Terrorism Is A Modern And Heterogeneous Phenomenon
Posted: May 27, 2010 Filed under: Academia, Political | Tags: Imperialism, International Politics, Islam, Religion, Taliban, Terrorism, The Left, US Politics 1 Comment »Islamist terrorism, unfortunately for those who need an uncomplicated enemy to hate, is not a heterogeneous edifice run by similarly intentioned malevolent men wanting to take control of the world. It is borne out of various ideas and histories and has roots in many parts of the world.
Olivier Roy uses two different ways to study terrorism. The first would be the vertical method wherein one can establish the genealogy of all kinds of radicalisation in the Quran and Islamic history and trace it to Islamist radicals today. This method does not take into account definitive roots of terrorism and subjectively distinguishes ‘Muslim’ violence from manifestations of violence. The second approach is horizontal and frames terrorism in the context of contemporary phenomena of violence affecting all modern societies.
The second approach is more productive in understanding Al Qaida as a movement unlike many other movements borne out of dissent. I find Roy’s use of the words modern and contemporary while talking about Islamist terrorism particularly intriguing and will dwell a bit more on that below.
The Islamist brand of terrorism is a modern manifestation of violence and dissent. I use the word modern deliberately and cautiously. I say it to contest the opinion that Islam, Islamist terrorism or Muslims are not modern and do not belong in the modern times, which would suggest that there is something barbaric, ancient or other worldly about them . I argue that terrorism is not only a modern phenomenon; it is specifically a product of our globalised, interconnected, ultra-modern zeitgeist.
Firstly, the word modern is technically defined by a particular point in time, in particular after the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason in Europe post-fifteenth century. Any idea or event that takes place after that point in time, be it Modern Art or birth of the internet, is necessarily a part of modernity. Because it is associated with the colonial Master’s domain and defined in the Master’s language, it is assumed that Europe has the patent to enlightenment and modernity, and that all others from the third world must only consume modernity defined by Europe. It is the most civilised of civilizations that is the purveyor of modern culture and all Others must adopt and follow suit. If we, instead, take the formal definition, then all forms of Islamist terrorism have to be categorised as modern. It cannot be otherwise.
To quote Talal Asad:
In an important sense, tradition and modernity are not really two mutually exclusive states of a culture or society but different aspects of historicity. Many of the things that are thought of as modern belong to traditions which have their roots in Western history.
When people talk about liberalism as a tradition, they recognize that it is a tradition in which there are possibilities of argument, reformulation, and encounter with other traditions, that there is a possibility of addressing contemporary problems through the liberal tradition. So one thinks of liberalism as a tradition central to modernity. How is it that one has something that is a tradition but that is also central to modernity? Clearly, liberalism is not a mixture of the traditional and the modern. It is a tradition that defines one central aspect of Western modernity. It is no less modern by virtue of being a tradition than anything else is modern.
Such questions need to be worked through before we can decide meaningfully whether there are varieties of modernity and, if there is only one kind of modernity, then whether it is separable from Westernization or not.
Secondly, there are subjective connotations of the word ‘modern’ which may not define it so rigidly. Modern can be used interchangeably with ‘current’, ‘civilised’, ‘fashionable’, or even ‘up to date’. Even if we do take these terms facetiously, we will find that there is nothing out-dated or old about Islamist terrorism.
To argue that Islamist terrorism is not civilised is an incomplete statement without further accepting that all forms of violent dissent are uncivilised and barbaric. It would be difficult to qualify a statement that says anti-imperialist, anti-state movements such as the Baader-Meinhof Group in Germany, the Red Army in Russia, the Maoists in India or even Che Guevara are modern conceptions while Islamist terrorism is not. While there are several distinctions among these, I argue that they are all forms of modern, violent dissent to the global status quo.
Lastly, it is dangerous to even think about Islamist terrorism as a blanket concept that can possibly define Al Qaida, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and countless other groups in a singular narrative. At the outset of this essay, I remarked that they are not homogeneous organizations producing one type of a terrorist. For example, there are marked differences between islamo-nationalist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah that do not have any agenda outside their own political conflicts, and the global jihad of Al Qaeda that is not territorially defined.
To deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism, it would perhaps be more effective to think about it from a political perspective (a struggle for territorial control) instead of an ideological perspective (wide spread imposition of sharia law). I conclude with thoughts from Olivier Roy who says that “the process of radicalisation is to be understood by putting it into perspective with the other forms of violence among youth and any process of de-radicalisation should address youth populations, and not an elusive Muslim community, which is more constructed than real”.
Shah Mahmood Qureshi Wants India To Do More (And Get Over It Already)
Posted: April 28, 2010 Filed under: Political | Tags: Do More, India, International Politics Leave a comment »Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi on Tuesday said that India should move on from 26/11 in order to forge a better relationship with Pakistan.
In other words, stop asking us to do more.
“The climate here is beautiful. Don’t you want relations between India and Pakistan to be beautiful as well,” said Shah Mahmood Qureshi at the SAARC summit.
Boycott Divest Sanction Movement For Palestine
Posted: February 1, 2010 Filed under: Political | Tags: International Politics, The Palestinian Cause 4 Comments »The only viable hope for a free Palestine today depends on economic pressure on Israel. The solidarity movements that developed around apartheid South Africa and Central America made divestment central to their struggle. These movements recognized that economic sanctions and pressure are pivotal in bringing a change in government policies. Building and strengthening a global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement should be the core aim for many involved in today’s solidarity work for Palestine. Here is a simple introduction to each of these ideas:
1. Boycott:
i. Academic / Cultural Boycott: By refusing to participate in cultural exchange, artists and cultural institutions globally can send a clear message to Israel that their occupation and discrimination against Palestinians is unacceptable. In particular, the academic boycott can have significant impact on the establishment that is responsible for promoting theories and knowledge necessary for the pursuit of Israeli policies of occupation and discrimination.
ii. Consumer Boycott: Individual consumers can show their opposition to Israel’s project by participating in a consumer boycott of Israeli goods and services. A consumer boycott works in two ways: firstly by generating bad publicity for the offender and secondly by applying economic pressure for change.
The Israeli Barcode starts with 729
I personally think this is the most effective measure for nations geographically distanced from Israel. Some of the companies you should distance yourself from:
- Estee Lauder
- L’Oreal / The Body Shop
- Motorola
- Nestlé
- Intel
- McDonald’s
- Coca Cola
- Disney
- Home Depot
- IBM
- Revlon
- Starbucks
(A comprehensive list can be found here with details on these companies)
iii. Sports Boycott: South Africa’s exclusion from all major official competitions from the late 1960s and 1970s played an important role in isolating the regime and its supporters. A common reaction to proposals for a sporting boycott is that politics and sport should not mix. The reality in for Palestinians is that politics and sport are inextricably linked. Israel has imposed a de facto ban on Palestinian sport and leisure activities, and the freedom enjoyed by Israeli athletes and teams comes at the expense of Palestinians who are deprived of the right to participate in sports from a local to international level.
2. Divestment (or disinvestment): Many organizations, such as universities, churches and trade unions, have investments in Israeli or secondary companies with significant financial interests in Israel. Putting an end to investments in Israel and companies supporting Israeli occupation and apartheid stifles its economic power.
3. Sanctions: Given the current level and dependency of Israel upon global markets, particularly the technology and research sector, sanctions at a state, regional or institutional level may be the only remaining effective measure. Israel is in clear breach of the fourth Geneva Convention, which is the cornerstone of international humanitarian law that ensures minimum protections for civilians in armed conflict and occupation. The three ways governments can impose sanctions is by severing military links, economic links and diplomatic ties.
There is no other way to end the apartheid in Palestine. It’s a small price to pay for an individual and is usually a measure of last resort, but today, after 60 years since the conflict, economic pressure is the only option that has some potential of being successful in freeing the Palestinian people once and for all.
