Monday 20 December 2010

Muslims of France


Muslims of France from Phares et Balises on Vimeo.

On December 2, a Paris court acquitted the leader of the far right political party Front National (FN), Jean-Marie Le Pen, of inciting racial hatred. The charges, brought against him by the antiracism group SOS Racism, involved FN posters issued ahead of regional elections in March 2010. Depicting a woman in a full black veil next to a map of France draped in the Algerian flag, with minarets shooting out of the ground like missiles, the poster bore the slogan “Non à l’Islamisme” (“No to Islamism”).
There was no mistaking the issue on which the FN was fighting this election, especially in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region—home to an estimated one million Muslims. In the heart of the region, the port city of Marseille was the first passage for many Muslim immigrants arriving in France: the first migrants from what is now Algeria arrived in the early 1900s to work in the port, followed by the subsequent recruitment of laborers from the Mediterranean and Africa and the arrival of troops from across the French Empire. The families of many of these men who fought and worked for France have since settled and form part of an increasingly diverse peuple français.

I have a French mother and close family members in the region and this particular history was unknown to me until recently when I came acrossMusulmans de France (Muslims of France), a three-part documentary which charts a century of Muslim presence in France. It made me wonder how many other people were in the same position. How many other people—who may have been persuaded to tick the box for the Front National in the last elections—were also ignorant of Muslim contributions in France and the complexities of French Muslim identity today?

The documentary raises questions such as: What does it mean to be French today? Is a French Muslim identity compatible with that of non-Muslims? Why the anxiety over France’s growing ethnic and religious diversity? How do French Muslims define themselves?

Muslims of France offers answers via thoroughly researched archive footage, and presents a full spectrum of those who would call themselves members of France’s Muslim community. Such documentaries deserve a wider audience both in and out of France. (Open Society)

More information about the film is available on the website of the production company Phares Balises.


Home            Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Book Review; Europe's alliance with Israel: aiding the occupation

Western journalists often shy away from writing on Palestine. They believe that so much has already been written about the century-old conflict that it is hard to find a new twist to excite and grip their readers. David Cronin has managed to do just that in his fascinating book. He makes a watertight case to prove that Europe is, in many ways, complicit in Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

In private, commentators and politicians may admit this; but no European author has, before now, summoned the courage to make the case in public. When the American academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published their book The Israeli lobby and US Foreign Policy in 2007, it seemed that the taboo was broken; it could be only a matter of time before someone in Europe undertook a similar task, and Cronin is that someone. His book is of this genre and must, therefore, be seen as a ground-breaking publication.

The work embodies a wealth of carefully researched and documented information. The author made extensive use of official contacts and reports emanating from Brussels, the seat of the European Union. In a lucid and attractive manner he has subjected EU statements and policies to rigorous interrogation, and has exposed the often yawning gap between what is said and what is (actually hardly ever) done. The book is scathing in its criticism of European officialdom, which Cronin describes as "lily-livered" [133].

In order to explain the thinking processes in Brussels, the author recalls a statement by Javier Solana made at a conference in October 2009, shortly before he stepped down as the EU's foreign policy chief: "There is no country outside the European continent that has this type of relationship that Israel has with the European Union." Solana added, "Israel, allow me to say, is a member of the European Union without being a member of the institutions. It's a member of all the [EU's] programmes; it participates in all the programmes." [2]
Cronin marshals an array of anecdotal evidence to verify Solana's claim. Other European officials and leaders have made no less sycophantic remarks. He explains that the almost servile attitude of European countries towards the US explains, in part, their legendary blind support for Israel. A Czech diplomat told the author, "It is a case of a friend of our friend has to be our friend too." [49] Such admissions are commonplace with the Czechs, notwithstanding the decisive military support given by Czechoslovakia to the Zionist militias during the 1948 war.
Spouting verbal criticism of Israel is one thing, but taking a principled stand against its aggression, independent of Washington, is quite another. The EU has been outstandingly incapable of doing this on the world stage.

