The Right Message

As al-Qaeda threatens global reprisals for the death of its leader, Osama bin Laden, the Philippine government, itself battling an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization south of its border, is warning the nation to be on alert for potential terror attacks. And as Filipino Muslims sympathetic to bin Laden started staging protest rallies in Manila, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda, has issued an appeal worth emulating everywhere:

“It’s a war against terrorism and a warrior of terrorism is no respecter of persons. Bin Laden should pay for his misdeeds,” presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda told reporters in a briefing. “I appeal to our Muslim brothers and sisters to look at the consequences of bin Laden’s actions and not at his being a Muslim,” he said. “This terrorism affects our country as well and the entire globe. . . They should not base their judgment on his being a Muslim. Bin Laden had inflicted terrible suffering on the world.”

Hear! Hear!

What To Do With Pakistan?

America’s quandary over the role of Pakistani military in providing safe haven for Osama bin Laden revolves around these two ideas: whether Pakistani officials are guilty of complicity in tolerating or helping bin Laden or “were so inept that he lived for years right under their noses.” Embarrassed Pakistani authorities, according to this piece, say it is the latter but that some members of the US Congress are not buying it, putting in jeopardy the $1.3 billion military aid that the US government provides to Pakistan’s anti-terror efforts. Indeed, who are they kidding?

Common sense would have anyone believe that certain Pakistani officials were hiding these terrorists precisely because they’re their bread-and-butter. Why turn them in when they attract US cash? I could just imagine these Pakistani officials pointing those drone strikes away from Abbottabad, chuckling in the process while extending a secret handshake with their resident terrorists, and making America the laughingstock of the Waziristan region.

So why America is agonizing over what to do with Pakistan? If Pakistan is engaged in double-dealing, why continue to deal with it? That seems harsh, and a blanket condemnation of the entire Pakistani government may be adding fuel to the fire. But we have to show anger and demand accountability, at least. How much leverage does Pakistan have over our security interests in the region, anyway? In this crucial war against bin Laden, it was practically a non-player. While its nuclear arsenal is cause for concern, India can deter it by way of a détente agreement, to be underwritten by the international security forces’ air strike capabilities. And why would Pakistan resort to it if it understands that unleashing one’s nuclear capability is tantamount to a national suicide?

So the question to ask of Pakistan is simple: are they with us, or are they against us?

Contradictions in Islamic Banking

What makes Islamic banking unique to its Muslim customers and endemic to the Muslim world, according to its proponents and defenders, is its alternative form of financing that is “more ethical and more equitable” because it is informed by the teachings of the Koran and the Sunna. It offers interest-free transactions on loans and home mortgages as it channels penalties on late payments to religious charities in the form of donations. In this Washington Post article, a Meezan bank officer, Irfan Zulqemain, an MBA degree-holder and who has “a vision of Islam as a socially transformative force,” views interest as a curse: “We don’t treat money as a commodity, which just makes a few people richer and everyone else poorer. Our way generates economic activity and spreads money throughout society.” With religion as its selling point, Islamic banking is rapidly spreading in countries like Pakistan where to be financially successful should also mean to be religiously correct.

According to Prof. Timur Kuran, professor of economics and political science at Duke University, Islamic banking is part of an intellectual tradition called “Islamic economics” that seeks to give the economy an Islamic character. It promotes among other things a form of banking that offers an interest-free alternative to traditional savings accounts and a wealth-redistribution process called zakat -- Islam’s tax on wealth and income -- that would help solve inequality and poverty in society.

In his scholarly and voluminous work on Islamic banking and economic development in the Middle East, Kuran argues, however, that Islamic banking has not made significant achievements because its emphasis on economic morality runs contrary to human nature. He also argues that wealth-redistribution based on zakat has not reduced inequality and that in fact the direction of the distribution of wealth is going away from the poor. He is also worried that charitable-giving only leads to the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism.

Revisiting Prof. Kuran’s work will help shed light on the Muslim world’s perceptions of Islamic banking. His article on“The Economic Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism (in Martin E. Martyand R. Scott Appleby, eds. Fundamentalisms and the State: Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 302-341) is especially enlightening as he traces the intellectual and historical traditions of Islamic economic thinking.

Such knowledge is what Naeem Bumey, a Meezan Bank client, needs. During an interview for this Washington Post article, Naeem says, “Most of us don’t have detailed knowledge of what is Islamic or un-Islamic. . .There may be a gray area in how a bank determines its profit, but if the scholars have declared this to be Islamic, then at least you don’t have any doubt.”

