Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Awareness THROUGH Social media !!
Social media has brought various religious and ethnic groups across the world closer together. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Arab world, as demonstrated by the recent protests. Activists in this part of the world maintain that their motives are not sectarian. Indeed, the protests themselves show people of different backgrounds coming together for a common cause: change.
In Manama, a campaign for political change launched on blogs and on Facebook proclaimed: "No Sunni, No Shi'ite. Only Bahraini." In Syria, protesters are rejecting sectarian strife and focusing on oneness, shouting: "Not Kurdish, Not Arab. We Want National Unity." This is in addition to an online campaign started by activists with the slogan: "Are you Muslim or Christian? I am Syrian", which grew to nearly 9,000 members. And then there is the Facebook launch of a Syrian code of honour, condemning all forms of discrimination against fellow citizens, with around 5,000 members.
Many Arab regimes banned the creation of political parties, and limited the right to associate or create civil rights groups. This meant that there was little space where religious, ethnic and cultural groups could meet and interact. Some of the ruling regimes also marginalised and oppressed religious and ethnic minorities – from the oppression of the Amazigh in North African countries by prohibiting them from speaking their native language or giving traditional Amazigh names to their children, to banning Christians from rebuilding their churches, or depriving Kurds of their nationality, as well as other measures.
But social media has helped such groups discover one another, and break the psychological barrier of fear between them, which some regimes had constructed. Social media is a “first step” toward engagement with what the regimes qualified as “the other”. After all, it is easier to begin a conversation with someone with a different background sitting behind a computer screen.
It is also a step toward taking this change to broader society.
In Lebanon too, online groups that oppose sectarianism and discrimination in society have appeared, creating a space that has brought people from various sects and regions closer together.
As the protests spread across the Arab world, activists in Lebanon began to unite with the goal of "ousting the sectarian system." These activists managed to reach around 15,000 people through a Facebook group entitled, "In favour of ousting the Lebanese sectarian system – towards a secular system." The group is comprised of youth from different sects, regions and cultural backgrounds. On the group’s Facebook page, activists engage in extensive discussions about the existing system and about the system they long for. The leaders of this group have even organised many public demonstrations, including one that numbered 21,000 people, all demanding the end of the sectarian system in Lebanon.
Social media is fast proving to be a tool that creates awareness of a particular issue amongst large numbers of people. A few clicks, and you can spread the world with your message and galvanise like-minded individuals to interact and engage in a common cause.
In the past five years, many such causes have surfaced, brought on by multi-religious, cultural and political groups. For instance, proponents of gay rights, through their online presence, were able to create more awareness of their plight in Lebanon.
This movement attracted support from many youth across religions, sects and regions, with the aim of removing Article 534 from the Lebanese Penal Code, which identifies homosexuals as criminals, and granting a person the right to choose his or her sexual orientation. The online presence of this movement and the success of its outreach demonstrate how social media can provide youth of different backgrounds a platform to engage in fruitful interaction for a common cause.
Another example of social media’s ability to bring people together is the Lebanese Women's Right to Nationality and Full Citizenship, a cause that brought together over 20,000 members on Facebook to support all Lebanese women’s right to pass on their nationality to their children. People from all religions were able to meet online and discover that those of different faiths can and do think just like they do.
This kind of activity reinforces a sense of social cohesion and helps people focus on what they have in common, despite differences in their backgrounds. It has also proven to be an effective tool in the hands of people relegated to society’s margins, who are now able to voice their concerns and gather support from all segments across the country
In Manama, a campaign for political change launched on blogs and on Facebook proclaimed: "No Sunni, No Shi'ite. Only Bahraini." In Syria, protesters are rejecting sectarian strife and focusing on oneness, shouting: "Not Kurdish, Not Arab. We Want National Unity." This is in addition to an online campaign started by activists with the slogan: "Are you Muslim or Christian? I am Syrian", which grew to nearly 9,000 members. And then there is the Facebook launch of a Syrian code of honour, condemning all forms of discrimination against fellow citizens, with around 5,000 members.
Many Arab regimes banned the creation of political parties, and limited the right to associate or create civil rights groups. This meant that there was little space where religious, ethnic and cultural groups could meet and interact. Some of the ruling regimes also marginalised and oppressed religious and ethnic minorities – from the oppression of the Amazigh in North African countries by prohibiting them from speaking their native language or giving traditional Amazigh names to their children, to banning Christians from rebuilding their churches, or depriving Kurds of their nationality, as well as other measures.
