Fixing the Middle East - A European Panacea

By Frida Ghitis

(various papers)

(Stockholm) As Condoleezza Rice winds up her Middle Eastern tour and a much-anticipated summit meeting between the Israelis and Palestinian leaders finally materializes, Europeans are watching America’s work in the Middle East with a mixture of skepticism and reluctant approval. Hearing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice astonishingly blunt call for political reform in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Europeans question America’s intentions and wisdom in trying to democratize the region. But when they listen to America prodding Israelis and Palestinians to the bargaining table, they hear echoes of their own prescription for solving everything that ails the Middle East.

The unchallenged conventional wisdom in Europe is that the key – the indispensable prerequisite -- for solving just about every problem in the Arab and Muslim world, and perhaps even the way to end Muslim extremism and terrorism throughout the world, lies in ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reality, however, is much more complicated.

A new survey of Arab – rather than European -- opinion shows that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nowhere near the top of the list of reasons given by Arabs for what’s wrong with their countries.

The views of Arabs, obtained in a rare moment when propaganda efforts where temporarily set aside, marks a sharp contrast with views like that of Eric Bratberg of Sweden’s Uppsala University, who recently wrote, “If the U.S. is ever to form a more democratic Middle East, it first has to solve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” The supposedly unbreakable link has become a firmly planted figment of the European imagination and, in fact, of many on the other side of the Atlantic. If only America would do as we say, they argue, we might not have had a September 11, and young Arab men would not stand caught between the lack of economic opportunities and the temptations of religious extremism. Arabs themselves disagree with this view.

No question, the bitter dispute in the heart of the Middle East has made life for Palestinians and Israelis painful and difficult. It has certainly added to the tensions in the region and given propaganda material for extremists. But the claim that the suffering of Palestinians is the principal cause of international terrorism, Islamic extremism and Arab political instability is as false now as it was on September 12, 2001.

The real causes of extremism are political repression coupled with economic stagnation in much of the region. They create festering resentments and seething anger without legitimate outlets. Other than providing an excuse for these problems, the Arab-Israeli conflict has little connection with the larger troubles in the region.

In the Middle East, where anyone can criticize Israel and the US on a street corner, but no one can criticize the government in the public square, true public opinion emerged anonymously, via satellite, as part of a survey conducted by the Arab television network Al-Arabiya. The people said their problems come from the ruling regimes, the same governments that have received support from Europe and the United States.

When asked, “What is stalling development in the Arab World?” viewers responded unequivocally: Only eight percent blamed the Arab-Israeli conflict. More than 80 percent blamed, “Governments that are unwilling to implement change and reform.”

When asked what governments should do to improve economic conditions, more than 90 percent wanted better conditions for investment, education and health care, as well as complete freedom for the private sector. Ask Arab leaders, or their European friends the same question. They would insist the key to all progress lies somewhere in Jerusalem.

A number of regimes have used the Arab-Israeli conflict as a pretext for their unwillingness to reform. They have a perfectly simple reason for refusing to change: they want to stay in power. What is surprising is how many “experts,” particularly in Europe, have bought into their calculations.

The Arab-Israeli conflict must be solved. And efforts by the US to push the process along are excellent news. But anyone who believes solving the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians will automatically bring an end to all forms of instability, extremism and terrorism will be deeply disappointed.

To Burma -- and to Aung San Suu Kyi

June 19, 2005 marks the 60th birthday of one of the most remarkable leaders of our time: Aung San Suu Kyi, the icon of Burma's non-violent struggle for freedom. Suu Kyi remains under house arrest. And her country, and virtually all its people, continue to languish under the brutal repression of a military dictatorship that has withstood the passage of time.

This is the article I wrote half a decade ago, after returning from Burma.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
August 2000
The Woman Who Would Save a Nation

By Frida Ghitis

(Rangoon) The taxi driver was suddenly refusing to accept the fare we had agreed on. I would pay 400 Kyat to University Road, that was the deal. But, as we approached the area, I told him my exact destination: I wanted to go to Aung San Suu Kyi’s house. Visibly frightened, he looked at me in the rear view mirror, pulled over to a side street, and stopped the car. “I can’t go there,” he said, “big problem for me.” Then he pulled his umbrella from under the seat. “It’s starting to rain," He said. "Take it.” I declined, and reached over with the 400 Kyat trying to pay. “No,” he shook her head, “No pay. Please take my umbrella. You go see our leader. No charge.”

