Krister Anderson is a former Senior Editor in the Features Section. He is particularly interested in the intersection between religion and politics, especially in the Middle East.
The Pillar of a Country
It is not difficult to figure out the pillars of the government of Morocco. They are displayed on buildings and plastered on city walls. Allah, King, Nation—used in this sense to refer to the territory of Morocco, including the disputed Western Sahara. Often they are displayed as a pyramid, with Allah at the apex. Islam pervades all aspects of life and helps to unite the country. The call to prayer echoes across the country and the faithful pray in mosques, homes, and even train yards. King Mohammed VI holds the title of Amir al Mu’min, deeming him the religious leader of the country in addition to his political power. However, this powerful force may be the greatest challenge to one of the last remaining monarchies.
Islamic movements are not a new phenomenon in Morocco. Islamic groups have existed for over thirty years. However, they have grown recently to become powerful forces in society and strong critics of the current government. Though far from a united group, they pervade all aspects of political and social life. In the parliament, the Islamist Party of Justice and Development (PJD) is the leading opposition party and holds key parliamentary positions. Outside of the government, groups like the Justice and Spirituality Movement (JSM), a banned, but tolerated group, are taking a more prominent role in critiquing the government and promoting another vision of Moroccan society. As these groups grow, critiques of the current government are taking a more Islamic tone. The PJD works to promote Islam in the parliament, injecting a particular tone to legislative debates, but does not challenge the legitimacy of the monarchy. The JSM, however, rejects monarchy as a form of government—the daughter of its leader, Nadia Yassine, has been put on trial for publicly stating her preference for a “republican” government. It also spreads its vision of a more Islamic society through small groups across the country. Little is known about other, smaller groups, but they likely promote a more radical, even violent, form of Islam.
The cause of the growth in Islamic groups cannot be determined definitively. But social indicators, like high unemployment and literacy rates, suggest that there is cause for frustration.
With parliamentary elections in early 2007 that may increase the hold of the PJD and the constant activity of Islamic groups like the JSM, one of the key pillars of the Moroccan government may work against it as dissent is expressed increasingly in Islamic terms.
Meanwhile, in Other News…
There is nothing that the international news media, particularly cable news networks, does better than focus on one particular issue. I am not saying Lebanon is not important (posts on this blog have certainly elucidated the importance of the current conflict in the Middle East) but there have been other news stories during the past two weeks that merit attention. I am particularly interested in the recent developments in Pakistan and the discovery of a new nuclear reactor. How the United States reacts to this development may shape its nuclear weapons policy more broadly.
The age of commercial satellites has made intelligence analysis, which was once strictly a government enterprise, something that any joe shmoe with enough money and a little bit of know how can do. As such, it is not surprising that that analysts at the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington DC discovered the construction of a massive nuclear reactor capable of producing hundreds of pounds of plutonium, which could eventually be turned into nuclear weapons. While it is reassuring that US intelligence services were aware of the construction, the question as to why this has not been picked up a major story remains. I only bring this up because the US is set to approve the sale of 36 brand new F-16 jets to Pakistan. This sale is still heading for approval, as the Washington Post reports, despite the discovery. Here is why this lack of concern raises an eyebrow.
The United States is currently playing nuclear hardball with Iran and North Korea and is, by most accounts, making little progress. Negotiations with Iran are going nowhere and, although all 6 parties in the North Korea talks will be at the same event, the ASEAN Security Forum in Malaysia, on Friday, they will not have a meeting on the North Korean nuclear program. However, another nuclear state that has drawn the ire of the US, though not to the same extent, is expanding its weapons capabilities and getting F-16 jets. This does not strike me as the way to do business in preventing nuclear proliferation. If the United States is committed to slowing the spread of nuclear technology and controlling the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which I believe it is, given its focus on Iran and North Korea as well as its recent initiative with Russia to control nuclear material, the United States should play hardball with every nuclear state. Yes, I know that Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, but it also is an unstable state that could go a very different direction if the current regime were to lose power. While Pakistan may never use this new reactor to produce nuclear weapons material, its latent capability in a country that has a rather unstable political situation should concern the United States.
It is probably too late now to stop the sale of the F-16 jets or the construction of this plant. However, I believe the lack of US response sends the wrong message as the United States attempts to control the spread of nuclear material, arguably its greatest security threat. Just because the United States is wrapped up in negotiations with North Korea and Iran over their development of capabilities does not mean that it should not try to limit the nuclear capabilities of established powers. If the United States wants to project a hardline policy on nuclear weapons, it should do so on all fronts, even with our allies.
