Banner Advertiser

Saturday, September 3, 2011

[ALOCHONA] WIKILEAKS: Jamaat looks 'further than polls'



WIKILEAKS EXPOSÉ: Jamaat looks 'further than polls'

Bent on making Bangladesh a 'genuinely' Islamic state, Jamaat-e-Islami unruffled despite last election debacle and its top leaders being tried for war crimes, the US embassy in Dhaka said.

ChargĂ© d'affaires Nicholas Dean sent the classified diplomatic cable titled—Jamaat-e-Islami: The tortoise not the hare--to Washington on Jan 3, 2010.

Julian Assange's whistle-blower WikiLeaks published the cable along with nearly 150,000 new cables on Aug 30.

The report was based on the discussions with several top-ranking leaders who allegedly opposed Bangladesh's war of independence of Pakistan and the 'Majlish-e-Shura' meeting.

The cable said, "Jamaat's leaders clearly hope that slow and steady wins the race.

"Jamaat-e-Islami Assistant Secretary General Abdur Razzaq told us Jamaat is not concerned with short-term gains like winning the next national election or increasing the number of seats in the national parliament.

"Rather, Jamaat's true aim is to make Bangladesh a genuinely Islamic country," the cabkle added.

Bangladesh's largest religious party won only three seats in the 2008 general elections and five of its leaders including chief Matiur Rahman Nizami and sectretary-general Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mojaheed were arrested in the middle of 2010 on charges of committing crimes against humanity in the 1971 freedom struggle.

Abdul Quader Mollah, the party's assistant secretary general now behind bars, claimed "what differentiated Jamaat from the other two major political parties was that Jamaat had an ideology and the other parties did not.

"According to Jamaat leaders, the Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party formed positions that varied election-by-election depending on what they think would garner votes, while Jamaat focused on its end goal."

Mollah told the American officials an Islamic state was "the only thing that could solve the problems of Bangladesh.

"He said he was not worried about electoral losses or parliamentary intrigue."

Mollah also claimed that Jamaat "had no ties with and received no money, official or unofficial, from the Jamaat-e-Islami parties of other countries".

However, Dean commented, Mollah was "well-versed on Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami and claimed its former leader, Maulana Fazur Rehman, as a friend".

Jamaat-e-Islami was founded by Syed Abul A'laa Maududi in 1941 in British India. It was against the creation of Pakistan but after the Partition of India, Maududi went to Pakistan.

He was sentenced to death by hanging in Pakistan for inciting killings of Ahmadiyya community, but he somehow survived.

The party was banned after the war of liberation for being a communal party but revived its political fortunes during the reign of Ziaur Rahman.

Known for years as Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, the party renamed itself Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami following debates about whether it was an extension of a foreign party.

Kader Mollah said Jamaat leaders used their highest policy-making forum Majlish to "advise delegates, who came from every district in Bangladesh, about ways to effectively convey Jamaat messages" and "focus more on Islam and how to connect with the people of Bangladesh".

Though Jamaat has a long-term goal, its student wing, Bangladesh Islami Chatra Shibir, "in contrast, is much more focused on the short-term", the cable observed.

They "also spend much of their time clashing with the student wings of the Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party".

"In a meeting with a Political Officer, [Shibir] leaders were intent on showing him picture after picture of fights [Shibir] members have had with other parties on campuses throughout the country and the injuries suffered, they claimed, unjustly.

"There was no mention of injuries inflicted," the US embassy cable added.

Shibir leaders claimed their budget was funded solely by nominal contributions from its membership and alumni, but "the high-rent location" of Shibir's headquarters in Maghbazar "belies this claim", said Nicholas Dean.

Like the Awami League and BNP's student wings, Shibir "regularly shake-down area business for money".

"Like the other student parties, Shibir serves as a feeder-organization to Jamaat," he summarised.

The US diplomat believes Jamaat's "closed-door majlish and our meetings with Jamaat and Shabbir indicate that the organizations remain hierarchical with top-down decision making, despite their claims that they are internally democratic."
http://bdnews24.com/details.php?cid=2&id=204967&hb=2


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Teesta waters



Teesta waters


Dr Asif Nazrul :

 http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-09-04/news/182702


http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/09/03/102858



http://www.thedailysangbad.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Visa&archiev=yes&arch_date=03-09-2011&pub_no=820&menu_id=13&news_type_id=1&val=76990




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Transit/ Corridor



Transit/ Corridor

http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/09/04/103085

http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Hotel&pub_no=486&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=4

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/editorial/31799.html

http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-09-04/news/182845

http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-09-04/news/182833

http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-09-04/news/182843

http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-09-04/news/182723

http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-09-04/news/182837

http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-09-04/news/182836


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Grand design: Bangladesh patients for Indian hospitals



Grand design: Bangladesh patients for Indian hospitals



http://dailynayadiganta.com/2011/09/03/fullnews.asp?News_ID=297143&sec=1


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective



Dear Jiten roy

will u please explain a bit more about u told --billions of dollars may have been illegally funneled to the foreign accounts of many politicians, government officials, and even Ghandhi-family?--i mean tell me detail about it please specialy gandhi family

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective

 
I do not know a lot about the movement of Ana Hazare, but I know this much - it is against corruptions, especially, governmental ones. I also know that there are media outrage and propaganda against his movement. Why media, Arundhuti Roy, and others will go against such movement, when evidences are there that billions of dollars may have been illegally funneled to the foreign accounts of many politicians, government officials, and even Ghandhi-family? The media and others have done the same to Baba Ramdev also.
Here is what I think – beneficiaries of those illegal funds, and others, who could be involved, are afraid that they will be exposed or their channels could be blocked, and that's why they have launched this organized movement against Ana Hazare. Media want to divert this issue to something, which it is not – like Hindu-ism, caste-ism, Gandhi-ism, etc., etc. This media circus is very interesting to watch.  But, I know – all those distracters are failing, as they should, and Ana Hazare should win this race.
Jiten Roy

--- On Sat, 9/3/11, csss1 <csss2work@gmail.com> wrote:

From: csss1 <csss2work@gmail.com>
Subject: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective
To: mufaddal.khumri@rakbank.ae, alhiramumbai@gmail.com, muftizahid@yahoo.com, meti@mt.net.mk, dgbiiss@biiss.org, habibsanai@hotmail.com, ideologyp@excite.com, saniisah@yahoo.com, muhammadkhalidmasud@hotmail.com, jih@vsnl.com, muhammed.behram@gmail.com, muhsin@jaffer.org, mujdeb@superonline.com, ideamumbai@yahoo.com, mujeeburrahmankinalur@hotmail.com, akmukadam@rediffmail.com, mukesh.khanna2@gmail.com, mukesheart@rediffmail.com, oxfamnag@nagpur.dot.net.in, mukta@riseup.net, mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 3, 2011, 5:32 AM

 
ANNA HAZARE MOVEMENT – A SKEPTIC'S VIEW
 
Asghar Ali Engineer
 
(Secular Perspective September 1-15, 2011)
 
Lot has already been written on Anna Hazare's fast both for and against but more for than against. Why then need for another article? Every article has a perspective and I have mine on and also each article for or against throws light on some new facts not covered by earlier ones. I had written earlier also from Gandhian perspective but more needs to be written. This was, whether one agrees with or not, is a very major movement having lot of implications for our democracy.
 
First, on how far Hazare is Gandhian and how far his method is Gandhian? He is being described as Gandhian by the media apparently because he undertook fast which Mahatma Gandhi used to. But can anyone become Gandhian just because one undertakes fast? This is really debatable. Gandhian fast was more about its spirit than its method or form. In my opinion mere undertaking fast does not make one a Gandhian unless other conditions are fulfilled.
 
What are those conditions? Gandhi was very particular, nay insistent on relationship between means and ends. He strongly felt if means are wrong, ends cannot remain noble. Thus above all his point of view was ethical and means are as important as ends. Now what constitutes means? Is undertaking fast is enough to put it under the category of ethical? For that we have to examine how Gandhi undertook fast and under what conditions and for what purpose.
 
Whenever Gandhi undertook fast he called it either repentance or self purification. He never insisted that his demands must be accepted as it is much less at the cost of democratic institutions. In fact he did not fast against Government. To say that only my demand is right and there can be no other point of view is not only undemocratic but authoritarian stand directed against democratic institutions.
 
Moreover, Gandhi never depended on anyone else when he undertook fast. It used to be his decision and to end fast also was his own decision. He never constituted any team and seek their advice nor asked anyone to negotiate on his behalf. Here not only Hazare insisted on his demand being accepted but also involved his team to negotiate and decide. Media also repeatedly referred to 'team Anna'.
 
Gandhi never depended on parading people in thousands, much less in lakhs for legitimacy of his fast but his fast was never coercive and authoritarian. Anna had to depend on thousands or even lakhs marching to further strengthen coercive dimension of his fast. One of the members of the team Anna even threatened on 9th day of his fast that who will be responsible if something happens to Anna? The implication was the Government will be responsible and hence Anna's (which in fact means team Anna's demand) must be accepted in toto.
 
And ultimately this is what happened. Also, the people who were paraded came from urban middle class upper caste people and not representative of all sections of Indian people. Minorities, dalits, tribals and poor, not only did not participate (by and large) but even felt apprehensive about the consequences of Anna's fast which undermined supremacy  of the Constitution and Parliament.
 
These weaker sections of society definitely suffer from corruption as much as other sections of society and they will support any fight against corruption. But this fight cannot be at the cost of other problems of minorities and dalits which appeared to be so in case of Anna's fast. They felt their existence and their fundamental rights are very much dependent on the supremacy of constitution and parliament.
 
Anna Hazare's movement, on the other hand, appeared to represent majoritarian ethos and got enthusiastic support from main opposition party BJP and also RSS was seen advising BJP to lend full support to Anna's fast and team Anna's efforts. That made these weaker sections much more apprehensive. Also, RSS and main opposition support vitiated Anna's fast ethically.
 
It got politicized on one hand, and on the other, accepting support from a party whose members are deeply involved in corruption wherever it has its governments in states, particularly in Karnataka. How can Anna who is fighting against corruption can accept enthusiastic support and large scale mobilization for a party who too stands accused of  corruption. This seriously affects ethics of Anna's fast.
 
Moreover Gandhiji's fast remained a very serious effort to spiritualise politics whereas Anna and team Anna indulged in politics, accusations and counter-accusation thus eroding the ethicality of the end. Also, among the crowds there were people who were drunk and used abusive language. Also, as if all this was not enough, his supporters, at the instance of team Anna began to gherao M.P.s to accept Anna's demands else…Anna himself approved of these acts. Even Prime Minister's house was gheraoed eroding the dignity of the office of premiere authority in democracy.
 
Also, serious accusations were made against team Anna that foreign funds were accepted to finance such huge mobilization. Every day food and water was supplied to thousands or a lakh of people. Where the money came from? Did money come from impeccable sources?  If so why it is not being disclosed? Some even accuse that VHP was supplying expenses for food. If there is any truth in this why Anna accepted finances from these sources. Does he have any link with these sources. Why did he not ask his team not to accept financing from these sources?
 
Anna, unlike Gandhiji, not only never undertook fast against communal violence in the country, he is not even known to have denounced communal riots. He even praised developmental model of Modi Government who was responsible for communal violence in Gujarat in 2002 and what is worse, he praised developmental model which benefits the rich at the cost of the poor which Gandhiji will never approve of.
 
It is in fact liberalization and globalization and super-profits being made by the rich which is greatly responsible for corruption, in fact, today, as unlike in the past, it has become main source of corruption. Gandhiji was basically concerned with the last person in society and he used to say that a development model which does not benefit the last man in the society is not worth it.
 
And Anna praised the developmental model of Gujarat which is nothing if not enriching and ensuring super-profit to multi-nationals and financial sharks. How can then Hazare be Gandhian? He used Gandhian tool but vitiated it with unethical and un-Gandhian ways. Anna is reported to have said on many occasions that the corrupt should be hanged. It means violence can be legitimately used for such purposes which itself is quite un-Gandhian both in form and content.
 
He also asked his followers in his 'model' village to beat with shoes those who drank liquor and also made them ride donkey and blackened their faces. These are all violent methods which Gandhiji will never approve of. This clearly shows an authoritarian strain in Anna Hazare and he seems to be in a hurry to succeed. Same thing he tries to do with his fight against corruption.
 