There are several contractual reasons for this. For example, the EU Lisbon Treaty stresses that while EU countries have their own military capabilities, they are ultimately subservient to NATO which provides "collective defence". Given America's de facto role as commander in chief of NATO, and Israel's relentless efforts to become integrated into the alliance, it is self-explanatory why the Europeans have been unable to challenge Israel. The American head of the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Brussels, Ronald Asmus, supports the status quo because of what he calls, "Israeli exceptionalism". [55]
Speaking of exceptionalism, Cronin highlights the policy of Britain's Tony Blair in the Balkans and his military intervention there. The former Prime Minister justified the use of military force against Serbia because Britain "could not allow in the case of Kosovo ethnic cleansing and genocide to happen right at the doorstep of Europe and do nothing about it." [45] But, for reasons best known to himself, Blair has allowed Israel to get away with flagrant crimes, including ethnic cleansing and genocidal acts, in occupied Palestine.
Another notable case in point is Jack Straw, who succeeded Robin Cook as Britain's Foreign Secretary after the latter had initiated to great fanfare what he termed a new era of "ethical foreign policy" in 1997. The following year, Cook incurred the wrath of Zionist settlers after he decided to listen to aggrieved Palestinians affected by the illegal Israeli settlement in Jabal Abu Ghuneim. Once comfortably ensconced in office, Straw saw fit to oppose a UN recommendation to refer the issue of the Israeli Wall to the International Court of Justice, on the grounds that it would embroil the body in "a heavily political bilateral dispute". [44]
Cronin is under no illusion about the nature and consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. He refers to the origins of the term "genocide", which was coined by a Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, who survived the Nazi holocaust. Lemkin said genocide was not simply the immediate destruction of a nation but also included a coordinated plan of action aimed at destroying the foundation of the life of a national group. Lemkin's opinion was later incorporated in the definition of genocide by the UN in 1948 in its Genocide Convention. Cronin berates the Europeans for being quick to urge African states to respect the Convention and to punish any crime of genocide "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war". [29] And yet, when it comes to Israel, European politicians recoil and display an appalling reluctance to uphold the law. Cronin says that Israel may be all things – democratic, industrialised and modern   but it is, nevertheless, engaged in crimes "that fulfil the text book definition of genocide". [33]
Chapter three gives the book its subtitle – "aiding the occupation". Here, Cronin cites the case of the Rafah border control which was "subcontracted" to the Europeans when Israel abandoned and destroyed its settlements in the Gaza Strip in 2005. "Each morning," he notes, "the EU personnel had to report to the Israeli security forces at Karem Shalom [Karim Abu Salam]", another border post located a few kilometres south of Rafah. [69]
When challenged on their policy on Palestine, Europeans leaders are quick to point out that they are the largest donors of aid to the Palestinians. This is true and, as the book confirms, the Palestinians have received proportionately more foreign aid than any other people in the world since the Second World War. But the Palestinian problem is not economic or humanitarian; it is a national issue and, as the former head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), David Shearer, pointed out, "pouring an immense amount of aid into a conflict without either the structure of a peace agreement or a solid analysis of its impact is comparable to speeding along a road at night without headlights". [75]
What is often omitted from the official disclosures concerning aid is the fact that according to UN estimates, 45% of all foreign aid to the Palestinians finds its way back into the Israeli economy. Israel has used the levers of fiscal control, trade regimes and labour mobility to ensure this. The case of the Israeli firm Dor Alon is especially poignant. It has a network of petrol stations and convenience stores in the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Yet, it was given €97 million by the European Commission to supply industrial diesel for energy generation in the Gaza Strip. The company, however, works in tandem with the Israeli government to deny supplies to the population under siege in that beleaguered territory. International law has thus been sacrificed to maintain the instruments of a failed peace process.
Another disturbing feature of the European-Israeli alliance which the book addresses adeptly is the transfer of scientific technology and military cooperation. Israel enjoys closer ties to the European Union than even those countries which are poised for membership. It is the main external participant in the Union's "framework programme" for scientific research and Israeli arms companies are eligible for EU funding. Prominent among the main beneficiaries of these grants is Motorola Israel, which participates in an EU financed surveillance project, known as iDetect4All. Motorola has installed a radar system in 47 Israeli settlements in the West Bank over the past five years.
During the last Labour government's first decade in office (1997-2007), British companies exported more than £110 million in military hardware to Israel. Cronin asserts that not only did the flow continue under Blair, but it actually intensified during critical periods, such as during the war against Lebanon in 2006 when Britain allowed US planes transhipping weapons to Israel to refuel on British soil.
Despite the overwhelming mass of evidence, European officials are nowhere near to admitting that they have been facilitating the development of Israeli technology for the abuse of human rights. The most one official was prepared to concede was that they are "complicit with Israel settlements". [100] That in itself is a crime under humanitarian law.
Does the European Union have the means to put pressure on Israel? This book asserts that it does. It notes that two-thirds of all Israeli exports are to the European Union and if the political will existed the EU could use trade sanctions or the threat thereof to pressure the Israelis. Instead, EU officials pass the buck on to consumers; the British government, for example, says that Israeli goods should be labelled so the consumers can make informed choices about what they buy. Cronin says this form of tokenism should not be taken seriously as Israel's denial of Palestinian rights should not be reduced to an issue of consumer choice. "Nobody should have to make a choice about whether or not to support an illegal activity when shopping for groceries." [135]
Europe's alliance with Israel is an indictment of policies which are not simply flawed but duplicitous. All over the continent ministers criticise Israeli settlements from one side of their mouths and woo Israeli companies from the other. Cronin sums up his case in one sentence: "Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is cruel, vindictive and illegal."
Clearly, we are where we are today because of the support Israel receives from the international community. The Europeans are in a unique position to put an end to this epic of human suffering, if only they could muster the moral courage, in spite of American pressure. It can be done by limiting Israel's access to European markets. In the absence of such measures, Cronin believes that the only way forward is to intensify the international campaign.
This book is compelling, illuminative and painful. It is an indispensible pioneering work essential for students, tax-payers, policy- and decision-makers and, most of all, those who aspire to rid our world of the last vestiges of colonial domination and states built on supposed racial superiority. (MEMO)


