Monday April 16, 2007
The Islamist Charm Offensive
The Islamist front is clearly on a broad charm offensive. The results are impressive. We have the Foreign Affairs piece, op-eds in both the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal, the friendly forum for 4.5 hours of undisputed discourse from Tariq Ramadan at Georgetown University and the upcoming "What Does it Mean to Be Muslim in America" forum, again at Georgetown's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (funded by an endowment from the Saudi prince who had difficulty discerning 9-11 as a terrorist attack). The last includes the president of ISNA and the national head of the Muslim Student Association, ISNA's precursor as the first Muslim Brotherhood entity in the United States.
Given the scope and success of this push for a new acceptance of Islamists as politically representative of Islam writ large, and the efforts to reframe the debate in this country away from what Islamists believe toward what they are willing to say in public, it is an important move.
The debate is now to be framed over whether Islam is compatible with democracy and how "moderate" groups like the Brotherhood are, despite their continued support of _jihad_ and an Islamic world government. (For a good look at the fallacies of this argument, see today's Frontpage piece by Patrick Poole.)
It is interesting that Georgetown University chose to allow Europe's leading Islamist, Tariq Ramadan, a friendly forum from which to espouse his views, virtually uncontested. Ramadan has been banned from the United States and France for his defense of the Islamist agenda and long-standing associations with violent Islamist _jihadists._
I do not believe talking to Ramadan and those like him is necessarily a bad thing. But allowing him to set the definitions, the parameters of the debate and underlying assumptions, is wrong.
These underlying assumptions are nicely laid out by Lydia Kahlil for the Jamestown Foundation, where she explains the problem with this thinking:
"The Muslim Brotherhood has not relinquished the goal of Islamic governance, although their methods to achieve it may have changed. Nor have the Ikhwan embraced the United States. For the Muslim Brotherhood, Islam cannot be separated from governance or political life. According to their slogan, "Allah is our goal; the Messenger is our model; the Quran is our constitution; jihad is our means; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our aspiration." Although the Muslim Brotherhood has moderated its rhetoric, tactics and approach over the years, its overarching goal of Islamic governance has not wavered despite its efforts to publicly de-emphasize this fact."
"The crux of the debate between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood is not over the ends, but rather the means by which to realize the greater goal of Islamic governance throughout the Muslim world... The debate is not resolved, but the Ikhwan are aware and careful not to make their election strategy a cause of schism among salafist activists, despite occasional public disagreements."
This is the crux of the matter. The Italian, Irish, Swedish, Syrian and other immigrant groups that came to the United States did not come with the idea of turning the United States into a part of the Holy Roman Empire, or the Ottoman Empire, or the Coptic Empire. They (and most Muslims) came with the idea living in a nation that affords political freedom and freedom from oppression.
The Islamists in the Brotherhood and elsewhere have an entirely different agenda from the traditional immigrant narrative. They want (and I believe them because they have stated it repeatedly) to turn this country into an Islamic nation under _sharia_ law. Ramadan, ISNA, CAIR, ICNA, NAIT, etc., all hold this as a fundamental precept. And that is why their version of Islam is completely incompatible with democracy, and would subvert the constitutional order.
We rightly ostracize the Aryan Nation, David Duke and other groups and individuals who have advocated a separation of races, a withdrawal to religious enclaves and the right of small groups to live outside the accepted laws of society.
But that is exactly what Ramadan and the Islamists here preach, as articulated by Muslim Brotherhood theologian Yousef al Qaradawi and others: building enclaves that demand special privileges for Muslims, create a political agenda that embraces that goal, and move from town to county to state to national government.
The only way to do this is to present it all as a rational progression in defending the rights of minorities. But this is not the civil rights movement. It is a movement of religious domination.
What I find fascinating is that, even in such setting like a friendly Georgetown audience, Ramadan cannot deviate far from his true agenda, just as those hosting him seem willfully blind to what he is really saying. I am working off the Washington Post version of events in which he asserts that any attempt to "impose" secularism on Muslim-majority societies and "avoid the religious reference" in public life "will fail."