Corruption can be fought with laws and strong punishments. Hazare always insists on 'strong punishment'. As pointed out by me in another article, it is more of a moral than legal issue. No amount of laws can even remove corruption. Even death penalty has not succeeded in reducing murder, let alone ending it. In fact our legal system is also corrupt. Our lawyers are ever ready to prove a murderer innocent. Gandhiji, on the other hand, maintained that a lawyer should never take up any case which he is not convinced is based on truth. And what is the guarantee that 'Strong Lokpal' will not become corrupt and then corrupt lawyers and judges will not be ready to defend them and prove them not guilty?
 
Corruption can be more effectively fought on moral grounds. And how can we have morally sound citizens when our whole education system is corrupt, based on high capitation fees for admissions and on the very concept of money spinning? We need strong value based education to produce strong moral character than strong Lokpal though the later may also be needed to an extent.
 
But one does not hear from Anna's mouth anything about morality whereas whole emphasis of Gandhiji was on spirituality and morality. He would dive deep in his moral conscience for solution rather than talk of laws and punishment.  One who is in a hurry to become messiah does not give importance to voice of ones conscience. He resorts to external remedies and punishments. To become Gandhi one must dive deep into moral conscience.
-------------------------------------------------------     
 Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective



I do not know a lot about the movement of Ana Hazare, but I know this much - it is against corruptions, especially, governmental ones. I also know that there are media outrage and propaganda against his movement. Why media, Arundhuti Roy, and others will go against such movement, when evidences are there that billions of dollars may have been illegally funneled to the foreign accounts of many politicians, government officials, and even Ghandhi-family? The media and others have done the same to Baba Ramdev also.

Here is what I think – beneficiaries of those illegal funds, and others, who could be involved, are afraid that they will be exposed or their channels could be blocked, and that's why they have launched this organized movement against Ana Hazare. Media want to divert this issue to something, which it is not – like Hindu-ism, caste-ism, Gandhi-ism, etc., etc. This media circus is very interesting to watch.  But, I know – all those distracters are failing, as they should, and Ana Hazare should win this race.

Jiten Roy

--- On Sat, 9/3/11, csss1 <csss2work@gmail.com> wrote:


From: csss1 <csss2work@gmail.com>
Subject: [mukto-mona] Secular Perspective
To: mufaddal.khumri@rakbank.ae, alhiramumbai@gmail.com, muftizahid@yahoo.com, meti@mt.net.mk, dgbiiss@biiss.org, habibsanai@hotmail.com, ideologyp@excite.com, saniisah@yahoo.com, muhammadkhalidmasud@hotmail.com, jih@vsnl.com, muhammed.behram@gmail.com, muhsin@jaffer.org, mujdeb@superonline.com, ideamumbai@yahoo.com, mujeeburrahmankinalur@hotmail.com, akmukadam@rediffmail.com, mukesh.khanna2@gmail.com, mukesheart@rediffmail.com, oxfamnag@nagpur.dot.net.in, mukta@riseup.net, mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 3, 2011, 5:32 AM

 

ANNA HAZARE MOVEMENT – A SKEPTIC'S VIEW

 

Asghar Ali Engineer

 

(Secular Perspective September 1-15, 2011)

 

Lot has already been written on Anna Hazare's fast both for and against but more for than against. Why then need for another article? Every article has a perspective and I have mine on and also each article for or against throws light on some new facts not covered by earlier ones. I had written earlier also from Gandhian perspective but more needs to be written. This was, whether one agrees with or not, is a very major movement having lot of implications for our democracy.

 

First, on how far Hazare is Gandhian and how far his method is Gandhian? He is being described as Gandhian by the media apparently because he undertook fast which Mahatma Gandhi used to. But can anyone become Gandhian just because one undertakes fast? This is really debatable. Gandhian fast was more about its spirit than its method or form. In my opinion mere undertaking fast does not make one a Gandhian unless other conditions are fulfilled.

 

What are those conditions? Gandhi was very particular, nay insistent on relationship between means and ends. He strongly felt if means are wrong, ends cannot remain noble. Thus above all his point of view was ethical and means are as important as ends. Now what constitutes means? Is undertaking fast is enough to put it under the category of ethical? For that we have to examine how Gandhi undertook fast and under what conditions and for what purpose.

 

Whenever Gandhi undertook fast he called it either repentance or self purification. He never insisted that his demands must be accepted as it is much less at the cost of democratic institutions. In fact he did not fast against Government. To say that only my demand is right and there can be no other point of view is not only undemocratic but authoritarian stand directed against democratic institutions.

 

Moreover, Gandhi never depended on anyone else when he undertook fast. It used to be his decision and to end fast also was his own decision. He never constituted any team and seek their advice nor asked anyone to negotiate on his behalf. Here not only Hazare insisted on his demand being accepted but also involved his team to negotiate and decide. Media also repeatedly referred to 'team Anna'.

 

Gandhi never depended on parading people in thousands, much less in lakhs for legitimacy of his fast but his fast was never coercive and authoritarian. Anna had to depend on thousands or even lakhs marching to further strengthen coercive dimension of his fast. One of the members of the team Anna even threatened on 9th day of his fast that who will be responsible if something happens to Anna? The implication was the Government will be responsible and hence Anna's (which in fact means team Anna's demand) must be accepted in toto.

 

And ultimately this is what happened. Also, the people who were paraded came from urban middle class upper caste people and not representative of all sections of Indian people. Minorities, dalits, tribals and poor, not only did not participate (by and large) but even felt apprehensive about the consequences of Anna's fast which undermined supremacy  of the Constitution and Parliament.

 

These weaker sections of society definitely suffer from corruption as much as other sections of society and they will support any fight against corruption. But this fight cannot be at the cost of other problems of minorities and dalits which appeared to be so in case of Anna's fast. They felt their existence and their fundamental rights are very much dependent on the supremacy of constitution and parliament.

 

Anna Hazare's movement, on the other hand, appeared to represent majoritarian ethos and got enthusiastic support from main opposition party BJP and also RSS was seen advising BJP to lend full support to Anna's fast and team Anna's efforts. That made these weaker sections much more apprehensive. Also, RSS and main opposition support vitiated Anna's fast ethically.

 

It got politicized on one hand, and on the other, accepting support from a party whose members are deeply involved in corruption wherever it has its governments in states, particularly in Karnataka. How can Anna who is fighting against corruption can accept enthusiastic support and large scale mobilization for a party who too stands accused of  corruption. This seriously affects ethics of Anna's fast.

