grass are becoming more common. Grass is sprouting up everywhere. A woman I know even replaced her lush garden at the dacha with grass seed.
Yes, the weed whacker of Western rationalization is slowly making headway against Russian impulsiveness; I just hope it does not supplant what makes Russia so unique.
British Police Continue Search for Chemical Weapons
The Times of London says the British police are not finished searching--after shooting a man in the raid of a London apartment, after a tip, but finding nothing. British police say they are concerned about possible terror attacks on the World Cup soccer championship, among other possible targets.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Ayaan Hirsi Ali Talks to the Philadelphia Inquirer
Here. (ht LGF)
"So I said," Hirsi Ali confides, " 'You know what, darling Europeans? I'm going to tell you about Muhammad!' "
True to her gloves-off approach, Hirsi Ali talked about how Muhammad, who had nine wives, fell in love with his wife Aisha when she was 6 and married her when she was 9. Hirsi Ali outraged Dutch Muslims by accusing Muhammad of pedophilia.
Hirsi Ali says some took the issue seriously. She emphasizes its relevance because "there are more and more men taking minors as wives, and saying that Muhammad is their example."
Hirsi Ali says the debate gave her hope - she received one letter from a Muslim that read, "I don't know what you started in me, but I am thinking... . "
In the same way, Hirsi Ali explains, she'd like to challenge the beliefs of Black Muslims in America. She finds it as unfathomable that African Americans would convert to Islam as that Jews would convert to Nazism.
"I want to tell them about Darfur," she asserts firmly. "The people in Darfur are being exterminated just because they are black. So [Islam] is also a racist doctrine... . People don't know what's going on in Saudi Arabia. All these palaces are full of black slaves! So the black community here converting to Islam is like converting voluntarily to slavery.
"I think if they hear it from a black person," she says hopefully, "it will help."
These days, Hirsi Ali reports, she's working on a book about Enlightenment values - Voltaire remains a great hero. She plans to have it translated into Arabic, Urdu, and other key languages and distributed around the world in video and audio.
"I'm going to resurrect Muhammad, and he's going to have conversations with [British philosopher Karl] Popper and me and [economic theorist Friedrich] Hayek."
Hirsi Ali smiles. "I hope I live long enough to complete it," she says.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Der Spiegel Interview
Mark Steyn said this Der Spiegel article is a "must read". An excerpt:
SPIEGEL: There was great indignation in Germany when it became known that you might be coming to the soccer world championship. Did that surprise you?BTW, An answer to the Iranian president: Although Iran was occupied by the Allies during World War II, Arabs do share responsibility with Germans for the Nazi extermination of European Jews. They opposed permitting refugees to enter Palestine--one reason so many were trapped in Europe--and Arab leaders, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, sided with the Nazis. It's documented. Here's a photo of the Grand Mufti with Hitler: Caption:The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, visits Berlin, meets with Hitler and makes Arabic radio broadcasts to Islamic troops fighting for the Nazi Third Reich.
Ahmadinejad: No, that's not important. I didn't even understand how that came about. It also had no meaning for me. I don't know what all the excitement is about.
SPIEGEL: It concerned your remarks about the Holocaust. It was inevitable that the Iranian president's denial of the systematic murder of the Jews by the Germans would trigger outrage.
Ahmadinejad: I don't exactly understand the connection.
SPIEGEL: First you make your remarks about the Holocaust. Then comes the news that you may travel to Germany -- this causes an uproar. So you were surprised after all?
Ahmadinejad: No, not at all, because the network of Zionism is very active around the world, in Europe too. So I wasn't surprised. We were addressing the German people. We have nothing to do with Zionists.
SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage?
Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don't know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?
SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60 years' historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans -- unfortunately -- bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews.
Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.
On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn't take place, why then did this regime of occupation ...
SPIEGEL: ... You mean the state of Israel...
Ahmadinejad: ... come about? Why do the European countries commit themselves to defending this regime? Permit me to make one more point. We are of the opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms to the truth, this truth will be revealed all the more clearly if there is more research into it and more discussion about it.
SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany.
Ahmadinejad: We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.
Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to a certain group? Of course, I don't mean you, but rather the European governments.
SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?"
Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.
SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?
Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international and impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison.
SPIEGEL: Who is that supposed to be? Which researchers do you mean?
Ahmadinejad: You would know this better than I; you have the list. There are people from England, from Germany, France and from Australia.
SPIEGEL: You presumably mean, for example, the Englishman David Irving, the German-Canadian Ernst Zündel, who is on trial in Mannheim, and the Frenchman Georges Theil, all of whom deny the Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad: The mere fact that my comments have caused such strong protests, although I'm not a European, and also the fact that I have been compared with certain persons in German history indicates how charged with conflict the atmosphere for research is in your country. Here in Iran you needn't worry.
Cote d'Ivoire's Civil War
There was a very mysterious BBC broadcast today about Ivory Coast. Correspondent Liz Doucette shed almost no light on why the former French colony has been torn by civil war. Her "identity" explanation explained nothing at all. So I looked it up on Wikipedia. It's complicated, all right--but at least one element involves conflict with the predominantly Muslim north. George Packer discussed this element in a New Yorker interview:
Q:How much is Ivory Coast's civil war an ethnic fight—or a Muslim-Christian fight?
A: Ethnicity and religion are closely related in Ivory Coast—if you're a Bete, you're almost certainly a Christian, for example, and if you're a Senufo you're almost certainly a Muslim. There have been attacks on mosques and on Muslim leaders, and some supporters of President Gbagbo have used Christian as well as nationalist rhetoric. (The first lady, Simone Gbagbo, is an evangelical Christian, as are increasing numbers of city dwellers in the south.) Relations between Christians and Muslims throughout West Africa (with the serious exception of Nigeria) have generally been so laid-back and tolerant, however, that, even with a civil war going on in Ivory Coast, I didn't get the feeling that religious hatred was sweeping the populace. Ethnicity is a more powerful identifier in this part of Africa. But, even though the killing has taken place largely along ethnic and religious lines, this remains, more than anything, a political war. It's also a depressingly gratuitous war. Ivory Coast wasn't doomed by geography or history to go to pieces. It's been ruined by its class of leaders. And Ivorians are still stunned by the depth to which the country has sunk.
USAID Seminar Promotes Islamism
According to Little Green Footballs:
...unfortunately, the seminar’s guest speaker was a representative of an Islamist front group:
Guest Speaker: Ahmed Younis
National Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council
The New York Post reports that on July 14, 2002, Ahmed Younis gave a speech in Irvine and implicitly supported the murder of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft
Watching the National Spelling Bee
I really enjoyed watching the National Spelling Bee on ABC last night, and the network deserves congratulations for broadcasting something educational in prime time. It was humbling to realize that a grown person--yours truly--could never compete in the contest with brilliant 10-14 year olds...
However, I have a concern about some of the words contestants were required to spell--ones with more than one acceptable spelling.
For example, the person with whom I watched the broadcast--who studied both Greek and Latin--pointed out to me that endings of Greek words put into English sometimes differ depending on the preferred style of transliteration. Britishers like AEUM, Americans prefer EUM. Or, another example, Encyclopaedia v Encyclopedia.
And then, there is the question of transliteration from living foreign languages, such as Persian and Hebrew. The judges said the word for Persian New Year is spelled: N-a-u-r-u-z. But when I looked it up online, there appear to be a wide variation of acceptable transliterations--including Nowruz, Nourus, Norouz, Noruz, Novrus, Nawrus, Nowrus, Navrus, Navrus, et al. In fact when I looked up "Nauruz" online in the American Heritage dictionary, there was no listing at all. So, what is really the right answer?
The whole world could see this problem in the case of the Hebrew H-e-c-h-s-c-h-er. In the end, judges accepted a variant, Hechsher, on the broadcast. It seems that including transliterated foreign words that have more than one acceptable English variant might spell future trouble for the Bee's judges...
Just a quibble. I guess it doesn't matter in the case of German words like ursprache.
Anyhow, it was a lot of fun. So, here's a link to the official study guides, for those out there who know a child who might compete: http://www.spellingbee.com/resources.asp
However, I have a concern about some of the words contestants were required to spell--ones with more than one acceptable spelling.
