Turk Leaders Religious, but Economy Strong
By Bashir Goth
The minute the victory of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) was declared, Turkey's stock market jumped to a record high. The local business community welcomed the AKP victory as a choice of stability and continued economic prosperity over instability and chaos, while foreign investors hailed the AKP government's handling of the economy even before the elections were held.

With 7% average economic growth over the last five years, the Turkish people voted with their pockets and for the continuity of the economic and social stability of the country. Who cares whether the prime minister's wife wears a headscarf, when you know you can get a good job, send your children to a good school, and have the government assurance that it will not interfere in your personal life regarding such issues as what your daughter or son wears at the beach or on the street, or whether you desire to spend your night in the mosque or the bar.

I was watching the AKP rallies during the elections and I saw women wearing the latest Western fashion trends and hairstyles and youths of all walks of life all supporting the Islamist-rooted AKP. After living almost five years under the AKP rule, these people would have kicked out Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party if they had failed on the economic front, infringed in any way upon people's personal rights or stifled freedom of speech. But the fact voters returned them to power with an overwhelming majority speaks louder and clearer than whatever humbug uninformed political pundits breathe into the unassuming media.

Secularism is enshrined in the Turkish constitution and the AKP government has proven its respect for it day after day over the last four and half years they were in power. Even amid the euphoria of his victory, Erdogan was quick to reassure the Turkish people that his government would safeguard and respect the country's principles and the rich diversity of its people.

With his previous record right before our eyes, there is no reason to assume that Mr. Erdogan will not live up to his promise. To suspect the AKP of having a hidden Islamic agenda because its leaders observe Islamic rituals or their wives wear headscarves is like inviting Muslims to look with suspicion at Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union because it carries the word Christian in its name. In fact one may argue that the AKP are ostensibly less rigid in their religiosity than George W. Bush. I don’t recall anytime they claimed God to be on their side.

The election victory of AKP is a gain for secularism because liberal views and personal freedoms cannot thrive without economic prosperity, and the AKP brought economic boom to Turkey and promises more. It is again that economic growth that will stem the primary sources of social ills and deprive extremism of one of its favorite breeding grounds.

Embracing the AKP, therefore, and allowing Turkey to join the EU will not only be a visionary step forward and an initiative for reconciliation with the Muslim world, but it will also deal a fatal blow to the fallacy of the clash of civilizations and expose the Islamists' hollow argument that the West is against Islam as a religion. To shun Turkey's AKP will not only be to repeat the bitter experiment of Algeria, but it will make the West-Islam gulf irreparable.Read more in Washington Post

Faisal Waraabe got it right
By Bashir Goth
As Somaliland slides towards tribal fragmentation in the run up to the presidential elections to be held early 2008, there is only one politician who has been correctly reading the signs of the impending doom and warning people against falling into the abyss.

Contrary to his brand rhetorical gaffes, Faisal Ali Waraabe has lately been using his words with caution and precision. At a time when the ruling UDUB and the major opposition Kulmiye parties have descended to their lowest by soliciting support through clan loyalties, Faisal decided to campaign on a national platform and rightly warned against the tribalization of Somaliland politics.

He is the only opposition politician who rejected to capitalize on the current political imbroglio resulting from the arrest of the leaders of “Qaran party”. While most of the opposition leaders in Kulmiye and even MPs from Faisal’s UCID party, including the Speaker of the Lower House, decided to put the cart before the horse, Faisal has again rightly behaved like a responsible and law abiding politician. He pointed out that it was the government’s duty to safeguard the country’s constitution and ensure that all citizens abide by its provisions. He also demanded that the arrested politicians be brought to court without any delay.

Measuring his moves wisely and carefully, he refused to go with the herd mentality of blanket condemnation of every action the government takes.

No one denies that the government has been committing blunder after blunder lately, particularly in its repeated and unwarranted detention of journalists. We all demand that the government should not infringe on citizens’ personal rights and stifle people’s freedom of expression, but it should also be known that as Faisal has rightly pointed out that the government is responsible for the country’s peace and stability. And with that comes obligations to make unpopular decisions and take tough actions on certain occasions.

The arrest of the “Qaran Party” leaders, as unpopular as it may seem to be, comes within the government’s legitimate jurisdiction to deal with situations it deems harmful to the stability, peace and security of the nation.

