Probably one of the US Administration's
major foreign policy changes under President Obama has been its
policy vis-a-vis the Middle East. Even though the thought behind this
new policy is not new and has been in the making for quite some time,
it is now actively being put into practice. Overall, based on results,
the new doctrine is still considered quite ambiguous in its
application and maybe for the moment at least it should be called a “work in progress”.
Among some of the new policies
featured in this policy is that it aims to show the US supports
the so-called Middle East Democracy Movement, which intends to
overthrow military and theocratic dictatorships in the Middle East,
and replace them with democratic and freely elected governments.
On
the other hand the US has also been quite adamant as to which
countries they consider "untouchables" within this new
Middle East policy. These are Saudi Arabia and a few other Arabian
Gulf oil producing states. Apart from being major oil suppliers to
the US and European petroleum industry they are also major buyers of
US and European arms. On December 29 last year, the White House
announced that it was sending nearly $30 billion worth of F-15
fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, as part of a $60 billion package—the
largest arms deal in US history. Towards the beginning of 2007 Saudi
Arabia also bought 72 Eurofighters for some euro 7.5 billion from BEA
systems, a European military aircraft consortium.
Moderate Islam – the
Gülen movement
Another part of the “revised” US
Middle East policy has been the support for what some US policymakers
describe as, “moderate Islamic” governments. These are Islamic
oriented Governments which have been democratically elected by a
majority of the population, but who are in general friendly in relation to the US and their allies foreign policies.
Closely associated with this “new”
policy and actively involved in the creation of a palatable “Islam
Lite” has been Turkey's Gülen movement, which promotes service for
the common good, and which today probably has grown into the world's
largest Muslim network. From Kazakhstan to Brazil and Indonesia,
this new Islamic network is attracting millions of followers - and
billions of dollars.
The Gülen movement was created and
inspired by Fethullah Gülen, a previously little-known Turkish Iman,
who today is not only very well known in Muslim circles around the
world, but also considered quite controversial by his critics. Mr.
Gülen presently lives under the protection of the US on a country
estate in Pennsylvania. Today the Gülen movement is linked to
more than 1,000 schools in 130 countries as well as think-tanks,
newspapers, TV and radio stations, universities - and even a bank.
This massive network is unlike anything else. It has no formal
structure, no visible organization and no official membership.
In his writings and oral addresses,
Gülen prefers the term hoshgoru (literally means, “good view”)
as opposed to “tolerance.” Conceptually, the former term
indicates actions of the heart and the mind that include empathy,
inquisitiveness, reflection, consideration of the dialog partner’s
culture, and respect for their positions. The term “tolerance”
which is often applied in Europe and specially in the Netherlands
does not capture the notion of “hoshgoru” according to the Gülen
movement. Elsewhere, Gülen finds even the concept of hoshgoru
insufficient, and employs terms with more depth in interfaith
relations, such as respect and an appreciation of the positions of
dialog partners of another faith.
The resources Gülen references in the
context of dialog and empathic acceptance include the Qur’an, the
prophetic tradition, especially lives of the companions of the
Prophet, the works of great Muslim scholars and Sufi masters,
and finally, the history of Islamic civilization. Among his Qur’anic references, Gülen alludes
to verses that tell the believers to represent humility, peace and
security, trustworthiness, compassion, and forgiveness (The Qur’an,
25:63, 25:72, 28:55, 45:14, 17:84), to avoid armed conflicts and
prefer peace (4:128), to maintain cordial relationships with the “people of the book,” and to avoid
argumentation (29:46). But perhaps the most important references of
Gülen with respect to interfaith relations are his readings of those
verses that allow Muslims to fight others. Gülen positions these
verses in historical context to point out one by one that their
applicability is conditioned upon active hostility. In other words,
in Gülen’s view, nowhere in the Qur’an does God allow fighting
based on differences of faith.
Turkey
Present day Turkey is the major link
for this new US “Islam Lite” Gülen political strategy. Other
countries successful electoral platforms based on the“Islam Lite”
theory were advanced by “Ennahda" in Tunisia and the "Parti
de la Justice et du Développement" (PJD) in Morocco. Both
represent manifestations of this moderate Muslim trend, inaugurated
by the AKP through Gülen in Turkey, and now even controversially
followed by Hamas in Palestine. A similar form of this "Islam
Lite" style of Government was also established in Libya, following
the overthrow of the Gaddafi family dictatorship.
Egypt
Egypt, which has just recently chosen
its first Democratically elected President will be another country to
watch in this new line-up of "moderate Islamic Nations".
Here the "Islamic Brotherhood" is in the drivers seat.