So, once a Muslim majority is created, _sharia_ law is imposed. I would bet my life (and that is in part what this debate is about) that there would be no further elections after that, regardless of changing demographics or the will of the majority.
These are serious issues that must be addressed in these forums. Have the forums. Debate at length. But don't start from the premise that Islamists share any of the same definitions of things like democracy, free speech, women's rights, and an independent judiciary that Americans are used to. They can use the words effectively, but have given them a whole different meaning.
Given the scope and success of this push for a new acceptance of Islamists as politically representative of Islam writ large, and the efforts to reframe the debate in this country away from what Islamists believe toward what they are willing to say in public, it is an important move.
The debate is now to be framed over whether Islam is compatible with democracy and how "moderate" groups like the Brotherhood are, despite their continued support of _jihad_ and an Islamic world government. (For a good look at the fallacies of this argument, see today's Frontpage piece by Patrick Poole.)
It is interesting that Georgetown University chose to allow Europe's leading Islamist, Tariq Ramadan, a friendly forum from which to espouse his views, virtually uncontested. Ramadan has been banned from the United States and France for his defense of the Islamist agenda and long-standing associations with violent Islamist _jihadists._
I do not believe talking to Ramadan and those like him is necessarily a bad thing. But allowing him to set the definitions, the parameters of the debate and underlying assumptions, is wrong.
These underlying assumptions are nicely laid out by Lydia Kahlil for the Jamestown Foundation, where she explains the problem with this thinking:
"The Muslim Brotherhood has not relinquished the goal of Islamic governance, although their methods to achieve it may have changed. Nor have the Ikhwan embraced the United States. For the Muslim Brotherhood, Islam cannot be separated from governance or political life. According to their slogan, "Allah is our goal; the Messenger is our model; the Quran is our constitution; jihad is our means; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our aspiration." Although the Muslim Brotherhood has moderated its rhetoric, tactics and approach over the years, its overarching goal of Islamic governance has not wavered despite its efforts to publicly de-emphasize this fact."
"The crux of the debate between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood is not over the ends, but rather the means by which to realize the greater goal of Islamic governance throughout the Muslim world... The debate is not resolved, but the Ikhwan are aware and careful not to make their election strategy a cause of schism among salafist activists, despite occasional public disagreements."
This is the crux of the matter. The Italian, Irish, Swedish, Syrian and other immigrant groups that came to the United States did not come with the idea of turning the United States into a part of the Holy Roman Empire, or the Ottoman Empire, or the Coptic Empire. They (and most Muslims) came with the idea living in a nation that affords political freedom and freedom from oppression.
The Islamists in the Brotherhood and elsewhere have an entirely different agenda from the traditional immigrant narrative. They want (and I believe them because they have stated it repeatedly) to turn this country into an Islamic nation under _sharia_ law. Ramadan, ISNA, CAIR, ICNA, NAIT, etc., all hold this as a fundamental precept. And that is why their version of Islam is completely incompatible with democracy, and would subvert the constitutional order.
We rightly ostracize the Aryan Nation, David Duke and other groups and individuals who have advocated a separation of races, a withdrawal to religious enclaves and the right of small groups to live outside the accepted laws of society.
But that is exactly what Ramadan and the Islamists here preach, as articulated by Muslim Brotherhood theologian Yousef al Qaradawi and others: building enclaves that demand special privileges for Muslims, create a political agenda that embraces that goal, and move from town to county to state to national government.
The only way to do this is to present it all as a rational progression in defending the rights of minorities. But this is not the civil rights movement. It is a movement of religious domination.
What I find fascinating is that, even in such setting like a friendly Georgetown audience, Ramadan cannot deviate far from his true agenda, just as those hosting him seem willfully blind to what he is really saying. I am working off the Washington Post version of events in which he asserts that any attempt to "impose" secularism on Muslim-majority societies and "avoid the religious reference" in public life "will fail."