Regardless of the constitutional debate on the legitimacy of founding a political party other than the existing ones, it is the ABC of democratic systems that any person or group of persons who want to form a political grouping should go through legal registration and licensing procedures. Any attempt to create any form of political organization without going through the proper channels is not only an upfront to the constitution but reeks of sheer arrogance and selfish political opportunism.

It is also obvious from the government’s statements that the leaders of the “Qaran party” were not arrested for expressing their opinions as ordinary citizens per se, but they have been arrested for founding an illegal political party without going through the proper procedures. All that we should demand from the government now is to prove its accusation in a court of law and as soon as possible. It is there and then where the legality of the government’s action should be decided and not through tribal sentiments and emotional outbursts.

Faisal Ali Waraabe is therefore one politician who took the moral high ground by campaigning on national agenda rather than on tribal arrogance, while other big names have fallen flat by invoking old clichés, opening old wounds and trying to bask in retired slogans.

Well, we may argue that we don’t have the best government on earth, but we have to also admit that no government will be good enough for us unless we become law-abiding citizens. For as long as clan loyalties stay above the law, as long as we view the man in the presidency as a tribal chief rather than an elected leader, as long as we support politicians on the color of their tribal flags and not on their national agenda, then we have to know that we cannot escape ending up as another Somalia. The choice is ours and at least we have one political leader who can say: “I told ya so.” Faisal Waraabe has got it right and it is worth listening to him before it is too late. Read more in Awdalnews

Don't Treat Russia like a Third World Country
By Bashir Goth
Answering this question led me to consider several other questions: "Why does the West treat Russia like a Third World country? Why, whenever Russia cooperates in one area, does the West demand an arm and a leg in others?" Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has tried to ingratiate itself with the West, sometimes at the expense of its own pride, sovereignty and national interests. It went along with the West in dismantling former Yugoslavia and allowed the U.S. to deploy forces to its borders to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, although the real objective was to gain access to the Central Asian countries' oil. It was not easy for Russia to lose its traditional friends and arms markets in North Korea, Iran and Iraq, but with a bit of pragmatism and statesmanship, it let the West have its way. It has only used its UN Security Council veto power two times since 1997, against 12 times by the U.S.

Russia also didn't show more than a whimper when the West began converting countries like Ukraine, Georgia and others against Russia under the pretext of spreading democracy, without giving much thought to the long-term impact that the instability in these countries could have on the security of Russia and the whole region. Not amused by Russia's patience and cool diplomacy, the America went for the jugular by announcing their much-hyped missile defense system, with the intelligence-insulting justification of protecting the U.S. and Europe from missiles coming from the technologically handicapped countries of the Middle East. As if all these provocations were not enough, the UK now presents its outrageous request for Russia to change its constitution so that a Russian suspect can be extradited to Britain.

In the light of these developments and looking at the issue from a Third World perspective, it is not difficult to agree with Putin's accusation of Britain behaving with a colonial mentality.

"It's their mindset, not our constitution, which needs to be changed. What they are offering to us is a clear remnant of colonial thinking," Putin said.

A more precise and more convincing statement also came from Alexander Solzhenitsyn who said: "The West was celebrating its victory after the exhausting Cold War. While observing the 15-year-long anarchy under Gorbachev and Yeltsin and surrendering of all positions abroad, the West quickly got accustomed to the idea that Russia had become almost a Third World country and would remain that forever. When Russia began to strengthen its economy and statehood, the West perceived that, perhaps on a subconscious level, with panic."

Common sense says that Britain could have received more cooperation from Russia on the Alexander Litvinenko case if they had opted for soft diplomacy, friendly persuasion and mutual respect instead of resorting to media hype, diplomatic spectacles and unnecessary provocation.

It is time for the West to realize that the Russia of today is not the Russia of Boris Yeltsin's scarecrow, but a real military power with a vast economic wealth at its behest. Treating Russia, therefore, with a bit of respect and equality will not only be good for West-Russia relations but for the security and prosperity of the whole world. Read more in Washington Post.

Progress by Whose Standards?
By Bashir Goth
Any claim of progress in Iraq may prompt the unavoidable question “progress by whose standards?” The White House’s claim is clear: by the standards of an administration that sold the invasion of Iraq as a war of liberation; that claimed that Saddam was a breath away from producing weapons of mass destruction and was part of a notorious Axis of Evil; that the U.S. army would be welcomed with roses in the streets of Baghad; that democracy and freedom would ring in the Arab and Islamic world; that Al Qaeda would be defeated and America would be safer.

