A young, charismatic and intelligent man, Mr. Barack Obama has entered the presidential office and historians have already noted his name in golden words as the first black American President. Notwithstanding his popular slogan for 'change', his election itself symbolizes change in the way the Americans and the world now views America, which has been called a 'land of opportunities', even by some presidents before Mr. Obama. The tearful eyes of Africo-American men and women at the inauguration brought memories of the long and bitter struggle of non-whites to be treated as equal amongst all whites and made many recall Martin Luther King and his tireless efforts to bring parity between all men, whether black or white.
Mr. Obama's speech, although refreshing and inspiring for many fellow Americans and the world, failed to mention the killings of numerous Palestinians and injuries sustained by them what to talk about the devastation of homes and the livelihood for those surviving. Israel, which committed the most horrific crimes against humanity and modern acts of terrorism, was not even mentioned. His questionable silence while he was president-elect and had not taken oath and Israel was conducting the mass destruction also raises eyebrows in the Muslim world over his ability and intent to resolve the Middle East issue and peace in the region which can only be guaranteed after the Palestinians are granted a State. The institutionalization of the American system by Jewish interests as well as the capacity of Jews to influence lobbyists and the media has made even a charismatic President who rides on the back of an overwhelming majority of the American people a hostage when it comes to Israel and distinguishing right from wrong.
Although Mr. Obama stated that the choice between safety and the ideals of the American system was a flawed one and it makes sense considering the impact of Bush's policies vis a vis issues such as the Guantanamo prison, the Palestinians and the Muslims must be wondering why prudence does not dictate that their case be issued in that perspective and their annihilation be at least condemned. Were the founding fathers only talking about a particular period of time and limited to particular parts of the world? Not so according to Mr. Obama who followed up by words which emphasized that the charter arising out of these ideals were timeless and were outlined in a charter carried through generations and applied universally. How then can we justify such apparent dichotomy between the actions and the words of the new President and hope for a peaceful Middle East and the reduction of resentment in the Muslim world?
His direct referral to the 'Muslim world' and words which share an intent to improve relations with this 'Muslim world' have been applauded by many, including Muslim leaders and fellow citizens in that it provides a ray of hope that the West would understand their problems and may mend its ways in arenas which hurt their interest the most. However, we must as Muslims remain cautious since tangible steps have to be taken by the new American administration which seeks to remove the reasons for discord. Perhaps Mr. Obama should have included the readiness of the new administration to look into such areas of discord in his inaugural address but instead the somewhat optimistic words were followed by a note of caution for those who 'seek to sow conflict'. Furthermore, the mere referral by him to the 'Muslim world' signifies the division that has engulfed the present generation between the West and the 'Muslim World' and provides substance to the Huntington's theory of the Clash of Civilizations based on religions and which reinforces the belief as if the two are separate and distinguishable and areas of conflict would prevail in one way or the other.
Pakistan, finds a brief mention in his foreign policy statement which was issued by the White House. According to it, non military aid would be increased and Pakistan would be held accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan. What is not mentioned is the acknowledgment of the contribution that Pakistan has already made and the casualties it has suffered as well as the growing concern of Pakistanis over the drone attacks in its territory by the C.I.A. operated planes which have been resented by the local tribal people who have suffered enough innocent casualties to invite an appraisal of the whole operation of such attacks. Perhaps if Pakistan had lobbied its case well in the Democratic camp as well as acted through diplomacy to exert pressure on the U.S. via friendly states as well as bilaterally, we may have been able to achieve this concession from the U.S. administration currently dependent on Pakistan's support for its so called 'war on terror'. The fact that the killings of innocent civilians by such attacks increases the resentment amongst Muslims and give birth to militants who attack U.S. interests around the globe is considerably understated by those in favour of carrying indiscriminate attacks to kill an 'ideology' adhered to by unmarked people rather than an armed, uniformed and organized movement.
Additionally, the intent of Mr. Obama to increase the U.S. and NATO military presence in Afghanistan is not welcome. It would result in an increased sense of alienation and subjugation amongst Muslims in the world and the Taliban and the like-minded bodies would gain sympathy in the region merely for surviving the onslaught. The United States need to draw lessons from the demise of the Soviet Union, the insurmountable difficulties in Afghanistan as well as the determination of its people, many of whom adhere to beliefs of Taliban and like-minded entities. As the slain former President John Kennedy said in his inaugural address that those riding on the back of the tiger may end up inside it, the United States needs to pull back before history takes its course.