Like everyone to whom we had mentioned Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's gasping democracy movement, his face had brightened at the sound of her name. And then, also like all the others, he had looked over his shoulder, visibly frightened, making sure no one had heard. The crumbling streets of Rangoon, renamed Yangon by the military dictators of the nation of Burma (itself renamed Myanmar by the same generals)are teeming with beggars who seem to have lost even the energy to beg. And yet, there is a name that appears to electrify the despondent. It's the name of their hero: Aung San Suu Kyi.

A few weeks after my visit to Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi left her home with 14 members of her National League for Democracy (NLLD) party, headed for a meeting outside the capital. Their journey came to an abrupt stop when uniformed men blocked their way. The air was let out of her tires and a nine-day test of wills ensued. The group camped by the side of the road in sweltering heat, refusing to give up their efforts. The military finally took them back by force to Rangoon. The party leaders -- including Suu Kyi -- were taken to their homes, locked up and placed under heavy guard. NLD offices were ransacked, and what is perhaps the final crackdown on Burma’s efforts at democracy was set in motion.

For the impoverished and frightened people of Burma, and for the international community who supports them, the critical time has arrived. What strategy, if any, will allow Burma -- the once prosperous land -- to join the world in the global march to open, responsible government?

In a country where millions live in the military’s two-handed strangling grip of wretched poverty and vicious repression, Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's democracy movement, and winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, is a figure of hope --- fading hope. She is revered by malnourished mothers sleeping under bridges with their emaciated babies, by taxi drivers eking out a living in cities with stagnant economies, and by students kept by the military from attending classes and forging a better future.

But Suu Kyi, the winner of a landslide election victory in 1990 has spent most of the time since winning the election living under house arrest or confined to such restrictions by the ruling military junta as to have virtually no possibility of affecting her country’s future. Ten years after her electoral victory, life could hardly be more painful for the people of the legendary land of towering teak forests.

The taxi, by the way, left me a few blocks from Suu Kyi’s home. I walked until I reached a military roadblock. After a low-key discussion with a soldier and an officer in plain clothes, it was made clear I would not be allowed to walk down the wide thoroughfare in front of the deserted university. No explanation given. Rangoon’s traffic is completely disrupted to keep it from passing in front of the 55 year-old-woman’s home.

After the nine-day standoff, nobody was allowed in Suu Kyi’s home. Not diplomats, not supporters, not servants. Food was passed to her over the padlocked gate, allowing for some sustenance. That’s more than can be said of the pro-democracy movement.

A leading member of the military junta has vowed to “crush” the party.

Demands by diplomats to see Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders were futile. The junta dismissed calls by Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and other world figures for their release. Officially known as the State Peace and Development Council, the ruling military conclave maintains its rule is needed to keep the peace and maintain the nation united in the face of ethnic divisions. The government accuses the NLD of planning terrorist activities, and insists the matter with Suu Kyi and her party is an internal affair. The international community, it says, should stay out of it.

Internal affairs in Burma are resolved through intimidation, incarceration and worse. The junta routinely uses the population, especially members of tribes seeking independence as slave labor for unpaid road construction and other grueling projects. People who resist the brutal forced labor are routinely shot. Gross violations of human rights are commonplace. Freedom of the press is such an alien concept in Myanmar that the local version of newspapers and television news could easily pass for comedy in the West.

The streets are filled with billboards describing what the government audaciously calls “People’s Desire,” a litany of government objectives aimed at maintaining the junta’s tight leash on society. Among the so-called People’s Desires: “Oppose those trying to jeopardize stability of the State and progress of the nation; “Crush all internal and external destructive elements as the common enemy.” It is clear that such “destructive elements” include Suu Kyi who is regularly referred to in the press as a prostitute, a stooge of the West and a number of other disparaging labels.

In 1997, the United States imposed a ban on new trade with the country. But the same year, Asian countries welcomed Yangon into the regional South East Asian association, ASEAN, sending conflicting messages to the Junta. The European Parliament has urged EU members to refrain from trading with the generals and Suu Kyi has urged foreigners to stay away from Burma; to keep their money from flowing into the coffers of the supremely corrupt military regime.

