Interview with Dr.Luke Juran on Microcredit and its discontents

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Luke Juran is an expert on post-disaster recovery and recently graduated from the University of Iowa with a PhD in Geography. His interests are in post-disaster reconstruction, in particular, water and sanitation components of reconstruction and their role in both immediate short-term recovery and sustainable long-term development. His fieldwork was in South India.

LUke 3

In this short interview, he talks about microcredit, its evolution and impact in the developing world.

Q: How did you come to study microcredit/ microfinance?

Luke: University of Iowa runs winter courses, which are field courses in India involving environment and related areas. I signed up for one of these in my Master’s program (first year). I took a micro-credit course as I wanted to learn more about this field. This led me to discovering the field and its intricate connections to women’s empowerment, development and other issues.

When I signed up, anyone could do these courses and I knew I wanted to do development studies outside of the U.S and from that course onwards, I got involved, more deeply. Access to credit is a big problem in India (and other developing countries) and that is really the insight that the founders of microcredit had – to give small loans to those who desperately needed it, and also those who didn’t have access to a formal banking mechanism.

Q: What are the interest rates at Micro-finance institutions ( MFIs’). How do they compare with regular banks/ other outlets?

Luke: First off, people don’t realize that even many NGOs’ operate as banks. It doesn’t matter what they call the process. They borrow money and lend it out to individuals. There are operational costs that they have to cover, and also there could be losses in doing this. So, many NGOs’ charge high interest rates

MFIs’ are themselves borrowing money and charging interest to keep their operations going. One positive critique is that some of these NGOs’ act as a bridge to the formal banking market. When people take a loan and repay one or two loans, bringing them to a bank is easy. We vouch for them as a borrower, formal banks show more trust. This is turning into an industry in itself, and also has its criticisms now. The biggest positive outcome is that people who did not have access to credit earlier, now have it.

Q: So, is this a corporatization of the MFIs’?

Luke: In some ways yes, as it has become more profit oriented now. You have investors who are putting money, to make money. Folks who put money in IBM and other stocks, are investing in MFIs’. Consider  mixmarket.org for instance. This sprung up as an alternative and some of the same people are investing in this sector, as it provides an alternative to investing in a regular industry.

I don’t think micro-credit is a panacea nor a malevolent capitalist tool either. You need more control, norms; and there are lots of positives that have come from it.

Q: So, do you think micro lending is a fad?

Luke: Microcredit is here to stay and it hit the water-mark when Mohammed Yunus won the Nobel Prize. Since the prize was given, the model has received a lot of attention. As much good has come from this, many people have unscrupulously exploited it as well, leading to suicides, family breakdown and other calamities. Microcredit is not going away, simply because poor people need access to credit. It fulfills a genuine need. Some MFIs’ charge a higher interest rate than banks, but less than the moneylenders; and on more fair terms. Also, a positive externality is that they offer other programs like healthcare, scholarships, nutrition classes for children of borrowers.

Q: So, what is the way forward?

Luke: While there are no easy answers, I think we must first move away from profit oriented ventures and actually look at why they were started in the first place. They are rated like banks, Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s. The MFIs’ are rated too, depending on the rate of return etc. What is happening  is that the “micro-credit rating institutions” are rating the MFIs’. The largest one is called MCRIL, and its sole job is to rank them. These institutions were started for women’s rights and human rights. But ironically, they are not rating on social outcomes: enrolment rates, increase of education. Instead, the rating is done on return on investment, etc. Typically, an accountant comes in and looks at them like a financial bank and ranks them accordingly.

There’s no incentive to offer social programs in this model as the outcome being measured is very different from what it was intended to do. The rating institutions turn them into profit institutions. I believe that they shouldn’t be rated on how much money they make.

Dr.Luke Juran in India

Dr.Luke Juran in India

Q: Any concluding thoughts on this?

Luke: I am not sure that certain industries/ areas are ideally suited for microcredit. Agriculture is one of them. MFIs’ don’t suit them well because of weather variations. With the absence of crop insurance, what if a farmer loses his entire season of farming, due to bad Monsoons? Or if they don’t have access to pesticides. There are so many fluctuations of commodities as well as unpredictability of harvest season and then of course there are the middle-men to deal with too. If a farmer is unable to pay loans back, on a weekly basis, what does he do? Almost all the money is spent on buying seeds, tractor or other machinery. This is just one insight I am sharing with you. I believe that these things haven’t been thought through carefully.

“Afghanistan is at a turning point, and its future depends on support from other countries,” – Amy Friers

Posted on by
Reply

In a candid interview, Amy Friers, a native of Syracuse, NY, who is the Vice Chancellor of Diplomacy and International Studies Institute of Higher Education, Kabul, Afghanistan talks about her interesting journey from Syracuse, NY to Kabul; in her efforts to provide higher education to the people of Afghanistan.

1. Tell us a bit about yourself, education, and background and how you came to be in AfghanistanIMG_0901 IMG_0891 IMG_0516 DSC07522

Amy : I grew up in Upstate New York and never really traveled much when I was younger. I spent most of my time researching some topic or another. I have always been very curious. In 1996, I read a magazine article about the Taliban taking over Kabul and closing all the schools for girls. I became very interested in understanding how something like that could happen, so I started reading everything I could find about Afghanistan, and I’ve never really stopped. Even back then I wanted to come here, but I never thought it would be possible.

A few years ago, while I was studying at SU, I decided to take Farsi. I thought it would help me in my research to be able to read documents in the local language. A friend of mine offered to introduce me to an Afghan who could help me study for a test, and to make a long story short; we got engaged about a year later. When we graduated, he decided he would move back to Afghanistan and I decided to go too. (Despite having only left the US to go to Canada at that point). I found a job at a university in Kabul and worked there for about a year before my husband and I started our own university.

2. Tell us about how your education at Maxwell School of Syracuse University helped you in your journey?

Amy : My studies at Maxwell gave me a lot of the skills, confidence and contacts I need to be successful here. I also learned a lot more about the history and politics of the region, which has helped me put the situations I encounter into better context. My studies have encouraged me to work hard even in stressful and unpredictable situations, which is very helpful in a place like Afghanistan. I also studied Farsi and Pashto at Syracuse University, I think I would have been completely lost if I had moved here without some basic language skills, so I’m really grateful that Syracuse University offers so many language classes.

3. What are your impressions of education in Afghanistan?

Amy : The educational system, like everything else here is in the process of being rebuilt. Many of the teachers from primary schools left the country during the various wars, and with girls not being allowed to study during the Taliban and boys having a very limited curriculum, I think it has been difficult to rebuild the knowledge base for young children. Many of the books here are very outdated, access for the average person to the internet is limited- and that is in Kabul. I’m sure it’s much harder in the rest of the country.  There is still a lack of teachers for young students and schools are usually held in shifts, so young people do not get a full day of learning.

Poverty also shifts the priorities of people. Officially, there is free public education for young children here, but many parents stop letting children go to school so they can work at a very young age.

Those problems in primary education obviously lead to major challenges in university education. Students do not have a good general education for us to build on, and the Ministry of Higher Education in Afghanistan strictly limits the amount of general education (Computers, Science, Health, Math) course we can offer our students.  I worry that without a broad understanding of different subjects, students will struggle when they start working in high positions or with different international organizations.