In the past this group has made its goals, certainly not as moderate
as the Gülen movement, known. Among them; to develop an Islamic state
dictated by Shariah Law. Many critics, including some in the
Egyptian military believe that the newly elected President will
oversee a slow ebbing away of religious freedoms in Egypt, by giving
more license to the Muslim Brotherhood to institute conservative
Islamist policies in the country, and that this would eventually make
life more restrictive and discriminatory toward the Coptic Christian
minority. Reality is that the people who removed Hosni Mubarak from
power can and will also do the same with their new President Morsi if
he steps away from the Democratic course for which they elected him.
Israel
Looking at a new dawn of democracy in
the Middle East one can not overlook Israel. Where does Israel fit
into this picture ? Contrary to popular belief Israel is probably not
seen by the new Middle East Democratic movement as a negative force.
To the contrary, Israel is the only country in the Middle
East with a true and functional Democratic parliamentary system and
the Institutional structure to go with it. In this capacity it could be of great
benefit as a model and partner for the new democratically elected
Middle Eastern governments. Israel certainly has the capability to play a major
role in a changed Middle East and Arabs and Jews should not fear to
jump over their own shadows to get this cooperation started. It would certainly give them far more flexibility if this could avoid having the US, the EU
or the Russians looking over their shoulders.
Israel also occupies a historic place
in the region. Its location was and still is strategically important
as a doorway to the Middle East in every respect. In the past Israel
was periodically invaded and occupied by the Egyptians, Persians,
Greeks, and Romans. These diverse cultures helped shape the
development of two major religions to come out of Israel - Judaism
and Christianity and indirectly also played a major part in the
creation of Islam.
Islam
When Mohammed married a
widow named Khadijah, who owned several trading caravans, he often had to interact with an Arab
tribe known as the Hanefites. These were Arabs who had rejected idol
worship and were searching for the true "one God religion". They
specifically looked to the religions of the Jews and Christians,
which they considered very close to their own beliefs. To avoid persecution they often
also retreated to the caves of Mecca for meditation and prayer and Mohammed given his business relation with the Hanefites
frequently joined them in these prayers.
In the year 610 AD after many years of
meditation together with the Hanefites Mohammed had his
first super natural vision. He was in a cave on Mt. Hera and at first
thought he was demon possessed. He immediately went to his wife
Khadijah and told her about the event. She consulted with her uncle
Waraca, a Hanefite who had converted to Christianity, and he assured
them that Mohammed's vision was from God. Waraca than declared to
the Arab people that Mohammed was a prophet ….and the rest is
history.
Judeo-Christian
Obviously another major component of
this Middle East religious mosaic are the Christians.
The Hoover Institute Press at Stanford
University in the US published a short booklet by Dr. Malik that
probably should be required reading for anyone concerned with the
fate of ancient Christian communities throughout the Middle East,
including the Holy Land, Islamism and the Future of the Christians of
the Middle East that can be read in one sitting. Its brevity is an
advantage: a concise mind and an accomplished pen distilling a vast
amount of knowledge and experience into only 68 pages. George Weigel
a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
in Washington, D.C., with even greater brevity, highlighted several
of the book’s key points.
1) Middle East Christians today have
had two distinct historical experiences. One is an experience of
freedom. The other is an experience of being a dhimmi, a second-class
citizen existing on the sufferance of the Muslim majority in an
Islamic state.
2) Ninety percent of Christian Arabs
live in conditions of dhimmitude today, including the Copts in Egypt,
the Chaldeans and Assyrians in Iraq, and the Greek Orthodox and
Melkites in Syria, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. These are
the Christians at the greatest risk from Islamism and jihadism.
3) Christians who have been subjugated
for generations have, over time, “lost all sense of what it meant
to experience a life of true liberty.” Thus they have developed a
variety of survival strategies which, having been thoroughly
internalized, now seem natural: kowtowing to authority; accepting
benefactions from dictators like Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Assad
dynasty in Syria; remaining silent in the face of atrocities
committed against Christians by Islamists and other Muslims; blaming
the current problems of Christians in the Middle East on that great
bugbear, the State of Israel.
4) Christian communities in the Middle
East are also under tremendous pressure because their numbers are
shrinking while Muslim populations are growing. Emigration (to escape
persecution or to seek prosperity) has played a considerable role
here; so has contraception.
5) Both free Christian communities and
dhimmi Christian communities suffer from a paucity of
indigenous leadership. (Dr. Malik
doesn’t say it, but Weigel thinks he means both political
leadership and religious leadership.)
