Arab Reflections on Need for Reform

I came across this series of pieces in on Aljazeera.net some time ago, and I have been trying to find time to read it.


There has been much comment on what Arab nations should do in western eyes, here is some access to the matter through Arab eyes.

I hope some of you might be interested and want to discuss these pieces.


IN PURSUIT OF ARAB REFORM

In pursuit of Arab reform


Thursday 20 May 2004, 17:26 Makka Time, 14:26 GMT

This special report is concerned with the increasingly pressing demand for reform in the Middle East. While few harbour any illusions over the need for such a compelling change, the disagreement centres on the question: How?

Some argue that introducing political reform to the Arab world is not a choice but an imperative given that Arab governments are interested in bringing their nations up to speed with the rest of the world.

Amr Musa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, tells Aljazeera.net in an exclusive interview that reforms must come from within.

His assertion seems to differ from the mantra-like statement repeated by those who oppose the US meddling in the region's affairs, especially following the unofficial introduction of the US-drafted Greater Middle East Initiative.

Danielle Pletka, the vice-president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), advocates a contrary opinion. She tells Aljazeera.net that political reform in the Middle East is not only unavoidable, but that the US has a moral obligation to enforce it. Otherwise, she argues, it would not be fair to the rest of the Arab and Muslim world.

Meanwhile, Chris Patten, the European Union commissioner for external relations, discusses the EU role in this daunting task.

Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a prominent Islamic scholar, on the other hand, takes on the issue of reform in terms of its compatibility with Islam, which, according to some, is itself in need of reform.

But where does the Arab intellectual stand in all this?

Aljazeera.net examines the viewpoint of several prominent Arab thinkers who champion an array of views and interpretations, each with a unique position that makes this subject all the more thought-provoking.

These questions, and more, are considered: Are Arab governments willing to espouse political reforms from the inside, provided that the majority rejects change imposed from the outside? Is the man on the street capable of being an effective player in the reform process? Is the US genuine in wanting to democratise the Middle East? And are there viable home-grown alternatives to the US initiative?

In Pursuit of Arab Reform is an attempt to answer these questions. At the least, it provides a platform to those who believe they have an answer.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/967715B8-276C-4708-AC08-7FD102E13BA7.htm


Here is a central resource page:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C4632242-5158-49EF-B156-90F217C5E651.htm




I will excerpt pieces from various commentators, and give the url for you to follow up if you are interested:



US initiatives for reform

By Ramzy Baroud

Tuesday 18 May 2004, 11:55 Makka Time, 8:55 GMT

What is the US government's vision for reform in the Middle East?

Why do many Arabs feel sceptical about that vision? What is the Greater Middle East Initiative? And is it possible to reform the Middle East while failing to stabilise Iraq?

Aljazeera.net put these and other questions to Danielle Pletka, [vice-president for foreign and defence policy studies at the Washington DC based American Enterprise Institute for Public Affairs Policy (AEI), which is widely considered the pre-eminent rightwing thinktank in the US today.

Pletka, a leading neo-conservative, strongly supported the Bush administration's war on Iraq and has served as a senior staff member for Near East and South Asia affairs with the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Aljazeera: When the US government speaks of reforms, what do they envisage and is that vision compatible with yours at the institute?

Pletka: Absolutely. When people talk about reforms, they are talking about the same thing.

The real question is execution. People outside government don't have the same policy constraints that people inside government have.

"Sometimes it is necessary for the president to stand up with Bin Ali or Mubarak who are not models of democracy"

At a thinktank I can be far more idealistic.

I would much rather not see President Bush stand up with President Bin Ali [of Tunisia] who is a human rights violator who has not enhanced democracy in Tunisia.

On the other hand, you have to recognise reality. Sometimes it is necessary for the president to stand up with Bin Ali or Mubarak or others who are not models of democracy.

The issue is not with the conception but the execution.

Aljazeera: So what is your idealistic vision of reforms, asides from politics?

Pletka: Ideally speaking this is a region in which there would be government accountability for the people.

The problem in the Middle East is one of perception. In other words, the way that it has been described by a lot of people seems to be much more foreign policy related than it is domestic policy related.

Democratisation has almost nothing to do with foreign policy and everything to do with increasing the accountability of governments to the people.

Aljazeera: How do you see the Greater Middle East Initiative? How is it any different from past official US visions for the region?

Pletka: It is hard to have a broad policy towards the Middle East because there is no such thing.

There are different countries and so, although I believe the initiative is a positive step and I think it will provide genuine hope for people in the Middle East who have not had much to hope for from their governments, I think it is going to be very difficult.