Now, four years after Baghdad’s fall, one can sum up the progress achieved since then in the toppling of Saddam’s famous bronze statue, the capture of Saddam Hussein in a foxhole immortalized by Paul Bremer’s famous bravado “We got him,” his trial in a kangaroo court and gruesome hanging. Saddam Hussein dominated Iraq’s post-invasion history just like his personality and name had dominated Iraq in the prewar era. His unflinching disposition at the guillotine amid the vengeful behavior of his executors even allowed some to portray him as a latter day Uthmān ibn ‘Affān, the third Caliph of Islam who was killed by a vengeful mob.

Apart from the saga of Saddam, internecine killing and mayhem are on the rise in Iraq. The entire country has fallen to the hands of Al Qaeda and other mafia gangs. The Iraqi people have become divided into sects, tribes, ruthless assassin groups and innocent, helpless and hopeless civilians who fall like flies in daily suicide bombings. The post-Saddam American-installed juntas have all failed to come out from under the cloaks of the Iranian mullahs. The Maliki government gets protection and funds from Washington but lends its ear to Tehran. Iran has become more influential and feels more comfortable in the region than America. Tehran’s power is felt in Lebanon, Palestine, even as far as Yemen. It is in this context that the Iranian Supreme Leader’s media advisor recently claimed Bahrain was an Iranian territory. Call it a ruse or bait to keep America on the hook if you wish, but it sounds a bell in the Gulf region, particularly as Iran occupies three islands belonging to the United Arab Emirates.

Against this backdrop, one finds the rejection of the U.S. troop withdrawal proposal by the U.S. Congress as a bitter but inevitable pill to swallow. Hard as one may find it to associate himself with the policies of the White House, it seems this is the only right thing to do at present.

As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. Iraq’s invasion was wrong but it is also wrong that America turn its back on the Frankenstein it has created. The U.S. Congress and the American people may want to punish the Bush administration for committing such a historical and strategic blunder -- but not at the expense of Iraq whose whole existence is under threat, and surely not at the expense of the peace and security of the whole region from which America gets its oil. Read More in Newsweek/Washington Post

Djibouti: plying smoothly in troubled waters
By Bashir Goth, Khaleej Times, 17 July 2007=
THE Horn of African Republic of Djibouti has celebrated its 30th independence anniversary bearing the hallmarks of becoming the Dubai of East Africa. But this former French colony, perched on the Gulf of Aden at the southern entrance to the Red Sea, did not show any potential for future development when it gained its independence from France on 27 June 1977.


Not only did it sit on a harsh terrain of stony desert, with scattered plateaus and languished under torrid and dry climate, but it was also the bone of contention between two neighbouring, socialist, and belligerent regimes. On the southeast border Somalia under General Mohammed Siyad Barre was poised to bring Djibouti back to the Somali fold to fulfill its historical dream of uniting all Somali ethnic people in the Horn of Africa under one national flag, while Ethiopia on the west and south under Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam was ready to go to war over Djibouti to prevent its historical rival from grabbing its marine gateway.

Coming under France’s suzerainty in 1884 when European colonial powers divided the Somali peninsula among British, Italian and French domination areas, the people of Djitouti had shared the dream of unity with their fellow Somalis in the Horn of Africa. Djibouti’s economy, however, heavily relied on its populous neighbour Ethiopia since the Ethio-Djibouti railway became operational in 1901. Faced with the dilemma of either ditching his people’s nationalistic sentiment of uniting with Somalia or risking his country becoming a battleground, Djibouti’s Independence leader and first President Hassan Gouled Aptidon wisely steered his tiny new republic away from danger by declaring it as a sovereign state and allowing the French garrison to continue its presence in the territory for protection.

The new nation, however, didn’t have enough respite as the old demons came haunting her when Somalia and Ethiopia clashed over their old territorial dispute on the Somali region of Ethiopia, popularly known as the Ogaden. The railway was blown up and thousands of refugees sought resort in Djibouti, thus putting the country’s meager resources under intolerable strain. With the port, Djibouti’s sole revenue provider, suffering heavily from the war, the country had to survive by French and international aid. And with the Eritrean liberation struggle against Ethiopia at its height, Djibouti’s borders were all in flames at one time. It needed more than a miracle to survive. Read More in Khaleej Times.

Men Die for Other Men, Not for God
By Bashir Goth
Hard as it may seem, I can understand people rejecting change and determined to continue to live as the Prophet lived in the 14th century. But what I cannot understand is how they are able to twist the words and actions of the Prophet, in whom they so vehemently believe, and commit such inhuman crimes in his name.