4. Why focus on diplomacy and international affairs?

Amy: I think that Afghanistan is a unique country. It was exceptionally closed off from the rest of the world until early 2002 and has gone through a period of very rapid globalization. In this situation, it is extremely important for Afghan people to understand the rest of the world, to understand how the international system works and to learn how to work within the rules of international relations. Furthermore, we feel that it is important to build skills like diplomacy and negotiations in a country where such skills have been neglected in favor of fighting. We believe that teaching these skills to the young generation is imperative to building a better future in Afghanistan.

5. Tell us a bit about your university, its affiliations, vision etc.

Amy : My university, Diplomacy and International Studies Institute of Higher Education  (DIS) is the first specialized International Relations University in Afghanistan. As of right now we are not officially affiliated with any other universities, though we are currently getting some support from Syracuse University.

At DIS we hope to educate the new generation of Afghans, to build the skills they need to become leaders. We want to promote independent thinking, free discourse and democratic ideas and we hope that we will play a part in building a stable and peaceful country and region.

6. What are your students aiming to do? What is your vision?

Amy: Our students all have very different personal goals, but the main thing I hear is that they want to build better futures for themselves, their families and build a better Afghanistan. All of our students have had hard childhoods, and some have lived through all of the 30 years of conflict and are now finally working towards their goals of higher education.

Personally, I am hoping to go back to the US for some time so I can earn a PhD. I think seeing the struggles people face here with being full time students and also supporting their families makes me realize that I have no excuse not to continue my education. I feel like the more knowledge I have the more I can pass on to students here. I think that working in education in Kabul gives me a unique ability to really shape the futures of my students and hopefully public policy in Afghanistan.

7. What are the challenges to gaining education in Afghanistan, in the fields that you are focusing?

Amy : The challenges in the field we focus on are the same as the problems faced by all students and educational institutions in Afghanistan, the biggest two being the lack of qualified professors and the other being the lack of funding. Over the past 30 years, most highly educated Afghans left their country to avoid the conflict and very few are willing to come back.  It is also very difficult to get foreign professors to come here because of the perceived lack of security.

The traditional system of education in Afghanistan is also problematic. Many professors here teach the same lectures they learned 20 years ago with no updated information and expect students to copy lectures word for word. It is also common for professors to not allow students to ask questions or voice their own thoughts or opinions in class.

8. How is your venture different?

Amy : At DIS, we managed to bring together the most qualified professors in the country in the fields of IR, Politics, Security and Economics. We chose not to let people who are not well qualified teach our students. We also try to have a more open approach by encouraging questions and class discussions and using technology and up to date information in all of our classes.

9. How important is a partnership with the US in the field of education?

Amy : For the reasons previously mentioned, I think that partnering with the US is extremely important. Anything that helps students gain better access to information, especially more up to date information is a huge benefit here.  Ideally, schools and universities in Afghanistan will connect themselves with educational institutions elsewhere. I think this would be a great way to build up education in Afghanistan and would help develop better understanding between Afghans and the rest of the world.

10. Any other concluding thoughts

Amy: I think the most important thing I can share with people in the US, is that Afghanistan, or at least Kabul, is really not like what you see on the news. For the most part, I feel quite safe here and I have never met anyone who isn’t happy to meet an American. Students in particular seem happy that foreigners are here right now, because it has given them many opportunities they would not have had otherwise.

While I do mostly talk to educated young people, I do also interact with average people, and honestly, no one has caused me any trouble. While I know that people in the US want our troops and support out of Afghanistan, I think it would be a huge mistake for us to leave completely in the near future. Even in the past two years, I have seen so much progress here. While I think it would be great for Afghans to take over most of the security issues as soon as they are ready, I think it would be a massive set back if the rest of the world forgot about this country as soon as we stop fighting here. To me, it seems like Afghanistan is at a turning point, it could either turn into a relatively stable country or fall apart in the near future, and a lot depends on support from other countries.

“Inter-faith dialogue isn’t inter-faith agreement” – Rabbi Rachel Kahn-Troster, Truah

Posted on by
Reply

Image

Q : Can you tell us about yourself and your organizational affiliation?

RR: I am a conservative Rabbi and the Director of North-American programs at Truah. Truah and Rabbis for Human Rights, North America are the same organization, as we changed our name in January this year. We  do work on issues in Israel and West bank ( through RHR, Israel – our affiliate) but I focus on domestic work in the U.S.  Issues that are part of my portfolio include : Slavery, Human trafficking, Labor trafficking and American Muslim community.  We also worked with the Coalition of Amakelli in Florida (tomato industry), on their Anti-torture campaign. This has two distinct campaigns – Americans against torture on war on terror and the other on solitary confinement.

Sometimes, we work on issues that are of importance to our partners, providing them support; where we can. Their issues may not be directly correlated to ours, but we provide support. We are also involved in a big way in  Immigration reforms – as this is a big issue impacting so many others.

We had about 130 congregations taking part in the Human Rights (HR) Shabbat program, around International Human Rights day. It is interesting to see that over 50% of Jews in America are associated with a synagogue and this is a captive audience for our work. We work through Rabbis to articulate our messaging and reach out to our audience. Sometimes, Rabbis are able to speak out for justice in congregations and bring their congregations along, or at times bring their moral voices – as individuals to the causes that we address.

While we focus domestically, and on Israel; we want to pick issues where we have some leverage, either as Americans or as Jews. For example, we did not get involved in Syria, though it is a major human rights question, simply because we don’t have leverage in that area. While it is good to raise awareness, we need to do something and pull people to do something. Awareness is a good place to start, but not to finish.

Q: How do you set goals, gather support for your campaigns ?

RR : Every year we do long and short term planning. Sometimes, it is just about creating a resource, to get it out there. I also work with partner organizations, and in some ways I am supporting needs which they articulate, rather than doing just our work. A sense of campaign planning is all pervasive.

During our campaign planning, we realized how much basic education about Islam is needed. Through some of our partners, we realized how critical that is, in our messaging too. When you compare the issue of Islamophobia with gay rights, the reason why the conversation about gay rights has changed in such a big way in the last two years is because people are aware of gay people. They have a friend or a family member who is gay. On the contrary, the reason Islam is demonized is because people don’t know Muslims. Even today, most Americans don’t know someone who is Muslim. In many polls conducted by large orgnizations such as Pew and Gallup, we have seen that only 20-25% of Americans know someone who is a Muslim.

This proves again that It is much easier to believe stereotypes when there is no direct contact. Among the Jews, Rabbis themselves have gotten to know the local imams, but they haven’t gotten together to get their communities together, yet. In part, because, it is hard to figure out how to talk about contentious issues such as Israel and Palestine. It does remain a challenge. On the other hand, there are successful models.

Chicago based inter-faith organizations have done remarkable work by focusing on issues of shared concern, to all communities -  Housing, Immigration etc. The Jewish council on American Affairs have partnered on issues of shared concern and created a dialogue which is positive, progressive and forward-looking. The approach that they have taken is to focus on issues that are real and of concern to both communities.

Q : What is the role of College campuses in addressing these issues?