In the past we never talked about accountability in Middle East governments.

We never talked about the importance of democracy.

We talked about the strategic importance of various governments to the US and paid lip service to democratic norms but we were never willing to use the influence of the US as a superpower to lever governments toward reform.



Pletka says Arab reform is not
about loving Israel or the US
And I hope that is the big change.

Aljazeera: I'm not sure that you believe the Greater Middle East Initiative or other US initiatives are meant for any reason other than to advance US economic and strategic interests and now geo-political ones?

Pletka: That's garbage. I don't believe that. This is one of the most idealistic things the US government has done since the end of the cold war.

This poses every threat of not advancing our foreign policy interest. One-stop shopping with dictators is far simpler.

It is much nicer to go to one man, Bashar al-Asad, Hafiz al-Asad, Saddam Hussein or whoever, and say: "Here's the deal, here's how we want to do the business with you."

You don't have to worry about what the people like, or with dealing with the parliament. You don't have to worry about anything.

Foreign-policy-wise, dealing with dictators is much easier.

What we've recognised is that, even though in the short term that may be positive, easier, in the long term, the disturbance to the broader population in the Arab and Islamic world is far more dangerous to us than any short-term gains that we might of had through one-stop shopping with dictators.

It's very important that people understand that............


FULL INTERVIEW




Patten interview:

EU: 'Strategic partnership'

By Humayun Chaudhry

Wednesday 19 May 2004, 13:29 Makka Time, 10:29 GMT


EU commissioner for external relations Chris Patten



What is Europe's role in the Middle East today?

Where does it stand on the issue of reform? Does the European Union find it imperative to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Iraq quandary prior to any true stabilisation in the region? And how does the EU perceive the US-envisaged Greater Middle East Initiative?

Aljazeera.net put these and other questions to Chris Patten, the EU commissioner for external relations.

Chris Patten is a former member of the UK parliament and served as both education and environment secretaries under Prime Minister John Major's government.

From 1992 to 1997 he served as the last British governor of Hong Kong before its handover to China.

Now he heads the department of external relations in the EU, an executive power dealing with relations between the EU and other world bodies.

The EU was set up by the Maastricht treaty in 1992 and represents a framework of economic and political co-operation among 25 European countries.

Its objectives are to promote economic and social progress and to represent the EU's interests on the international stage.

Aljazeera: What is Europe's role in the Middle East today?

Patten: The European Union has a longstanding commitment to the Middle East, as a friend, as a neighbour and as an important political and economic partner.

You can't measure this relationship purely in financial terms, but the figures are telling: the EU spends almost €1 billion ($1.2 billion) a year in aid to the Mediterranean region alone, plus €2 billion in loans from the European Investment Bank.

"The European Union
has a longstanding commitment to the Middle East"

We are the major trading partner, and the major investor in the Gulf region and in the Mediterranean.

The EU wants to see a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and, as one of the four partners of the international quartet, we are working for a two-state solution, negotiated between the parties, which would result in a viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent Palestinian state existing side by side in peace with Israel.

Aljazeera: What effect has the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership had on Middle East countries?

Patten: The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership brings together 35 countries in Europe and around the Mediterranean, including Israel.

Despite the obvious difficulties, the partnership has made it possible to hold a truly regional dialogue, and this is important in itself. Euro-med is also a framework for decision and action.

We have concluded 11 association agreements and we are gradually creating a region-wide free trade area.

We co-operate on issues ranging from political and security questions, to customs co-operation and economic reform, to culture and education.

"All this creates opportunities for the countries involved from the Middle East
and the Gulf"
All this creates opportunities for the countries involved and for their neighbours in the Middle East and the Gulf.

I am proud to have launched a project that I hope will bring a further deepening of our relationship with the Mediterranean region: The European Neighbourhood Policy.

This offers a closer relationship with the EU to those Mediterranean countries willing to work with us on our main issues of concern - the rule of law, democracy and human rights, economic development, and the security threats posed by regional conflicts, terrorism, organised crime and illegal migration.

Those who wish to work with us on these challenges will reap the benefits of greater access to the European single market, and to our programmes..............


FULL INTERVIEW





Arab League and the future of reform

By Ahmad Amrawi

Wednesday 19 May 2004, 8:18 Makka Time, 5:18 GMT


Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Musa


Is there such a thing as a collective Arab vision?

What is the role of the Arab League in attaining this vision if it exists? How should Arabs respond to US calls for reform? Is there an Arab reform agenda?

Aljazeera.net put these questions and more to Amr Musa, the secretary-general of the Arab League in Cairo.

