Der von mir hier vorgestellte Artikel von Fareed Zakaria wird in der englischsprachigen arabischen Presse stark diskutiert. Und vor allem negativ: Sowohl in Al-Hayat wie in Asharq Alawsat (beide saudisch finanziert) trifft die Idee Zakarias auf entschiedene, geradezu wütende Ablehnung.
Raghida Dergham, die diplomatische Korrespondentin von Al-Hayat, sorgt sich, dass möglich zukünftige Deals zwischen der US-Regierung und radikalen Islamisten auf Kosten der moderaten und säkularen Kräfte im Nahen Osten gehen würden:
Zakaria quotes former CIA analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht saying that „it’s hard to hand over authority to people who are illiberal. What you have to realize is that the objective is to defeat bin Ladenism, and you have to start the evolution. Moderate Muslims are not the answer. Shiite clerics and Sunni fundamentalists are our salvation from future 9/11s“. These are dangerous words, not because they exclude and downgrade moderates while strengthening fundamentalists, but because they focus, with the utmost selfishness, on 9/11 from the perspective of the war on terror, instead of thinking of the consequences of excluding moderation and adopting partnership with fundamentalism. Perhaps the idea behind the cover of Newsweek is to appreciate the local cultural context and respect the fact that people seek to find a balance between freedom and order, as Zakaria says, as radical Islam is destined to lose in Muslim countries because its charms wear out once put to practice. Perhaps it is useful to leave Muslims to clash with the civilized world on their own so that they may realize that they have no choice but to abandon fundamentalism or extremist radicalism.
Raghida Dergham Foto: RaghidaDergham.com
However, it is important not to leave the impression that the West is willing to strike deals with radical Islam or with the sponsors of armed militias from the coalition of extremism and defiance, without regard for the harm this would inflict on moderation and moderates. Things are not as they used to be, and there are opposition movements in Arab countries that side with the government and its security apparatus when they only have one other choice, that of radical Islam. We must be wary not to repeat the painful mistakes of the past.
Noch härter geht der saudische Journalist Mshari Al-Zaydi mit „Fareeds schlechter Idee“ ins Gericht:
„Nach einer Attacke auf alle islamistischen Bewegungen unter Bush, selbst auf die weniger extremen unter ihnen, werden wir nun mit einer feigen Koexistenz-Angebot gegenüber den Taliban und ihresgeleichen in nigeria, Algerien und Irak konfrontiert.“
Al-Zaydi empört sich darüber, dass Zakaria offenbar die schlimmsten Gruppen tolerieren und gat als Partner kooptieren wolle, sofern sie nur die eigenen Gesellschaften ihrem barabarischen Regime unterwerfen wollen und den Westen in Ruhe lassen.
Dies sei falsches Denken, wie ja eben der Fall der Taliban gezeigt habe, die Al-Kaida aufgenommen hätten.
One might understand the idea of engaging in practical dialogue with a group of fighters as a way to dissuade them from harming an occupying force, just like what happened in Iraq and what will happen, or is happening, in Afghanistan. The motive would be to establish more security, weaken the enemy and decrease its support. But what is difficult to understand is this mistaken idea suggested by intellectuals in the US such as Fareed Zakaria, which gives the impression that the Islamic world is nothing but a laboratory where tests can be carried out.
Mshari Al-Zaydi Foto: Asharq Alawsat
Firstly, it is not true that fanatics who limit fanaticism to their own societies are not harmful to the outside world. Who provided support to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Who oppressed women, outlawed arts and turned Afghanistan into a society that apart from being plagued by poverty and war suffers from the hell of fanaticism? Should they be left to kill the spirit of life and is this not a concern for the US? If we apply this to a country like Yemen for example and let those fanatics loose based on the pretext that they only want to enforce their fanaticism within the borders of their own countries, the result would be that we have provided the ideal atmosphere for elements of Al Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Egyptian Al Gamaa al Islamiya and groups in Algeria, Libya and Morocco to operate and conceal themselves in an ocean of religious extremism in a society that has been left to its own devices simply because its extremism only concerns that society.
This is a cowardly and an opportunist theory, which is also impractical. It could be understood within the context of exhaustion as a result of confrontation with fanatics. However, it is definitely not an acceptable or good idea. Fanatics were left to their own devices in a number of Arab and Gulf countries for too long and the result was catastrophic. We have begun to see the fruits of their fanaticism in all aspects of life by their silencing of others, outlawing arts, science and communication with the outside world as well as battling ferociously against civilization, and state and social development.
p.s.: Und noch ein wütend ablehnender Kommentar zu Zakaria’s Ideen und Obamas Gesprächsangebot n die Radikalen, von Elias Harfoush in Al-Hayat:
There is no more obvious proof of the failure of any attempt to lure moderates from Taliban to a political settlement than what the Zardari government in Pakistan did recently. The Pakistani regime released the hands of the Pakistani branch of Taliban, as it believed that they can be dealt with, in an attempt to regain control of the Swat province. But what was the result? More murders and torture of those opposed to the movement and more suffering for the people who returned after the truce on the assumptions that stability was restored. More decapitated bodies of singers and artists and people whom the Taliban accuse of doing „indecent“ activities, more attacks on female school teachers, including throwing acid at their faces on their way to work or threatening them with murder if they persist in their professions. As a result, many schools had to close down, while the whole Pakistani province relived the worst days of Taliban rule in Afghanistan before September 11 and the American invasion.
As for how these organizations perceive the West’s new approach towards them, it also highlights the lack of understanding that the West has of these Islamic movements as it classifies them into „moderate,“ „radical,“ while referring to their solid ideology as „military and political wings.“ In the eyes of these movements, their actions and ideas are completely correct. Hence, they view the West’s openness as a „defeat“ for the western forces that are now seeking dialogue.
This is why the leaders of Hezbollah interpreted the British move as a „correction“ of the past British policy. It is no secret that the leaders of Hamas mock the division of the movement into „wings“ in Damascus and Gaza, while everyone knows from where the decisions come and at the service of whom. The same happened with the Taliban leaders who responded to Obama’s attempt to lure the „moderates“ by urging him to declare his defeat in Afghanistan and to withdraw.
If political decisions are built more on wishes than on facts on the ground, they will often backfire.