A : Because of the discussion surrounding Israel and Palestine, any dialogue is often politicized. On the other hand, there is also good Jewish-Muslim collaboration. On campuses, kids are from similar backgrounds, they are living together and are on similar wavelengths. When the AP reports of NYPD spying on Muslim college kids came out, some of the strongest pushback came from the Rabbis on campus. Such collaboration and support for each other gives me hope.

I don’t want to say that we have to wait for another generation, as youth can be biased too, given the role that Jewish communities on campuses can play, and the expectations of parents that they will play such a key role in transmitting Jewish values. When explaining the negative effects of spying on Young Muslim youth by NYPD, it is effective messaging when I ask parents: “How’d you like it if your child was afraid to go to Hillel, because he/she is being spied upon?”

Q: How did you get involved with Truah?

RR : I came to work with Truah during my senior year of Rabbinical school, that is about six years ago. I came to work on the anti-torture campaign and it was really fascinating for me, as I thought of myself as a political junkie and also was involved in Jewish social justice work. Torture brings up very deep issues and forces you to confront deep moral questions and for me, it was like beginning of an awakening of whose civil liberties are we willing to violate to feel safe. There is also the difference between feeling safe and being safe actually. That people for the perception of safety, are willing to victimize the other. The organization has changed much since I came, in all good ways. I feel the conversation in the Jewish community has changed and we are taking on more issues than before.

Q : How big is your network and how do you carry out your campaigns?

A : We are based in New York and have about 1800 Rabbis across the country.

We have in the past had conferences but don’t currently do those anymore.  In the coming year, we are looking to do one day trainings, to educate Rabbis on skills building.

Q : What is the state of inter-faith work ?  What are the key challenges coming your way?

RR : I think there is a lot going on and that is good. There are many organizations talking to each other. At “Shoulder to Shoulder,” ( an inter-faith coalition) we are all Abrahamic faiths, and are hoping to expand this range.

Through 1950s through 90’s, inter-faith meant Jewish and Christians and now it is becoming Jewish-Muslim-Christian and some sprinkling of other faith groups. When religions move to the US, they begin to organize like a Church, unlike in other countries.

The other challenge is of course when you are building a morality structure, around faith; there are those who are spiritual but not affiliated. We face a challenge in terms of reaching out to them, This is a challenge too.  Also, there is the question of how  we reach out to churches of color and immigrant communities? A lot is being done on the organizational level. A lot is going on, but, I am not sure how much of it is entering the national conversation.

I come from Canada, where religion is not as much as a public issue and national conversation, as it is here. It is an important fact about the U.S, compared to other countries and in particular Canada. Even if Americans are becoming less religious, religion is becoming a big part of the national dialogue. I wonder if the conversation about Muslims is not about religion per se but is more about immigration.

Q: Your experience with Jewish congregations?

RR : What I see is that in times of tension, whether it is the recent Muhammad film controversy or other charged issues, people who are liberal, fall into the stereotypes about Muslims.

For example, they would say things like “ You never see Christians doing such things”, without an understanding of the dynamics. It is very easy for people to believe stereotypes of Muslims and Islam – given the situation in the U.S these days.

Also, I believe it is refusal to take responsibility that they are believing in stereotypes.

Q : How are you funded? Is there enough support for this kind of work?

RR: We are funded by both foundations and private donors. My sense is that there is money for this kind of work. There just seems to be more need for inter-faith work.

For many Jews the question is not whether they should support Human Rights at all, because they are modern, ethical people and do it from that standpoint. It is what is distinctly Jewish about supporting Human Rights. We are speaking to people who think about how to address these issues, from a Jewish perspective, rather than simply approaching them in a secular, neutral manner. Faith-based messaging works effectively, if done well.

One piece of push-back that I am getting and one that needs to be addressed both from Jewish and secular perspective is that of “Why should we care about Human Rights when they (criminals or terrorists) don’t value them”? I try to tell them that it is not about their values, but our own. We don’t torture because it is against American values, it doesn’t matter what a terrorist will do in their cells, with their captives. We won’t let them set the agenda.

It is troubling for me, and that is often where Jewish language comes in. What we do is what we do. We must uphold our values irrespective of how others behave with us.

Q : What have you learnt that you’d like to share?

RR : Inter-faith work is incredibly worth doing, and takes a long time and you have to be open to listening to the other. And also that you have to understand that inter-faith dialogue isn’t inter-faith agreement. And it is OK to engage with people who don’t agree with us. Finally, how can we expect them to agree with us, if we don’t agree with them.

Interview with Yasmina Mrabet, Director of the Connection Point Initiative, Peace X Peace

Posted on by
Reply

Photo-cp-dialogues

Yasmina Mrabet, Director of the Connection Point initiative, Peace X Peace

Yasmina Mrabet, Director of the Connection Point initiative, Peace X Peace

Q: What is your role at Peace X Peace ? What do you do on a day to day basis ? Also, tell us a bit about yourself ( personal background, education, where you are from etc..)

Yasmina : I direct the Connection Point Initiative, which creates platforms for dialogue between women from Arab, Muslim and Western communities around the world. We feature articles and interviews with a focus on the perspectives and contributions of Arab and Muslim women to society worldwide; provide an array of multimedia resources; host facilitated web-based dialogues as a platform for cross-cultural and interfaith discussion; and sponsor in-person dialogues. The goals of this initiative are to 1) To break down stereotypes and foster positive relationships based on mutual respect and understanding between predominantly Arab, Muslim and Western communities worldwide, 2) build cross-cultural communication skills among women, and 3) encourage and expand an increase in women’s capacity to lead peacebuilding efforts between these communities at local and international levels.

As for my personal background and education – I am Moroccan-American, and grew up in several countries (Saudi, UAE, Morocco, US, and Qatar). I went to the University of Virginia for my Bachelor’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies, and George Mason University for my Master’s degree in Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

Q: Why focus on women as change agents? What is your “theory of change”?

Yasmina: Women’s perspectives and contributions have been historically undervalued, and their potential sidelined. Women are often disregarded in formal decision making processes that lead to major conflicts (despite the fact that women and children are the greatest casualties of conflict), and are systematically excluded from formal ‘peace processes.’

We focus on women because they are a largely untapped resource. We believe that women, by asserting their distinctive experiences and recognizing their vital role in building sustainable peace, can play a role in building a global culture and community of peace, by building trust and respect across cultural, religious and other divides.

In terms of theories of change – we are working on several levels. We work to transform individual consciousness, attitudes, and behaviors to orient toward advocating for peace. We support positive relationships and connections between people from different backgrounds in order to break down stereotypes and misunderstanding. In order for peacebuilding occur, we have to build trust and cohesion among groups of people, and that means working on relationships. We support the notion of grassroots mobilization and action directly impacting political decisions. In other words, with highly functioning civil societies that are oriented toward peace, we can compel leaders at the international level to make decisions that support the demands of the grassroots.

When it comes to building cultures of peace, we are talking about a total transformation of our values – a reorientation of those values so that they reject violent conflict, and instead work for dialogue processes that uncover and address the root causes of conflict, with an end result of peace benefiting all, rather than a ‘winner takes all’ mentality. We say that person by person, and peace by peace, we will get closer to a global tipping point, where peace is the new norm. We have identified eight requirements as necessary Pillars of Peace: conflict transformation, cross-cultural understanding, economic empowerment, education, environmental sustainability, health and well-being, interfaith dialogue, and justice and good governance. Circle Principles also guide our work.