But social media has helped such groups discover one another, and break the psychological barrier of fear between them, which some regimes had constructed. Social media is a “first step” toward engagement with what the regimes qualified as “the other”. After all, it is easier to begin a conversation with someone with a different background sitting behind a computer screen.
It is also a step toward taking this change to broader society.
In Lebanon too, online groups that oppose sectarianism and discrimination in society have appeared, creating a space that has brought people from various sects and regions closer together.
As the protests spread across the Arab world, activists in Lebanon began to unite with the goal of "ousting the sectarian system." These activists managed to reach around 15,000 people through a Facebook group entitled, "In favour of ousting the Lebanese sectarian system – towards a secular system." The group is comprised of youth from different sects, regions and cultural backgrounds. On the group’s Facebook page, activists engage in extensive discussions about the existing system and about the system they long for. The leaders of this group have even organised many public demonstrations, including one that numbered 21,000 people, all demanding the end of the sectarian system in Lebanon.
Social media is fast proving to be a tool that creates awareness of a particular issue amongst large numbers of people. A few clicks, and you can spread the world with your message and galvanise like-minded individuals to interact and engage in a common cause.
In the past five years, many such causes have surfaced, brought on by multi-religious, cultural and political groups. For instance, proponents of gay rights, through their online presence, were able to create more awareness of their plight in Lebanon.
This movement attracted support from many youth across religions, sects and regions, with the aim of removing Article 534 from the Lebanese Penal Code, which identifies homosexuals as criminals, and granting a person the right to choose his or her sexual orientation. The online presence of this movement and the success of its outreach demonstrate how social media can provide youth of different backgrounds a platform to engage in fruitful interaction for a common cause.
Another example of social media’s ability to bring people together is the Lebanese Women's Right to Nationality and Full Citizenship, a cause that brought together over 20,000 members on Facebook to support all Lebanese women’s right to pass on their nationality to their children. People from all religions were able to meet online and discover that those of different faiths can and do think just like they do.
This kind of activity reinforces a sense of social cohesion and helps people focus on what they have in common, despite differences in their backgrounds. It has also proven to be an effective tool in the hands of people relegated to society’s margins, who are now able to voice their concerns and gather support from all segments across the country
Monday, May 23, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The shift in Palestine that no one is talking about
With all eyes on the upcoming United Nations General Assembly meeting in September when 191 UN member states will vote on whether or not to recognise a Palestinian state, it is surprising that there is barely any mention of what may be one of the most significant developments within Palestinian society in recent times.
Beneath the radar, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is successfully promoting the notion that popular resistance through nonviolent methods is the preferred means to advance the Palestinian cause and achieve the final goal of ending the occupation and establishing the Palestinian state. In turn, Palestinian public opinion in the West Bank is shifting radically by embracing nonviolent resistance as popular and legitimate.
Palestinian nonviolent resistance can be traced back to the 1970s and the first intifada, or uprising. The principles of nonviolence are now taking firm hold in the collective Palestinian psyche as expressed in my recent discussions with Palestinian residents and by Palestinians in official positions, such as Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
This trend stems from a growing appreciation that the promotion of internal Palestinian security and calm is firmly linked to security for Israelis. What this translates to on the ground is that the lull in attacks against Israelis of the past few years is now perceived to serve the Palestinian national cause. This perceptual shift is perhaps the biggest achievement of the PNA's state-building plan, which envisages the creation of an independent and sovereign Palestine by late 2011.
So how did this change in the security posture come about? Understanding the perversity of the security condition set by the US-backed peace proposal “Road Map for Peace”, whereby the Palestinian government must provide Israel – the occupying power – with security, Fayyad cleverly linked security with freedom.
Fayyad internalised Israel’s need for security as first and foremost a Palestinian need. The idea behind the switch is derived in part from the belief that Palestinians are ultimately responsible for their own destiny. So while part of the PNA’s state building plan is strengthening the economy, reforming the security sector, and creating transparent and accountable state institutions, an even bigger part is dedicated to transforming the minds of Palestinian residents living in the West Bank by impressing upon them the idea that violent resistance completely undermines their right to self-determination.