All international and domestic efforts to persuade the military to negotiate with the winners of the 1990 election have proved either useless or counter-productive. Life for the people of Myanmar has descended from purgatory to hell.

In frustration, some former allies of Suu Kyi have called for an end to the sanctions, hoping an increase in trade will bring a trickle of money for the impoverished Burmese.
And yet, it’s hard to see exactly which strategy has failed. Is it the isolation brought by countries like the US, or is it the engagement policy of Myanmar’s neighbors?

The key to the destruction of Myanmar and the survival of its military’s power may be found in Beijing and in Southeast Asia. China has supported and armed the junta, providing it with the resources to keep the people under its heel. The influence of Asia neighbors carries the moral authority of cultural understanding. According to the SPDC, all criticism of the regime is based on the colonial aspirations of the West. Incidentally, neither China nor India – the other Asian power aiming to gain ascendancy in Myanmar – made any open complaints about the junta’s recent displays of despotism.

Isolation by the West will accomplish nothing without pressure on China, the behemoth of human rights violations. Beijing may not want to relent on its atrocities against Tibet or against religious minorities in China, but it might consider interceding for a political solution in Burma, as a concession to western powers continually harping on human rights.

Whether economic sanctions are effective or not, one thing is clear. Sanctions followed by silence achieve nothing. If the United States and Europe want change in Myanmar, simple economic isolation is not sufficient. The generals urgently need hard currency to keep their country from a total economic collapse. They should know that any possibility of trade or assistance will not come without political change. Show them a carrot and remind them of the stick. The United States, with the exception of the last couple of weeks, has been much too silent on the tragedy of the Burmese people.

For the people of Myanmar, options appear to be running out. Suu Kyi’s latest effort achieved success on the international front. Major world figures chose to shine a spotlight on her plight. But within her country’s borders, the situation is now even more critical. For the people of Myanmar, the struggle may be reduced to a simple desperate gesture: not charging taxi fare to a foreigner hoping to visit Aung San Suu Kyi.


Frida Ghitis, Copyright 2000

Surviving in Burma Photo F. Ghitis

Michael Jackson: American Soft Power

(Various Papers)

By Frida Ghitis

(Amsterdam) Watching the reading of the Michael Jackson trial verdict from Europe, I found myself bracing for more of the same. After all, every time the world turns its collective eyes and stares intently at America these days, you can predict what comes next: criticism, condemnation and ridicule of the United States.
But something rare and remarkable happened this time: The world watched and, strangely, identified with the US.

Reaction across the globe looked much the same as it did in America. Many expressed relief that Jackson would not go to prison, while others wondered openly about his innocence. Jackson impersonators in full King of Pop regalia appeared on Dutch television to praise their beloved icon, and fans from Calcutta to Kuala Lumpur pondered Jackson’s eccentric ways, much the way his admirers did in Columbus or Kalamazoo.

This was a giant departure from that other side of America that consumes withering international attention. It was hard to believe that the acrimonious talk about the treatment of US prisoners in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib and the Michael Jackson story all dealt with America’s system of justice.

The reaction to the trial verdict brought to mind the ideas of Harvard’s Joseph Nye, who talks about America having two kinds of power: hard power, from its military might, and soft power, from the attraction of its culture and its ideas.

The tribulations of Jackson’s trial spawned an international wave of American Justice 101 seminars in the media. From Al Jazeera to BBC World and channels in a multitude of languages, viewers in every time zone heard scholarly explanations of how a jury trial works in the United States.

Newspapers in Pakistan, Peru and the United Arab Emirates discussed the concept of “burden of proof.” And just about everyone heard of the reaction from the defeated prosecutor, accepting his defeat. The government, the experts explained, simply did not make its case.

The talk may be about the inconsequential trial of one man, but in some places a statement like that is truly revolutionary.

In some countries, the government never loses its case.

How many millions in State Department public diplomacy funds would it take to promote the American system of justice around the globe? How much to talk about the concept of a fair trial, where both sides walk away accepting the ruling?