Book Review: American Foreign Policy & the Muslim World


‘American Foreign Policy & the Muslim World’ is a compilation of academic essays and articles aimed at ‘dispel [ling] naïve ideas and misconceptions…about US foreign policy’. The editors were hoping that in compiling this edition, it would equip students within the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia with more understanding and knowledge of how the American political system works and key factors and influences affecting it. Students will find a wealth of information analysing the ins and outs of foreign policymaking in the US and the key players directly or indirectly affecting the outcomes of such policies, be it different influence groups, the media or the effectiveness of US governmental bodies and political system in general, and how these all inter-relate to form perceptions of the Muslim world.
The editors, Ishtiaq Hossain and Mohsen Saleh, take on the mammoth task of trying to explain to the reader the reasons behind the Bush administration’s political actions (or inactions in the case of Occupied Palestine, allowing Israel to continue its settlement expansions and keeping silent during Israeli bombardment of Lebanon in 2006). The editors highlight ‘a kaleidoscopic view of concerns of ordinary citizens all over the world, and in particular of the Muslims’ such as the United States policy of unilateralism under the Bush administration, and its ‘preference to ‘act alone’ in world affairs’, which has seen societies and whole countries alienated or criminalised for not conforming to US policies. America’s ‘war on terror’ is another worry with many equating it to mean a ‘war on Islam’, and questioning the legitimacy and real intention to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Using 9/11 as a means to penalise countries such as Iran for its nuclear development programme and yet turning a blind eye to Israel’s accumulation of nuclear weapons, these double standards are a typical theme of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy. Hossain and Saleh also suggest America’s support or non-criticism of dictatorial regimes within Muslim countries being a sensitive issue for many critics.
The essays contained in this book are divided into three sections: Part One is entitled ‘American Foreign Policy: The Domestic Sources’ analyses different players effecting the foreign policymaking process in the US such as the Pro-Israeli lobby and Christian Evangelical lobby; Part Two – ‘American Foreign Policy- Characteristics’ looks at US foreign policy in practise over the years and defining moments that have influenced its decision-making today. The final section ‘American Foreign Policy: The Five Legacies’ closely scrutinises foreign policy legacies resulting from the direct and indirect action of American governments including its policies in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.
A crucial element of understanding foreign policy is understanding what drives decision-makers. Ultimately it depends on the domestic influences, with authors analysing a variety of sources and shedding light on the key figures effecting the policymaking process. What came across is the amount of influence certain groups or organisations had and how they came about being in a position to influence. Dr Ishtiaq Hossain interestingly highlights that within majority of foreign policymaking institutions, there lies a deep embedded belief that America’s notion of ‘exceptionalism’ i.e. their ideas of liberty and democracy should be ‘brought to darkened areas of the world’ with the global community all sharing a common goal:
‘The possession of immense power and the belief in a universal mission by a nation have the potential to produce great good and great harm…exceptionalism is not considered a burden by the American, but a jet-powered thrust that helped them…to do both well and good for everyone who was not evil in the eyes of those Americans. As a result, US foreign policy frequently tries to have it both way, to assume that America’s national interest and the greater good of mankind are one and the same.’ Chapter 1 p.33
