View previous stories
	Belarus: The last Totalitarian Country in Europe by Vaclav Havel Project Syndicate Czech Republic   September 2005   This country of ten million inhabitants has been for over 11 years ruled by Alexander Lukashenka for whom the governance means extensive abuse of the basic human and citizens’ rights on daily basis, removal and imprisonment of his opponents and journalists and deception of people by mass media under his control.   Last autumn in a bogus referendum Lukashenka had had removed two consecutive terms limit on presidency and thus he had made the first step to prolong his rule beyond 2006 when his current term expires.   Since then for a number of months, largely unnoticed by most media and politicians of the democratic world, the last remains of non-governmental organizations, independent press and political parties that could thwart the plans of Belarus autocrat on prolonging his rule ad infinitum are systematically being liquidated. The information blockade of the country is growing, opportunities for young people to study abroad are being limited, and the last independent daily “Narodnaja Volja” is about to be closed down. Alexander Lukashenka can get away with all of this not only due to unsavoury legacy of totally decimated post-soviet social and societal structures but also due to lack of interest in the fate of Belarus on the part of the democratic countries.   We are, therefore, convinced that it is necessary to make use of every opportunity to break through this wall of lack of interest and inability on the part of the democratic community in order to take a stand against this post-soviet autocrat and his efforts to totally suppress the remains of independent initiatives in Belarus. At the same time it is necessary to continue in developing contacts and cooperation with Belarus’ independent initiatives. European Union that so far has not been able to support efforts aiming at building Belarus based on democratic values should speedily seek such instruments that enable this process. At the same time the EU should fully open its exchange and educational programs for democratically oriented young people of Belarus. The EU should, together with Ukraine, quickly react to the proposal by EU parliamentarians Janusz Onyszkiewicz and Bogdan Klich to enable the people of Belarus an access to non-censored, non-manipulated information through radio and TV broadcasts from neighbouring countries.  We call for creating a common strategy for the EU, USA and all other democratic countries that ought to be interested in the democratisation of Belarus.   (This open letter is signed by the former President of Czech Republic Václav Havel, the former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, French philosopher André Glucksmann, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, former President of Germany Richard von Weizsäcker, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan H.R.H. El Hassan bin Talal, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and former Director General of WTO Mike Moore, President of the Carnegie Corporation of New York Vartan Gregorian, Chairman of the Nippon Foundation Yohei Sasakawa, former President of South Africa Frederik W. de Klerk, U.S. theologian and author Michael Novak and Senator Karel Schwarzenberg of the Czech Republic).
	The West's fear of Islamism backfires by Jonathan Power, S.P. Seth International Herald Tribune / Jakarta Post / Indonesia   1 Sept. 2005   In Washington and other Western capitals a view is gaining ground that a popularly elected government in the Middle East is better than a shaky autocratic client. Maybe there is some element of truth in this. Yet there is still a marked reservation about going the extra mile and accepting that a free and open poll might bring Islamist parties to power.   US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said a few measured things about the need for the result of Egypt's presidential election on Sept. 7 not to be a foregone conclusion, but the United States is hardly keeping the pressure on, presumably fearing an opening will be exploited by the Muslim Brotherhood with its "secret agenda."   We have still not come far enough from the attitudes that followed the 1990 elections in Algeria. France, the former colonial master, and the United States ignored the fact that the Islamists had clearly won a majority, and turned a blind eye when the army rejected the result, sparking a bloody civil war.   Yet the truth is that Islamist parties in many countries have faced enough persecution, prosecution, imprisonment, torture and repression to form an instinctive empathy for the calls and cause of democracy and human rights. Human rights, if the West is clever, should be the wedge that keeps the door open if and when Islamist parties come to power.   The platform of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood calls for parliamentary rule, separation of powers and the protection of minorities. In Lebanon the militant Hezbollah has adopted progressive stands on social and religious issues, and - like Hamas in Palestine - is participating vigorously in electoral politics. In Morocco, Islamists are firmly behind the government's efforts to expand women's rights.   As Reza Aslan wrote in a recent issue of Prospect magazine, "It is pluralism that defines democracy, not secularism. And Islam has had a long and historic commitment to religious pluralism." No other monotheistic religion can match the reverence with which the Koran speaks of other religious traditions.   Of course, there is no doubting that all over the Islamic world some born-again Muslims have been seduced by the call of violence. But the predominant trends in Islamic societies remain nonviolent, even more so following the havoc wrecked by Al Qaeda and despite rising anti-Americanism brought on principally by the invasion of Iraq.   The important trends to watch in contemporary Islamist theology are toward what Westerners call human rights. Islamist intellectuals like Rashid Ghanoushi, the Tunisian leader, and Abdal-Wahhab el-Affendi, the Sudanese writer, are now arguing that restoring Shariah law "from above" by political action is a "recipe for tyranny and violence."   