Question: From your leading position as a human rights campaigner, how do you view the political and economic impact of the terrorist bombing in the U.S. on the Middle East?

Avebury: Apparently it was only too easy for the terrorists to get enough training to be able to fly large airliners, and to get through the rather casual security precautions at U.S. airports. No doubt the authorities will be undertaking a root and branch overhaul of their own security services, and their links with the services of friendly countries in the Middle East which might be able to shed some light on this operation, and the possibility that further exercises of a similar magnitude could be in the course of preparation. The Khobar Towers atrocity, and the bombing of U.S. Embassies in Africa, may be seen as the precursor of the World Trade Center and Pentagon operations, and it would be naïve to assume that the terrorists have no further shots in their locker.

For the moment, every single Government in the Middle East except that of Iraq has condemned the atrocity. The Americans have to consider their response very carefully, and only to strike against proved terrorists and their protectors. A much wider retaliation could have a baleful effect on public opinion in the region. There are already people who actually approved the World Trade Center atrocity, because they felt it revenged U.S. support of Israel's continuing violations of Palestinian human rights, and the harm to civilians caused by the policy of sanctions on Iraq. If, now, the American response is not seen as measured and proportionate, the result could be to alienate further sections of public opinion in the region. It is too early to say whether the U.S. will become more or less engaged in the Middle East as a result of this disaster. Some policymakers may conclude that if the U.S. is less involved, both in terms of physical presence and in trying to help broker a settlement, the terrorists would have less motive for attacking Americans. Others would argue that the existence of groups with such a total disregard for human life, including their own, makes it all the more imperative that political solutions should be sought. I think everybody, and not just the Americans, will try to understand the mindset of the terrorists, and whether it is connected directly with the question of the Middle East. If there are groups which are ideologically committed to the destruction of the U.S., they constitute a different kind of enemy from those who are angry about U.S. Middle East policy. They would not be the sort of people you could sit down and argue with on a rational basis, nor would they themselves have any reason to discuss their grievances. The fact that no statement has been made about their motives does seem to confirm that scenario.

Question: On the medium and long-term, do you see our troubled region heading towards democratization?

Avebury: Yes, very definitely. Over the last century there has been a steady advance towards self-government and political freedoms everywhere in the world, and no region can remain insulated from these trends. Empires have crumbled one by one; autocrats have been toppled, and peoples are developing their own brands of democracy based on their cultures and traditions. In the Gulf, already we can see the development of self-rule, and the underpinning of a thriving civil society which is the essential foundation of a healthy democracy. Democracy is not merely about voting once every few years; it means also the existence of organizations representing all the various interests in a society such as the trade unions, women's and young people's organizations, single issue pressure groups and university societies. I think the Gulf region still has a long way to go before its states have a fully developed civil society, but they are moving towards a legal framework that makes it possible for all the se organizations to work freely together, feeding ideas into the political system.

Question: What do you see as the priorities for the pro-democratic Islamic movement at this stage?

Avebury: I have to answer this question in very general terms, because it would be presumptuous of me to speak in any detail about priorities for the pro-democratic Islamic movement, or for any other movement in Bahrain. Up until recently, it seemed right for all pro-democracy elements in Bahrain to come together in the Committee for Popular Petition, asking for a strictly limited return to the 1972 Constitution and the 1973 Assembly. Now that more than that is on offer, and there is the prospect of an elected Parliament with legislative powers, the pro-democratic Islamic movement will no doubt consider whether it s expedient to form a political party, to contest elections at local and national level. If the Party is a conventional organization of members, presumably it will elect its leader and officials; establish committees to draft its programmes, and raise money so that it can print and distribute literature when the election campaign begins. It might wish to establish contact with sister parties in other countries, and to send officials to observe how elections are conducted abroad. It would look for a Party Headquarters, from which it would organize branches in the villages, issue press statements, train party members, and run campaigns. The pro-democratic Islamic movement has also an important role in the development of Islamic political theory. Several countries claim to have synthesized democracy and Islam, with varying degrees of success, but there is more work to be done on the theoretical basis for Islamic democracy, which could be or importance not just for Bahrain, but the whole Islamic world.

Source: The International Forum for Islamic Dialogue

Posted with agreement.