Q: What in your opinion are the biggest obstacles to peace? What is your experience of dealing with people you don’t agree / talk to?

Yasmina: That’s a big question! I think one of the biggest obstacles to peace is the tendency of parties in conflict to engage in talks at the level of positions, without ever uncovering underlying issues, values, perceptions that lead to those positions. A position is a conclusion – for example, “Muslims hate us for our freedom” or “Americans hate Muslims.” Both of those statements are positions. Often, discussions about contentious issues tend to remain at the level of positions. We encourage those who state such positions to reflect on what led to those positions – what are the assumptions behind them? What experiences are your perceptions based on? And, how might your perceptions impact your experiences and the way you interact with others? What are the larger implications of holding such perceptions?

In some cases, there is a basic unwillingness to listen to or consider the interests and needs of the ‘other.’ This obstacle in many cases is reinforced by unequal power dynamics between conflicting parties. Encouraging self-reflection throughout any process, whether it’s a training, dialogue, mediation, or any other facet of a ‘peace process,’ is an integral component of helping parties to recognize existing power relations, and to trust and empathize with one another. Empathy and trust are necessary conditions for parties to work together to uncover and address root causes of conflict, and moving toward peace. As peacebuilders it is our job to create spaces to make that happen.

Q: What is your strategy for dealing with stereotyping? This is what economists would call a “wicked problem,” isn’t it?

Yasmina :  Stereotyping is a major issue – much of our work deals with breaking down pervasive and false stereotypes. I also think stereotyping is a lucrative industry. Those who work (knowingly or unknowingly) to promote conflict, and the interests of the elite at the expense of those with less power and fewer resources, are often using stereotypes as a part of their strategy to achieve those interests. Stereotypes when used as propaganda – when used to create and then capitalize on fear in order to gain public support for particular political agendas―are a “wicked problem.” Stereotypes standing alone, outside the context of their manipulated use at a systemic level, are much easier to break down, especially at the person-to-person level.

Bring two people who have stereotypes about one another together, create a space that allows them to engage in dialogue and engage directly with one another, and stereotypes will inevitably be challenged. The more we can get people to learn how to communicate, and more importantly the more we can provide opportunities and spaces in which people can communicate with one another across cultural, religious, political, and other divides, the more easily we can break down stereotypes, and build understanding.

Eradicating all stereotypes is unrealistic, but helping people reach some level of awareness about the stereotypes they hold, and encouraging people to constantly reflect on and question their assumptions and perceptions, can help us live in a society that does not allow its leaders or members to make decisions based on false stereotypes – in a society that does not allow its leaders or members to capitalize on false stereotypes to further their agendas at the expense of minority communities that will suffer structural and direct violence as a direct result of the perpetuation of those false stereotypes.

What is your personal vision for women in the region? How do you think women in MENA/ South Asia can come into their own? Considering patriarchy is still the norm and this is not likely to change anytime soon.

I would answer that question the same way I would answer it about women in the West. Women from both regions live in deeply patriarchal societies, and suffer widespread oppression in different forms and in different cultural contexts. I think the process of change has to start with women recognizing their own power and capacity to participate as active members of civil society in the public arena, if they so choose, and then organizing to make their voices heard and to demand recognition of their contributions to society.

Contrary to popular media depictions, Arab and Muslim women have a long history as leaders of social change and advancement in every field. The process of transforming patriarchy and achieving gender equity will not happen overnight in any context, not in the Middle East and South Asia, and not in the United States or Europe. As far as I can see, women in the region are continuing the work they have always carried out on behalf of their families and communities. I actually feel that one of the challenges to women achieving equality in the region is a lack of recognition by mainstream media outlets of the progress they have made and continue to make – it is a travesty that Arab and Muslim women are continually depicted as silent submissive beings, sitting back and watching helplessly as patriarchal structures control their existence. Here are just a few of the many, many, many examples of their work, which should really be commended and highlighted and reported on by mainstream media outlets:

Femin Ijtihad – Femin Ijtihad: Islamic Perspectives on Women’s Rights

Azizah Magazine – American Muslim Women: Diverse, Accomplished, Powerful

Project Sakinah – Stop Domestic Violence: Wake Up, Speak Up, Team Up

ABAAD Resource Center for Gender Equality – Freedom from Patriarchy in Lebanon, and Partnering with Men  to Stop Violence Against Women

Muslim Feminists – Muslim Feminists on the Internet

Network of Arab-American Professionals (NAAP) – Arab Americans: Networking, Volunteering, Empowering

LB o J’zazz – Made in Kuwait: Beads That Unify

Muslim Public Service Network – I Serve the Public (And I’m a Muslim Woman)

Peaceful Families Project – Muslim Americans Stand Up against Domestic Violence

Q: How do you deal with Islamophobes/ those who directly and indirectly impact your work (women like Pamela Geller, Ann Coulter et al).

Yasmina: Women like Pamela Geller and Ann Coulter misuse their power to promote and spread messages of hatred and intolerance – I call what they do ‘hate activism.’ Their ‘work’ directly contrasts with the messages of peace and love that we are building and spreading at the grassroots level. Despite the setbacks that such figures pose through their contribution to the miseducation of large numbers of Americans about Arab and Muslim communities and cultures, I am confident that a message of peace and cultural and religious tolerance will ultimately prevail over a message of hatred.

That is why we are so committed to working at the grassroots level primarily, because it is at that level that individual, group, and ultimately cultural transformation takes place. We want women to take the lead in creating peaceful societies that would not dream of entertaining and or providing platforms for such ridiculous notions as those fabricated by Pamela Geller et. al. to reach, influence, and miseducate huge audiences (as they do currently).

Q: Do you also do advocacy work?

Yasmina: Yes! We support legislation that advances the rights of women, UN conventions and resolutions, and we engage with UN commissions and agencies including UN Women and the Commission on the Status of Women. We are a part of the U.S. Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security which was instrumental in the development of the Women, Peace and Security Act of 2012 and the US National Action Plan for 1325 implementation. More details about our work in advocacy, training, as well as a list of recent letters and statements we have signed on to are available on our website’s advocacy and training page.

Social Media: It’s Role as Propagator and Mediator – By Elana Temple

Posted on by
Reply

With recent events in the Middle East (i.e. the protests against Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi in Tahrir Square, the Israeli-Hamas cease-fire as a result of a two-week volleyed attack and the UN General Assembly’s vote to recognize Palestine’s “non member” statehood status), I began to realize that these issues deflected attention from my social media campaign aimed at proactive, solution-based activism. Instead of a platform for open, collaborative dialogue and information exchange, social media increasingly divided people, instantly transforming into an arena for propaganda: lavished from head-to-toe in their team colours and symbols, social media users were waving patriotic, yet provocative signs and banners- relentlessly rallying support for, or against a team or cause.

In place of stadium cheers, applause, and boos, support and criticism were  measured in Facebook “likes,” “reposts,” “tags” and Twitter “retweets.”  Through slogans, catchphrases, status updates, photos and cartoons, networks became a stream for propaganda, creating a distinct separation between the “us” and “them,” or in this particular case, pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis.