The current climate of anti-Western/anti-American feeling has often been attributed to this apparent arrogance that exudes from Washington. Of course since 9/11, this theme of knowing-what’s-best-for-all has been going into over-drive, especially with the Bush administration’s policies of unilateralism and military hegemony, with ‘the rest of the world having no choice’ but to accept American values of democracy, human rights, liberty and free speech. Those who do not accept these values…are ‘un-American’, as President George W. Bush emphatically stated: ‘you are either with us or with the terrorists’. Hossain analyses the effect of interest groups and think tanks and draws attention to the extent of their influence on foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. This chapter sets the scene for the remainder of the essays in this section, with Dr Muhammad Arif Zakaullah delving deeper into ‘The Rise of Christian Evangelicalism in American Politics’ (Chapter Two) , Hossain further analyses the Neo-Conservatives agenda  (Chapter Three) and American policy shift from multilateralism to unilateralism under the Bush administration. Hossain questions whether the President was indeed influenced by Neo-Conservative policies such as its ‘realism’ policy, where the US should turn a blind eye to autocratic regimes as long as it serves US interests.
An excellent and wholly enlightening chapter by Alison Weir on ‘Public Opinion and the Media’  (Chapter Four) revealed the extent of deception the American public are under due to the media filtering what information is made public. She analyses the ‘skewed’ reporting by US media in its reporting of Occupied Palestine providing graphic facts and figures and she specifically looks at certain media information sources such as Associated Press (AP), New York Times and the broadcast media networks. A clear and obvious similarity is the reporting on the Israeli and Palestine conflict with the ‘distortion and omission [of truth being]…of special significance’. The over-reporting of Israeli deaths and under-reporting of Palestinian deaths really makes the reader understand the reason behind the level of ignorance that is inherent within American society on this sensitive issue, amongst others. She quotes one academic, who after carrying out a six-month study found that the National Public Radio (NPR) reported ‘Israeli deaths at a rate 2.4 times greater than Palestinian deaths, and Israeli minor’s …at a rate 4.5 times greater …’ He goes on to state:
‘Apparently being a minor makes your death more newsworthy to NPR if you’re Israeli, but less newsworthy if you’re Palestinian.’ p.126
Weir describes the composition of specific media organisations, showing a clear editor/reporter bias due to their pro-Israeli inclinations, whereby they filter certain parts of the news for the US public. The media sector is saturated with anti-Palestinian rhetoric and it is due to people being unaware, Weir believes, that the US public remains silent. Alternative media are making some progress in rectifiying the imbalance, but as Weir suggest:
‘Until this imbalance changes, it is likely that the US media coverage will remain profoundly lopsided and the American public largely misinformed on Israel-Palestine, resulting in the continuation and perhaps escalation of dangerously misguided US foreign policies- a situation that the region, the United States, and the world can ill afford.’ p. 137
One significant factor, if not the most significant, in US foreign policy is the ‘Role of the Israel Lobby’ (Chapter Five) and the parallel influence (if any) from the Muslim/Arab Lobby (Chapter Six). Pro-Israeli interest groups such as AIPAC have an ‘impressive’ stronghold on US domestic and foreign policy, and through their organisational efficiency they have the ability to effectively influence four key areas: the congress, ’where Israel is virtually immune from criticism’ (p.154); the executive with Israeli sympathisers within the White House and reliance on the ‘ethnic voter machine and ethnic donor machine’; the media, with the majority being controlled by pro-Israel personnel; and think tanks and academic elite. Kopanski and Saleh suggest that it is Israel’s own policies that are making a mockery of US foreign policy, which are saturated with double standards and blatant disregard for human rights and civil liberties p.163. Alongside efficient lobbying by pro-Israel lobby, it is the virtual absence or hesitant lobbying from Muslims that has allowed for Muslim/Arab issues to be swept under. Dr Ahrar Ahmad argues that what little the Muslim lobby has achieved is ‘dilute’ in its effectiveness compared to their pro-Israel counterparts. He carefully analyses different factors that have slowed down their progress and alludes to Muslims lack of experience and intimidation felt by the negative perception of Muslims hindering their effectiveness as lobbyists for Muslims and the Middle East. The author ardently closes stating American Muslims have ‘arrived’ on the political scene and that already their voices ‘have become a constitutive element in the national discourse’ today (p. 190), although one struggles to share his enthusiasm at their progress.
