By Sapna Zaidi
The United States has entered a phase of diplomacy under the Obama administration that only recognizes a variety of Bush policies as arrogant, but tactically mistakes. By going on various foreign media offering friendship, bowing to Saudi authority as some critics harped fealty, and generously announcing "engagement" as the new buzz word, one has to asks what are the limits and "back up" plans if these strategies fail?
It is too early to tell, but the apparent conflict is already apparent in countries like Pakistan. By globally offering to engage with Islamists, the new administration is legitimizing a political-religious movement that does not recognize secularism, universal human rights and a "global community" of shared respect and responsibility between non-Muslim and Muslim states.
Consider the following:
Pakistan is the spoke-country for the OIC. It is currently on the brink of a civil war because its relationship to the barely governed northwest frontier province and even federally administered provincial areas, of which Swat is one, is now controlled by Taliban-esque forces. The Pakistani government can pretend that they are in control by giving the Islamists permission to implement Sharia , but the fact is the civilian government has no control. The issue in the next couple of months will not merely be a matter of further violence perpetrated by violent Islamists in the capital or in other parts of Pakistan, but the empowering of Islamist parties in Pakistan and Saudi stooges, like Nawaz Sharif.
Let's not forget Sharif spent ten years in exile in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the same country that has fomented Islamist activity in South Asia by funding thousands of hate spouting madrassas in Pakistan. These are the same madrassas that from Peshawar to Karachi indoctrinate children to want to kill non-Muslims at home and abroad, but also indoctrinates students to strive to implement sharia any way they can. If Islamists put their guns down, they will merely increase the power of political parties like the Jamaat-I-Islami (JI), who wish to rule Pakistan and all other nations by Sharia law.
"The JI envisions an Islamic government in Pakistan governing by Islamic law. It opposes Westernization-including capitalism, socialism, Secularism or such practices as bank interest, and liberalist social mores.[2] If empowered, human rights activists in Pakistan, free speech advocates, and any other secular democrats will further be marginalized in Pakistan. Moreover, Kashmir will become a full blown target on Pakistan's foreign policy. This increases the likelihood of proxy wars with India through organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba, who attacked hotels in Mumbai last November, 2008.
There are also repercussions for the United States directly. Newsweek editor, Fareed Zakaria, recently argued that it is time the West learned to live with radical Islam. Zakaria believes that Islamism is a phase Muslim nations need to go through to realize that Islam cannot solve the socio-political problems their nations face in the 21st century. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former Minnesota Rep. Vin Weber echoed this desire to "work with" non-violent Islamists, by supporting the recommendations a book entitled "Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World." Some "recommendations include:
1. Engaging Islamists who commit to "nonviolent participation in politics,
2. Not equating reform with secularism,
3. "Not supply[ing] additional ammunition to extremists by linking the term 'Islam' or key tenets of the religion of Islam with the actions of extremist or terrorist groups", and
4. Creating an educational program on Islam and Muslims comparable in scale" to "the more than $7 billion" invested in the "post-Sputnik U.S. commitment to math and science education" in middle and high schools, and colleges."
The current trend in US foreign policy is wrong. It ignores the repercussions supporting Islamists abroad will have in the US now and decades from now. Two false premises govern the "let's accept" radical Islam position. First, Islamism is an ideology that, while winning support under unique conditions in disparate Muslim societies, as Fareed Zakaria points out, it nevertheless is global due to its common goal - asserting Islam as a primary identity marker for Muslims wherever they may live.
The JI is a party with direct links to the Muslim Brotherhood, has ties to American Islamist organizations and is in direct conflict with American efforts to find a resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. "In August of 2006, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) announces on its website that its charity, the Al-Khidmat Foundation (AKF), gave $99,000 to the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, who in turn thanked the group for the money and said that Hamas would continue to wage war against Israelis."
"At the time of the money transfer to Hamas, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the American arm of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), was (and currently is) the top two donors to the Al-Khidmat Foundation (AKF). As well, ICNA's charity, Helping Hand, is also listed as a donor."
Non-violent Islamist policies are not limited to their anti-Israeli position. Pakistan is the spokes-nation for the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference). It is the largest organization after the UN, and for Muslims only. The OIC first target after Israel is free speech. On November 24, 2008, the U.N. passed a draft resolution against the defamation of religion sponsored by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), where all U.N. members are being asked to pass domestic legislation against blasphemy.
The resolution was originally introduced in 1999 by the OIC, asserting that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."
Fareed Zakaria is wrong in arguing that Islamism is a phase Muslims must go through to realize it can't solve their socio-political problems. Iran is the first counter-example to that argument. Islamists intentionally fail to distinguish their actions from politics and religion, and they maintain their control by force even with democratic institutions present.
Our soft policies on Islamism betray Muslims who fight futility to push their societies towards modern nationalism, universal human rights, equal rights for women and children, religious minorities and gays. Yet, our government is ignoring their voices by supporting the latter.
It may simply a tacit admission that we are not willing or able to fight Islamism the way we fought Communism. But, by failing to even acknowledge Islamists as a real threat we are allowing the growth of a "supra-national" citizenship, and the rise of a powerful Islamist lobby. Liberal, progressive Muslims in countries like Pakistan will be the first victims. At home, American foreign policy and western standards of human rights will be the next victim.
(Supna Zaidi is editor-in-chief of Muslim World Today and assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at zaidi@meforum.org)
