|
Reconstruction of U.S. Foreign Policy Urgently Needed
By Siraj Islam Mufti, Ph.D.
23/10/2001
When New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani returned a sincere donation by Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, it showed that U.S. policymakers are fixated on preconceived notions and cannot tolerate listening to differing views. Earlier, when the Mayor took the Prince on a tour of Ground Zero, the Prince expressed his condemnation towards the terrorist attacks.
But, then, along with the donation, he stated: "However, at times like this, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause. …Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."
After the Mayor returned the donation, in an interview with Newsweek magazine, Al-Waleed repeated, "I recommend to the United States, as a friend, that it address the roots of the problem… It is going to happen again, God forbid, if we don't look at the roots of the problem. There is frustration because America is not acting well toward the Middle East. This blind backing of Israel is not right." Many Americans in the streets I talked to, echo this feeling.
Consider the following. According to some figures, 74% of the seven million American Muslims voted for George W. Bush, after the American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC-PAC), a coalition of various American Muslim organizations, endorsed his candidacy. The percentage of the Muslim vote was even higher in Florida, which was crucial for Bush winning the presidency. Then on his election, the American Muslim Council (AMC), a national advocacy association, and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), a Muslim/non-Muslim think tank, congratulated Bush in a letter, along with some major recommendations on U.S. foreign policy.
These policy recommendations were evolved by a panel of 25 Muslim and non-Muslim experts on the question of how relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world could be advanced. The Muslim world is important because it occupies a large geographic area composed of more than 55 countries, including such strategically important countries as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia. Islam is the second largest religion in the world and it is estimated that by 2010, it will become the second largest in America. Worldwide, there are 1.2 billion Muslims.
The letter succinctly and forthrightly described that while Muslims world over want to benefit from the technological and scientific achievements of the 20th century, they do not want to give up their own heritage and religion. It then emphatically stated that, "unfortunately, the Muslim peoples are increasingly alienated from their own governments, many of which are highly ineffective, corrupt, and authoritarian." And further that "if the Muslim World is to enter the 21st century with self-confidence, peace, and stability, governments in the Muslim world must find new modes of politics that operate on popular participation and consultation rather than coercion."
It then pointed out the cause of Muslims' problem with the U.S. as follows: "The problem is that in much of the Middle East, the U.S. is perceived as particularly close to and protective of some of the least democratic countries in the world." And then suggested a solution for it. "The U.S. should not allow authoritarian regimes to justify their repression of all opposition movements as a defense against 'fundamentalism' or 'extremism.'" Because "it is precisely dictatorship and authoritarianism that fuels extremism and radical change."
It warned that the change in the current state of affairs in Muslim countries is bound to come. But "it is in our American interest, as well as in the interest of peace and stability in the world, that this change be gradual rather than abrupt, peaceful rather than violent." And that "to achieve this, the U.S. needs to be a persistent advocate of political and economic liberalization, including a greater allowance for civil society." This, because "there is only one long-term solution: making governments more accountable to their citizens through the rule of law, guaranteed freedoms, and free and fair elections."
The letter then goes on to say that the building of good relations requires nurturing more respect towards Islam and Muslim civilization and cultures. U.S. policymakers must be better informed about it, as it is, and will remain, a powerful force in the 21st century. And that, therefore, U.S. policy towards the Middle East and the Muslim world needs to be reorganized in order to bring greater understanding and a realistic appraisal from a diversity of viewpoints. For this reason also, a civilizational dialog with the Muslim people needs to be taken up and encouraged.
Among its specific recommendations were Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, an end to illegal settlements, a shared Jerusalem and a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. In addition, a new policy towards Iraq, which meets U.S. security needs, but lifts sanctions that have a devastating effect on its people, must be implemented. Also, help in resolving the future of Kashmir through negotiations between India, Pakistan and Kashmiri leaders, and in stabilizing the territorial integrity of Indonesia, Nigeria and Pakistan. Needless to say, these recommendations were given little consideration.
Big capital and special interest groups guide U.S. policies at home while, momentarily, a strong Jewish lobby, which also runs the media and has aligned itself with U.S. hegemonistic goals, controls its foreign policies. The recommendations were an attempt to change this in favor of Muslims in the larger interest of the U.S. - not an easy task in view of entrenched competing antagonistic forces.
Now there is some realization that there is perhaps something wrong with current U.S. policy. Some faint stirring of this realization is developing in the news media. Whether it is just a passing phase or would lead to substantial readjustment is yet to be seen. For example, in its October 15th issue,
Newsweek recounts the dismal state of regimes in the Middle East, pointing out that rather than adjusting to their failures, they "calcified into dictatorships," squashing dissent and strangling civil society and are the world's most oppressive. They are "tired, corrupt kleptocracies, deeply unpopular and thoroughly illegitimate."
Further, that "while the Arab world has long felt betrayed by Europe's colonial powers, its disillusionment with America begins most importantly with the creation of Israel in 1948. …The anger deepened in the wake of America's support for Israel during the wars of 1967 and 1973, and ever since in its relations with the Palestinians. The daily exposure to Israel's iron-fisted rule over the occupied territories has turned into the great cause of the Arab - and indeed the broader Islamic - world." And that U.S. foreign policy is cynically "geared to America's oil interests, supporting thugs and tyrants without any hesitation."
In its October 22nd issue, letters from abroad (mostly from Europeans) are even more revealing, carrying the heading that overseas readers don't always see eye to eye with Americans concerning the events of September 11. They talk of biased U.S. support of Israel, the humiliation and frustration of the Palestinians and a feeling of discrimination by the Muslim world, and that there is no way to halt terrorism unless its causes are tackled, that "many Americans are ignorant about what policies their government pursues outside of their country", and that "the show of brute military force will ultimately achieve little more than the restoration of America's hurt pride."
Although the magazine highlights the last two sentences even more than I have, it fails to admit that it is American media (including
Newsweek) that is responsible for Americans' ignorance - and it becomes so very obvious to those who travel abroad with open minds.
John Esposito, Director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, in an
article on IslamOnline states: "As we puzzle about 'Why do they hate us?' it is time to also realize that they see more than we see. Anti-Americanism is driven not by blind hatred or religious zealotry of extremists, but also by a frustration and anger with U.S. policy among the mainstream in the Muslim world." And that "the American administration's soft-glove treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's heavy-handed policies in the West Bank and Gaza and America's record of relatively uncritical U.S. support of Israel - witnessed in its levels of aid to Israel, the U.S. voting record in the United Nations, and official statements by the administration and State Department - have proved to be a lightening rod."
It is so very evident that while the West espouses self-determination, democracy and human rights, it follows a hypocritical double standard in its policies, such as seen in the impact of sanctions on more than a million Iraqi children and the permissive neglect of Russian brutalities on Chechens and Indian army atrocities on Kashmiris. And now, while all - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - agree that there is a need to bring the terrorists to account for the attacks on September 11, the evidence that establishes direct involvement must balance it without jeopardizing the lives of innocents in Afghanistan.
Otherwise, it may be seen as another example of a superpower placing itself above international law to humiliate yet another Muslim country, poor and starving now, but that once stood by it to bring down the Soviet empire. If it remains as such, U.S. foreign policy will continue to work to generate more radicalism and give rise to more extremist elements. Therefore, it is critical to revamp and reconstruct U.S. foreign policy that is based not on myth and/or colonial enslavement, but on realism, mutual respect and an understanding of Muslims, who constitute a large, strategically important and resource-rich segment of the world's population, whom are bound to influence the future course of world events.
|