There were, of course, many cynics, who rightly pointed out the flaws in the system. But most of the criticism came from the US itself. Television stations across the seas carried clips from America showing man-in-the-street interviews, where some noted dismissively how in the US the rich can always buy justice. Then there were the deadpan quips, that if Michael Jackson had been black, he would have been convicted, and the one about Saddam Hussein now wanting his trial moved to Santa Maria. Those came from Leno and Letterman, respectively, both shown on Dutch television.

Newspapers around the planet devoted massive space on their front pages to the Jackson verdict. And everywhere readers complained that at a time of war, hunger and disease, paying attention to the trial of one man, even if he is Michael Jackson, is some kind of a news atrocity.

Jackson, of course disagreed. As reporters from Soweto to Berlin reported, barely containing their amusement, Jackson, judging by his website, apparently views his acquittal as a major historical milestone, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the release of Nelson Mandela from prison. So, maybe Michael thinks a little highly of himself.

This was an interlude of minor importance, albeit high public interest, during a turbulent time in history. But even Michael, who crowned himself the King, might be pleased to know that in all his 100 pound heft, for a moment at least, he was projecting the power of a nation. And it was, perhaps appropriately, America’s soft power.

Outraged!

*EXTREMISTS GET A FREE PASS TO DO AS THEY WILL - FRIDA GHITIS (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, JUNE 12): Yes, we all agree that insulting Islam is wrong. Now if we could just persuade the outraged to start respecting other people's beliefs. (Full Article from Chicago Tribune.)

*(as excerpted by USC Center on Public Diplomacy)

Slowing Down the Europe Train

Miami Herald, June 3, 2005

EUROPEANS
Losing faith in the EU
BY FRIDA GHITIS

AMSTERDAM -- Europeans had not quite come out of the weekend shock they received from France when the Dutch hopped on their bicycles and pedaled over their picturesque canal bridges to their voting places.

Wednesday was the Netherlands' turn to vote on a proposed new constitution for the European Union. And, like French voters, the Dutch sent a sharp jolt through the establishment. The Dutch refused to accept this new Basic Law for the slowly morphing entity known as Europe.

Like France, the Netherlands is one of the six original founders of the European project. The country has always supported the ideal of a unified Europe. That's why its refusal to approve the absurdly complicated -- almost 500-page -- document, comes as a second shock in three days to an establishment that can hardly believe its Utopian train came off the rails somewhere short of Nirvana.

Global competition

The message from France and the Netherlands may sound alike, but the Dutch have very different concerns from those of their neighbors to the south.

Voters in both countries offered dozens of reasons for voting against the draft constitution. In France, however, it seems that the predominant fear came down to economics. The mythical ''Polish plumber'' came to symbolize the danger of low-wage workers threatening the delightful French life of well-paid 35-hour workweeks and leisurely six-week vacations in Provence. The French, with their message of ''Stop the world; we want to get off,'' mistakenly think that they can resist global competition.

In Holland, the fears look quite different. Over recent years, the Dutch have awakened to discover that their country is not the idyllic land they believed. A series of politically inspired high-profile murders shook the nation to its core. The assassination of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by Muslim extremists filled the Dutch with confusion and anger.

A way of life

Near the top of their concerns is what to do with a wave of immigration from Muslim countries. Like many here, Lynne De Jong, a 63-year-old Amsterdam therapist, opposes the draft constitution not because of what it says, but because this government has endorsed it. The politicians told the people, she says, ''Let them (the immigrants) come in, and we'll all get along. We'll tolerate them, and they'll become like us.'' Many here believe that the political elites were wrong about this and now have no idea what to do about it. The country is suffering a profound sense of uncertainty. It no longer knows what it is or where it's going.

Jorgen, 38, said that he would vote against the constitution. When I asked him what he thought was wrong with it, he answered candidly: ''I have no idea. I don't know.'' Then he explained his vote. ``I don't trust the government.''

But the Dutch have lost trust in more than the government. They, like others in Europe, feel they are losing control of their way of life. Some say they fear the European Union will bully the Netherlands to change its liberal laws. They fear a threat to social values that calmly make room for gay marriage, legalized prostitution and legal euthanasia. The Dutch want to reclaim the country they recognized until a few years ago.