Many Islamic scholars are now revisiting the influential writings of the Iranian scholar Jamal al-Din al-Afgani, who lived from 1838 to 1897. He preached a message of reform that has been dubbed the "Protestant Islam." He argued that just as Islam had been open to absorbing Greek philosophy in the Middle Ages, so it should be open to European ideas today.   Fundamentalism, as Edward Mortimer wrote in his magisterial "Faith and Power," should be properly seen as "an effort to define the fundamentals of one's religion and a refusal to budge from them once defined. Surely anybody with serious religious beliefs of any sort must be a fundamentalist in this sense." The West will not progress in its effort to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones until it sheds its knee-jerk antipathy to Islamic fundamentalism. The likes of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, with their rigged elections, will continue to feel secure until the West faces up to this fact squarely.   August 31, 2005   "Optimism for Indonesia amid global terrorism", by S.P. Seth. (Jakarta Post / Indonesia)   Is Indonesia turning the corner? It depends on: What is meant by "turning the corner"? But, by any reckoning, the news about Aceh is optimistic. Under the peace accord, Aceh should be able to participate in national affairs as an autonomous part of the country. There will, of course, be problems on the way about interpreting and implementing the agreement. But with goodwill on both sides, it should be a turning point.   Where East Timor failed, Aceh might be a different story. It might become a model for some other regions struggling to find their own political, economic and socio-cultural space, like Papua. It could become the basis for a successful federal political system, with constituent units having a stake in its functioning and perpetuity.   It is too early though for the celebrations but the political agreement on Aceh certainly is an important milestone.   Another hopeful sign is the abatement of terrorist activity in Indonesia. If true over a period of time, Indonesia might be able to teach some lessons to the rest of the world in this regard. The most important lesson would be not to deal with Muslims as an undifferentiated lot. Indonesia doesn't fit the image of militant Islam, even though it has its militant fringe.   Any attempt, therefore, to tar the global Muslim community as potential terrorists, through racial profiling and so on, betrays political naivety. Muslims, like people of any other community, are individuals who respond differently to different situations. They don't necessarily follow religious or political edicts of their real or supposed leaders.   Where they are minorities (as in the West), they certainly feel insecure because their religion marks them out as terrorist suspects. Therefore, what they need most is a sense of security and belonging when living in Western societies.   This was illustrated the other day in an interview on the Australian television with a young Muslim couple, both born in Australia. They were proud of their Islamic identity and decried terrorist violence. The young woman told the interviewer that she very much wished that, every time there was terrorist violence anywhere in the world, we (as Muslims) should not be expected or required to apologize or prove our loyalty to our country (Australia in this case).   They stressed that they, like any other Australian, were trying to make their way in life like pursuing a career, buying a house, paying their mortgage and so on.   However, because of this mass anti-Muslim hysteria, they and others in their community have to often face personal abuse and hostility in their daily lives. Which, in turn, fosters and reinforces ghettoization.   It is, therefore, imperative to lessen the pressure on the Muslim community to make statements and edicts of loyalty and allegiance to their adopted countries. At the same time as the law and order machinery gets into gear to nab the terrorists, the authorities might also start a process of acknowledging some of the failings of marginalizing their Muslim citizens and doing something about it. It will be a slow process but then there is no quick fix for terrorism.   In the larger context, the United States believes that democratization of the Islamic world is the answer. But there are problems here.   First: It is the image problem. The United States is not known for its altruism. Therefore, its democratic protestations are not entirely credible in that part of the world.   Second: There is a strong view that Washington wants to secure the Middle East oil fields. So far it has done it through its compliant regimes. But they are now vulnerable to terrorism in the absence of popular legitimacy. Hence the pressure on them to introduce some sort of democracy, like holding elections. But whatever little is happening in this respect lacks credibility.   The United States badly needs allies on the ground in the Middle East, other than the present discredited regimes. A democracy based on the support of the moderate Muslim middle class might be the answer. Their popular appeal, though, is limited. As Martin Woollacott has pointed out in the Guardian newspaper in the context of recent Iranian elections, there is a bigger "constituency of more ordinary folk, with conservative Islamic leanings, a desire for clean government and not much interest in cultural freedom. It is a constituency visible everywhere in the Middle East." This constituency is not terribly receptive to the American message of freedom and liberty.   In any case, any middle class regime with U.S. blessings is unlikely to be seen as authentic. They can, however, acquire a good measure of popular legitimacy by claiming success on the Palestine sovereignty issue and the Iraq situation by nudging Washington in that direction. The first would require Israeli cooperation, which doesn't seem likely to the extent that might pacify the Middle East.   The U.S. can't afford to alienate Israel because it is its most reliable strategic asset in the region. Israel also has a strong political constituency in the United States.   The second-the Iraq situation- looks like a bottomless pit.   The U.S. could still push democracy in the Middle East. But that might bring the extremist Islamic parties to power, and that will be a disaster. It is not easy to be a superpower.   Indonesia, on the other hand, appears relatively calm and promising, going by the Aceh peace accord and abatement of terrorist activity.
	View more stories