[Most of the text has been taken from http://www.bdsmovement.net/]
The Problem With NGOization Of Political Conflicts
Posted: January 29, 2010 Filed under: Political | Tags: Economic Development, International Politics, The Palestinian Cause 2 Comments »This post is taken from the interview here.
Question: How have non-profits impacted Palestinian and other Arab liberation struggles?
Hatem Bazian:
NGOs control the purse strings. Through this funding or through the staff they hire, they assert their political agenda. For example, the largest coalition of organizations that work on Palestine do not insist on US divestment from Israel or devote organizing resources into achieving this agenda. But look at the solidarity movements that developed around apartheid South Africa and Central America: they made divestment central to their struggle. These movements recognized that economic sanctions and pressure are central to change a government’s policies; but when it comes to Palestine, NGOs do not want to offend certain segments of the liberal Zionist community. So they shift their focus to changing Israel’s mind without making Israel suffer. This kind of strategy was dismissed as ineffectual in the South African and Central American solidarity movements.
The Palestinian struggle (which does not differentiate between land stolen from Palestinians in 1948 and land stolen in 1967) has demanded the right of return for all Palestinian refugees and calls for Palestine to be a complete whole. But today, almost all NGOs and foundations call for a “two-state solution” that insists Israel, as it’s currently constructed, must exist as is, and that Palestinians must learn to accept colonization and occupation. The two-state solution defends Israel’s “right” to define itself on racially exclusivist criteria, and hence exist as a racially apartheid state. Further, by proposing that Palestine exist as a divided, demilitarized state whose resources are fully controlled by Israel, this approach effectively eliminates the possibility of Palestinians having a real state that encompasses their historical and international rights. In other words, this “solution” would essentially dispense with the 6 million Palestinian refugees.
In other solidarity movements, there is often the understanding that they exist to support liberation struggles, not to dictate the terms of those struggles. However, when it comes to Palestine, NGOs feel they have the right to tell Palestinians what to do. In their framework, the problem is not Israeli colonization and occupation; the problem is that Palestinians need to be trained to develop “civil society” and learn to cooperate with Israel. Consequently, funding is often focused on developing joint “Israeli-Palestinian” ventures and projects rather than address the issue of occupation. Furthermore, the NGOization of the solidarity movement in the US has been so thorough that anyone who criticizes this position is silenced and marginalized.
Without exception, every foundation that funds work on Palestine (from the most conservative to the most “progressive”) does so from the understanding that Israel, as it currently exists, should stay intact, and the solution is to change Palestinians so that they will adapt to their colonial situation. Now, for instance, the [Open Society Institute] wants to bring Palestinian intellectuals to the US to “train them.” Train them to do what? Train them to see the situation in the way the US does and facilitate the continued colonization of Palestine?
Atef Said:
In Egypt, NGOization often competes with grassroots organizing work. or instance, in labor organizing, NGOs encourage workers not to clash with business owners, thus pacifying labor struggles. Sadly, most NGO leaders were previously involved in the country’s Left movements, but were seduced into the NGO world because they can be funded (including personal benefits like travel and luxury hotel accommodations) and incur less trouble with the establishment. A significant problem with this model, of course, is that NGOs depend on foundations for their resources, not the people; thus, they spend little if any time organizing and are instead accountable only to their funders. For example, since NGOs are dependent on foundation support, directors of NGOs focus on quantity rather than quality of work (that is publish more reports in less time).
In 1997 and 1998, I started to observe from my work in these human rights NGOs that they are a bit isolated, and while they claim to defend people’s human rights, they are not invested in the question of social change and social justice.
Counter Spin – No Shock Doctrine for Haiti
Posted: January 22, 2010 Filed under: Political | Tags: Imperialism, International Politics, US Politics Leave a comment »Counter Punch: The Pakistani Leftists Wank Collective
Posted: December 18, 2009 Filed under: Humour | Tags: International Politics, Rants, The Left Leave a comment »Regardless of what one thinks of their ideas independently, Pakistani intellectuals have become very public in their vitriol against each other off late. Counter Punch, once every lazy undergrad’s guide to leftist opinions, has fallen further in credibility by allowing the likes of Tariq Ali, Shahid Alam and now Pervez Hoodbhoy to publish rants against each other which more often than not look like private vendettas than intelligent discourse.