Natural Rights and America’s Foreign Ventures

To those who are still looking for a philosophical/moral justification behind America’s current foreign ventures, here is a seminal article that lays out the argument for why our engagements actually promote the freedoms and rights of peoples everywhere. To those who view Americans as occupiers and invaders, this piece argues in fact for equality of human beings everywhere.

What’s interesting about this piece, “The American Philosophy of Government and Its Application to the Annexed Countries,” was that it was written in 1913, by Alpheus Henry Snow, about America’s democratic experiment in the Philippines. It’s a testament to the enduring principles of the American Founding and the Declaration of Independence, which the McKinley-Taft rule tried to embody in their colonial administration of the Philippines, circa 1901-1911. It is both at once enlightening and persuasive.

So much discourse has taken place about how to justify America’s expansionist policy abroad, or how to balance, if not unify, America’s national interests and values against security and stability. Some are stuck in their idealism v. realism framework, faithful students of International Relations that they are. What we need first and foremost is a serious grounding in our first principles, if it’s not too late in the game. This will give us clarity and conviction that should guide our actions abroad.

Pleading for Reason to Prevail in Florida and Afghanistan

The short-sightedness, stupidity, and malicious intent of the Florida pastor over his act of burning the Koran and the violent reactions of Afghan protesters that led to the death of innocent UN workers showcase extremism in its most unreasonable and evil form. Driven by angry passions and blind prejudices, both sides defied reason and justice. What’s especially troubling about these acts is it smacks of self-righteousness, of a certain kind of moral indignation that proclaims among its followers a moral superiority over those who don’t embrace their religious beliefs. What kind of religion preaches man’s inhumanity to man, I wonder?

Still and all, this is a teachable moment. May a world leader of wisdom and good character come forward and teach us with moral convictions and philosophical clarity why the Florida pastor and the Afghan protesters are both wrong. That leader should seize this opportune moment to affirm and uphold moral standards and principles that are universally held, applicable to all and at all times. Perhaps it will inspire the rest of us, who are trying to make sense of this our short earthly journey, to be kind to one another.

What a Middle East Transition May Entail

Elliott Abrams, in this National Review article, highlights a strategy for transitioning Middle East societies marching towards democracy to limit the powers of monarchs (especially those friendly to US interests) and autocrats in the region through legal and constitutional means.

To St. Thomas Aquinas, a monarchy is the best regime. For the rule of an enlightened monarch ruling in the interest of all, guided by wisdom and compassion, without meeting any opposition from the less enlightened ones, is perfect. But it’s rare to find such a being. Plato says that the best regime happens by chance, when politics and philosophy meet, best embodied in a powerful yet wise and compassionate monarch.

Modernity, having indeed given way to institutions and technological inventions that are mass-based (hence, egalitarian, hence, great equalizers), cannot afford to be ruled by a monarch. The individual has become the source of sovereign power, but whose power he equally shares with his fellowmen through a representative government that he and the others empower to represent his and their interests. But that individual together with the rest must be wise, enlightened, and just. And insofar as he and they are ruled sometimes by unruly passion and prejudices, a representative government provides the mechanisms with which to check such excesses. This is the meaning of genuine republicanism.

But in the absence of the above conditions, of a people who is habituated in the ways of self-rule, the next best thing for countries ruled by monarchs and autocrats is constitutional monarchy.

Finding a Strategy for Libya

In today's WP op-ed piece, David Ignatius' search for clarity in President Obama's Libya policy leads him to wonder if indeed a formula has been found, which is that ". . . The United States should use military force unilaterally only when it involves core U.S. national interests; in other cases, such as Libya, the United States should act militarily only with the support of its allies."

He adds, "Obama appears to be evolving a hybrid strategy, blending 'realist' and 'humanitarian interventionist' themes. Several weeks ago the administration seemed almost to be allying with Shiite protesters in Bahrain against the minority Sunni monarchy. But Obama has recognized that America has an abiding interest in the stability of neighboring Saudi Arabia, which sees Bahrain as its 51st state and won’t tolerate the overthrow of its ruling family."

He concludes, "Obama’s speech Monday was a lesson in how presidencies are a matter of trial and error."

Putting aside terms and labels that one learns in an International Relations class, determining a strategy for the Middle East phenomenon should be shaped and formed by the nature of the phenomenon. In other words, the nature of a conflict should determine strategy, and not the other way around. To come up with a formula before the facts is to engage in theorizing, a mental exercise in abstraction.

I like to think that the strategy that is evolving, even though slow, is being shaped by a reasonable understanding of ME realities as they unfold.