A Successful Mission? The problem of Martyrdom
Yesterday in an operation that was easily as brutal as the ones he carried out, Shamil Basayev, a Chechen rebel leader, was killed by Russian security forces. While the details of the operation do not need to be rehashed here (you can easily find them on any major news site) what should be considered more thoroughly is the implication of Mr. Basayev’s assassination, for lack of a better term.
The Chechnya conflict between Russia and Chechen separatists has been long and bloody, tracing all the way back to the tsars and WWII. Over time it has taken on a religious character. Islam has gradually risen as a motivating factor among those who fight for Chechen independence. Basayev in particular has used Islam to critique other Chechen leaders and motivate his operations. While he has been restricted over the past few years, he has remained a threat. With his assassination, the M-word, martyr, is starting to be used. A website known for carrying his statements has posted an article confirming his death and calling him a shaheed, or martyr in Arabic. (Thanks New York Times for the direction) One can only assume that this title will spread as time passes.
The M-word is a dangerous one, particularly for those governments that create them. While Russia has succeed in eliminating one of its most despised terrorists (Basayev was responsible for the Beslan school massacre in 2004), it may have also created a role model and further motivating factor for Chechens disgruntled with Russia. Martyrs can receive veneration within some subcultures, and while many Chechens will not lose sleep over his death, some others may see it as yet another example of Russian power that must be fought against. Within extremist Islam, the status of the martyr is one respect, and if Basayev is seen as dying for a just cause, Russia may have just dealt with a surface threat rather than address the underlying threat.
The same can be said for recent actions against al-Zarqawi in Iraq or if the US or some other group eventually kills Osama Bin Laden. In doing so these governments fulfill the prophesy that many of these groups teach: That the government, be it Russian or American, is out to destroy Islam and those who practice it. When leaders in particular are killed or singled out, as was the case with Basayev and al-Zarqawi, the example is even more prominent. The prediction is fulfilled and these ideologies have yet another example to use to persuade new recruits.
Clearly we know where the governments of the United States and Russia stand on this issue. I am not going to disagree with this stance, as it is logical in many respects. However, governments should beware of the peril that potentially comes with creating martyrs.
Somalia: Symptoms of a Wider Problem?
US diplomatic relations with the developing world have never been pretty. Cold War history is littered with cloak-and-dagger missions to support factions within developing countries with the hope of the creation of a US-friendly government. In these situations covert action was often necessary, as the global diplomatic climate did not allow for overt political pressure or action. Thankfully these days are over.
While the global climate has changed, the US diplomatic process for troublesome states has not. Over the past few months, Islamic militias have gained control of vast parts of Somalia, particularly Mogadishu, and have created the Joint Islamic Courts, which call for the institution of Islamic Law, Shari’a. Their rise to prominence has been troublesome for the United States, who has reportedly backed secular militias with arms and up to US$100,000 a month. In the troublesome failed state of Somalia, the United States has once again resorted to covert action rather than diplomatic engagement. However, now the US tune has changed. Earlier this week the United States announced that it will host a forum to search for a peaceful future for Somalia, which, if the United States has its way, will likely not include Islamists. However, even this forum seems to be a rather empty political gesture unlikely to achieve meaningful progress. Entities invited to the forum include: Great Britain, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Tanzania, and the Euoprean Union. Also invited are the United Nations and the African Union, but only as observers. The oversights to this list are notable, as Somalia’s deputy UN Ambassador Idd Beddel Mohamed has pointed out. Kenya, which was key to the formation of the current transitional government has been excluded, as well as Yemen, which has offered to serve as a mediator in talks between the current government and the Islamists. It also would make sense that the African Union take the European Union’s seat at the discussion table, as they too have a large role in the political stability of Somalia and the rest of Africa. While the US State Department has stated that it wants to start with a small group that could be expanded later, these oversights are rather large if the United States is committed to a diplomatic solution to the problems in Somalia. Beginning with all of the interested parties not only shows a commitment to solving the problem, but also best facilitates a practical solution.
The Cold War is over. While covert action still has its uses, perhaps the United States should recognize that it is no longer always necessary and that multilateral engagement with invested international partners may be the best way to solve a troublesome problem, which Somalia has been since the collapse of its government in the mid 1990s. Since the covert plan failed, the United States should commit to a diplomatic plan that has the best chance of success, otherwise it may see the Islamically-influenced no mans land that it truly fears.