So, once a Muslim majority is created, _sharia_ law is imposed. I would bet my life (and that is in part what this debate is about) that there would be no further elections after that, regardless of changing demographics or the will of the majority.
These are serious issues that must be addressed in these forums. Have the forums. Debate at length. But don't start from the premise that Islamists share any of the same definitions of things like democracy, free speech, women's rights, and an independent judiciary that Americans are used to. They can use the words effectively, but have given them a whole different meaning.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Thursday April 12, 2007
The Spreading Al Qaeda Movement
The recent attack in Algeria by Al Qaeda's Committee in the Islamic Maghreb in Algeria, coupled with the re-emergence and spread of the Islamist presence in Somalia, clearly show two things:
1) That the macro strategy of the core al Qaeda of fomenting the creation of small, autonomous groups to carry out _jihad_ is firmly taking root and
2) That Africa, from the Northern tier to the Horn, with a network to Southern Africa and tactical alliances in West Africa, have made that continent one of the most important battle grounds in the long war on Islamist terrorism.
Algeria is particularly important because of its proximity to Europe and the large presence of Algerian diasporas in many European countries, and the radicalization of many of these diaspora groups.
The ability of the Algerian group to inflict large-scale casualties, the possible role of the group in fomenting violence in neighboring Morocco, and its operational presence down to Mali all indicate some important growth and growing capacity.
It is interesting that in many of the areas where Al Qaeda's Committee in the Islamic Maghreb is growing in Africa have seen the growth of the presence of Saudi-financed Saudi _wahhabist_ mosques and madrassas.
It is part of a clear pattern that has emerged in Europe and Southeast Asia as well as the Arab peninsula: The radicalizing message of the _wahhabist_ preachers accompanies the recruitment of combatants, suicide bombers and others into the violent _jihadist_ movements.
This is true too in many of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated mosques in Europe, who often preach similar messages of hatred toward the West, as has been amply demonstrated in recent taped statements in Britain and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the only tool in the tool box that seems to be available in the eyes of policy makers in dealing with the developments in Africa, is the military.
Given that the new Africa Command will take some time to be operational, and the fact that U.S. forces are already stretched beyond any reasonable limit, this is already a tool that is of limited effectiveness.
What is more alarming is that there seems to be so little thinking about using the tools of intelligent public diplomacy, outreach, serious intelligence-gathering or any other tool, in the region.
The default position seems to be to view the problem of spreading Islamist terrorism as a military one and shovel the responsibility to a military that no longer has the resources to tackle the problem, laying aside whether it is the most appropriate instrument to begin with.
The result will be (and has been) abandoning the field of non-military combat entirely to the _salafists_. There is no significant effort to counter the radicalization in any way.
One of the results is that we will see more semi-autonomous groups spreading more havoc, following in the wake of radical Islamist preachers funded by Saudi Arabia. Not a pretty picture.
1) That the macro strategy of the core al Qaeda of fomenting the creation of small, autonomous groups to carry out _jihad_ is firmly taking root and
2) That Africa, from the Northern tier to the Horn, with a network to Southern Africa and tactical alliances in West Africa, have made that continent one of the most important battle grounds in the long war on Islamist terrorism.
Algeria is particularly important because of its proximity to Europe and the large presence of Algerian diasporas in many European countries, and the radicalization of many of these diaspora groups.
The ability of the Algerian group to inflict large-scale casualties, the possible role of the group in fomenting violence in neighboring Morocco, and its operational presence down to Mali all indicate some important growth and growing capacity.
It is interesting that in many of the areas where Al Qaeda's Committee in the Islamic Maghreb is growing in Africa have seen the growth of the presence of Saudi-financed Saudi _wahhabist_ mosques and madrassas.
It is part of a clear pattern that has emerged in Europe and Southeast Asia as well as the Arab peninsula: The radicalizing message of the _wahhabist_ preachers accompanies the recruitment of combatants, suicide bombers and others into the violent _jihadist_ movements.