On the whole, much needs to be done and the words so far used by him are neither sufficient nor comprehensive to underline his intent to first understand Muslims directly, as opposed to merely interacting with monarchs and corrupt democracies and then trying to eradicate the unjust actions of the United States which results in their alienation.
Mr. Obama's speech, although refreshing and inspiring for many fellow Americans and the world, failed to mention the killings of numerous Palestinians and injuries sustained by them what to talk about the devastation of homes and the livelihood for those surviving. Israel, which committed the most horrific crimes against humanity and modern acts of terrorism, was not even mentioned. His questionable silence while he was president-elect and had not taken oath and Israel was conducting the mass destruction also raises eyebrows in the Muslim world over his ability and intent to resolve the Middle East issue and peace in the region which can only be guaranteed after the Palestinians are granted a State. The institutionalization of the American system by Jewish interests as well as the capacity of Jews to influence lobbyists and the media has made even a charismatic President who rides on the back of an overwhelming majority of the American people a hostage when it comes to Israel and distinguishing right from wrong.
Although Mr. Obama stated that the choice between safety and the ideals of the American system was a flawed one and it makes sense considering the impact of Bush's policies vis a vis issues such as the Guantanamo prison, the Palestinians and the Muslims must be wondering why prudence does not dictate that their case be issued in that perspective and their annihilation be at least condemned. Were the founding fathers only talking about a particular period of time and limited to particular parts of the world? Not so according to Mr. Obama who followed up by words which emphasized that the charter arising out of these ideals were timeless and were outlined in a charter carried through generations and applied universally. How then can we justify such apparent dichotomy between the actions and the words of the new President and hope for a peaceful Middle East and the reduction of resentment in the Muslim world?
His direct referral to the 'Muslim world' and words which share an intent to improve relations with this 'Muslim world' have been applauded by many, including Muslim leaders and fellow citizens in that it provides a ray of hope that the West would understand their problems and may mend its ways in arenas which hurt their interest the most. However, we must as Muslims remain cautious since tangible steps have to be taken by the new American administration which seeks to remove the reasons for discord. Perhaps Mr. Obama should have included the readiness of the new administration to look into such areas of discord in his inaugural address but instead the somewhat optimistic words were followed by a note of caution for those who 'seek to sow conflict'. Furthermore, the mere referral by him to the 'Muslim world' signifies the division that has engulfed the present generation between the West and the 'Muslim World' and provides substance to the Huntington's theory of the Clash of Civilizations based on religions and which reinforces the belief as if the two are separate and distinguishable and areas of conflict would prevail in one way or the other.
Pakistan, finds a brief mention in his foreign policy statement which was issued by the White House. According to it, non military aid would be increased and Pakistan would be held accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan. What is not mentioned is the acknowledgment of the contribution that Pakistan has already made and the casualties it has suffered as well as the growing concern of Pakistanis over the drone attacks in its territory by the C.I.A. operated planes which have been resented by the local tribal people who have suffered enough innocent casualties to invite an appraisal of the whole operation of such attacks. Perhaps if Pakistan had lobbied its case well in the Democratic camp as well as acted through diplomacy to exert pressure on the U.S. via friendly states as well as bilaterally, we may have been able to achieve this concession from the U.S. administration currently dependent on Pakistan's support for its so called 'war on terror'. The fact that the killings of innocent civilians by such attacks increases the resentment amongst Muslims and give birth to militants who attack U.S. interests around the globe is considerably understated by those in favour of carrying indiscriminate attacks to kill an 'ideology' adhered to by unmarked people rather than an armed, uniformed and organized movement.
Additionally, the intent of Mr. Obama to increase the U.S. and NATO military presence in Afghanistan is not welcome. It would result in an increased sense of alienation and subjugation amongst Muslims in the world and the Taliban and the like-minded bodies would gain sympathy in the region merely for surviving the onslaught. The United States need to draw lessons from the demise of the Soviet Union, the insurmountable difficulties in Afghanistan as well as the determination of its people, many of whom adhere to beliefs of Taliban and like-minded entities. As the slain former President John Kennedy said in his inaugural address that those riding on the back of the tiger may end up inside it, the United States needs to pull back before history takes its course.
On the whole, much needs to be done and the words so far used by him are neither sufficient nor comprehensive to underline his intent to first understand Muslims directly, as opposed to merely interacting with monarchs and corrupt democracies and then trying to eradicate the unjust actions of the United States which results in their alienation.
No comments:
Post a Comment