Observing the current events in the Middle East through the lens of social media, I noticed an interesting dichotomy: the role of social media as both instigator and mediator: a) mediator in its ability to foster open dialogue, information exchange and innovative resolutions to our global, political issues; and b) instigator in its ability to encourage the  exchange of ideas that inaccurately, stereotypically and inappropriately portray certain groups.

In a recent discussion with Yehudit Barsky, the American Jewish Committee’s (AJC) Director of the Division of Middle East and International Terrorism, explained to me that despite the presence of positive campaigns, social media is also used to perpetuate anti-Jewish and anti-Arab stereotypes.

A Facebook photo that surfaced during the Israeli-Palestinian volleyed attacks demonstrates the divisive potential of social media. The cartoon displayed an anonymous, blindfolded Israeli soldier, with the Hebrew word for “peace” shalom emblazoned on the his breast pocket. Seemingly, this was pro-Palestinians’ perception of the Israeli army as being blind to the grim circumstances of their Palestinian counterparts, despite “peace” being the cause for which Israelis fight. This photo generated immediate responses, becoming the default picture for many Arabs.

Another cartoon juxtaposed an exaggerated Israeli reaction to an attack, with the Palestinians’ perspective on an attack. The former depict wall, harming no one. The  latter conveyed the extreme violence, blood and debris that followed after an alleged Israeli attack. This photo had several “likes” and “shares,” mostly by Arabs.

Similarly, a friend posted a green, white, black and red banner on my wall that read: “Free Palestine, ‘Like’ this, then Repost.” This banner generated several favourable comments and “likes.”  Another friend borrowed a quote from Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, to demonstrate the perceived hypocrisy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Her status read:

“I don’t understand your optimism…Why should the Arabs make peace? If I       were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural:          we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that            matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two             thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism,     the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing:        we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept        that?…”  ~David Ben Gurion

Following this quote, my friend added: “See?! Even HE admits that it’s not their (the Israelis’) land!” Many people reposted this quote or updated their status with it.

On the other side of the arena, people proudly announced their support for Israel,  defending a country’s right to protect itself from unprecedented rocket attacks, and other violent acts, sparking a barrage of “likes” and reposts. And on both sides, photos of the Palestinian and Israeli flags superseded profile pictures, and at times, close friends and relatives were even tagged to the photo, putting a face and on the cause.

In our conversation, Ms. Barsky also recollected on a report she heard during an NPR broadcast, “The Role of Gaza’s Children in Hamas-Fatah Rivalry.” NPR’s Philip Reeves reported from “Small Hands Kindergarten,” a school in Gaza, where toddlers were led to a public square, and encouraged, by their teachers, to wave toy guns at imaginary Israeli jets overhead and stomp on a poster bearing the Star of David. The teachers saw this as a “therapeutic” way to cope with the two-week bombardment.

Reeves then described the onlookers. One particular man, Atef Batrawy, an economics consultant, was disconcerted by this demonstration, viewing it as a method of exacerbating the conflict, rather than a remedy for psychological wounds:

“If you want to get rid of violence, you have to cleanse it with love, not by           teaching kids how to carry guns or prepare for another conflict…it does not      look good to the international people, because the people see just (the)   picture, just (see) the picture.” ~Atef Batrawy

Citing this example, Ms. Barsky wondered: “What can we do to encourage these and similar people-whom are disconcerted by the propaganda and/or looking to move forward-to speak out, to gain stature and publicity in their communities, as a way of educating and encouraging others that in order to end these conflicts, we must recognize that all people are human beings?”

Ultimately, Ms. Barsky and I acknowledged that we live in a global world where students, campaigns and organizations, commendably strive to galvanize global support to address the world’s most pressing challenges; efforts that are part of the trend towards online contacts and subsequent dialogue. Ms. Barsky and I are concerned however, about the validity of these efforts, long term. Social media has given birth to a second and even more lethal function: instigation, used as a powerful tool in expediently igniting and disseminating information, breeding prejudice, ignorance and misperceptions.

~*~*~

 

*Yehudit Barsky is the director of the American Jewish Committee’s (AJC) Division on Middle East and International Terrorism. Fluent in both Arabic and Hebrew, Ms. Barsky is also an associate scholar at the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Middle East Council, as well as the author of AJC’s “Series on Terrorism.”

 

**For the NPR audio segment, please visit: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=165896145&m=165896282

 

Why the NATO Deployment of Patriot Missile Batteries Is Likely to Rile the Russians- Joseph F Apel

Posted on by
Reply

Image

  Russia and Turkey have been struggling to maintain good relations for a good amount of time. These former Cold War foes have never been able to get past one fact: Turkey controls access to the Black Sea, where Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is stationed in Sevastopol, Ukraine. Under international law, the Turks must permit passage to Russian warships sailing through the Turkish Straits, but Russia has always been uncomfortable with relying on Turkish cooperation to access warm water ports in the Mediterranean. Fast-forward some years and you will see why the Soviets cut a deal with Syria to permanently lease a resupply base in Tartus. Before the Syrian Civil War, Russia had cut a deal with the Assad régime. In exchange for the forgiveness of most of Syria’s debt to Russia, Russia would have the privilege of enhancing the base’s capabilities so that it could service the largest and most powerful of Russian warships without having to go through the Turkish Straits.

Unfortunately, for Russia, the Syrian uprising as a larger part of the Arab spring has thrown the geopolitical monkey wrench into its plans to project its naval power as a larger part of its modernization of the military (which has been in steady decay since the fall of the USSR in 1991-1992). As a scholar of Russian Foreign Policy, there is not a doubt in my mind that there the overriding concern here is this: Will the new Syrian régime honor past agreements with the Russian Federation, including those of arms sales? In order to get a better grasp on this complex situation, we must be cognizant of a few things:

(1): The continued expansion of NATO into Russia’s historical sphere of influence.

(2): Russia’s vehement opposition to NATO’s unilateral idea for Ballistic Missile Defense (termed the European Phased Adaptive Approach)

(3): Increasing mistrust on the part of Russia towards NATO’s intentions.

Although news reports have yet to specify which type of Patriot Missile Battery will be deployed on the Turk-Syrian border, they will probably consist of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3). This is the variant of the Patriot SAM that is most effective against ballistic missiles and, with Syria’s recent lobbing of SCUD-like projectiles close to the border region, the Turks are most likely concerned about one of those SCUDS (or similar SRBM) loaded with a non-conventional warhead such as a chemical agent hitting one of their towns. These PAC-3 interceptors can fly at speeds of up to Mach 5 (faster than any currently used missile or aircraft in that part of the world) and are able to intercept their targets at high altitude using pure kinetic energy.

From NATO’s point of view, this is what needs to be done in order to protect its Turkish ally. However, I suspect that Russia will view this as more “intervention into the affairs of another country.” In fact, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put it that way today, according to Russian media outlets. Russia is finding itself more and more isolated in a geopolitical sense and will continue to be more so as it obstructs any kind of action in the United Nations Security Council. For the resurgent President Putin, this is one more nail in the coffin of the dying Russia-NATO.