There are in fact a number of Prophet Mohammad’s sayings and Quranic verses that glorify martyrdom. But as the commander-in-chief of the Muslim army, the Prophet may have encouraged martyrdom in the battlefield to raise the morale of his soldiers. With the absence of military rank, medals and all modern methods of honoring soldiers, and with his role as spiritual leader of his followers, Mohammad could only promise mystical rewards. Martyrdom was, therefore, limited to the battleground; the Prophet promised heavenly paradise to those who fell during battle. The holy Quran, meanwhile, admonishes Muslims not to count those killed fighting for Allah: “And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision,” says a verse 169 of Aal-Imraan chapter.

Despite this, it is indeed neither Prophet Mohammad nor the holy Quran that is to blame for today’s mayhem, simply because any rational human being would place these canonical texts in their historical perspective and realize that they applied to a different time, different world and different circumstances.

I am unaware of any occasion or record in which the Prophet or even the holy Quran sanctioned people to kill innocent children, women, elderly and non-combatant civilians in their homes, work places, mosques and schools. It is unfortunate that Islam -- which opened the minds of people to science and research, liberated man from the worship of rocks and sculptures, challenged human beings to think and reflect, which started its message with a veneration of the written word -- has been ossified into a dogma of death and ignorance. Read More in Washington Post.

Muslims Also Feel Unsafe, But Go AWOL
By Bashir Goth
Anger, frustration and helplessness; this is the feeling of the majority of sound-minded Muslims and Arabs I spoke to over the last few days. With people in the Middle East starting their summer vacations, many of them dread the harassment, humiliation and abuse waiting for them in Western airports. If it is difficult for the West to answer the recurring question of “Why do they hate us?” it is even more difficult for the majority of Muslims to find an answer as to why these terrorists decide to act in their name. There is indeed something rotten in the Muslim world, but the tragedy is that no one wants to point a finger at the source of the evil. They rather bury their heads in the sand and let the West do the dirty work and live with the consequences.

It looks as if the Arabs are used to the West fighting on their behalf all the time. One has to remember that it was the West that liberated the Arabs from the Ottoman Empire when Hitler was dinning with their leaders, the West that defended their oil fields and their kingdoms against communism when most of the Arab and Muslim countries were sleeping with the Soviet Union, the West that created and installed most of the Arab states, the West that stopped Israel and its allies from taking the Suez Canal when Nasser of Egypt nationalized it, the West that found and struck Arab oil, the West that defeated the Red Army in Afghanistan, the West that liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, the West that rescued Bosnian Muslims from annihilation, the West that removed Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who killed thousands of his people and was a perpetual source of threat to the peaceful oil producing Arab countries, the West that gave education, a respectful source of income, citizenship and dignity to millions of Arabs and Muslims who would have otherwise lived in poverty and ignorance or languished in the jails of Arab dictators.

It is no wonder, therefore, that the Arabs see the current war as a war between the West and Al Qaeda. Why should they bother to resist Al Qaeda when the West can fight on their behalf? It is not that they see bombings taking place in far away places such as New York, London, Madrid and elsewhere; nor it is a matter of parasitism. The terrorists also hit Arab and Islamic capitals everyday. I can see the breaking news as I write this piece that a suicide bomber killed foreign tourists and Yemenis in the ancient Yemeni city of Mareb. Yes, these people do not discriminate between a Muslim and a non-Muslim. They kill their fellow Muslims everyday in mosques. Their sole mission is to spread as much fear as they can. But it is easy to blame their actions on the West. It was the West that always defended the Arabs, so why should they worry now?

But imagine what will happen if the West withdraws all its troops and aircraft carriers from the Arab and Muslim world, if the U.S. troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, if America closes its bases in the oil rich Gulf countries? It will be Al Qaeda that will take over, and guess what? The new Al Qaeda-installed regimes would still need to sell oil to the West because they cannot survive without Western money, Western technology, Western arms, Western medicine, Western goods and Western education. So who will be the loser? The answer is anyone’s guess.

So the answer to the question is yes, Arabs and Muslims everywhere feel unsafe when Islamists bomb Western capitals, but they just go AWOL and pass the buck to the West. It may be time, therefore, that the West rethinks its strategy of fighting on behalf of the Muslim world and let the Muslims face their demons by themselves.Read more at Newsweek/Washington Post.