Part two analyses characteristics of US foreign policy and how it has evolved through the century. Dr Elfatih Abdel Salam in chapter seven highlights the defining characteristics of US foreign policy showing how it has evolved through the adoption of different political theories during the 19th Century and Cold War/post Cold War era in the 20th Century. Abdel Salam illustrates how US foreign policy has shifted towards ‘isolationism’ and ‘unilateralism’ over the years and their assumptions of superiority over the rest of the world is what has shaped policies and what continues to shape them today. Dr Habibul Haque Khondker continues this sentiment in his analysis of the ‘new-old empire’ that is the United States today (chapter eight). He suggests that the ‘existence of imperialism proves the feeble nature of democracy in the contemporary world’. All US foreign policies have the underlying theme of imperialistic values, aiming to dominate and ensure the US maintains its status of global leader, however, Khondker insistently argues that America’s imperialistic ambitions ‘is inconsistent with substantive democracy, yet it is compatible with both procedural and sham democracies’ p.219. Similarly to Abdel Salam, Khondker argues that in a world of globalisation, it is important to be aware of different cultures in interpreting the impact of ‘global politics on local cultures’ p.221. It is these imperialistic designs that Khondker claims have resulted in the increase in Islamic fundamentalism.
‘In a word, the world…looks more uncertain, more menacing than what it was at the beginning of the new millennium…it looks particularly menacing because of the acceptance of violence. The Israeli policy was based on a modified version of the medieval ‘eye for an eye’ except that for Israel it is ‘many eyes for one eye’ and this was approved by the Bush-Blair axis.’ p.220
Dr Shahid Shahidullah sums up the section in his chapter looking at ‘The Need for a Paradigm Shift’ (Chapter 9). A fascinating chapter comparing the policies of Clinton and Bush administrations, Shahidullah continuously emphasises throughout the chapter that the rise in ‘radical militant Islam’ should not be viewed as a new religious war between Islam and Christianity as Bush so recklessly used the ‘Crusades’ and Huntingtonian’s ‘clash of civilisations’ rhetoric in many of his speeches.  He provides an interesting perspective in showing how Clinton’s focus on positive and progressive policies on e.g. global enlargement (globalisation and modernisation) and engagement were pushed aside for Bush’s more imperialistic and unilateral foreign policy strategies.
The final section ‘The Five Legacies’ looks closely at US foreign policy in action, with specific reference to Palestine (Chapter 10) Iraq (Chapter 11), Iran (Chapter 12), Afghanistan (Chapter 13) and then the legacy left behind for Barak H. Obama (Chapter 14), who the editors are quick to point out is ‘not a Muslim’ (p.26). Dr Daud Abdullah’s eye opening chapter, details the establishment of the Zionist state and Palestinian sacrifices made, highlighting the relationship between America and the state of Israel. Abdullah identified the main domestic factors influencing US foreign policy, especially its Middle East policy and suggests that the US has ‘failed’, predictably, in its design to ‘reconcile Israeli aims with Palestinian rights’ (p.287). The relationship itself between Israel and America has become unclear where ‘the distinction between American super power and Israel, its client, has become blurred’. Who is actually making these policies and who is benefiting from them? Abdullah echoes the sentiments of policymakers, academia and concerned citizens, when he writes:
‘While Israel may have been a ‘strategic US asset’ during the Cold War, American writers now believe it has become a ‘strategic burden’. p.270
With the advent of George W. Bush’s presidency, came the revival of old imperialist policies that his father used to establish a ‘new world order’ according to the American ideology (Chapter 11). Bush Sr stated the need for ‘A new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations’ (p.295), but as Dr Abdul Rashid Moten highlights, it is this unilateral policy that was used to establish America as the world’s sole hegemonic super power. The best example for both presidents is their Iraq legacy. Moten investigates how the US used its corrupt policies to establish its global primacy, showing how both Gulf Wars were key factors in shaping the global community as we see it today. It was on the pretext of liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein that ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ began in March 2003, the US are now seen as invaders and occupiers in pursuit of ‘imperial greed’- securing Iraqi oil and establishing US military bases within Iraq.