In conclusion, the Russians are going to be highly suspicious of the deployment of these Patriot batteries on the Turk-Syrian border. How long these batteries remain there will determine how grave the impact will be on NATO-Russian relations. Is this a short-term solution to a perceived threat by a regional actor, or is it part of a wider Western conspiracy to isolate Russia and weaken its Державность (Manifest Destiny Russia-Style which literally means “holding power”) and its Слава (glory). NATO policy advisers would be very wise to carefully monitor the statements coming out of the Kremlin, especially as the actual deployment comes closer of it wishes to avoid escalating tensions between the two nuclear superpowers to a level not seen since the height of the Cold War.

–Joseph F Apel is a graduate of the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, where he graduated with a Master of Arts in International Relations, and is a Certified Specialist in Security Studies focusing on Russia and former USSR

 

Guess Whose Catholic Fiancé is Coming to… Passover Dinner? – An Inside Look At Interfaith Marriages By Elana Temple

Posted on by
Reply

Interfaith1interfaith2

When interfaith relationships come to mind, I instantly refer to the on-screen classic “The Way We Were,” the 1973 Hollywood phenomenon illuminating the ‘opposites-attract’ romance of Robert Redford, the All-American jock-turned-writer, and Barbara Streisand, the Jewish activist. And of course, my attention turns towards Norman Jewison’s 1971 adaptation of “Fiddler on the Roof,” which portrays  Tevye’s struggle to maintain Jewish religious traditions while outside influences threaten those values –particularly the forbidden relationship between his Jewish daughter Chava and her Christian lover-turned-husband Fyedka.

Off-screen, interfaith marriages are seen by some as a benefit for civic life, by integrating and bonding people of different cultures and, thereby, creating a more cohesive America. While interfaith marriages are rapidly increasing, however, they are breaking up just as quickly, as Naomi Schaefer Riley explained in her June 6, 2010 article “Interfaith marriages are rising fast, but they’re failing fast too,” in The Washington Post.

According to Riley, such unions do succeed in bringing extended families from diverse backgrounds into close contact. Nothing brings different groups together, yielding a more integrated and tolerant society, quite like interfaith marriages, Riley argues. As research by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam has shown, the more Americans get to know people of other faiths, the more they seem to like those faiths (Riley, 2010).

And according to the General Social Survey, 15 percent of U.S. households were mixed-faith in 1988. By 2006, that number rose to 25 percent. The American Religious Identification Survey of 2001 reported that 27 percent of Jews, 23 percent of Catholics, 39 percent of Buddhists, 18 percent of Baptists, 21 percent of Muslims and 12 percent of Mormons were then married to a spouse with a different religious identification. Moreover, less than a quarter of the 18- to 23-year old respondents in the National Study of Youth and Religion deemed it important to marry someone of the same faith, reports Riley.

Interfaith marriage however, implies more than just church attendance on Sunday mornings or synagogue commitment on Friday nights, and requires more than delineating the time spent Christmas tree-decorating and brisket and latke-making. Interfaith marriages extend to the “many activities that husband and wife perform jointly,” explains Evelyn Lehrer, a professor of Economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago.  The implications include “ideas about raising children, how to spend time and money, friendships, professional networks,” and even where families decide to live and work, Lehrer states.

To add insult to injury, consider the effect interfaith marriages often have on the couples’ relatives, parents in particular. Albeit an example of interracial marriage rather than interfaith, the 1976 film classic “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” starring Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier, and Katherine Hepburn, conveys the realistic shock, concern, and struggle felt by both sets of parents of different backgrounds.

Whether it is interracial or interfaith marriage, some in-laws today are bound to be the most unwavering, obstinately adverse to the infiltration of a new faith and the implementation of new customs. As Rev. Laurie Sue Brockway wrote in a Huffington Post article entitled “Why Your Interfaith Wedding May Upset Your Parents,” many parents are concerned that an interfaith marriage will yield criticism from relatives, friends and even the community. Moreover, many of these parents have the perception that their son or daughter might honor his or her mate’s tradition more than his or her own and consequently, their son or daughter’s heritage or faith may be diluted or entirely diminished, Brockway explains.

In an interview with interfaith couple – Sarmila Ramalingam of the Hindu faith and her fiancé, Khalid Ismail, of the Islamic faith – it was discovered that their interfaith relationship had more of an effect on their family members than between themselves. Sarmila did not see their interfaith relationship as an issue, even though it took them nearly three years to break the news of their relationship to their parents. “Even then (now) they are not 100 percent happy about this,” Sarmila explained, “so in our case, the biggest challenge was trying to please everyone and make it easier for them.”

 

In Khalid’s situation, the news of the relationship was very upsetting to his parents. It was inconceivable to his mother that Khalid could live his life in a way that was different (from his mother), and still be content. “My parents have a very strong set of beliefs about how life should be lived,” Khalid explained, “and what the path to happiness is.”  Khalid’s parents are also extremely concerned about the community’s response to him marrying a non-Muslim. This decision, consequently, has put a major strain on the relationship between himself and his mother. “She (his mother) is struggling to accept my choices and this means that an interfaith relationship forces me to risk…the relationship with my mother,” Khalid explained.

 

In response to questions about future implications, particularly with raising children, Sarmila asserted that she and Khalid were very open- minded and, thus, decided that their “children should (and would) be free to choose their religion, or (even) not be religious at all.” Even so, Sarmila states that she is more religious than Khalid, and believes that the children may be exposed more to the customs and practices of Hinduism than Islam.

 

Khalid asserts that raising children are the rewards of an interfaith marriage. For children, Khalid explains, an interfaith upbringing provides the opportunity to be exposed to different traditions and customs. “It can encourage them to think deeper…and develop a stronger and independent set of moral beliefs…and (in) this way, whatever conclusions they draw will be deeper,” Khalid asserts. “It also shows them that morals are based in what is right and wrong, rather than whether they will go to Hell or Heaven,” Khalid concluded.

 

Nevertheless, Sarmila and Khalid believe interfaith marriage creates diversity: “We get to learn about new religions and traditions . . . [and] it makes us all more open-minded and more accepting of others.”

 

Separate from Sarmila and Khalid, we have laid out a fictitious, albeit a possible scenario involving an interfaith couple: Sareena is a 20-year old college student from Sacramento, California. Her mother Joann is a Catholic from Chicago, while her father Abdul is a Muslim, born and raised in Bahrain. Abdul and Joann met and began dating in their third year at Northwestern University. Post-graduation, Abdul and Joann spent six months convincing both their families that living together was the most ideal situation before marriage. And three years later, notwithstanding efforts at dissuasion from both families, Abdul and Joann were happily married.

While the confluence of an Islamic and Catholic marriage, as well as the upbringing for their first child, presented many challenges for Joann and Abdul –e.g. discussions regarding a Communion, a Muslim’s five daily prayers, a Christmas tree in the living room and fasting on Ramadan- none were as difficult to surmount as the challenge Sareena presented after her surprise visit home from UCLA with her new Jewish boyfriend, Joshua. Of course, in theory, Abdul and Joann indubitably encouraged Sareena to be open-minded and tolerant of people of different religious, sexual, racial or ethnic orientation. They just never prepared for the possibility that Sareena would adopt such a literal approach.