Tariq Ali on Ahmad Rashid – Win. I liked this one because I don’t like Ahmad Rashid myelf. Period.
Shahid Alam on Najam Sethi, Ahmad Rashid and Pervez Hoodbhoy - Fail. Although the point he was trying to make was valid and the criticism necessary, it was framed all too poorly and nobody can take his language seriously. Nobody denies Rashid and Hoodbhoy support the US war on terror, heck they say it themselves. It is also true that English newspapers in Pakistan have a conglomerate of writers that aspire to Western ideals and condone a war on their own countrymen. Why churn that into something that reads like a daft post-colonialism 101 essay with ideas not very well thought out, helped by an array of jargon?
Pervez Hoodbhoy on Shahid Alam - Misses the point completely. Ends up looking like a desperate attempt to save face without an actual response to any of the veiled criticisms. For example, one doesn’t need to be on a US payroll to have internalised anti-Islamic views nor does one have to pick up weapons in Waziristan to be an anti-imperialist. It is a bit childish and lazy for people like Alam and Hoodbhoy to throw terms like ‘zionist’ ‘orientalist’ ‘imperialist’ around uncritically. The whole fiasco has become laughable.
Moreover, just because he claims to have been good friends with Edward Said and Eqbal Ahmed does not mean they have similar politics. Ahmed and Said weren’t even on the same page all the time. They’re both dead so we can’t verify but one thing is for sure, Edward Said and Eqbal Ahmed certainly would not have supported America’s war in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Pakistan. While Eqbal died before 9/11, his views on war and terrorism are found here. There is also good reason Shahid Alam did not bash Tariq Ali. Nevertheless, I wonder what Eqbal Ahmed would have to say in Counter Punch were he alive today.
I’m going to sit back with popcorn and await Najam Sethi’s turn.
American Connection to Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda
Posted: December 3, 2009 Filed under: Political | Tags: Homosexuality, International Politics, Religion, Sex, SexGenderBody Leave a comment »You know the drill. There’s news on homophobia from an African country and most bloggers, journalists, talk show hosts jump on the self-righteous bandwagon. Something similar happened when last week an anti-homosexuality bill was introduced in the parliament in Uganda imposing death penality on gays [Full Text Here]. As expected and rightfully so, there was no dearth of tirades against the Ugandan government, developing world politics and homophobes everywhere.
What was not covered (or at least not as avidly) was the presence of an American fundamentalist group in Uganda called The Family that is supporting it and lobbying for the bill to pass. The Family has operated secretively with the help of influential congressmen and senators who are members of the group to promote their anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-free-market ideas in America and other parts of the world.
Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power
And it’s not just a group of cantenkerous Republicans. The Family also has key players in the Democratic Party as well, including Stupak, the name that is now synonymous with anti-abortion legislation and failing healthcare reforms in the States (Stupak Stupak added an amendment to the health care reform bill so that abortion may not be covered by insurance)
Transcript of Sharlet’s interview on Terry Gross’s show and commentary are available here and here.
This is a potentially critical development in Ugandan politics that needs to be investigated more so that there’s concrete evidence of the alleged American connection to anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda.
Bloggers and journalists, please step on it.
The Hypocrisy Of Washington’s Reaction Over Megrahi’s Release
Posted: August 21, 2009 Filed under: Political | Tags: International Politics, US Politics Leave a comment »Despite continuous confrontation with the massive problem that is global politics, I fail to get used to it. Some things are so absurd and maddening, the anger feels anew. Let’s state the facts first.
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, a Libyan man, was one of the two men arrested for allegedly carrying out the bombing of the in 1988 that killed 270 people out of which 189 were Americans. The indictment against him and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah went to great lengths to explain how they BOTH supposedly planted a bomb on Pan AM Flight 103, and yet Fhimah was the one acquitted of all the charges against him. To a lot of people, it made no sense that Megrahi was guilty when Fhimah was acquitted.
