by Alex Evans | Dec 1, 2007 | Conflict and security, Influence and networks
The right wing blogosphere in the US is, needless to say, having a field day about the jailing of Gillian Gibbons over the teddy bear incident in Sudan – just look at what Michelle Malkin has to say (see also David’s survey of comments a couple of days ago).
But in fact, the whole incident is very much to the advantage of moderate shades of opinion – both inside and outside Islam. The sheer ludicrousness of the charge itself – a teddy bear, for heaven’s sake – combined with the manifestly absurd scale of the overreaction of the mob in Khartoum, has done much to unify opinion around a common sense position. Here’s the Muslim Council of Britain:
This case should have required only simple common sense to resolve. It is unfortunate that the Sudanese authorities were found wanting in this most basic of qualities. They grossly overreacted in this sad affair and this episode. Gillian should never have been arrested, let alone charged…
And a group of Muslim protestors staged a noisy demo outside the Sudanese Embassy in London today too. These kinds of reactions play well with non-Muslim moderates in the UK. Take this vox pop from Associated Press, for instance:
“One of the good things is the U.K. Muslims who’ve condemned the charge as completely out of proportion,” said Paul Wishart, 37, a student in London. “In the past, people have been a bit upset when different atrocities have happened and there hasn’t been much voice in the U.K. Islamic population, whereas with this, they’ve quickly condemned it.”
The reaction of moderate Muslims in Britain is being replicated internationally, too. In Canada, the Muslim Canadian Congress is organising a mail-in to protest Gillian Gibbons’ imprisonment, by asking its members to send tiny teddy bears to the Sudanese ambassador in Ottawa. Meanwhile, it hasn’t been lost on moderate media outlets in the Arab world like Gulf Daily News that Gillian Gibbons’ own comment from jail has been to stress “I don’t want any resentment towards Muslims”, according to her son John.
It all feels very different to the Danish cartoons story – which left moderates on both sides feeling bruised. While those extremists with an interest in increasing division (on either side – Khartoum mob, Michelle Malkin) naturally seek to polarise the debate as much as they can, this time the battle looks to be going the other way.
by Alex Evans | Nov 29, 2007 | East Asia and Pacific, Global system, Influence and networks
Moises Naim is ruminating in this month’s Foreign Policy that “It’s fair to say that the Chinese government probably had no idea what it was getting into when it applied to host the Olympics in 2000. The world—and China’s place in it—have changed substantially since then, making the challenge for an authoritarian regime hosting the world games far greater than it might have imagined.” What, he wonders,
…will happen when the games start and thousands of foreigners travel to Beijing not to watch the games but to try to change China? How will the authorities know that the old lady from Denmark is actually coming with her church group to protest China’s abortion policies, or that the young Australian couple is actually part of a militant environmental organization? In short, what if the $40 billion the government is spending to showcase modern China yields the ugly global image of a thuggish regime?
… No public relations campaign, regardless of how massive, can alter reality. And the reality is that thousands of protesters with causes that enjoy public support around the world—and in China—will stage highly visible and creative protests during the Olympic Games. It is equally true that the Chinese government will try to suppress them. Inevitably, thousands of videocameras will record the ensuing battle. The path from the streets of Beijing to YouTube will be almost impossible for the regime to monitor and blockade.
Of course, the other option for the Chinese government is to agree to some of what the protesters demand. And slowly, modestly, it has already begun to do so by, for example, nudging Sudan to accept international peacekeepers. But the demands are too many and too varied. Many seek to alter the very nature of the regime and the political and economic power upon which it is based. Therefore, the government will inevitably attempt to control and repress the activists. And that will be a new and frustrating experience for a centralized government that is not used to containing well-organized, media-savvy foreigners who work through highly decentralized, international, nongovernmental organizations that know how to mobilize public opinion to advance their causes.