This is true too in many of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated mosques in Europe, who often preach similar messages of hatred toward the West, as has been amply demonstrated in recent taped statements in Britain and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the only tool in the tool box that seems to be available in the eyes of policy makers in dealing with the developments in Africa, is the military.
Given that the new Africa Command will take some time to be operational, and the fact that U.S. forces are already stretched beyond any reasonable limit, this is already a tool that is of limited effectiveness.
What is more alarming is that there seems to be so little thinking about using the tools of intelligent public diplomacy, outreach, serious intelligence-gathering or any other tool, in the region.
The default position seems to be to view the problem of spreading Islamist terrorism as a military one and shovel the responsibility to a military that no longer has the resources to tackle the problem, laying aside whether it is the most appropriate instrument to begin with.
The result will be (and has been) abandoning the field of non-military combat entirely to the _salafists_. There is no significant effort to counter the radicalization in any way.
One of the results is that we will see more semi-autonomous groups spreading more havoc, following in the wake of radical Islamist preachers funded by Saudi Arabia. Not a pretty picture.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday April 9, 2007
The Ineffectiveness of the UN Travel Ban Lists
Well, if we needed further evidence of the lack of effectiveness of the United Nations travel ban lists (supposedly obligatory lists that ban the individual from traveling from his/her home country), we need look no further.
Just ask Gen. Mohammad Basqer Zolqadr, a Iranian Revolutionary Guard general and deputy interior minister. He publicly and happily violated the UN ban with a recent official visit to Russia. He not only traveled to Russia unimpeded despite being on the recently-mandated ban under Resolution 1747 because of his role in Iran's nuclear program, but he bragged that the six-day sojourn showed just how ineffective the resolution is.
"Despite resolution 1747 which imposed a travel ban on some members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, including me, I traveled to Russia and no restriction was applied," Zolgadr crowed on returning home.
He is right. Without real international cooperation, the ability to violate the travel ban lists with impunity only add to the problem they are supposed to be tackling. Once those on the list understand there are no penalties attached to violating the international norm, their stature grows and that of the controlling body diminishes.
Unfortunately, one of the primary countries that has shown no willingness to enforce the international sanctions it has backed for public consumption on the Security Council, is Russia. Like so many cases in recent weeks (Somalia, Lebanon, Iran), Russia has shown no regard for international law or anything other than mercenary considerations in its weapons sales and
Among those who routinely violate the travel ban in Viktor Bout, who resides in Moscow, but has traveled to Europe (Moldova and elsewhere), Beirut, Cyprus and other points.
However, Russia is not alone. Yousef Nada, Idriss Nasreddin and other leaders of the international Muslim Brotherhood, under the same restrictions for their support of Islamist terrorism, travel unfettered around the globe.
Sometimes they use different passports, but often they do not even have to bother to do that. Nada visited Liechtenstein to try to change the names of some of his shell companies after his assets were frozen. Nasreddin travels around Africa, where his supposedly-frozen businesses still thrive.
The problem with non-functional international sanctions is that no one is ever punished for not adhering to them. So the impunity of those who violate them simply make the enacting body a laughing stock. Without international cooperation, coordination and willpower, the efforts will not work. And there is very little of any of the above.
This is true in asset freezes, travel bans, name and shame campaigns and other measures the U.N has tried to take. If no one pays attention to enforcement, it is better to not enact them.
To my knowledge, and officially up to 2005 no one reported stopping anyone on an international travel ban list trying to enter any country. That is a pretty abysmal record.
If people's whose names are on lists can travel unimpeded, one can only imagine the ease with which those whose names are not on any list move. If we won't stop the known bad guys from moving, how will we track and stop the unknown bad guys? Most likely we will not.