Amr Musa began his political career in the Egyptian Foreign Ministry in 1958.

He served as Egypt's ambassador to India and then to the United Nations.

For 10 years, starting in 1991, he became Egypt's foreign minister, until his appointment as the Arab League's secretary-general.

The Arab League's present mission is to forge stronger ties among its member states. The organisation, which officially started in March 1945, was seen as a vehicle aimed at aiding Arab countries under colonial rule gain independence.

Although membership of the league is voluntary, all 22 Arab countries, including the still occupied Palestine, are fully represented.

Each of the member states has one vote in the league's council, which consists of representatives, usually at the foreign minister level.

Aljazeera: Is there such a thing as a unique and collective Arab League vision for reforms in the Arab world?

Musa: I hope there will be one. The Arab vision for reform will be shaped during the upcoming summit in Tunisia.

There is a need to formulate such a vision and that is why before the summit there will be a document outlining the Arab vision for reform.

"The Arab vision for reform will be shaped during the upcoming summit in Tunisia"

Naturally we are not going to reinvent the wheel. The elements for reform and modernisation are known and practised all over the world such as political pluralism, market economy and privatisation, empowerment of women, bridging the knowledge gap and digital divide.

It will be a collective vision shared by all of our member states.

Aljazeera: Is it rational to assume that Arab countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia and Syria share the same vision of reform?

Musa: It is normal to have different versions of reforms and different versions of modernisation since not all countries share the same level of development or the same exact socio-political culture.

We are hopeful, however, that this summit will produce a document that states the common elements among all Arab states on the issues of reform, modernisation and development.

Aljazeera: Why did the Arab summit collapse in Tunisia? How can there be a collective vision of co-operation if Arab leaders cannot agree on a conference agenda?

Musa: This is an issue that I don't really wish to dwell upon. The issue is behind us now. We want to look forward.



Musa with Tunisian Foreign
Minister Habib Bin Yahia

I have found during the consultations that I have been undertaking with all Arab states that there is a clear consensus on the need to move forward, and on the need to agree on a positive outcome that would meet the expectations of the Arab peoples on all the issues before the summit from the situations in Palestine and Iraq to reforming the Arab League and reform in the Arab world in general.

And, by the way, the agenda of the summit has already been agreed upon since we were in Tunis. It is not open for further debate.

Aljazeera: US President George Bush has said that the remodelling of Iraq will serve "as a great beacon of hope and democracy in the region". What is your opinion of this?

Musa: Events have proven a totally different situation. We have yet to see that Iraq has become a beacon of hope and democracy.

No doubt everyone supports the transition to a new and democratic Iraq.



The US says it wants Iraq to be
a beacon of hope
But to propose that such a democracy can be brought to a country - any country - the way we see in Iraq today is unrealistic and indeed wrong.

I believe democracy is a process. A process that should be developed over the years based on a conscious will for change and democratisation.

That is the case already promoted in some countries in the region.

I am also confident that, within the coming period, many countries in the region will continue to follow the path of democracy, pluralism and political liberalism.

I hope that Iraq will also be on the same path.

Even though now we see in Iraq death, destruction, instability and the absence of the rule of law, I am hopeful that when Iraqis take matters into their own hands, they will be able to turn their country into the kind of modern state to which they aspire.

Aljazeera: What do you think of the US-sponsored Greater Middle East Initiative?

Musa: We have talked about this initiative many times. I have said over and over that this initiative lacks a lot of logic in its premises.

I do not think there is any logic in piling up Morocco and Bangladesh in a vision of that sort.



People should chose their own
development, says Musa
It is also illogical to speak of an initiative which requires the cooperation of the Arab states without consulting those very states on the nature and details of such ideas.

It is also unacceptable to attempt to dictate to peoples the developmental paths they should take.

So, in short, I think this sort of initiative won't fly the way it was launched and promoted............

FULL INTERVIEW




Reform according to Islam


Thursday 20 May 2004, 16:11 Makka Time, 13:11 GMT


Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi is also an author


Does reform contradict Islamic teachings?

Is Islam capable of introducing its own version of reform without the need for outside interference? What are the conditions that must be made available prior to the implementation of reforms?

Aljazeera.net put these and other questions to renowned Muslim scholar Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the head of the European Council on Fatwa and Research.

Qaradawi was born in Egypt and studied at the famous al-Azhar theological seminary in Cairo.

Also a poet and intellectual, his best known books include The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, The Tyrant and the Scholar, and Laws of the Obligatory Charity.

He is currently the dean of the sharia (Islamic law) college at Qatar University and appears regularly on Aljazeera television, in the highly influential debate and phone-in show, The Sharia and Life.