Megrahi served his sentence in the Scottish prison Camp Zeist for 11 years. Recently, his doctors confirmed that Megrahi has advanced stage of prostate cancer and has less than 3 months to live. It was decided these last few weeks he should spend with his family, especially his mother who had not seen him for 11 years. Therefore, he was released yesterday and was escorted on a plane back to Tripoli, Libya.
Sounds reasonable and compassionate? Obama and Clinton, with strong consensus from the rest of America, disagree.
The White House voiced its “deep regret” over the release of the only person convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Obama in fact said that man should have been left to die in prison.
The Guardian reports:
“The release came in spite of urgent transatlantic lobbying over recent days by Washington to have Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi serve out his time. Seven US senators, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, had detailed their concerns in a letter to the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. Similar messages were conveyed to London and Scotland by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”
The White House’s official statement extended sympathies to the American’s who lost their family members on that flight.
Gordon Brown sent a personal letter to Muammar Gaddafi yesterday calling on Libya to handle “with sensitivity” the return of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was met with a hero’s welcome in Tripoli last night. A flag-waving crowd gathered to cheer Megrahi as he emerged from the plane sent by the Libyan government to collect him from Scotland.
“How they act now is going to be viewed very carefully,” the Downing Street official said, admitting it had been “a deeply distressing start”.
So now they want controlled emotional response from the people of Libya too. What next?
“Despite warnings from David Miliband, the foreign secretary, and Downing Street that Libya’s behaviour would determine the country’s international standing, British officials said there was no talk yet of re-imposing any of the sanctions used against Libya before Gaddafi handed over Megrahi and abandoned a nuclear programme.”
BUT YOU RELEASED HIM? Am I missing something here?
Even if we overlook the hypocrisy of the West in such matters and focus on the law, it still makes no sense. The main purposes of sentencing criminals include incapacitation, rehabilitation, punishment and deterration.
Is this man incapacitated enough to be no longer a threat? Yes. He is DYING in a few weeks and has lost most of his physical strength.
Is this man rehabilitated to become a participant in a society? Again, this man is dying in a few weeks. This matter becomes irrelevant.
Was he punished for the crime that he allegedly committed? 11 years in prison. Generally a subjective matter but in his case, his punishment is over. He’s dying in a few weeks did I mention?
Does his incarceration provide a good deterrent for others? Statistics show that it only incites more violence by provocation.
But wait. A lot of people don’t even believe he was guilty in the first place! Hans Kochler who was there when the trial happened 11 years ago writes:
“His decision to drop his appeal, however, is deeply suspicious – I believe Megrahi made that decision under duress. Under Scottish law he did not need to abandon his appeal in order to be released on compassionate grounds. So why did he do it? It makes no sense that he would suddenly let it go.”
The case against Megrahi and Fhimah was largely based on the testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, who said he had sold clothes to Megrahi, fragments of which were found around the Samsonite suitcase which allegedly carried the bomb. Megrahi was found guilty and sentenced to 27 years in a Scottish prison. Fhimah was acquitted.
As the trial closed, fresh evidence emerged that suggested the bomb could have been placed directly on to Flight 103 at Heathrow rather than at Malta where Megrahi was head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines. The Guardian reports:
“Those who do not believe the official verdict say Libya was placed in the frame three years later because the US could not afford to alienate Iran and Syria during the build up to the first Gulf War, which had been sparked by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.”
Let’s pay a little attention to language here shall we. Kochler writes:
“I am always surprised when people refer to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber. Even if he is guilty – something which, personally, I do not believe – he would only be a Lockerbie bomber, just one of many people who carried out a crime which would have taken a large network of people and lots of money to carry out.”
But of course all of that is inconvenient. The West needs a simplified enemy, a reduced meme of an enemy.
Barack Obama last night denounced Megrahi’s release as a mistake and revealed that the US had opened talks with Libya urging the regime to keep the terminally ill man under house arrest until his death.
Sigh.