Institutionalising the new security position within both state and society included the implementation of a series of security measures in the West Bank, such as the training of new national security forces, dismantling illegal militias, jailing Hamas members for crimes of aggression and money laundering, and focusing on the overall safety of Palestinian citizens.
In addition, the PNA implemented two measures, demonstrating the commitment of the current government to building a democratic and viable state: giving a large role to civil society organisations to assist in the direction and implementation of the security measures, and recruiting former militants into the security apparatus.
To several international observers some of these measures come at the expense of democracy by arbitrarily detaining those sympathetic to Hamas. Nonetheless, most of the measures have been remarkably successful in returning the rule of law to the West Bank and providing Palestinians with a relative sense of normalcy and genuine hope for the future.
Identifying the need for security and calm as a Palestinian interest constitutes the highest form of assurance for Israelis because it gives Palestinians a sense that they have something to lose should security not be maintained. In this sense, Fayyad reorganised the principles guiding the Palestinian security doctrine by recognising the need to reign in violent groups and networks, regain authority in the West Bank and ensure suicide attacks against Israelis do not occur because they do not serve the Palestinian interest.
Israelis must come to understand that when a person has something to lose, they will work hard to maintain it. The importance of Israeli society recognising this process within Palestinian society is crucial for this to work.
Ghaith al-Omari, a former foreign policy adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, once said that the challenge for Fayyad and Abbas is that “for many Palestinians violence against Israel is a nationalist, respectable endeavour.” While that may have been true in the past, the present situation certainly paints a different picture. Hopefully by coming to the realisation that one cannot sustain security by force alone, Israelis will look more favourably toward the Palestinian state-building project.
Regards
ASHFAQ REHMANI
Lahore-Pakistan
Email< pasrurmedia@hotmail.com>
Beneath the radar, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is successfully promoting the notion that popular resistance through nonviolent methods is the preferred means to advance the Palestinian cause and achieve the final goal of ending the occupation and establishing the Palestinian state. In turn, Palestinian public opinion in the West Bank is shifting radically by embracing nonviolent resistance as popular and legitimate.
Palestinian nonviolent resistance can be traced back to the 1970s and the first intifada, or uprising. The principles of nonviolence are now taking firm hold in the collective Palestinian psyche as expressed in my recent discussions with Palestinian residents and by Palestinians in official positions, such as Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
This trend stems from a growing appreciation that the promotion of internal Palestinian security and calm is firmly linked to security for Israelis. What this translates to on the ground is that the lull in attacks against Israelis of the past few years is now perceived to serve the Palestinian national cause. This perceptual shift is perhaps the biggest achievement of the PNA's state-building plan, which envisages the creation of an independent and sovereign Palestine by late 2011.
So how did this change in the security posture come about? Understanding the perversity of the security condition set by the US-backed peace proposal “Road Map for Peace”, whereby the Palestinian government must provide Israel – the occupying power – with security, Fayyad cleverly linked security with freedom.
Fayyad internalised Israel’s need for security as first and foremost a Palestinian need. The idea behind the switch is derived in part from the belief that Palestinians are ultimately responsible for their own destiny. So while part of the PNA’s state building plan is strengthening the economy, reforming the security sector, and creating transparent and accountable state institutions, an even bigger part is dedicated to transforming the minds of Palestinian residents living in the West Bank by impressing upon them the idea that violent resistance completely undermines their right to self-determination.
Institutionalising the new security position within both state and society included the implementation of a series of security measures in the West Bank, such as the training of new national security forces, dismantling illegal militias, jailing Hamas members for crimes of aggression and money laundering, and focusing on the overall safety of Palestinian citizens.
In addition, the PNA implemented two measures, demonstrating the commitment of the current government to building a democratic and viable state: giving a large role to civil society organisations to assist in the direction and implementation of the security measures, and recruiting former militants into the security apparatus.
To several international observers some of these measures come at the expense of democracy by arbitrarily detaining those sympathetic to Hamas. Nonetheless, most of the measures have been remarkably successful in returning the rule of law to the West Bank and providing Palestinians with a relative sense of normalcy and genuine hope for the future.