Aljazeera: How is reform defined in Islam?

Al-Qaradawi: Reform is turning the thing that is corrupt into something upright. It touches every aspect of society.

A person can be reformed, so can a society and even a whole nation. This is why as Muslims we welcome reforms.

"Muslims are urged to embrace reforms and to discard what is vice"

Muslims are urged to embrace reforms and to discard what is vice. In the Holy Quran, there are many narrations of God punishing nations that brought harm and vice to the world.

Aljazeera: So reform is prescribed as an antidote to corruption. Can you elaborate on this?

Al-Qaradawi: There are various kinds of corruptions which stand opposite to reform.

First there is political corruption, the deceiving of the masses to serve authority; an example would be a journalist who uses his pen to tout for a leader, or an occupier who invades a country and revamps its political structure to serve his interest.



The Quran addresses the issue
of economic corruption
You also have economic corruption, a subject that the Quran has addressed as well. Those who misuse public funds for their own purposes while their people are undergoing extreme poverty are an illustration of this.

Moral corruption is another problem that must be confronted and reformed. It can extend to engulf an entire society turning it into a nepotistic, nihilist and morally loose one.

There are also other forms of corruption that would include environmental corruption, the destruction of the beautiful Earth that God has created, and so on..............


FULL INTERVIEW



A strategy, but not one for freedom

By Rahul Mahajan


Tuesday 18 May 2004, 13:34 Makka Time, 10:34 GMT


The reality of war in Iraq fails to sway opinion at the top in the US




While Iraqis reject the occupation, and George Bush's administration admits that even after 30 June Iraq will have only "limited sovereignty", there has been little change in the widespread supposition that the US is there to bring democracy to Iraq.

Democratising Iraq is supposedly just the core of a larger plan, wrought by the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, for transformation of the entire Middle East.

So intense has been the rhetoric surrounding this idea that it is taken as a given in most reporting on Iraq.

Democratic revolution

Such talk increased dramatically after Bush delivered a highly publicised speech for the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a political organisation which promotes the cause of democracy around the world, on 6 November 2003.

Starting with a stirring history of the worldwide "democratic revolution", supposedly unleashed by Ronald Reagan, he singled out the Middle East as the exception, suggesting that its turn had come.

In what some saw as a decisive break with past US policy, he said: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

Democracy was, he said, a key weapon in the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

US vision

Some few quibblers might have noted that it was not so much the US excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom as helping to cause it that was the root of the problem but, in general, the response was overwhelmingly positive.

Those who demurred did so on the basis of the idea that such aims were too grandiose, and that perhaps Arabs were not suited for democracy.



US President Bush vastly
increased the NED's budget

In his state of the union address, Bush put flesh on this skeleton, calling for an expansion of the NED's budget from $40 to $80 million in 2005, the extra funds to go entirely to the Middle East.

In January, the Office of Management and Budget said that $458 million would be spent on "democracy promotion" in Iraq alone in the first six months of this year.

Together with the military occupation and the road map, which is supposedly premised on the idea that Palestinians must have a democratic state in order to negotiate with Israel, these initiatives comprise the "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East".

White man's burden

So it would seem that the Bush administration's grand mission is to bring democracy to the Middle East, at least in part to deal with the religious extremism that leads to terrorism.

Some, like scholar Daniel Pipes, go further and talk of the need for an "Islamic reformation".

All of this has sparked a renaissance of the "white man's burden," as a new generation of imperial apologists explain that colonialism is the way to bring democracy and enlightenment to what Bush once called the "dark corners" of the earth.

And yet there is a false note to this idealistic vision.

Questionable goals

The Bush administration, in everything from its assault on civil liberties to its cult of official secrecy and executive privilege, is at least the most anti-democratic presidency since Richard Nixon.

Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney seem to believe in force as not only the essence of politics but its entirety.

Pipes is an Islamophobic bigot and Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who constantly talks about his "crusade" in the Middle East..........


FULL ARTICLE




US reform threatens Arab identity

By Dr Sami Zebian


Thursday 20 May 2004, 16:05 Makka Time, 13:05 GMT


The Middle East remains in a state of turmoil




It could have been possible for any reform initiative, including the Greater Middle East Initiative proposed by the US, to succeed had it not been proposed in the present climate.

The Middle Eastern climate is volatile both politically and militarily from Palestine to Iraq, and even to the countries surrounding it - Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir. The responsibility of such a climate is ironically, both directly and indirectly, that of the current US administration led by President George Bush - the same administration that proposed the initiative.