Just ask Gen. Mohammad Basqer Zolqadr, a Iranian Revolutionary Guard general and deputy interior minister. He publicly and happily violated the UN ban with a recent official visit to Russia. He not only traveled to Russia unimpeded despite being on the recently-mandated ban under Resolution 1747 because of his role in Iran's nuclear program, but he bragged that the six-day sojourn showed just how ineffective the resolution is.
"Despite resolution 1747 which imposed a travel ban on some members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, including me, I traveled to Russia and no restriction was applied," Zolgadr crowed on returning home.
He is right. Without real international cooperation, the ability to violate the travel ban lists with impunity only add to the problem they are supposed to be tackling. Once those on the list understand there are no penalties attached to violating the international norm, their stature grows and that of the controlling body diminishes.
Unfortunately, one of the primary countries that has shown no willingness to enforce the international sanctions it has backed for public consumption on the Security Council, is Russia. Like so many cases in recent weeks (Somalia, Lebanon, Iran), Russia has shown no regard for international law or anything other than mercenary considerations in its weapons sales and
Among those who routinely violate the travel ban in Viktor Bout, who resides in Moscow, but has traveled to Europe (Moldova and elsewhere), Beirut, Cyprus and other points.
However, Russia is not alone. Yousef Nada, Idriss Nasreddin and other leaders of the international Muslim Brotherhood, under the same restrictions for their support of Islamist terrorism, travel unfettered around the globe.
Sometimes they use different passports, but often they do not even have to bother to do that. Nada visited Liechtenstein to try to change the names of some of his shell companies after his assets were frozen. Nasreddin travels around Africa, where his supposedly-frozen businesses still thrive.
The problem with non-functional international sanctions is that no one is ever punished for not adhering to them. So the impunity of those who violate them simply make the enacting body a laughing stock. Without international cooperation, coordination and willpower, the efforts will not work. And there is very little of any of the above.
This is true in asset freezes, travel bans, name and shame campaigns and other measures the U.N has tried to take. If no one pays attention to enforcement, it is better to not enact them.
To my knowledge, and officially up to 2005 no one reported stopping anyone on an international travel ban list trying to enter any country. That is a pretty abysmal record.
If people's whose names are on lists can travel unimpeded, one can only imagine the ease with which those whose names are not on any list move. If we won't stop the known bad guys from moving, how will we track and stop the unknown bad guys? Most likely we will not.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Friday April 6, 2007
Muamar Qaddafi Tries a Return to his Islamic Roots
Ever the chameleon on the international stage, Libyan dictator Muamar Qaddafi is making a play to return to his Islamic roots and play the role that Sudan did under the leadership of Hasan al-Turabi-a bridge between Shi'ite and Sunni camps to form a broader Islamic nation.
According to translations of recent Qaddafi speeches provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute, the aging leader, who had in recent years turned his back on Arabs and declared himself an pan-Africanist, is now calling for the recreation the Shi'ite _Fatimid_ state, which ruled northern Africa from the 10th to the 13th centuries.
I have long argued that, given his constant meddling in sub-Saharan Africa, his support for Mugabe in Zimbabwe and his gross abuses of human rights, that Qaddafi was not a reliable partner in any way, for virtually anything, despite getting his country taken off the state sponsors of terrorism list.
His list of other atrocities are also long. He provided the initial training to Charles Taylor, Foday Sankoh, Blaise Compaore, Laurent Kabila and a host of others whose brutality across Africa have left the continent crippled.
When he was not accepted as a an Arab statesman, he turned his back on all things Arab and began efforts to buy the Africa Union, the successor to the Organization of African States. He paid the dues of many of the poorer countries in exchange for their backing of his obscure and constantly-changing agenda.
Now he is back on the Arab side, declaring there is no difference between Sunni and Shi'ite and that the divisions are being created by "colonalism." It is a rambling and sometimes incoherent discourse, as most of Qaddafi's are.
What does his return to the Arab fold hold and his laundry list of complaints against the West and non-Muslims? With Qaddafi, it is impossible to tell. But his changes are usually accompanied by outpouring of resources for whatever his new, favorite projects are.