For example, the person with whom I watched the broadcast--who studied both Greek and Latin--pointed out to me that endings of Greek words put into English sometimes differ depending on the preferred style of transliteration. Britishers like AEUM, Americans prefer EUM. Or, another example, Encyclopaedia v Encyclopedia.
And then, there is the question of transliteration from living foreign languages, such as Persian and Hebrew. The judges said the word for Persian New Year is spelled: N-a-u-r-u-z. But when I looked it up online, there appear to be a wide variation of acceptable transliterations--including Nowruz, Nourus, Norouz, Noruz, Novrus, Nawrus, Nowrus, Navrus, Navrus, et al. In fact when I looked up "Nauruz" online in the American Heritage dictionary, there was no listing at all. So, what is really the right answer?
The whole world could see this problem in the case of the Hebrew H-e-c-h-s-c-h-er. In the end, judges accepted a variant, Hechsher, on the broadcast. It seems that including transliterated foreign words that have more than one acceptable English variant might spell future trouble for the Bee's judges...
Just a quibble. I guess it doesn't matter in the case of German words like ursprache.
Anyhow, it was a lot of fun. So, here's a link to the official study guides, for those out there who know a child who might compete: http://www.spellingbee.com/resources.asp
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Kipling on Russia
Alexander at Registan posted this quote from Rudyard Kipling:
Let it be clearly understood that the Russian is a delightful person till he tucks his shirt in. As an Oriental he is charming. It is only when he insists upon being treated as the most easterly of Western peoples, instead of the most westerly of Easterns, that he becomes a racial anomaly extremely difficult to handle. The host never knows which side of his nature is going to turn up next.I wondered where it came from. Thanks to Google, I found out the quotation comes from his short story titled The Man Who Was.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
An Arab Perspective on Political Islam
The Ongoing Conflict Between Political Islam and the West
By Magdi Khalil
While there is no issue with Islam as a religious belief, political Islam – as much as any political body – was bound to make mistakes. The Muslim Caliphate was the manifestation of that concept in past ages; and it can be identified nowadays in the upsurge of “Global Islamism”.
The offensive cartoon that triggered a violent outburst in the Muslim World, and particularly in the Arab part of that world, raises the question about the true nature of the current happenings: are we dealing with a contrived cultural confrontation or with a dispute that is gradually shaping into another round of the ongoing conflict between the West and Islam?
I personally lean towards the second option, and there are precedents in history to support that opinion. Political Islam and the West are at extreme odds, waves of mutual hostility and animosity can be tracked throughout history, and, we may indeed be witnessing the fifth round in that long, historical conflict.
The First Round: initiated by political Islam via the first Islamic invasions, or what is known in Islam as the “Islamic conquests”. The early Islamic conquests reached the West, threatened Europe and left an obvious mark on Al-Andalus.
The Second Round: Europe set off this round with the crusades; those were launched under religious banners in the same fashion as the first Islamic round, and left the Muslims of the East with extremely bitter memories.
The Third Round: initiated by political Islam through the Ottoman Caliphate that was accompanied by a huge, widespread violent wave, posing a menace to the survival of Europe, and leaving a clear impact spanning from Asia Minor to the Balkans.
The Fourth Round: Europe initiated this one with the European colonization of most of the Muslim World – some countries remained under occupation until the sixties of last century.
Clearly, the two parties have exchanged “blows” throughout history, each side initiating an equal number of rounds, but with different outcomes. Political Islam left behind Muslim entities in the former USSR and in some European states, by forcing the indigenous populations to convert to Islam. The West was – and still is – engaged in helping the Jews realize their historical dream to resurrect their ancient kingdom in the land of Palestine.
It is worth mentioning that there is a difference between Islam as a religious practice, i.e. spiritual rituals, worship, and faith in God and the five pillars – and political Islam, where Islam serves as an ideology with a vision to create a viable political Muslim entity. The Muslim Caliphate was the manifestation of that concept in past ages, and it can be identified nowadays in the upsurge of the concept of “Global Islamism”. The Islamization of all aspects of life is at the heart of this comprehensive concept, and terrorism – the military side of this concept - serves as a reinforcing brutal arm. In other words, in reference to the common argument that Islam is both din wa dawla (religion and state), we need to differentiate between the two aspects; the issue has nothing to do with Islam as a religious belief, and the right of belief is a granted personal right. However the notion of Islam as “a state” addresses the political aspect, and, political Islam – as much as any political body – is bound to make mistakes.