This has created another comparative disadvantage forChristian
communities in the Middle East. For their Muslim neighbors, having
rejected various secular ideologies, have increasingly turned to more
stringent (and thus more intolerant) forms of Islam in recent
decades—and have done so at a time when few Christian leaders,
clerical or lay, have been defending Christians’ rights, much less
proposing Christianity as an attractive alternative to secular
ideologies.
6) Western indifference to the fate of
Arab and other Middle Eastern Christians has also contributed to
their decline and their present peril. This blindness has also
imperiled the West. Vibrant Christian communities can be a check on
radical Islamism and jihadism by promoting Islamic moderation and
openness. In Malik’s own words:
“Such moderation is sure to be
strengthened when Muslims interact daily with confident fellow-native
adherents to a creed that does not condone suicide bombers, respects
women, is not out for religious domination, upholds the principle of
religious pluralism, is compatible with liberal
democracy, defends personal and group
rights, emphasizes the centrality of education, and is not
uncomfortable with many features of
modern secular living. Whenever local Christians have felt relatively
unmolested, they have acted as catalysts for positive change and as
conduits for some of
the West’s finest and most enduring
universal values, and this in turn has advanced Islamic tolerance and
moderation.”
The defense of religious freedom for
persecuted Christians in the Middle East is a moral obligation. It is
also a strategic imperative. Middle East Christians who share a
historical experience of freedom, or who can shake off the
psychological shackles of dhimmitude, are a strategic asset, not the
headache the US State Department usually imagines them to be".
It seems the world-wide Christian
community which has been relatively successful in spreading the
Gospel to most if not all countries around the world has stepped away
from actively supporting, funding and evangelizing with and for the
Christian communities in the Middle East.
With the new democratically elected
Arab leaders proclaiming they want to include all their citizens in
this democratization process there probably is no better time than
now for the Christian community to seek involvement and to actively
participate in this process.
For those who are willing to see the
light and accept the truth it is clear that there has always been an
historical and cultural link between Islam and Judeo-Christian values
and that coming to peaceful solutions on issues of importance to both
sides is far more important and productive than human conflict.
Specially at this point and time in history. The link between the
people of the Arab world, which includes Jews and Christians must be
reestablished based on mutual respect, human rights and democracy.
Conclusion
Hypothetically speaking, looking at the
saying, "if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and
all roads lead to Rome, then either Rome is hell, or hell is on the
way to Rome" ...it becomes quite clear that despite all the
so-called good intentions, the Middle East, based on the different
political, religious and strategic positions taken internally and
externally by the major world powers has become a powder keg which
can ignite at any moment.
Armageddon, believe it or not, is not
just a horrific biblical story, it is also a reality which could happen in an instant when someone somewhere
happens to press a button and unleash a barrage of nuclear tipped rockets on another nation.
Therefore, to avoid Armageddon in the world and to
create a favorable environment for all democratic processes to take
place, the world's major political and economic powers including;
Brazil, China, the EU, India, Russia and the USA need to agree on
taking two basic steps in relation to the Middle East, with no exceptions for
any country there. One dealing with weapons and
military capability/delivery and the other with oil reserves. This could probably best be done under the auspices of the United Nations. Important would be
that these steps, when not adhered to, must be made enforceable by
the UN through economic sanctions, or in the worst case scenario by
military force.
A) Middle East a non-military zone
dismantle all nuclear weapons in
the region
stop all enrichment of nuclear
fuel which can lead to the production of atomic weapons
stop all weapons sales and the
local production of these weapons, including the military delivery
systems of those weapons
dismantle all foreign military
bases
cut down the military forces of
every Middle Eastern country to not more than one division or less per country
B) Middle East Fair Trade Energy
Supply System
under the administration of OPEC
develop an open oil market supply system which would operate under
similar parameters as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or CPRS
Unfortunately, unless a miracle
happens, and mind you they happen sometimes, the likelihood that the
political and economic forces presently controlling our destiny on
the planet could get such a peaceful process underway is extremely
remote. For courage and vision are certainly not one of their
assets. Consequently the bottom-line seems to favor Armageddon before
enlightenment.
Another possible scenario would be that
the different players in the Middle East mentioned before in this
report would start working together based on their common, not foreign
interests, by taking matters directly in their own hands. It would be a
different approach from what people called the Middle East Revolution before,
in the sense that it would start a peace process from the bottom up
and without any outside influences.
Again, the chances for success for such
a scenario are also pretty doubtful. Influential and often also
negative internal and external forces would probably again be extremely difficult to
contain in this case.
Taking everything into consideration,
maybe a miracle is still the best we can hope for? That at least is
certainly worth the prayers of Muslims, Jews and Christians.
THE MIDDLE EAST: Enlightenment or Armageddon? - by RM
To
republish or circulate contact