Bush Jr and his administration’s ‘axis of evil’ include Iran. The obsession with Iran’s nuclear programme has lead to a lot of ‘misunderstanding and misinformation’ and due to this has become an issue in the international arena. Dr Choudhury Shamim analyses the debate that surrounds nuclear weapons and looks at the role certain Western countries (US, the EU and Israel) have played, as well as other countries (Russia, India, China and Pakistan) in creating this need for nuclear power. Some academics believe that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East will in fact ‘stabilise the Arab-Israeli conflict’, others are not so optimistic. Again one almost becomes immune to the US double standards that are in place where Israel is concerned. Shamim interestingly analyses the role the United Nations has played (p. 341-343) and relationships between certain countries in support and against Iran and its nuclear development programme. The lack of dialogue between the US and Iran, is key and needs to be resolved in order for understanding and their general relationship to improve, although the author highlights on several occasions, Iran under President Ahmedinejad have tried to create avenues of dialogue that were continuously ignored by the Bush administration. How wise this is, the author and the reader are left to wonder.
The final blot on the Bush administration has to be the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Dr Wahabuddin Ra’ees analyses how Afghanistan, a country once thought to be ‘of little global importance’ soon became ‘strategically significant’ in terms of propelling America’s unilateral designs. Ra’ees suggests that it is through America’s imperialistic greed that it sought out to gain access to Afghanistan’s abundance of natural resources, as well as curb any threat to its agenda in becoming the one and only hegemonic super power. He describes the rise of anti-Soviet resistance groups and illustrates a vivid picture of the US and its ‘disinterested engagement’ policy that abandoned the Afghans leading them ‘to the brink of [a] humanitarian disaster of unimaginable dimensions’. Like previous authors, Ra’ees ends by throwing caution to the wind and suggests that post 9/11, lessons should be learnt and that America should adopt a more engaging policy and empower the local Afghan communities to develop and administer themselves, warning ‘the US needs Afghanistan as much as Afghanistan needs the US’ (p.374).
The closing chapter briefly analyses the legacy left behind for the new president of the United States, Barak Hussein Obama, who the reader is reminded once again is ‘not a Muslim’(p.382). Hossain looks at how America can move forward to mend its relations with the Muslim world, and briefly summarises Obama’s foreign policies for the countries aforementioned.  With Palestine, he intimates that a more inclusive and engaging policy is required, including an open dialogue with Hamas, the elected government of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He scrutinises Obama’s choices for his cabinet and even though many in the Muslim world are sceptical as to how much change he will bring, Hossain is optimistic and believes that his multilateral and engaging approach can only improve affairs, home and away. As Hossain poetically concludes:
‘Undoubtedly, Obama has his plate full. But one should have the audacity to dream as nothing gets done without it.’ (p. 396)
A revealing and insightful book, ‘American Foreign Policy and the Muslim World’ is useful in that it explains all the different processes and key players in US foreign policy making. Some of the chapters leave the reader with more questions than answers, although that is to be expected on a topic of such complexities. One lesson, amongst many, that will be understood by Muslim and non-Muslim alike, is that in order for the global community to move forward, policies informed by notions of imperialism and hegemony need to be drastically transformed and substituted with policies that are enveloped in equality, justice and self determination. (MEMO)