 

“Artists can help re-imagine a conflict and start a dialogue….” – Romesh Gunesekera

Posted on by
Reply

Romesh Gunesekera is a writer based in London and a booker prize nominated author of The Reef, published in 1994. He was the writer in residence at Somerset House in 2010. His book Monkfish Moon was one of Granta’s first books and was shortlisted for several prizes and named a New York Times Notable Book for 1993. He is  in his own words “ a writer of novels” and a well-known person of Sri Lankan origin.  We interviewed him recently, when he was on a visit to the U.S , to speak at  Virginia Tech’s symposium on “Writing & Reconciliation  : Identity, Displacement & Narrative in Sri Lanka”

Here are a few excerpts from the interview :

1. What are your impressions of the symposium held at Virginia Tech ?

Romesh : I found it useful and also very interesting. There were an interesting collection of people from Sri Lanka and the U.S. As a writer I don’t often get involved with academics on a regular basis, especially sociologists and psychologists. I thought the range of participants here was interesting. It was also difficult as the discussions were beyond literature, as I had imagined would be the primary focus. It would have been interesting to have other scholars as well.

It was interesting to have interaction with the American poets too.   It could have been longer, we could have had more time.

I believe this is a good start. Dialogue and re-conciliation is a huge topic and I believe we only  touched the surface. Nevertheless, it was a good start.

This is the beginning of sharing a few issues and I am pleased with the outcome.

2. Do you think the reconciliation in Sri Lanka is a case of ‘winner’s peace’ ?
Romesh : Well, that is a complicated question and there is no quick answer. Throughout history, it has been a winners peace, unless  there is  a stale mate, where there is no clear winner and both sides negotiate a settlement. Otherwise, if it’s a case in which there is some sort of military victory, then it is a skewed process.

That in itself doesn’t have to result in anything negative, but depends on the approach the winners take and the issues that are in front of them.
3. What is the role of an artist/writer in the process of reconciliation ?

Romesh : I think at times, we make mistakes in categories and in imagining roles for people. I don’t think the Artist has a process in negotiating. Artists respond to things, and are not necessarily in itself actively involved in the process. If an artist is an activist, or part of the process, then they may  bring their sensibilities to the process. But other than that, they don’t necessarily have as much of a role in the process.

A writer is a writer when they are writing. When they are not writing, they are just individuals, who have their own sensibilities and motives for their actions.
4. How do you think Sri Lanka should re-imagine its identity, in the context of the recent changes (civil war, end of LTTE etc). What role do writers/artists have in this ? 

Romesh : There are many artists who respond to a political situation and their responses are important. They become sensitive statements of the conflict and important markers of the re-imagining process. Picasso’s Guernica is a  hugely important painting, which is important, way beyond its immediate connections to the Spanish Civil war. Art can feature in terms of how we think about and question things. To this extent, the artist can play a key role.

The bigger role is in terms of the relationship between public and the art. I think in many places of trauma or struggle, art has been a free area of discussion. It creates and allows you to re-examine a few situations, outside of one’s entrenched position or situation.

If there is a play or a book that a wide range of people read, they are participating in a social activity. A space is created, which possibly didn’t exist before.

5. What is the role of other countries, i.e. SL’s neighbors – India or even western powers in this process ? 

Romesh :  This is a difficult one. All over the world, the question of intervention, outsiders and insiders is a fraught one. A lot of these processes are internal and need to be lead internally.

Something like the Arab spring is a popular feeling, for whatever needs to happen. It is an
extraordinary thing, and isn’t the only mass movement. 1989, fall of Soviet bloc was a massive change taking place due to internal changes.

Another example is the end of Marcos era in Philippines. It  was a massive shift. All these movements are lead by a desire for change. One thing we must remember is that  peace  cannot be imposed. It has to come from within.

That doesn’t excuse others from doing what they have to do. Neighboring countries should do what they can to foster peace. At the same time, all states do what is good for their own interests and sometimes, outside intervention is not a good thing.

Redefining legal and illegal, war and peace – Carolyn Nordstrom’s “Shadows of War”

Posted on by
Reply

 The book “ Shadows of War” by Carolyn Nordstrom reads like a journal of a hustler, who writes really well. She  sounds like a hustler turned academic, or rather academic turned hustler. The language is fluid, smooth and natural. The protagonists speak for themselves, often anonymously, for obvious reasons.

This is the story of shadow economies, wars and innocent people caught in the cross-fire. Spanning several continents and countries, this is a mind-bending book, which is subtle yet shocking.
The story-tellers in this epic book are many, both the high and mighty as well as street children, who survive by forming communities of support and trust. In their helplessness, Nordstrom sees more hope than in the stable “peace” offered by peace-treaties and formal agreements.

The war in Sri Lanka, the strife in Mozambique and Angola form the backdrop for many of the stories that she tells, often quoting the people verbatim. This makes for  a compelling narrative.

Her book is also a call to re-look at the bureaucratic structures, including state actors, International NGOs’ and others, who often perpetuate the very violence that they are supposed to stop.

While deeply skeptical, this book is by no means cynical.

Using her friend’s personal story of carrying a Watermelon through riots in Sri Lanka, Nordstrom illustrates the irrationality that accompanies several of these conflicts and the nature of their manifestation. Speaking of the illicit economies and struggle for survival amidst these conflicts, she adds :” Systems of partnership, alliance, coercion, dependency, and outright violation variously mark these transactions, from the poor woman who gives up her only food to the foot soldier all the way to the vast global flows of weapons or resources for hard currency. It is in these intersections that power in its most fundamental form is forged. In the midst of vast political systems in which riots and wars scar human landscapes and mold global economies…”

The riots of Sri Lanka and Mozambique are examples that Nordstrom uses to illustrate the manner in which people react to situations and how whole economies are formed in the shadows, catering to certain power-brokers and leaving out the rest. She points out that violent situations are not necessarily about ethnicities or group behavior, but also about personal grudges and settling scores. The fact that certain respectable and “normal” people in the population participated in the violence doesn’t make it less violent or un-holy.

She points out that the violence is often censored for it doesn’t fit in with the neat description of the world we live in. She echoes Charles Tilly’s observation that “war making and state making is organized crime”, and the impact of networks of profiteering that exist as a result of the weapons, the logistical equipment that goes into the war-machine. This often outweighs the benefits of peace and places the conflicts in context. Nordstrom also points out that often the shadow states are not acknowledged because of the nature of how we choose to remember.

From stories of soldiers and commanders in Sri Lanka, who are unable to control their soldiers, to those in Angola and Mozambique, the human story of death, destruction and loss of hope comes out clearly. This seems to be a universal phenomenon, irrespective of the conflict or region. The intention seems to be one of taking away the hope that people have for the future. The physical act of harming people is just a corollary to the real intention of instilling fear – of participation in the military and political processes required to make the changes.

She also quotes a UN humanitarian aid worker, who, having worked in a conflict zone seems to have reached the conclusion that the real issue is one of building long-term hope. Even as he has lost hope and has gone “back to the basics”, the need for hanging onto this shred of hope is crucial, even if only to survive.  As Neitzsche said “The doing is everything”. The agency of action is as important as the action itself and one needs to look at the performance of power.

 

The illegal networks of trafficking of arms and goods is linked in an international network, and not just national ones.

Hawala and the informal banking network that exists to launder money is another example of how money changes hands and ends up in systems which can go towards funding the conflicts just described. This global network is sometimes coopted by states, and at times, operates out of the margins of the state.