The exclusive religious nature of Islam only lasted for a few years after its emergence; before long, Islam had fused religion and politics, giving birth to what is known as political Islam—a concept that is still in effect in our times. Political Islam, by definition (whether scientific or functional) is an old phenomenon, as ancient as Islam itself, only the labelsl have changed throughout history.
It is also worth noting that from a western perspective, the conflict with political Islam is basically of a political nature, even though it has taken on a religious angle in one particular round. On the other hand, from an Islamic perspective, it is a political / religious conflict, given that Islam has fused both aspects since its early beginnings, as mentioned earlier. This theory is supported by the fact that Eastern Christianity has suffered as a result of foreign attacks in the course of the long historical conflict with political Islam. The crusaders have played a role in weakening Eastern Christianity, and what the crusades did in Constantinople is proof enough. Furthermore, the Eastern Christians have paid – and are still paying – a heavy price, given the intense religious tone of the conflict. As perceived by political Islam, there was no way for Eastern Christians to escape unscathed, and they have become convenient targets of the hostility and rage permeating their world.
The Fifth Round: Political Islam took a turn in initiating another round, and the events of 9/11 marked the beginning of a deliberately planned round of assaults. The only difference this time around is that rather than a “Muslim Caliphate” state to carry out the assault, “Global Islamism” took that job. As mentioned earlier, “Global Islamism” is a comprehensive concept, and terrorism – planned or unplanned – represents the aggressive wing of this wide-ranging scheme. In the days of the Muslim Caliphate, there was a central state in charge of the military aspects of political Islam, and nowadays, in the absence of that state, terrorism has taken on the military role (of course, the concept of Global Islamism extends far beyond mere terrorism).
There are no designated leadership quarters for Global Islamism, but there are several quarters for the purposes of recruitment and spreading the word, and Saudi Arabia comes on top of those, followed by Egypt and Pakistan. Around the globe, millions of Muslims are sitting on the sidelines, watching the unfolding events from a distance, as this round of assaults was initiated by extremists only and not by all Muslims. Some in the West have estimated those extremists to represent around 10-15% of the total population of the Muslim world, which roughly equals 130-200 million fanatics. Islamic extremism is unfortunately gaining more ground as days go by, a fact that does not bode well for the future, hinting at the possibility of an extensive confrontation and of a shift from a cold war status to a an all-out battle.
Conspicuously, the cycles of violence instigated by political Islam – whether through the Muslim Caliphate, the Ottoman Caliphate or international terrorism – are of a global nature, hitting East and West, sparing no one, while the western attacks mostly tend to target the East and the countries of the Third World.
So, which of the Muslim states can stake a claim for the leadership of the Muslim world?
There are three types of leadership:
First, political and military leadership: it is obvious that none of the Muslim states qualify for this type of leadership, for many reasons. It is also a given that the West would not allow such a state to emerge and bring back the Muslim Caliphate; the West has no wish to revisit that period, or to be haunted once more by the phantoms of the Islamic invasions that have threatened Europe more than once.
Second: an intellectual leadership capable of offering a compelling extremist ideology that would draw and mobilize fanatics. Several states are walking that path, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and Pakistan are at the top of that list.
Third: The model of Islamic reform: simply put, this implies following the example of Judaism and Christianity in making a complete separation between religion and state. So far, not a single state has dared to put this model forth, as the great majority firmly believes in an Islam that fuses “religion and state”. The Turkish model is an exceptional case, that can neither be generalized nor copied, not to mention that it has been gradually losing ground, and showing clear signs of instability and turmoil.
Possible Future Scenarios
The First Scenario: suggested by Bernard Lewis – a historian and prominent expert on the Ottoman Caliphate– in a book that was written prior to the events of 9/11, and published afterwards. In the book entitled What Went Wrong? he mentioned that the Muslim civilization has declined, and the Muslim world was crumbling under the weight of ignorance, poverty and regression. “Islam cannot (“cannot” is one word) flourish without conquests”, he clearly stated, which means that a substantial Muslim political structure cannot exist in the absence of Muslim Caliphate.
The Second Scenario: A resurgence of a Muslim Caliphate, in a different form, the dream that Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri have long harbored, and thought to accomplish through terrorism, and by taking control over a state that will serve as a launching point for the new Muslim Caliphate. They were hoping to start with Afghanistan, then move on to Saudi Arabia, overthrow the regime, and establish a base for the Caliphate, but their dream faded after Afghanistan was hit. Prior to that, Hassan Al-Turabi, who was based in Sudan, tried and failed to revive the Islamic Nationalism “al-Umamiah al-Islamiya”. Others took a step-by-step approach to revive the Muslim Caliphate, resorting first to political means, and planning to shift into a military mode once they are in power. The Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt stands out as passionate advocates of that approach, as confirmed by a statement of the late supreme guide of the movement – Mr. Mustafa Mashour “we will not give up (the goal) of restoring the Muslim Caliphate”. (Asharq Al-Awsat, 9 Aug. 2002). I personally think that these attempts are destined to fail.
The Third Scenario: suggested by Samuel Huntington in “The Clash of Civilizations”, where he wrote “in the end, Mohammed will triumph” – meaning that the Prophet of Islam will have his victory owing to the Muslim world’s rapid population growth, and the way Islam is spreading and the Muslim cells are multiplying, threatening to enfold the world within their clasp.
The Fourth Scenario: it was suggested in the aftermath of the events of 9/11 that this is the final round of the battle between political Islam and the West, which will result in “the collapse of the Muslim World.” This scenario suggests that political Islam will be entirely defeated in a matter of a few decades, because terrorism will have taken the lead in this round, at a time when the Muslim world was at its weakest. That might explain why some people have commented that the Muslim world is actually facing the most dangerous crisis in its long history.
Magdi Khalil is a political analyst, researcher, author and executive editor of the Egyptian weekly Watani International. He is also a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, London, a free-lance writer for several Arabic language newspapers, and a frequent contributor to Middle East broadcast news TV. Mr. Khalil has also published three books and written numerous research papers on citizenship rights, civil society, and the situation of minorities in the Middle East. E-mail: magdikh@hotmail.com
By Magdi Khalil
While there is no issue with Islam as a religious belief, political Islam – as much as any political body – was bound to make mistakes. The Muslim Caliphate was the manifestation of that concept in past ages; and it can be identified nowadays in the upsurge of “Global Islamism”.
The offensive cartoon that triggered a violent outburst in the Muslim World, and particularly in the Arab part of that world, raises the question about the true nature of the current happenings: are we dealing with a contrived cultural confrontation or with a dispute that is gradually shaping into another round of the ongoing conflict between the West and Islam?
I personally lean towards the second option, and there are precedents in history to support that opinion. Political Islam and the West are at extreme odds, waves of mutual hostility and animosity can be tracked throughout history, and, we may indeed be witnessing the fifth round in that long, historical conflict.
The First Round: initiated by political Islam via the first Islamic invasions, or what is known in Islam as the “Islamic conquests”. The early Islamic conquests reached the West, threatened Europe and left an obvious mark on Al-Andalus.
The Second Round: Europe set off this round with the crusades; those were launched under religious banners in the same fashion as the first Islamic round, and left the Muslims of the East with extremely bitter memories.
The Third Round: initiated by political Islam through the Ottoman Caliphate that was accompanied by a huge, widespread violent wave, posing a menace to the survival of Europe, and leaving a clear impact spanning from Asia Minor to the Balkans.
The Fourth Round: Europe initiated this one with the European colonization of most of the Muslim World – some countries remained under occupation until the sixties of last century.
Clearly, the two parties have exchanged “blows” throughout history, each side initiating an equal number of rounds, but with different outcomes. Political Islam left behind Muslim entities in the former USSR and in some European states, by forcing the indigenous populations to convert to Islam. The West was – and still is – engaged in helping the Jews realize their historical dream to resurrect their ancient kingdom in the land of Palestine.
It is worth mentioning that there is a difference between Islam as a religious practice, i.e. spiritual rituals, worship, and faith in God and the five pillars – and political Islam, where Islam serves as an ideology with a vision to create a viable political Muslim entity. The Muslim Caliphate was the manifestation of that concept in past ages, and it can be identified nowadays in the upsurge of the concept of “Global Islamism”. The Islamization of all aspects of life is at the heart of this comprehensive concept, and terrorism – the military side of this concept - serves as a reinforcing brutal arm. In other words, in reference to the common argument that Islam is both din wa dawla (religion and state), we need to differentiate between the two aspects; the issue has nothing to do with Islam as a religious belief, and the right of belief is a granted personal right. However the notion of Islam as “a state” addresses the political aspect, and, political Islam – as much as any political body – is bound to make mistakes.
The exclusive religious nature of Islam only lasted for a few years after its emergence; before long, Islam had fused religion and politics, giving birth to what is known as political Islam—a concept that is still in effect in our times. Political Islam, by definition (whether scientific or functional) is an old phenomenon, as ancient as Islam itself, only the labelsl have changed throughout history.
It is also worth noting that from a western perspective, the conflict with political Islam is basically of a political nature, even though it has taken on a religious angle in one particular round. On the other hand, from an Islamic perspective, it is a political / religious conflict, given that Islam has fused both aspects since its early beginnings, as mentioned earlier. This theory is supported by the fact that Eastern Christianity has suffered as a result of foreign attacks in the course of the long historical conflict with political Islam. The crusaders have played a role in weakening Eastern Christianity, and what the crusades did in Constantinople is proof enough. Furthermore, the Eastern Christians have paid – and are still paying – a heavy price, given the intense religious tone of the conflict. As perceived by political Islam, there was no way for Eastern Christians to escape unscathed, and they have become convenient targets of the hostility and rage permeating their world.
The Fifth Round: Political Islam took a turn in initiating another round, and the events of 9/11 marked the beginning of a deliberately planned round of assaults. The only difference this time around is that rather than a “Muslim Caliphate” state to carry out the assault, “Global Islamism” took that job. As mentioned earlier, “Global Islamism” is a comprehensive concept, and terrorism – planned or unplanned – represents the aggressive wing of this wide-ranging scheme. In the days of the Muslim Caliphate, there was a central state in charge of the military aspects of political Islam, and nowadays, in the absence of that state, terrorism has taken on the military role (of course, the concept of Global Islamism extends far beyond mere terrorism).
There are no designated leadership quarters for Global Islamism, but there are several quarters for the purposes of recruitment and spreading the word, and Saudi Arabia comes on top of those, followed by Egypt and Pakistan. Around the globe, millions of Muslims are sitting on the sidelines, watching the unfolding events from a distance, as this round of assaults was initiated by extremists only and not by all Muslims. Some in the West have estimated those extremists to represent around 10-15% of the total population of the Muslim world, which roughly equals 130-200 million fanatics. Islamic extremism is unfortunately gaining more ground as days go by, a fact that does not bode well for the future, hinting at the possibility of an extensive confrontation and of a shift from a cold war status to a an all-out battle.
Conspicuously, the cycles of violence instigated by political Islam – whether through the Muslim Caliphate, the Ottoman Caliphate or international terrorism – are of a global nature, hitting East and West, sparing no one, while the western attacks mostly tend to target the East and the countries of the Third World.
So, which of the Muslim states can stake a claim for the leadership of the Muslim world?
There are three types of leadership:
First, political and military leadership: it is obvious that none of the Muslim states qualify for this type of leadership, for many reasons. It is also a given that the West would not allow such a state to emerge and bring back the Muslim Caliphate; the West has no wish to revisit that period, or to be haunted once more by the phantoms of the Islamic invasions that have threatened Europe more than once.
Second: an intellectual leadership capable of offering a compelling extremist ideology that would draw and mobilize fanatics. Several states are walking that path, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and Pakistan are at the top of that list.
Third: The model of Islamic reform: simply put, this implies following the example of Judaism and Christianity in making a complete separation between religion and state. So far, not a single state has dared to put this model forth, as the great majority firmly believes in an Islam that fuses “religion and state”. The Turkish model is an exceptional case, that can neither be generalized nor copied, not to mention that it has been gradually losing ground, and showing clear signs of instability and turmoil.
Possible Future Scenarios
The First Scenario: suggested by Bernard Lewis – a historian and prominent expert on the Ottoman Caliphate– in a book that was written prior to the events of 9/11, and published afterwards. In the book entitled What Went Wrong? he mentioned that the Muslim civilization has declined, and the Muslim world was crumbling under the weight of ignorance, poverty and regression. “Islam cannot (“cannot” is one word) flourish without conquests”, he clearly stated, which means that a substantial Muslim political structure cannot exist in the absence of Muslim Caliphate.
The Second Scenario: A resurgence of a Muslim Caliphate, in a different form, the dream that Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri have long harbored, and thought to accomplish through terrorism, and by taking control over a state that will serve as a launching point for the new Muslim Caliphate. They were hoping to start with Afghanistan, then move on to Saudi Arabia, overthrow the regime, and establish a base for the Caliphate, but their dream faded after Afghanistan was hit. Prior to that, Hassan Al-Turabi, who was based in Sudan, tried and failed to revive the Islamic Nationalism “al-Umamiah al-Islamiya”. Others took a step-by-step approach to revive the Muslim Caliphate, resorting first to political means, and planning to shift into a military mode once they are in power. The Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt stands out as passionate advocates of that approach, as confirmed by a statement of the late supreme guide of the movement – Mr. Mustafa Mashour “we will not give up (the goal) of restoring the Muslim Caliphate”. (Asharq Al-Awsat, 9 Aug. 2002). I personally think that these attempts are destined to fail.
The Third Scenario: suggested by Samuel Huntington in “The Clash of Civilizations”, where he wrote “in the end, Mohammed will triumph” – meaning that the Prophet of Islam will have his victory owing to the Muslim world’s rapid population growth, and the way Islam is spreading and the Muslim cells are multiplying, threatening to enfold the world within their clasp.
The Fourth Scenario: it was suggested in the aftermath of the events of 9/11 that this is the final round of the battle between political Islam and the West, which will result in “the collapse of the Muslim World.” This scenario suggests that political Islam will be entirely defeated in a matter of a few decades, because terrorism will have taken the lead in this round, at a time when the Muslim world was at its weakest. That might explain why some people have commented that the Muslim world is actually facing the most dangerous crisis in its long history.
Magdi Khalil is a political analyst, researcher, author and executive editor of the Egyptian weekly Watani International. He is also a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, London, a free-lance writer for several Arabic language newspapers, and a frequent contributor to Middle East broadcast news TV. Mr. Khalil has also published three books and written numerous research papers on citizenship rights, civil society, and the situation of minorities in the Middle East. E-mail: magdikh@hotmail.com
Sold! Voltaire's Letters to Catherine the Great
At auction, for $750,000, at Sotheby's Russian Sale in London. Report from the BBC:
The figure is a world record for handwritten correspondence from this period, said Sotheby's auction house. The 26 letters date from 1768-1777, when Catherine was ruler of Russia and Voltaire lived in Switzerland.
Some of the letters are signed "the old hermit" while in others the philosopher simply refers to himself as "V". Catherine II, also known as Catherine the Great, was a German-born Empress who ruled Russia from 1762-96.
She described herself as a "philosopher on the throne" and corresponded with several prominent European thinkers throughout her reign. The letters from Voltaire discuss her foreign policy, including the partition of Poland and her first war with the Ottoman Empire in 1768-74.
The Ottoman ruler, Mustafa III, comes in for ridicule throughout the correspondence, with Voltaire referring to him as "fat and ignorant".
The Haditha Massacre
Congressman Murtha was right to make an issue of this. The problem is not the crime--massacres happen in every war--but the coverup. The more quickly this is handled by a court-martial and the guilty punished, the better--because it would demonstrate that massacre is not US policy. US Marines are not professional baby killers, nor should they be, IMHO.
BTW, this might be a serious enough issue to force Rumsfeld's long-overdo resignation, if anyone has the nerve to take him on. How much worse can the image of America get? And it's been on his watch...
BTW, this might be a serious enough issue to force Rumsfeld's long-overdo resignation, if anyone has the nerve to take him on. How much worse can the image of America get? And it's been on his watch...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)