The 2008 Olympic Games promise to be a great spectacle. And we will all be watching.
by Richard Gowan | Nov 28, 2007 | Conflict and security
I’ll spare readers further extended commentary on the grim outlook for peacekeeping (although, just to add to the fun, it’s worth checking out the new piece by Charles Grant and Tomas Valasek of CER on how Bosnia can go bad too) but it’s hard to overlook Jean-Marie Guehenno’s challenge to the Security Council yesterday. After a dour briefing on the obstacles to getting into Darfur, and holding out the opportunity of one last round of talks with Sudan to sort things out, the UN peacekeeping chief summed up:
Should the anticipated discussions fail to clear the path to the deployment of an effective force, the international community will be confronted with hard choices: do we move ahead with the deployment of a force that will not make a difference, that will not have the capability to defend itself, and that carries the risk of humiliation of the Security Council and the United Nations, and tragic failure for the people of Darfur?
The emphasis was in the original.
by David Steven | Nov 28, 2007 | Conflict and security
Head over to the BBC website for some eye-opening commentary from (mostly Muslim) readers on the British teacher who has been arrested in Sudan for allowing her class to name a Teddy Bear Muhammed.
Some are outraged by the Sudanese government’s actions. One Londoner writes:
This is unbelievable. I’m fed up of reading and hearing stupid incidents like these, which further enhance the incorrect portrayal of Islam. The teacher has quite clearly made an innocent mistake. Islam is about tolerance and forgiveness. The possible repercussions of this incident contradict this entirely. It provides more fuel for the anti-Muslim sentiment around the world.
But many are convinced the teacher deserves some punishment. A parent at the school is unsympathetic:
Lashes is a severe punishment and it is too harsh for what she did. But she has to be punished somehow. She should have learnt more about this society and taken more care about her actions. Me and other parents are not happy about the school closure. The children are going to miss so many classes and they were supposed to have exams next week. Now they have to stay at home and wait.
A Sudanese living in London believes the insult to the prophet was intended:
The teacher went to Sudan and she should have learnt the laws of that country. Here in England people think that what she did was an innocent mistake, but I don’t think that. She was very wrong to make fun of the Prophet Muhammad… The teacher should be punished because she has insulted Islam and Muslim people.
Two readers from Sudan, meanwhile, believe the authorities have not gone far enough. The children should be punished too!
The children themselves should be punished for having chosen the name of our great Prophet for a lowly bear. The teacher was misguided, whereas the children were malicious. They must be brought to answer for their blasphemy.
The children voted as well. They should lock them up too, as a lesson to anybody who insults Prophet Muhammad.
Update: Law professor and blogger, Ann Althouse also takes a hard line:
Of course, I’m opposed to whipping as a punishment, but it seems to me that if you go to a foreign country to teach people’s children, you have a responsibility to learn the deep beliefs of the culture you’ve entered and to adapt to it…
This case concerns a teacher who is trusted with the education of children. It is no answer that the children got the idea of naming the bear “Muhammad.” The teacher is obligated to guide them.
by Alex Evans | Nov 28, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security
International Alert have published an excellent new report (funded in part by CIC) entitled A Climate of Conflict: the links between climate change, peace and war. It’s a great example of the kind of integrated approach that needs to become routine for governments and international agencies, marrying areas of work until recently seen as discrete from one another. (Dan Smith, one of the authors of the report and the head of IA, has been doing this kind of integration for ages: he’s the editor of Penguin’s excellent State of the World Atlas.)
The report finds that there are 46 countries – home to 2.7 billion people – in which “the effects of climate change interacting with economic, social and political problems will create a high risk of violent conflict”. Another 56 countries, with 1.2 billion inabitants, have weak institutions of government that are likely to struggle with the additional strain posed by climate change. The lists – best viewed here on a zoomable map – make for interesting reading: the high risk list, for instance, includes not only obvious places like Sudan or Angola, but also countries including India, Peru, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bosnia and Iran.
Intriguingly – and encouragingly, when one thinks about it – the report argues that
…peacebuilding and adaptation are effectively the same kind of activity, involving the same kinds of methods of dialogue and social engagement, requiring from governments the same values of inclusivity and transparency.
The nature of resilience, in other words, looks pretty similar in the face of both climate change and armed conflict, dissimilar though they might appear at first glance:
A society that can develop adaptive strategies for climate change in this way is well equipped to avoid armed conflict. And a society that can manage conflicts and major disagreements over serious issues without a high risk of violence is well equipped to adapt successfully to the challenge of climate change. Climate change could even reconcile otherwise divided communities by posing a threat against which to unite and tasks on which to cooperate.
The report’s recommendations are definitely worth a look.