 

Moreover Gandhiji's fast remained a very serious effort to spiritualise politics whereas Anna and team Anna indulged in politics, accusations and counter-accusation thus eroding the ethicality of the end. Also, among the crowds there were people who were drunk and used abusive language. Also, as if all this was not enough, his supporters, at the instance of team Anna began to gherao M.P.s to accept Anna's demands else…Anna himself approved of these acts. Even Prime Minister's house was gheraoed eroding the dignity of the office of premiere authority in democracy.

 

Also, serious accusations were made against team Anna that foreign funds were accepted to finance such huge mobilization. Every day food and water was supplied to thousands or a lakh of people. Where the money came from? Did money come from impeccable sources?  If so why it is not being disclosed? Some even accuse that VHP was supplying expenses for food. If there is any truth in this why Anna accepted finances from these sources. Does he have any link with these sources. Why did he not ask his team not to accept financing from these sources?

 

Anna, unlike Gandhiji, not only never undertook fast against communal violence in the country, he is not even known to have denounced communal riots. He even praised developmental model of Modi Government who was responsible for communal violence in Gujarat in 2002 and what is worse, he praised developmental model which benefits the rich at the cost of the poor which Gandhiji will never approve of.

 

It is in fact liberalization and globalization and super-profits being made by the rich which is greatly responsible for corruption, in fact, today, as unlike in the past, it has become main source of corruption. Gandhiji was basically concerned with the last person in society and he used to say that a development model which does not benefit the last man in the society is not worth it.

 

And Anna praised the developmental model of Gujarat which is nothing if not enriching and ensuring super-profit to multi-nationals and financial sharks. How can then Hazare be Gandhian? He used Gandhian tool but vitiated it with unethical and un-Gandhian ways. Anna is reported to have said on many occasions that the corrupt should be hanged. It means violence can be legitimately used for such purposes which itself is quite un-Gandhian both in form and content.

 

He also asked his followers in his 'model' village to beat with shoes those who drank liquor and also made them ride donkey and blackened their faces. These are all violent methods which Gandhiji will never approve of. This clearly shows an authoritarian strain in Anna Hazare and he seems to be in a hurry to succeed. Same thing he tries to do with his fight against corruption.

 

Corruption can be fought with laws and strong punishments. Hazare always insists on 'strong punishment'. As pointed out by me in another article, it is more of a moral than legal issue. No amount of laws can even remove corruption. Even death penalty has not succeeded in reducing murder, let alone ending it. In fact our legal system is also corrupt. Our lawyers are ever ready to prove a murderer innocent. Gandhiji, on the other hand, maintained that a lawyer should never take up any case which he is not convinced is based on truth. And what is the guarantee that 'Strong Lokpal' will not become corrupt and then corrupt lawyers and judges will not be ready to defend them and prove them not guilty?

 

Corruption can be more effectively fought on moral grounds. And how can we have morally sound citizens when our whole education system is corrupt, based on high capitation fees for admissions and on the very concept of money spinning? We need strong value based education to produce strong moral character than strong Lokpal though the later may also be needed to an extent.

 

But one does not hear from Anna's mouth anything about morality whereas whole emphasis of Gandhiji was on spirituality and morality. He would dive deep in his moral conscience for solution rather than talk of laws and punishment.  One who is in a hurry to become messiah does not give importance to voice of ones conscience. He resorts to external remedies and punishments. To become Gandhi one must dive deep into moral conscience.

-------------------------------------------------------     

 Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Investigation into Padma Bridge project corruption begins

Investigation into Padma Bridge project corruption begins

Following the recent controversy of Bangladeshi communications
minister Syed Abul Hossain's failure in properly maintaining road
communication infrastructure in the country, causing death of a few
hundred people only during 2010, the minister possibly is going to
fall into a real ditch, as international authorities have already
started investigating a serious allegation of corruption and
irregularity related to US$ 2.9 billion Padma Bridge project in
Bangladesh. If the alleged case of heavy bribery related to the Padma
Bridge project, the communication minister will be the second
Bangladeshi national caught for receiving bribe from any international
company, after Arafat Rahman Koko [son of the former Prime Minister]
was already caught to have received huge amount of bribe from Nico.
Syed Abul Hossain is considered to be one of the most influential
ministers in Bangladeshi cabinet.

After the first-ever foreign bribery guilty plea by Nico Resources
Inc, which admitted to bribing a Bangladeshi junior energy minister,
who was paid off with the use of a car and a paid trip to Canada and
the US, Canadian authorities raided the offices of SNC-Lavalin Group
Inc. outside Toronto on Thursday in connection with a corruption probe
into the engineering giant's work on a World Bank-funded bridge
project in Bangladesh. A spokeswoman for the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police [RCMP] confirmed the raids. Without mentioning the Padma
project, Leslie Quinton, SNC-Lavalin vice president of global
communications, said it was "assisting the RCMP in their investigation
on a specific case in which they requested our collaboration."

"We are complying fully with their requests and are not aware of any
reason that would warrant such an investigation," she said. "Because
the situation is under investigation, we cannot comment any further."

The RCMP launched the probe following a referral from World Bank
officials about alleged corruption in the bidding process for the
Padma Bridge project. RCMP spokeswoman Const. Julie Morel confirmed
that the force had executed search warrants at several locations as
part of an investigation of SNC-Lavalin employees Thursday.

A World Bank spokesman said RCMP executed search warrants in "several
locations" following a referral by the Bank's anti-graft unit, which
is investigating allegations of corruption in the bidding processes
for the Padma Bridge Project in Bangladesh. The World Bank signed a
40-year deal in April 2011 to lend US$ 1.2 billion to Bangladesh to
build the four-mile bridge over the river Padma. The bridge will link
Bangladesh's underdeveloped south with the capital, Dhaka, and the
country's main port, Chittagong. Once completed, it would be the
largest bridge in the country.

"We have been informed that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is
investigating employees of SNC-Lavalin for violations of Canadian
law," the World Bank spokesman said. "We commend the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police for its robust response to the World Bank referral and
look forward to the outcome of its investigation."

The World Bank is leading a consortium including the Japanese
government, the Asian Development Bank and the Islamic Development
Bank that agreed last year to provide Bangladesh up to US$ 2.9 billion
for the bridge. The raid by the RCMP is the latest indication Canada
is more aggressively pursuing allegations of corruption abroad by its
companies. The case is the second this year involving Bangladesh. The
bridge, about 50 km south of Dhaka, is expected to be completed by
2014, improving transportation between Bangladesh and other countries,
and establishing a missing link along the longest corridor under the
Asian Highway Network that connects Tokyo to Istanbul.