Identifying the need for security and calm as a Palestinian interest constitutes the highest form of assurance for Israelis because it gives Palestinians a sense that they have something to lose should security not be maintained. In this sense, Fayyad reorganised the principles guiding the Palestinian security doctrine by recognising the need to reign in violent groups and networks, regain authority in the West Bank and ensure suicide attacks against Israelis do not occur because they do not serve the Palestinian interest.
Israelis must come to understand that when a person has something to lose, they will work hard to maintain it. The importance of Israeli society recognising this process within Palestinian society is crucial for this to work.
Ghaith al-Omari, a former foreign policy adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, once said that the challenge for Fayyad and Abbas is that “for many Palestinians violence against Israel is a nationalist, respectable endeavour.” While that may have been true in the past, the present situation certainly paints a different picture. Hopefully by coming to the realisation that one cannot sustain security by force alone, Israelis will look more favourably toward the Palestinian state-building project.
Regards
ASHFAQ REHMANI
Lahore-Pakistan
Email< pasrurmedia@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Osama bin Laden-USA and Pakistan’s intelligence agencies !
Scenes of rejoicing in Washington and New York accompanied the news that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had been killed by US special forces on Sunday. But in Pakistan, many remained glued to their television sets, wondering what this event means for their nation’s security and sovereignty. The killing of bin Laden signals to the Pakistani public that the United States can act with autonomy and impunity on their territory. However, if the US government acknowledges and addresses the valid concerns of the Pakistani public, bin Laden’s death could prove a high point in American diplomacy.
For most Pakistanis, news of the terrorist leader’s death was overshadowed by questions of what role their country’s government and military had played in the operation. In his address to the nation, US President Barack Obama stressed that “counterterrorism co-operation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.” However, senior White House officials insisted that the United States acted alone, and that Pakistani authorities were only alerted once the operation had commenced. On Tuesday, Pakistan President Asif Zardari clarified that the strike had not been a joint operation.
International media coverage has focused on the fact that the United States’ unilateral action emphasises its lack of trust in Pakistan’s security establishment. Conversely, the bin Laden operation has further weakened Pakistan’s ability to trust the United States and its stated regional intentions. The strike follows a meeting last month between the directors of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI). The ISI reportedly asked the CIA to reduce its footprint in Pakistan, and demanded greater oversight over US intelligence operations on Pakistani soil.
In recent months, US officials have stopped giving Pakistan advance warnings of drone strikes against militants in tribal areas. Moreover, the Pakistani public has still not come to terms with the detention and subsequent release of Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor who shot and killed two Pakistani men in Lahore in January this year.
The perception that the United States can act with impunity in Pakistan will fuel a sense of insecurity. On social networks, Pakistanis are asking whether bin Laden’s killing is the “beginning of the endgame in Pakistan”, in other words, the start of open confrontation rather than cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. They fear that one unilateral strike within Pakistan’s borders can only lead to more: a statement on Monday by US House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers that at least a dozen senior Al Qaeda leaders are based in Pakistan has led many to wonder whether the United States is preparing for a series of strikes that would violate Pakistan’s national sovereignty. These concerns are exacerbated by the recent appointment of General David Petraeus as the incoming Director of the CIA; the general has vehemently criticised Pakistan for maintaining ties with militant groups and tolerating terrorist safe havens.
To be clear, Pakistanis are equally concerned about the internal security situation of their country. They dread retaliatory attacks, which the Taliban vowed to carry out barely hours after the news of bin Laden’s death broke.
Many are also unnerved by the fact that bin Laden was uncovered in Abbottabad, home to a Pakistani military base and the prestigious Pakistan Military Academy. The fact that the terrorist leader could hide in plain sight of Pakistan’s security establishment is an alarming thought. The other possibility – that bin Laden was being sheltered by Pakistan’s intelligence agencies – is even more terrifying, given that over 30,000 Pakistanis have been killed in terror-related attacks in recent years.
Given the sense of vulnerability that now prevails in Pakistan, this is not a time for American triumphalism. Indeed, if handled properly, bin Laden’s death could be the turning point in a faltering bilateral relationship. It can be an opportunity for increased transparency in US-Pakistani relations as the modalities of the operation are explained, and a reminder that while the two allies’ strategic priorities for the region diverge, they are nevertheless complementary. And if, as has been suggested, bin Laden’s death facilitates US plans for withdrawal from Afghanistan, this could also be a time of unprecedented collaboration between Washington and Islamabad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