Sunday 19 December 2010

Masses losing trust in democratic politics


Two in five do not trust politician. This is the striking result from a new survey of British social attitudes and confirms just how few people have any faith in politics or politicians.
Perhaps it is little surprising given the charge sheet against politicians. In the last week alone Liberal Democrat leaders voted in parliament to increase university fees despite actively campaigning and pledging during May’s General election that they would oppose any increase if elected.
Little wonder ‘Sell-out’, ‘Betrayal’ and ‘Lies’ are some of the quotable descriptions being used in student circles to express their utter disgust at the duplicitous behaviour of politicians. While students have been quick to blame politicians for not keeping the pledges they were elected upon the MPs have merely demonstrated the stark reality of democratic politics.
The study, which charts social attitudes over the last three decades, has found that mistrust in politics was now four times higher than it was in the mid-80s. Researchers maintain confidence in the political system had never been particularly high in anycase.
Before the General election the public were dismayed and horrified at all manner of expenditure that politicians charged to MPs expenses. Of the 630 odd MPs two thirds were implicated in the MPs expenses row yet only three are being prosecuted on criminal charges exposing the abuse as systematic and inherently associated with the way in which parliament operates.
MPs taking ‘cash for questions’ and offering consultancy services like ‘sort of cabs for hire’ are other examples of how public confidence in politics has been severely dented.
Such endemic failure can not be deflected away by blaming on a few ‘bad apples’ or some ‘black sheep’.
The British political establishment has failed to convince people at home about the merits of democracy yet is eager to impose democracy by the barrel of the gun through invading and occupying Muslim nations.
It is extraordinary that in Britain with one of the most developed democracies in the world – sometimes described as the mother of all parliaments – 40% have lost trust in the political system. Yet Muslims are supposed to welcome this system in their countries, and are derided as ‘extreme’ if they criticise, oppose or propose alternative ways of political engagement.
In much the same way as the economic crisis exposed capitalism’s inherent flaws increasing numbers have lost faith in politicians and the political system as they see through the veneer over democracy. (HTB)

Home          Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Tuesday 14 December 2010

UK ‘Student clashes, another step towards Anarchy?’

On the evening of Thursday 9th December 2010 the streets of London descended into violent chaos.