The scale of illegal and black markets is staggering considering that the UN estimates the illicit drug market at $ 500 bn, with the illicit arms trade being about the same size. India’s black economy alone is estimated at around $ 60 bn annually.

From Non-profit professionals smuggling “rocks” to United Nations personnel trafficking arms and drugs, this book covers a wide swathe of activities which are clearly illegal as well as most which are quasi-legal.

Nordstrom challenges conventions when she points out that speaking of “peace” after peace-accords are signed is the norm, even if there is very little by way of peace; and the countries may as well be at war. Careers, billions of dollars are at stake, she points out. This rings true in many instances such as Angola, where through anecdotal evidence she points out that there were several hostilities and wide-scale violence, immediately following the peace treaties.

In an example of election monitoring and expenses related towards this, she talks about the 1994 elections in Mozambique. While the cost of the elections was about $ 1mn per day, most of the expenses were towards personnel, very sophisticated levels of voting tools, food – all of which were made and transported by western contractors and the money did not impact the local people in anyway. “The million dollars a day spent on the elections in Mozambique bought few local goods or services. Most made a loop back to western industries and personnel- passing through Mozambique without stopping”.

The words of the illiterate and powerless seem to be full of wisdom as she quotes an unknown man in a war zone :

“Someone without hope for a better future, will they plant their fields ? Will they work to develop industry ? Will they devote time to helping others, work to resolve conflicts, work to repair damaged towns and build up their societies? No. All that depends on a sense that things can get better that these actions will have some benefit in the future. Without this, people don’t build up something so it will be destroyed. So people stop working, and society stops progressing”.

Will calling for us all to re-examine the meaning of war, peace, stability and also what it means to be legal and “illegal”, this work is of profound significance to anyone interested in understanding not only the political economy of a state at war, but also helps one take a sneak peak into the heart and soul of those victims, who are often powerless and voiceless.

The spirit of the book is in this paragraph :” There is a profound irony in the observations I have made concerning shadow realities. The realm of the unregulated is a realm of possibility and danger, where great fortunes and great cruelty are possible. But it is also where the average person turns for survival in an unsure world. The arena of the shadows is a place where power regimes are contested, where new forms of capital, access and authority arise- some crumbling before they master any real influence in global affairs, other supplanting old regimes with new”.

A remarkable read. One of the best books I have ever read.

Interview with Dr Nimrod Goren – Founder, MITVIM about MITVIM’s Poll on Israel-Turkey relations

Posted on by
Reply

 

A few days ago, MITVIM, The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies released its findings regarding the now infamous “Turkish flotilla” incident. We interviewed Dr.Nimrod Goren, the founder in a candid conversation about the findings, and what implications it has for Israel’s foreign policy, going forward.

1. Can you tell us a bit about the key findings of your research report? What is startling about this?

The MITVIM poll on Israel-Turkey relations was conducted by the Rafi Smith Institute in late August 2012. It was carried out prior to a policy dialogue between MITVIM and the (Turkish) Global Political Trends (GPoT) Center that took place in September 2012. The man findings of the poll are:

 1) Approximately 8 out of 10 Israelis (79% of those with an opinion) think that Israel should take action in order to improve ties with Turkey in light of the instability in the Middle East, specifically in Syria.

2) A majority of the public (59% of those with an opinion) thinks that the Israeli government is not doing enough in order to improve Israeli-Turkish relations. About one-third of the respondents did not state an opinion.

 

3) A majority of the public (54% of those with an opinion) would support an agreement that will include an Israeli apology regarding the flotilla incident, as well as the renewal of full diplomatic ties, the renewal of security coordination between Israel and Turkey, and a Turkish commitment to refrain from filing lawsuits against IDF soldiers.

 

4) A majority of the public (60% of those with an opinion) thinks that improving the relations with Turkey will assist Israel in its international campaign against Iran. Almost one-quarter of the respondents did not state an opinion.

 

5) A majority of the public (53% of those with an opinion) will be ready to return and visit Turkey if relations with Israel will be mended (49% of the Jewish population will be ready to visit, and 84% of the Arab population).

The results show that for the first time there is a majority of Israelis supporting an apology to Turkey in the context of a broader reconciliation agreement between the countries. A year ago there was an overwhelming majority against it. The results may also indicate that Israelis are not willing to take for granted Israel’s growing regional isolation, better understand the need for better relations with Turkey, and expect their government to do more in this regard.

2. What is the methodology adopted to survey the 500 people mentioned in your report summary?

The poll was carried out by one of Israel’s leading polling companies – the Rafi Smith Institute, between August 23rd and 26th. The sample consisted of 500 men and women, as a representative sample of the Israeli adult population (Jewish and Arab sectors). Margin of error is 4.5%. The poll was conducted over the phone.

 

3. How do you foresee the Israeli relationship with Turkey in the months/years to come?

Israel-Turkey relations are not likely to go back in the coming years to the level they were in the 1990s. Those were years of a special alliance between the countries. Nevertheless, the two countries should and can restore normal relations that include full diplomatic ties, strategic dialogue, and civilian cooperation. The trade between Israel and Turkey has been reaching new heights in recent years, even despite the political tensions. Israel and Turkey have a bi-lateral issue they need to solve – the flotilla incident. A formula was found in summer 2011 but was rejected by the political level. It can still be implemented, and can pave the way for improvement of relations. Still, tensions and differences regarding the Palestinian issue will remain and will not enable the relations to progress from beyond a certain point. Moreover, resentment in the Israeli and Turkish public may lead the relations to be more strategic-political and nature, than between societies.

 

4. What is the “tipping point” in your opinion?

The “tipping point” can be a political decision in Israel to accept the formula for a reconciliation agreement that was negotiated by the two sides in 2011. Israelis should be convinced that they will be getting something meaningful in return and that Turkey is sincere in wanting the mend ties with Israel. The challenge for Turkey will be to accept that such an agreement will not include the lifting of the blockade on Gaza. This is a Turkish condition that seems to have been dropped during the 2011 negotiations, but is still being voiced by the Turkish leaders. Some progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process will definitely make the mending of Israel-Turkey relations much easier and smoother.

 

5. What role (if any) does US have to play in this?

The US has much interest in having its two allies in the Middle East be in better terms with each other. It has been advocating the mending of relations, and has been assisting the negotiations between the sides. These efforts should continue.

 

6. What do you think Israel should do to address the regional isolationism it continues to face?

Israel should not try to escape the region it is in. While looking for alliances in Europe and elsewhere, it should not give up on prospects for developing ties with new social and political actors in the Arab world. Israel should welcome the Arab Spring and the democratization processes in some Arab countries. It should take an initiative to re-launch peace negotiations with the Palestinians and to respond favorably to the Arab peace initiative. Mending ties with Turkey will also be an important step in addressing regional isolationism – Turkey is an important regional actor. It can serve as a channel for Israel to other Arab states, and it has an important role in shaping post-Assad Syria, which is of much importance to Israel as well. Building regional relations is not only a matter of the government – and thus MITVIM is pro-actively working to reach out to the Arab world via think tanks and media outlets, to improve the understanding among the Israeli public of developments in Arab countries, and to identify and implement opportunities to advance peace and regional belonging that the Arab Spring provides Israel.