It will be worth keeping an eye on this mercurial character and his tendency to attract and support some of the world's most unsavory characters.
According to translations of recent Qaddafi speeches provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute, the aging leader, who had in recent years turned his back on Arabs and declared himself an pan-Africanist, is now calling for the recreation the Shi'ite _Fatimid_ state, which ruled northern Africa from the 10th to the 13th centuries.
I have long argued that, given his constant meddling in sub-Saharan Africa, his support for Mugabe in Zimbabwe and his gross abuses of human rights, that Qaddafi was not a reliable partner in any way, for virtually anything, despite getting his country taken off the state sponsors of terrorism list.
His list of other atrocities are also long. He provided the initial training to Charles Taylor, Foday Sankoh, Blaise Compaore, Laurent Kabila and a host of others whose brutality across Africa have left the continent crippled.
When he was not accepted as a an Arab statesman, he turned his back on all things Arab and began efforts to buy the Africa Union, the successor to the Organization of African States. He paid the dues of many of the poorer countries in exchange for their backing of his obscure and constantly-changing agenda.
Now he is back on the Arab side, declaring there is no difference between Sunni and Shi'ite and that the divisions are being created by "colonalism." It is a rambling and sometimes incoherent discourse, as most of Qaddafi's are.
What does his return to the Arab fold hold and his laundry list of complaints against the West and non-Muslims? With Qaddafi, it is impossible to tell. But his changes are usually accompanied by outpouring of resources for whatever his new, favorite projects are.
It will be worth keeping an eye on this mercurial character and his tendency to attract and support some of the world's most unsavory characters.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Thursday April 5, 2007
Enabling Chaos and Terrorism in Africa
One of the abiding tragedies of Africa is the twin curse of brutal and corrupt leaders and the unwillingness of the region's less brutal leaders to take corrective action.
The latest, long-running train wreck is Robert Mugabe's thuggery and kleptocracy in Zimbabwe, a once proud and prosperous nation now boasting only the highest infant mortality rate in the world and some of the worst inflation.
As Arnold Tsunga writes in today's Washington Post, Mugabe is not single-handedly destroying his country. He is enabled by the weak, pathetic and tragic lack of leadership of his enablers, the leaders of other southern African nations, to face the crisis he has wrought.
At a recent African summit following the naked aggression of Mugabe's thugs, including the beatings of main opposition leaders then the public bragging about it, the other leaders were worse than silent. Tanzanian president Jakaya Kikwete announced that he an other leaders were "in support of the government and people of Zimbabwe." So much for the policy of "quiet engagement" in working with Mugabe. It is more like public endorsement.
There is no question of historic factors such as colonialism, slavery and exploitation causing deep and lasting effects in Africa. But it is these self-inflicted wounds by the "Big Men" of Africa that have allowed the cancer of corruption, brutality and despotic rule to spread and last.
This is akin to paying lip service to cracking down on drugs while publicly bragging about distributing heroin and crack on the streets.
This is a crisis that extends far beyond Zimbabwe. By creating (and standing by and/or encouraging it), southern Africa is creating the conditions for the spread of terrorism and chaos. Not only Islamist terrorism, although we have seen the Islamist ability to exploit such conditions in Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Liberia and elsewhere. The conditions for armed revolts that degenerate to the level of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda or the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone, are now ripe.
Zimbabwe is particularly vulnerable to exploitation by criminal gangs and terrorists (the transnational criminal groups are already operating, the terrorist are likely too). Mugabe, operating criminal state, offers many advantages, as Taylor in Liberia did: access to diplomatic passports and state banking facilities; payment in valuable natural resources and commodities; control of the borders to allow the entry, exit and protection of its allies; and a monopoly on public security forces to protect those operations.
Taylor exploited all of those to the maximum. It is hard to imagine Mugabe has not learned those lessons well.