A planned peaceful demonstration in the heart of London provoked angry clashes with the police, leaving some police and protestors seriously injured. Cars and buildings were vandalised, and ordinary passersby were shocked as the centre of the capital of the UK became gridlocked.
The cause of this anger was the vote in Parliament to increase University fees for students by up to 200%. The policy will mean thousands of young people will start their working lives with debts of around £27,000, whilst student finance companies make huge profits – as they do in countries like the United States.
A question emerges: Is this a sign of a political crisis for Britain?
There are several reasons for thinking so, that go beyond anger directed at the policy.
The truth is that there has been a haemorrhaging of trust in politicians.
Ten years after believing ‘things could only get better’, British voters despised Tony Blair, in whom they had invested so much hope. Blair’s era in government had been characterised by spin, lies and deceit – most famously justifying the war on Iraq upon a false premise.
Following this, British voters saw their MPs cheating them over expenses.
Now, one of the ruling parties in the governing coalition, the Liberal Democrat Party, which had pledged before the election’s to abolish student fees, have been pivotal in voting in the new policy to charge higher fees.
This has led to a new low in trust for politicians.
However, Muslims are constantly told that they should trust the politicians who promise the earth at election times, but betray those policies when they achieve power.
There is no significant divide between any of the parties on any major issue. There are merely shades of grey. This leaves people with a political system that looks after the interests of big business, landowners, the rich and other elite.
There is no fundamental difference between democracy in Britain, or in Pakistan, Bangladesh or elsewhere. It has become, inevitably, government by the people, of the people, for the richest and most powerful faction of the people. (HTB)

Home            Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

UK Students learn hypocrisy of democracy



Parts of London have been turned into a mini-Kabul with all law and order dissolving amid scenes of riots and rampage. With anti-student fee’s protesters clashing with police, fighting amongst themselves and even attacking the private car of Prince Charles. London at one point really was burning.



The proposals to increase University fee’s has been deeply unpopular since they were first announced and as the date got closer for the bill to be passed through parliament the protests by students have got louder and bigger. The fact that the Liberal Democrats vowed to never let this happen and now in government (albeit a coalition) they seem to be going back on their word, has just added to the anger. It has to be remembered that the Liberal Democrats gained a large portion of the student vote on the policy of not increasing University fee’s, so Nick Clegg being labeled a liar amongst other things seem on the surface fully justified.
It has been clear from day one of the Con-Lib coalition that the Conservatives are the ones pulling the strings with the Liberal Democrats simply there for the ride. The University fees issue has just added more weight to this.
Many would say that the scenes of tens of thousands of students marching up and down the country, setting fire to buildings and attacking police are all part of a healthy democracy. The right to protest and have your voice heard are things that Western democracies have gone to war to ensure other regimes implement. So seeing in on their own streets must be gripping.
However a closer look at the reasons and why’s of the protests show not a healthy political system but a dysfunctional one. The University fees issue lays bare the myth of an elected democratic political system, where a man knocks on your door, promises you the earth to gain your vote and then betrays you once in power.
The fact of the matter is no matter what anyone thinks they are stuck with the Con-Lib coalition until the next election (barring a collapse). The bill for the University fees was passed with a majority of 21, and it will soon be law. What this means is that putting a little X in a box every four or five years holds no value when it comes to actual accountability of the ruling party. The students who did or didn’t vote for the Liberal Democrats are all in the same boat, they can do nothing to stop being sold out. Promises mean noting to politicians in Western democracies as it is more about getting into power, than keeping your voters happy.
Spontaneous mass protests are usually seen against totalitarian regimes and not against elected governments in the West. So the fact that many thousands would rather protest than wait to vote the coalition government out speaks volumes. No one really believes in the hype of voting making a difference, because it clearly doesn’t. Even when the mass populace protest the law makers still see it fit to follow the path that is financially more palatable. Strength of opinion is secondary to the bottom line, if the government no longer wishes to provide free University education, it won’t. The students can kick and scream all they want the decisions are made not by the people but about the people. As Margaret Thatcher famously said “…You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning!”.
When you have a system that renders the politicians immune from any type of real scrutiny or questioning by the mass public you see the scenes being played out in London today.(HTB)
Home           Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)