The World Bank last week outlined its increased efforts to prevent and
deter fraud and corruption. Over the past year, the bank said its new
Preventive Services Unit had helped build precautions against fraud
into 48 high-risk projects in 29 countries with a total value of US$
14.1 billion. The bank said it had trained over 2,700 government
officials and bank staff on how to conduct forensic audits and
identify suspicious transactions.

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1749/investigation-into-padma-bridge-project


------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] WIKILEAKS EXPOSÉ: Bangladesh

WIKILEAKS EXPOSÉ: Bangladesh
Abul a 'less than honest' man: Ex-US envoy

Dhaka, Sept 3 (bdnews24.com) — Former US ambassador in Dhaka James F
Moriarty branded communications minister Syed Abul Hossain as a 'less
than honest' man in his business dealings, according to cables leaked
by whistleblower WikiLeaks.

In his cable sent in February last year, Moriarty said prime minister
Sheikh Hasina was relying on the minister for the infrastructure
development projects she had pledged to the people.

"The [communications] minister, who has a reputation for
less-than-honest business dealings, remains focused on delivering the
infrastructure projects he and prime minister Sheikh Hasina have
promised to Bangladesh voters," Moriarty wrote in the summary of the
message.

He said that allegations of corruption had continued to surround the
communications minister.

The US ambassador, who completed his service in Bangladesh and
departed on June 17, made the comment on the basis of 'other
high-ranking government officials who acknowledged to the US problems
with the minister's way of doing business'.

Moriarty also expressed his concern over Hossain's 'close ties to
China'. He sent the cable after he had conversed with the
communications minister at a dinner party on Feb 3 last year.
WikiLeaks leaked the cables involving Hossain's affairs in its latest
releases on Aug 30.

PADMA BRIDGE AND JICA

Though the minister expressed satisfaction with the levels of support
donors planned to provide for the Padma Bridge project, which will
directly link southwestern Bangladesh with Dhaka and the more
prosperous eastern region of the country, he complained about the
Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) that it was insisting
on dividing the contract for the bridge into two parts.

The Japanese proposal to split the bridge into two structures, Abul
said, would allow two different contractors to put blames for any
problems on the other contractor.

He had told Moriarty that the proposal of JICA that pledged $500
million for the bridge was opposed by the government and other donors.

According to him, the World Bank pledged $1.5 billion for the bridge,
the Asian Development Bank $550 million and the Islamic Development
Bank $130 million, primarily in soft loans.

He, however, asked the US envoy to use his good offices with Japan and
US support for the World Bank and ADB to urge JICA to reconsider its
stance. Moriarty said several US firms would be interested to get the
job of dredging involving the construction of the bridge.

Apart from the Padma Bridge, Abul told the US envoy that his 'two
other linchpins in the infrastructure-for-elections plan' were to
expand Dhaka-Mymensingh and Dhaka-Chittagong highways. He told
Moriarty that he had already awarded seven contracts to the foreign
firms, mainly Chinese, and three others to local firms.

RAILWAY AFFAIRS

The minister urged the US to support a Dhaka infrastructure project to
build an elevated road and rail crossing that would be 'tangible proof
of the strong US-Bangladesh relationship'.

"We need a visible USAID project in the metropolitan area," he told
Moriarty. He also described several steps to modernise the country's
railway.

He said the prime minister assigned him to develop an elevated rail
system in Dhaka to ease the city's traffic crisis. JICA had expressed
its interest to fund the project.

The minister also said the government had a plan to transform
Bangladesh Railway into an independent, still the government-owned,
entity from its current structure as a government-run enterprise.

Moriarty, in his cable, said Abul was 'confident that these plans to
corporatise and then perhaps privatise Bangladesh Rail would greatly
improve its efficiency and quality of service'.


------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] Libya- Post-Gaddafi Out of the Frying Pan and inot the Fire



Libya Post-GaddafiOut of the Frying Pan and into the Fire?
31.08.2011
 
There is unbridled joy at the toppling of Col. Gaddafi – not just in Libya, but also in the West. But who exactly are the men serving on the so-called Transitional Council? And what was the true motivation behind the military action against the Libyan dictator? Werner Ruf comments
The revolutions of Tunisia and Egypt inspired the people of Libya triggering a wave of protest action there too. But unlike in the two afore-mentioned countries, demonstrators in eastern Libya stormed police stations and army barracks on the second day of the uprising, arming themselves for the battle against the regime. A "National Transitional Council" was formed in Benghazi, which was immediately recognised by France and subsequently by around 30 other nations as the "legitimate representation of the Libyan people".
The fact that this legitimacy is founded neither on the results of any elections or any other measurable form of popular support is due to the circumstances, or more specifically: the decisive will of western governments.
Now Libya's foreign assets will be transferred to a council that has found flimsy legitimacy in this manner. This is because Gaddafi had invested a significant portion of oil export revenues in the state-owned Libyan Investment Agency, while kleptocrats Mubarak and Ben Ali had transformed stolen public assets into the private property of their family members. Now the council will be in a position to pay for the weapons supplied by its western friends.
Rebels with a past
Mustafa Abdel Jalil (photo: picture-alliance/dpa)
Former prop of the Gaddafi regime: Mustafa Abdel Jalil served as justice minister until February, but resigned when protests in Benghazi were brutally crushed by Gaddafi's henchmen
In the pro-revolutionary enthusiasm of the West, it is studiously ignored or simply not mentioned that of the 40-or-so members of this council, only just over a quarter of them are actually known by name. These include Mahmoud Djibril and Ali Tarhouni, two US-educated neo-liberal economists, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, Gaddafi's former justice minister who switched allegiances to the rebel side in February, Ahmed al Senussi, a relative of King Idriss I., ousted by Gaddafi in a 1969 military putsch, and around 10 other individuals.
Just how heterogeneous, indeed just how divided this council is, is not only evident from the fact that it has already undergone a necessary reshuffle, but primarily from the fact that the rebels' commander-in-chief Abdel Fattah Younes was brutally murdered along with three aides by another rebel group. Since then there no longer appears to a common command structure in place, as different groups and militia wage uncoordinated battles against remnants of the army and Gaddafi loyalists in Tripoli.
The West's enthusiasm for the rebels also fails to consider the significance of their red-black-and-green banner, which is that of the old Libya during the rule of King Idriss I.: Idriss was head of the Islamic-conservative Senussi Order, which exerted an influence as far as Senegal and Indonesia in the early 20th century. Following the liberation of Libya from fascist Italian rule, Idriss was installed as King in Benghazi under the influence of the British. It remains to be seen to what extent the choice of this banner is not only indicative of eastern Libyan separatist ambitions, but also perhaps of a restorative-conservative programme of reform.
What is certain is that the unknown members of the Council include die-hard Islamists who formed the core of resistance against Gaddafi over at least the last 30 years. Of the Libyan volunteers drafted to fight first against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, then against the US and to bolster the Islamic resistance movement in Iraq, they formed the second largest number of recruits after Saudi Arabia.
NATO attack against Libyan self-determination?
Western chancelleries must be well aware of all this. And this gives rise to the question of the true aim of this intervention. Gaddafi was not only an eccentric person, he was one of the few Arab heads of state who always insisted that Libya maintain control of oil exports through appropriate investment in oil companies.
Teenage boy holds up a cartoon of Gaddafi at the gallows (photo: dapd)
Euphoria after the end of Gaddafi's rule: Yet, according to Werner Ruf, Libya's future looks to be moving towards a dissolution of central statehood and anarchy
Following his numerous fruitless attempts to form an alliance between Libya and other Arab states thereby creating a certain counterbalance to the power of the West, he succeeded in building up the African Union – he served as the organisation's first ever chairman – into a system that functioned to a certain degree, with the explicit intention to achieve greater supremacy for African nations and greater control over their commodity wealth.
This was the reason for the passage of Resolution 1973 at the UN Security Council, not human rights violations. If human rights had been the trigger, then the West would have had to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia a long time ago, or at least denounce the invasion of Bahrain, carried out by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council in the shadow of the Libyan war – an act aimed at crushing the pro-democracy movement there.
This is why in the "Third World", but primarily in Africa, the 20,000-plus airstrikes launched by the coalition of the willing under NATO command to bomb a path to Tripoli for the rebels, are being seen not as an act of liberation, but as a neo-colonial enterprise.
The battles in and around Tripoli and the mass executions that have apparently begun show that Libya's future looks to be moving towards a dissolution of central statehood in which tribes, secular and Islamic groups fight each other in a state of anarchy.
Whether we are going to see an implosion of statehood, or a disintegration of the country into two or perhaps three states: the reconstruction of Libya's devastated infrastructure and the new regime whose survival is dependent on the support of the West, now at last grants international firms unfettered access to Libyan oil production, and perhaps also throws up the opportunity to divide the only commodity cartel in the "Third World", OPEC.
Werner Ruf
© Qantara.de 2011
Werner Ruf is professor emeritus for International Relations at the University of Kassel, Germany.
Editor: Lewis Gropp/Qantara.de


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] The End of 'Antithesis'



9/11 and the Arab SpringThe End of the ''Antithesis'' 31.08.2011
 
After a decade, 9/11 is over. Its main legacy – the idea that Islam is fundamentally opposed to Western democratic values – has finally lost its power of persuasion. What is making this antithesis untenable is the Arab Spring, which is revealing rather different sides to both Muslims and what the West has stood for in the past. An essay by Geert J. Somsen
 
9/11 has shaped a decade. It has affected geopolitics and it has changed the ways we speak about things at home. For apart from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been major changes in our domestic political climate as well. Both in the US and within European countries, the attacks by al-Qaeda have massively influenced public debate. For almost ten years now, publicists and politicians have developed a variety of discussions around one central theme: the idea of a fundamental antithesis of Western values and Islam.
This theme of a "Clash of two Civilisations" can be discerned in a wide range of deliberations. But its most direct manifestation has been the spectacular rise of right-wing populist parties with strong anti-Islamic agendas. Many of these have grown in Europe's smaller countries (the Danish National Party, the Dutch Freedom Party, the Schweizerische Volkspartei, and others), but anti-Islamists have been strong in France and the US as well.
Of course, none of these movements arose solely in response to the attacks on the Twin Towers. They also owe their success to longer-lingering misgivings about non-Western immigration. But 9/11 did give them a strong boost, and more importantly, they themselves associate their domestic causes with the alleged threat of Islam worldwide. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has given speeches at Ground Zero, warning against the Islamic "threat", and his Freedom Party calls unruly young immigrants "street terrorists", in direct reference to their "grown-up brothers" in al-Qaeda.
How 9/11 has shaped domestic politics
Still, the impact of 9/11 has not been restricted to these movements proper. Their themes have come to dominate the entire political debate. My own country, the Netherlands, is a good example. It used to be known (even if not always deservedly) for its liberty and tolerance, but now it has become a hotbed of populism and anti-Islamic sentiment. Opinion leaders like Pim Fortuyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Theo van Gogh and Geert Wilders started the so-called "Islam debate" which has filled Dutch airwaves and newspapers for years now.
photo: picture-alliance/dpa
"Where Islam rises, Western values will go down": The Durch anti-Islam politician Geerd Wilders during a speech at Ground Zero, New York. The Netherlands used to be known for its liberty and tolerance – now its leading politicians are international avant-garde in terms of xenophobic agitation
Traditional parties have felt forced to respond and have adopted measures in attempts to avoid losing voters on a large scale. This has led to a law against burqas, proposals to forbid Muslim parties and Muslim books, suggestions to tax the headscarf, and a forthcoming parliament ruling against the right to halal (and kosher) slaughtering. It has also created a lot of turmoil and even political violence, fuelling the idea that Muslims and Westerners are indeed inevitably in conflict.
It is easy to add examples from other countries. France has banned women from wearing headscarves in public sector jobs, stepping up its proud principle of laïcité. Denmark has felt its freedom of expression threatened after attacks on cartoonists criticising Islam. Switzerland consulted its people on whether the minaret belongs in its landscape. And in the US, some have argued that president Obama is secretly Muslim. Of course, very few people actually believe this allegation, but the underlying premise is that if he were a Muslim he would be unfit to lead America.
Even in Germany, long a paragon of political correctness, the debate has recently been opened by Thilo Sarrazin's book Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Is Abolishing Itself). Here too the premise is that where Islam rises, Western values will go down.
Perhaps the most ubiquitous expression of the antithesis of 9/11 has been the prominence of discussions about "integration". If integration used to be thought of as a matter of uplifting immigrants socio-economically, the last decade has completely reconfigured the issue in terms of culture. Foreign ways of life have to be adapted. The 1990s' ideal of a multicultural society has given way to the belief that certain aspects of immigrant cultures will just never square with Western values. But the immigrants referred to in these deliberations are not just any immigrants, they are almost exclusively the Muslim population.
In the Netherlands, the largest groups of immigrants are in fact returning Dutch Ă©migrĂ©s, followed by Polish and Chinese people, with Turks taking a fifth, and Moroccans a seventh place – at less than 10% of the returning Dutch. But these larger groups are hardly ever mentioned in integration debates. Very few commentators have asked the Chinese to give up their ideas about patriarchy, or insisted that the Polish respect gay rights. Talk about integration is really talk about Muslim integration, and hence directly reflects the presumed tension between Islam and us.
photo: dapd
"If integration used to be thought of as a matter of uplifting immigrants socio-economically, the last decade has completely reconfigured the issue in terms of culture," Somsen observes. Pictured: A Muslim family in Berlin, Germany
The reverse side of the debate on integration has been the increasing scrutiny of what our own culture stands for. What exactly is it that we are asking Muslims to adapt to? In many countries this question has led to serious soul-searching for one's national identity. But a more general underpinning has also emerged, for example, in discussions about the "preamble" of the EU Constitution up to 2005. This short text was meant to characterise European civilisation at large, and the big question was what it would contain. Is Europe rooted in Christianity or are its core values the fruits of the Enlightenment? And, in the latter case, was this an Enlightenment of tolerance and religious freedom or an Enlightenment of strict secularity?
Opinions differed widely, but at the core of the debate lay the assumption that there are certain typically European values. And the corollary was that there are other cultures which have not produced these values, and to whose members they don't come naturally.
A change of paradigm in academics
9/11 has even impacted on academic scholarship. Philosophers over the last decade have said good-bye to postmodern relativism and revisited questions of what modernity actually stands for. Criminologists have added ethnicity and religious background to their lists of variables. The whole field of Kulturwissenschaften (cultural sciences) has begun to see its subject in a different light. Whereas culture used to be the expression of diversity and a cause for celebration, it has now come to be regarded as a potential source of clashes and strife.
Perhaps the clearest change has taken place among historians. While their most exciting work in the 1990s demonstrated how national identities were politically and culturally constructed for often strategic reasons, in the 2000s they were asked to contribute to such constructions, and help to re-reify a national past (Dutch historians have, for example, produced a "Canon of the Netherlands" and helped plan a National Museum for the first time). Many of them readily obliged, although the backdrop of this renewed nationalism was clearly political and unmistakably the product of concerns with integration – Muslim integration, that is.
Even my own specialty, the history of science, has not been left untouched. Fierce debates have taken place over how much modern science owes to Islam. Did the famous Muslim scholars of the Middle Ages prepare the way for the Scientific Revolution or did they actually fail to achieve it? Again, at the heart of these concerns lay questions on the relation of Islam to Western modernity.
And so the message of 9/11 has permeated political and intellectual discourse, parties and voters as well as scholars and opinion makers. Strikingly, its most vocal proponents have been anti-Islamists as well as Muslim extremists. If there is anything that al-Qaeda and Geert Wilders actually agree on, it is that there is a deep-seated Clash of Civilisations – that Islam and the West are indeed fundamentally opposed. And between them we have all been captured by that theme.
The message of the Arab Spring
But now the situation is starting to change. Quite unexpectedly, the claim of the fundamental antithesis is ceasing to sound so self-evident. All of a sudden, the drum of Islam versus Western values has begun to lose its beat. It looks as if 9/11, after all, was not the start of a whole new era, but merely the beginning of one decade – a decade that is now coming to an end.
photo: picture-alliance/dpa
Antagonistic commonalities: "If there is anything that al-Qaeda and Geert Wilders actually agree on, it is that there is deep-seated Clash of Civilisations," writes Somsen. Pictured: Scene from Geerd Wilders' propaganda film "Fitna"
What made this transformation happen is not the death of Osama Bin Laden – his leadership had withered long before he was shot. Nor was it caused by Barack Obama – his speeches have promised outreach and reconciliation, but his foreign policy yet has to deliver. What has really undermined the 9/11 antithesis are the popular uprisings of the current Arab Spring. It is these revolutions that have shown that the dichotomy of Islam and Western values does not actually hold.
And they have done so very simply. For months now, the whole world has been watching ordinary Arab people rising up against their oppressive regimes. And among the most prominent things these protesters want are freedom, democracy and human rights – or, to put it more concretely, to be able to speak their minds without being arrested and tortured for it, not to live in constant fear of the state, and to have a government that actually represents them. If that does not sound like "Western values", what does?
Some commentators have argued that all this is deceptive, and that what Arabs really want is Islamism and Sharia. But that has not been evident on the streets of Tunis and Damascus. Others have claimed that all this is happening too early, and that Arab culture is not ready for freedom and democracy. But that is hard to match with the fact that the protesters are risking their lives for these ideals. New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof witnessed the crowds in Cairo bite the bullet and concluded "How can we say that these people are unready for a democracy that they are prepared to die for?"
Still, most of the marching millions are Muslims, and it does not seem as if they are claiming freedom and democracy against their faith. Neither are they rising up against Islamist governments, for almost all of the Arab autocracies (except Saudi Arabia) are secular states. What has supported these regimes and their blocking of democracy and human rights is not Islam – it is the backing of the West itself, a backing that has gone on for decades.
Mubarak received billions of dollars from the United States; Ben Ali maintained warm relations with France; the Bahraini regime hosts the US Navy's Fifth Fleet; the Saudis recently bought $70 billion worth of weapons (more than ten times the Iranian military budget) from their American allies. The list could easily be expanded. Almost the only Arab dictator without Western support is Syria's Bashar al-Assad. Even maverick Gaddafi had – before his downfall – been embarrassingly chummy with statesmen (and intellectuals) in Britain, Italy and France.
If the West ever asked for reforms from these dictators, that request was hardly successful. But their failure to advance democracy and human rights has never resulted in a withdrawal of Western support.
And so the antithesis of 9/11 is being doubly refuted. Muslims are fighting for "Western" values, and Western states are failing to advance these themselves. Freedom and democracy are claimed by Islamic populations, while they have been withheld from them by allies of the West.
Anti-Mubarak protester in Cairo, Egypt
'Thank you for not shooting me': During the protests in Egypt Barack Obama addressed the Egyptian military and praised them for their "restraint"
And all of this is happening right in front of our eyes. If some of the above facts were already known to experts, they have now become widely apparent to millions of viewers watching BBC World and Al Jazeera reporting live from Tahrir Square. As a result, public perceptions are already starting to change. For a decade now, the stereotype of the political Muslim was a bearded man with an explosives belt. Now we have seen much more familiar types – youngsters, businessmen, housewives – making demands that we can easily sympathise with ourselves.
At the same time the press is reproducing painful pictures of Western leaders posing with their dictator friends: Sarkozy hugging Ben Ali, Barroso with Gadaffi, etc. Tony Blair even came out to defend his old partner Mubarak as "immensely courageous and a force for good". Another sign of these warm relations were Obama's hesitant responses during the first weeks of the protests. Instead of admiring the protesters for their courage, he addressed the Egyptian military, who were trained in the US, and praised them for their "restraint" – i.e. for not shooting demonstrators immediately.
Perhaps the clearest sign of the end of 9/11 has been the silence of the antithesis' proponents. Al-Qaeda seems to have been dumbfounded by the Arab rebellions. The Western anti-Islamists have been struggling for a response as well. The main answer they have come up with is that these are not democratic revolutions, but that they will lead to the establishment of fundamentalist states. Websites like jihadwatch.org are constantly reporting how the Muslim Brotherhood is gearing up for elections. But in doing so they ignore the fact that these elections themselves are not the Brotherhood's doing; they have been fought for by protesters who are not fundamentalists, but democrats and Muslims nonetheless.
It may be that the anti-Islamists do have half a point here. It is as yet unclear what the political transitions will lead to, and it is not at all certain that we will soon see fully-fledged liberal democracies flourishing all over the Middle East. If things go wrong, these critics will no doubt take the chance to ascribe the failure to Islam. They will probably not point to economic instability, voters' illiteracy, or the counter-revolutionary forces of the pre-revolution establishments that still hold considerable power. For anti-Islamists, nothing can jeopardize democratisation but the Muslim faith.
In doing so, they may think to preserve one half of the antithesis of 9/11: the idea that Islam does not square with democratic and liberal values. However, the other half of the antithesis – namely that the West is the natural guardian of these values – is still refuted by the actual behaviour of our governments in the region. For defenders of freedom and democracy, critics of Islam have had remarkably little to say about Western support of Arab dictatorships. Even in the one instance where this support is for a Muslim fundamentalist Arab dictatorship, Saudi Arabia, the anti-Islamists have remained silent as well.
Why have they not chastised the Bush administration for sustaining an autocracy with Sharia law? Why has that kind of criticism only been reserved for America's enemy Iran? The only plausible answer is that they rather ignore these relationships since they do not fit the self-complementary antithesis of Western values versus Islam.
Lessons from the past for the future
It is instructive to dwell on these relations for a moment, however. For it could too easily be said that the world happens to be a bad place, and that Western governments sometimes have no choice but to do business with existing regimes they do not like. But that would be to underestimate the closeness of the cooperations. Egypt is a case in point. Not only did the regime receive $1–2 billion per year, plus the same amount in weapons, for not going to war with Israel, its military elite (and hence its political leadership) has been trained in the US for decades. In return, Mubarak gave the US Navy prioritised access to the Suez canal at any time. And he courteously offered his torture chambers for American use.
This is something that still escapes the attention of the broader public: the fact that the American government cooperated with several of the repressive Arab regimes in the torture of terrorist suspects, both before and after 9/11. People caught in Afghanistan or on the streets of European cities were shipped to prisons in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and even Syria, as part of the "extraordinary renditions" programme. In these countries, they were tortured in ways far worse than waterboarding or other Guantanamo Bay methods and much more in line with what was customary in Arab dictatorships.
Protests in Yemen (photo: picture-alliance/dpa)
"How can we say that these people are unready for a democracy that they are prepared to die for?" The antithesis of 9/11 is being doubly refuted, writes Somsen: "Muslims are fighting for 'Western' values, and Western states are failing to advance these themselves"
The American liaison overseeing these practices in Egypt was the head of the Intelligence Service, Omar Suleiman. Incidentally, he was also the man who, in the midst of the Tahrir Square protests, was appointed as Mubarak's vice-president in order to lead what the Obama administration called an "orderly transition" to democracy. Evidently, he was not the leader the protesters were waiting for. But the incident neatly illustrates the ties between the American and Egyptian governments.
It is important to keep these relations in mind as we eagerly look to the future. For we cannot act as if this track record does not exist. Western leaders are now eager to forget about their former ties to the faltering dictatorships, or perhaps even ignoring their continuing existence – for who knows, for example, if the Pentagon does not still train Arab military elites?
In Obama's recent Middle East speech, he made no reference to any of these relationships; it was simply as if they were never there. There was only one hint, when he called it a "suspicion" of ordinary Arab people "that the United States pursues its own interests at their expense." The rest of his eloquent talk was full of hope and plans for America in its "natural" role as a promoter of freedom and democracy. Suddenly the US "core interests" were squarely in line with these loftier ideals.
It is one thing if a political leader employs a selective memory; his aims are after all rhetorical. But it is quite another if independent analysts suddenly forget all about the West's role until now. In a recent article in Foreign Policy, David Ignatius acts as if Arab democratisation is purely a matter of their own mental change. "Arabs are now embracing a culture of activism and self-determination, as opposed to one of passivity and victimisation." He discusses the Western role in the region solely in terms of help.
Similar analyses are made by Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy. He presents a complicated set of advice on what we can do "to ensure that autocracies do not snuff out this democratic chain reaction". But the one option he forgets to mention is that we could simply stop helping these autocracies to snuff out democratisation, because that is what we have done for the last few decades. Yet Mr. Gershman writes as if we never did.
We need to keep a much closer eye on our governments. As their citizens, we should see to it that they stop supporting autocratic regimes and their military elites. One way of doing that is to bring such support out into the open into public view. Such publicity may shame our leaders into adopting more ethical foreign policies. As members of free and democratic societies, it should be our duty.
Geert J. Somsen
© Geert J. Somsen 2011
Geert J. Somsen, born 1968, PhD 1998, historian and publicist, History Department, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
Qantara.de editor: Lewis Gropp


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___