Team U.S./Europe

Unlike the French, the Dutch don't seem obsessed with turning Europe into a power center rivaling the United States, and some resent Paris' anti-Washington stance. One man told me he wants Europe and the United States to be on the same side. But he would like Europe to have more influence over what Team U.S./Europe would do in the world.

There is a common thread running through the many and confusing arguments offered by opponents of the Basic Law in the Netherlands, France and the rest of Europe. There is a sense that the world is changing, perhaps too fast and in the wrong direction. Europeans want to slow the EU train.

In reality, however, it may be the entire movement of history changing their world. Voting No in the referendum is not just a way of saying the constitution is wrong. It's a way of saying, ``Slow this train, I want to get back on my old bicycle.''

Tolerating Intolerance

Intimidated by extremists
Frida Ghitis

International Herald Tribune, published with the New York Times

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/31/news/edghitis.php

Intimidated by Extremists - One day, when historians study this first major war of the 21st century, they will scratch their heads in disbelief, wondering how it came to pass that Muslim extremists managed to intimidate moderates of every religion - including Islam - on every continent on earth.

The whole planet, it seems, twisted itself into knots trying to untangle the forces at work behind the retracted Newsweek story about desecration of the Koran. Journalistic practices came under attack, while experts on Islam tried to soothe the less erudite, not quite justifying, but more than thoroughly explaining why desecration of the Holy Book leads to mob rampage and murder in a Muslim society.

No question, insulting any religion is beyond reprehensible. It appears, however, that nothing is more reprehensible than insulting the Muslim religion. And the extremists now decide what constitutes an insult.

In Pakistan, a Muslim nation whose president Muslim extremists have twice tried to assassinate, Islamists have decided that women's sports constitute a grievous offense to Islam. Some women, it turns out, find the idea of using Islam to repress them itself quite offensive. So, when the government of President Pervez Musharraf, which lately bends to the will of extremists, placed bans on women's rights, women decided to stage a protest

A leading Pakistani human rights activist, Asma Jahangir, was brutally attacked by the police during the peaceful demonstration. Participants in the "mini-marathon," a kind of sports event/political protest, came under violent police assault. This from a key U.S. ally, a government presumably fighting to defeat Islamist extremists. A fine way to strengthen the moderates!

And speaking of moderates, and of respect for religion, consider the official sermon on Palestinian Authority television, which is financed largely by the contributions of democratic countries in the West, shown to viewers on May 13. Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris explained that "the Jews are a virus resembling AIDS." This man of God told the faithful that "the stones and the trees will want every Muslim to finish off every Jew," and he predicted that "the day will come when we (Muslims) will rule the entire world again."

With the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, on his way to the United States, the authority did not want such notions to dominate the headlines, so it took a stand against the imam. But this kind of rhetoric by religious figures goes unchallenged every day in much of the Middle East, including so-called moderate countries friendly to Washington.

Even in Africa, moderate governments behave timidly before mob-stoking Islamists. Muslim radicals in Nigeria a few years ago whipped the masses into a murderous frenzy days before the scheduled Miss World Pageant, all because a newspaper columnist speculated, tongue in cheek, that the Prophet Muhammad might have taken the winning contestant as his wife.

Frenzied Muslims killed 220 Nigerians to defend Islam from such an insult. Nigeria's moderate president accused the media of insensitivity and blamed the riots on "irresponsible" journalists. We can add the 220 to the hundreds who have died in protests against other affronts to symbols of Islam.

While Muslim moderates get swept away by the tide of extremism, unprotected by so-called moderate governments, the rest of the world frets in well-intentioned angst. Moderates everywhere now seem terrified of making missteps that might upset the extremists, while they obsess over the question, "What can we do to avoid offending Muslims?" Standing Pentagon orders instruct those touching the Koran that "clean gloves will be put on" and that "two hands will be used at all times."

Let me say it again: Disrespecting the Koran or Islam or any other religion is contemptible behavior. If American soldiers do it, it is particularly egregious because the United States self-righteously argues for more tolerance in the Muslim world. But tolerance must be demanded from all sides.

The views and life choices of moderate Muslims must be respected, as must those of people of all religions, by members of all religions. The demands fall on Muslims, too. And the requirement of standing up against intolerance falls on all governments. Only intolerance is undeserving of tolerance.