Therefore, not surprisingly, the American initiative comes saturated with the political hallmarks of that administration, which is perhaps best described as completely self-centred with no regard for Arab and/or Muslim societies led on by promises of reform while at the same time being existentially threatened.

Here the contradiction within the initiative becomes apparent: How can the people of the Middle East trust the American administration to be loyal in its initiative when they have been subjected to threats as a result of that administration's strategies?

Suppression

Reform initiatives - economic, social or administrative - proposed for any country or region have always gone hand in hand with political agendas. However, what is striking about the much needed and awaited current US initiative is that first and foremost it is based on political goals. This must be taken into account before it is accepted or refused.

And if I personally favour the rejection of the initiative, then it is because it is obvious that the hidden goal is to further weaken and intimidate Arab and/or Muslim societies - a kick them when they are down approach and make sure they stay down.

What is striking about the US initiative is that first and foremost it is based on political goals

If not, then why is it that such an initiative was not proposed at a time when its acceptance was much more likely, ie in the many years leading to the present explosive climate as opposed to during such a climate?

Therefore, the present American intention does not aim at reforming the situations of these Arab and/or Muslim societies but rather to achieve that double intimidation that I referred to, and which is two-fold.

Strategic intimidation

The aim of such strategic intimidation is to eliminate any form of Arab or Muslim unity considered as a threat to the US strategy, and that of its strategic ally, Israel. For that reason, the administration tried drowning any Arab or Muslim unity into the proposed US initiative, the Greater Middle East Initiative.



One US aim could be to break
Arab and Muslim unity
The US term for the success of such reform is that Arabs and Muslims were to forget what they have in common, moreover, also to forget Islam and its revered values.

The US initiative is to convince Arabs and Muslims that what they have in common is geographical not historical.

In addition, the US wanted, through its initiative, to include the Arab countries with the Muslim ones such as Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan and to unite them in a secure frame, the frame of the North Atlantic coalition, therefore having total domination and control over its security, similar to what it did with emerging eastern European countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union........


FULL ARTICLE



Is there room for Europe?

By Roland Dannreuther


Wednesday 19 May 2004, 14:14 Makka Time, 11:14 GMT


Europe has a long history of relations with the Arab world




Since the end of the cold war, Europe's ambitions to play a more active and influential role in the Middle East have grown significantly.

This does not mean, even among the most enthusiastic supporters of the European ideal, an expectation of supplanting the dominant role played by the US.

It is recognised that Europe does not have the global military capabilities possessed by the US and, as the Iraq war cruelly demonstrated, European states remain divided about the role they should play, not least in their responses to US policy in the region..........



FULL PIECE




We can wait no longer

By Dr Amir Al-Naffakh


Thursday 20 May 2004, 15:30 Makka Time, 12:30 GMT


A fine cultural heritage in the Arab world is also at stake


Reform is imperative. It cannot be bypassed or delayed any longer.

In the Arab world, it is already overdue. The middle class has been decimated and poverty is widespread, while security-obsessed states have grown stronger at the expense of civil-society institutions.



Reform is required as vindication of a brilliant past, when the Arab community had its own culture marked by innovation and accommodation of the other.



This was a reflection of Islam, which had released both the community's and the individual's potential for creativity, reform and change.



Widespread authoritarianism



Reform also serves as recognition of the present and as an outline for the future where a well-considered reconciliation between Western modernity and the thinking embraced by most schools of contemporary political Islam is forged.



These schools have their own notions and methods as regards democratic reform and the need to push it through. However, political authoritarianism has established itself as a ubiquitous phenomenon.



Any attempt to challenge it from within society is met with exclusion through repression. External challenges face political rejection and popular resentment.



Listening skills



This is so despite the fact that reform is essentially an endeavour to widen the margin of shura - consultation - freedom, democracy and political participation as adopted in the theory and practice of Islam.



Reform involves economic development which promotes social mobility in the interests of renewal and advancement. This would create a cultural and political environment conducive to tolerance and hope.



In this perspective, reform is sought by generations that feel betrayed by political regimes determined to shun reform with flimsy excuses and a lopsided logic that says reform should be made step by step.

Reform is sought by generations that feel betrayed by political regimes



In reality, political dogmatism, predominant in the Arab world, and a lack of participation in state decision-making, refutes this argument.



The other argument against an overall initiative is based on the claim that each state has its own conditions, political system and internal circumstances.



Accordingly, reform must come from within as its makers will be better equipped to deal with peculiar conditions.



The real meaning of phrases such as "internal circumstances" or "from within" need to be cleared up.............


FULL PIECE







Explore, and say what you think, eh?