The danger then is to all of us. As al Qaeda and Hezbollah exploited Liberia for financial reasons and strengthened their positions, so they will in Zimbabwe as well. As chaos spreads, the cost in human terms will be dire and the economic cost of remedying the situation further down the road will be staggering.
But the solution is not in the hands of the West, but in the cowardly hands of the Mbeke's of Africa, who enjoy a measure of freedom and prosperity in their own countries but are unwilling to lift a finger to stop the abuses in Zimbabwe. South Africa controls the supply of electricity, food, credits and much more to Mugabe's regime. It is stunning that a government that exists in some large measure because of the willingness of the international community to impose sanctions on a racist regime is unwilling to take even minimum steps to insure the freedom of others.
As Tsunga wrote: "If Southern Africa's leaders finally break their silence about the catastrophe in their neighborhood, this could be the year Mugabe leaves office and Zimbabwe reintegrates itself into the world. Or they could remain silent and complicit, and this year could mark the beginning of an even steeper decline into oppression."
The latest, long-running train wreck is Robert Mugabe's thuggery and kleptocracy in Zimbabwe, a once proud and prosperous nation now boasting only the highest infant mortality rate in the world and some of the worst inflation.
As Arnold Tsunga writes in today's Washington Post, Mugabe is not single-handedly destroying his country. He is enabled by the weak, pathetic and tragic lack of leadership of his enablers, the leaders of other southern African nations, to face the crisis he has wrought.
At a recent African summit following the naked aggression of Mugabe's thugs, including the beatings of main opposition leaders then the public bragging about it, the other leaders were worse than silent. Tanzanian president Jakaya Kikwete announced that he an other leaders were "in support of the government and people of Zimbabwe." So much for the policy of "quiet engagement" in working with Mugabe. It is more like public endorsement.
There is no question of historic factors such as colonialism, slavery and exploitation causing deep and lasting effects in Africa. But it is these self-inflicted wounds by the "Big Men" of Africa that have allowed the cancer of corruption, brutality and despotic rule to spread and last.
This is akin to paying lip service to cracking down on drugs while publicly bragging about distributing heroin and crack on the streets.
This is a crisis that extends far beyond Zimbabwe. By creating (and standing by and/or encouraging it), southern Africa is creating the conditions for the spread of terrorism and chaos. Not only Islamist terrorism, although we have seen the Islamist ability to exploit such conditions in Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Liberia and elsewhere. The conditions for armed revolts that degenerate to the level of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda or the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone, are now ripe.
Zimbabwe is particularly vulnerable to exploitation by criminal gangs and terrorists (the transnational criminal groups are already operating, the terrorist are likely too). Mugabe, operating criminal state, offers many advantages, as Taylor in Liberia did: access to diplomatic passports and state banking facilities; payment in valuable natural resources and commodities; control of the borders to allow the entry, exit and protection of its allies; and a monopoly on public security forces to protect those operations.
Taylor exploited all of those to the maximum. It is hard to imagine Mugabe has not learned those lessons well.
The danger then is to all of us. As al Qaeda and Hezbollah exploited Liberia for financial reasons and strengthened their positions, so they will in Zimbabwe as well. As chaos spreads, the cost in human terms will be dire and the economic cost of remedying the situation further down the road will be staggering.
But the solution is not in the hands of the West, but in the cowardly hands of the Mbeke's of Africa, who enjoy a measure of freedom and prosperity in their own countries but are unwilling to lift a finger to stop the abuses in Zimbabwe. South Africa controls the supply of electricity, food, credits and much more to Mugabe's regime. It is stunning that a government that exists in some large measure because of the willingness of the international community to impose sanctions on a racist regime is unwilling to take even minimum steps to insure the freedom of others.
As Tsunga wrote: "If Southern Africa's leaders finally break their silence about the catastrophe in their neighborhood, this could be the year Mugabe leaves office and Zimbabwe reintegrates itself into the world. Or they could remain silent and complicit, and this year could mark the beginning of an even steeper decline into oppression."
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH