Foreign Policy Prostitution - Terrorism Invitation

The recent decision taken by the Maldivian government to restore and develop diplomatic relations with Israel came as a shock to the Maldivian public. The simple question asked by many is: 'Why?' A question that the Maldivian government has miserably failed to answer.

The decision wasn't such a big shocker for me though. This government has been giving signals of its indifference towards Israeli crimes since even before it took office. On 10th November 2008, the then president-elect, Mr. Mohamed Nasheed, while talking to The Guardian about his plans for the newly born democracy, compared his plan to legitimately buy an environmental refuge for Maldivians to what the Zionists did back in the early 1900s in order to acquire Palestinian land!

Now moving on to the real no-brainer: 'WHY?'

Take a slight look at the condition the Maldivian economy is in right now. While the Maldives is currently enjoying the highest GDP per capita in the region, 60% of it is spent on maintaining big government. Foreign debt amounts for 35% of GDP. And we have 5% of our tourism-earned blessings for developmental projects. Yay!

True, there was a time when the President promised to get the economy in ship shape within a week. But I'm sure he's truly and honestly over that day-dream. Now, he's trying to reinitiate the preferencial trade agreement with the US that was suspended in 1995, due to human rights violations by the previous government. Also, let's not forget that we're practically sending SOS messages to the World Bank to help us reduce the giant-sized civil service, recover the green we lost funding the previous regime's corruption, and don't let acquiring more green to fund actual development slip off the list.

Well, Israel isn't exactly the kind of economy where Maldivians will want to be investing in. But truth be told, improving diplomatic relations with Israel sure will help reduce the number of investors who do not want to inject their green in the Maldivian economy because Maldives has been refusing to have relations with a big not-so-behind-the-scenes player in the international community circus. Besides, it's an inarguable fact that the Israeli economy is one of the most highly techonological economies in the world right now. Forget the undisclosed nuclear weapons program. I'm talking about Intel, IBM, and Cisco all having R&D facilities in Tel Aviv. So, I guess you can connect the dots now.

President Mohamed Nasheed, in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly, gave more reasons than just that though. He stated that the Maldivian government intends to use its relations with Israel as leverage to push for a sovereign and independant Palestinian homeland. I have one word for you, Mr. President: 'BULLSHIT!' (With all due respect.) Egypt and Jordan have had diplomatic relations with Israel since 1960s. They have more to offer Israel and more leverage to provide for the Palestinians than we ever will. Not once have the two countries been able to use their relations with Israel to reduce or stop the killing of Palestinian people during its many military expeditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hell, all the UN Secretary General was able to do when Israeli military aircrafts bombed a UN-operated school in the Gaza strip last time was to 'strongly condemn both sides'. The Obama administration since it entered the White House has been trying to push the Netanyahu government to freeze settlements. It backfired: Now the Obama administration is asking for a "restraint" in activity.

Reality check, Mr. President: Maldives doesn't even have an airforce to begin with. Israel has the most highly combat-trained, technologically equiped army in the world. And being a nuclear power adds a cherry on top of that cake. What leverage?!

In the meantime, the Maldivian Foreign Minister, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, claims that restoring diplomatic ties with Israel must in no way be seen as condoning the actions of Israel against the Palestinian people. That's kind of hard, really, especially since at the very beginning of this year Israeli aircrafts and tanks and footsoldiers assaulted a people trapped in a refugee camp, and killed thousands of civilians including hundreds of children. So what's our reaction? Go to the UN and shake hands with the Foreign Minister who's pushing for more illegal settlements. Bravo! Way to to use leverage.

And just for kicks, let's take the Palestinian people and any feelings of solidarity the general Maldivian public may or may not feel towards them out of the picture. It's an undisputed fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the failure of the international community to bring an end to it, has inspired a many Islamic terrorists. Maldives had its first brush with terrorism when a group of extremists exploded a home-made bomb in Sultan Park, which houses the National Museum. Don't get the wrong idea: We shouldn't bow down to that kind of extreme demands and extreme methods. But will the restoration of diplomatic relations with Israel not fuel more extremist thought? Do we want to legitimise attacking our country in the eyes of extremists the same way a US military base in Saudi Arabia legitimised, in the eyes of some, rebellion and the use of terrorism against the Saudi government. And for what? Agricultural help? Seriously?!

In any case, it's questionable if getting under the sheets with the Israel for a one-night stand will in any way benefit the people of Maldives. It will help Israel get a facelift sure, especially after the Goldstone report. Bravo, Mr. Nasheed and Dr. Shaheed! Way to expose us to extremism and terrorism just so that the Israeli government will provide agricultural help. Were they the only ones who could do that?

Conning the People: Con-fusing the Cons-titution

NOTE: To start with, this is an article I wrote a few days ago. So the dates don't match. You will have to do the math yourself. The theme of this particular article may seem a bit off, but it's not. I still believe that whatever field you're in, you have to abide by certain morals and ethical codes. As a good Muslim. As a good human. Even if it's politics. A friend of mine told me, 'politics is dirty'. I don't believe it has to be. And I don't believe politicians have to be conmen. Hope you enjoy the read. :)

I'm not sure if it's something Maldivian, like our tuna-based cuisine, or something to do with simply being human. But we Maldivians are an extremely opinionated bunch of people. Especially about politics. It doesn't matter whether you're a fisherman, a farmer, or even a primary school student. But you're bound to have something to say about the decision made by the President, the Attorney General, or the Home Minister yesterday, today, or tomorrow. And whatever opinion that is expressed is most usually not based on, 'This will cause a lot of difficulty for us Fishermen,' or 'farmers like us,' or 'us students'. The arguments are mostly based on something like, 'This is completely against the clear provisions of the Constitution.'

Now, don't get me wrong here. I do believe that it's a good step to familiarize Maldivians to concepts like Constitutionalism and Constitutional Supremacy. It's just that I have a slight issue with the fact that most Maldivians on the street don't really know what the Constitution says. Most Maldivians get their knowledge of the Constitution, not from the text, but rather through whatever is said by the politicians in our beloved respective political parties. And we know full well how the politicians of our beloved country can't help twisting and turning facts and laws around to support their own whims and personal interests.

And it's not like we have to look very far to see the political games these people play.

Just today, the honorable MP elected from Maafannu constituency, Mariya Ahmed Didi, raised a procedural point that gave way to a domino-effect in the first sitting of the newly elected Parliament. While paying tribute to her ability to twist the wordings of the Constitution and confuse the MP presiding over the sitting, Mr. Mohamed Hussain, what with her being a barrister at law in the UK and all, I personally think what she did was just a bit lowly for the position she was in. So she is a barrister. So she is really good at this lawyer stuff. So what? She's not in a court of law trying to win a case for a client of hers. The responsibility that she took upon herself in that sitting was to make the law clear to the people. Not to make it more and more clouded by playing little political jokes in a sitting that was being televised live to all parts of the country.

What she said was this: Article 82(a) of the Constitution provides that the election of the Speaker and his Deputy must be done by way of a secret ballot. Article 87(c) on the other hand denotes that the Speaker or any other person presiding over a sitting of the Majlis should cast his vote only in case there was a tie of votes for and against the particular issue being put up for ballot. Hey, wait! Doesn't that mean the ballot will no longer be secret? Contradiction, right? 'Oh my Gawd!!'

What she didn't mention is this: If there's an apparent contradiction between two provisions in the Constitution, you're supposed to read the two provisions together. Something like, Article 82(a)'s secret ballot is the general rule. And Article 87(c) is talking about an exception. This is a well known rule in constitutional interpretation, and I can bet my soul Mariya knows about it. What with her being a barrister and all. Then what the hell was she doing asking trick questions that were fit to be asked in a Constitutional Law exam paper?!! (Oh, by the way. If it were an exam, I wonder what kind of a grade Mr. Mohamed Hussain would have failed with!)

Now let's do a bit of time travel. Like around a week or so back. President Mohamed Nasheed (the Anni guy not the Kutti dude) appointed a special presidential commission for the purpose of investigating alleged cases of corruption and embezzlement. The very same day that was announced on the media, Mr. Ibrahim Shareef (Ma votaa) of DRP was on TV claiming the appointment made by the President was completely totally unconstitutional. And when you note the fact that Mr. Shareef was acting as a member of the Parliament when the Constitution was drafted and passed, you'd expect him to be a reliable authority in this kind of stuff.

But apparently, even though President Anni was not in the Parliament when the whole amending thingy went on, it turns out he knows this Ganoon Asasee thingy more that Mr. Shareef does. I think Mr. Shareef forgot some parts of it. He must have been quite busy with other stuff, right? Anyhow, President Anni seems to have gone through the Constitution enough to notice that Article 115(o) provides for him to appoint temporary commissions of this sort. Well, waddaya know! He can appoint the commission.

Later on, the DRP tone changed. Last night, the 'outvoted' former President, Mr. Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom appeared on VTV and said that, 'You know what? The President does have the power to appoint a commission for the purpose of investigation. Article 115(o) and all that. But that's only for investigation. Such a commission cannot constitutionally have the right to arrest people or search people's houses or any of these stuff.' Damn, that's so 'hikmat Amalee' and true! So wise, man!

But then again, who the hell is talking about any commission arresting people? Or searching people's houses? Why is he the only person who heard the news?

Lemme tell you, Mr. Maumoon, what really goes on in this 21st century country. These Commission dudes gather something called evidence. And call up the Police and give it to them. They take it to this place called the High Court. The people at the Court, who are called judges, print out and sign this piece of paper called a Warrant. And the Police people in their fancy uniforms and all that go arrest people and search houses.

And, no! President Anni didn't hold a pistol to coerce the Court people into signing the warrant thingy. He doesn't have to. If there's enough evidence to show that there's reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in a criminal activity, the people at the Court are morally and legally bound to issue the warrant. That's how things work in most modern 'dhimaqratiyyah's.

Unfortunately, Maldivians have only been recently introduced to democracy, Constitutionalism and all that. And if politicians go on playing these little political games of theirs with laws and constitutional provisions, they're not doing a huge favor to the newly born Maldivian democracy.

So, yeah. To all the politicians out there. Stop conning the people of the Maldives. And to all the people of Maldives, please don't let these people con you. Enough is goddam enough!

Democracising Islam or Islamising Democracy

The spread of democracy and the rise of Islamic political parties that are willing to work with in the available system in order to reach their goals and achieve the targets set in their manifestos has given rise to a very important question: How compatible is democracy to Islam?

Democracy by classic definition is 'the rule of the people by the people for the people'. In more modern terms democracy is used to refer to a system of governance opposite to authoritarian and totalitarian systems. The sovereignty of the people may be an untamed beast, or can be one restricted by constitutional restrictions, depending on the form that democracy takes. In all cases however, a model democracy ensures the protection of human rights, the guarantee of religious freedom and freedom of speech. A model democracy also enshrines the doctrine of Separation of Powers, or separation of the three institution of government, namely the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature. But the fact that a model democracy also enshrines the principle of Checks and Balances means that each one of these otherwise independent institutions do have the authority to act as watchdogs, if I may, over the actions of the other two institutions. So, in the end a model democracy enshrines the concept of Good Governance.This is achieved, not by the total independence of the government institutions, but by their interdependence.

One the other hand, Islam is the belief in the sovereignty of Allah Almighty. He revealed the Qur'an to the Prophet (PBUH) as a source of knowledge and guidance. The Prophet's traditions, known categorically as Sunnah, form the other primary source of Islamic law, second only to the clear guidances of the Qur'an. However, no statement could be more wrong than to say that the issues that are addressed by Islam are only those that are addressed to explicitly in the texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

The reason for this is that the Qur'an and Sunnah provide an Islamic legal framework. Instead of providing a complete set of rigid laws, they provide the basic principles for Islamic law. They further provided us with guidelines and methods to use our minds as a secondary source of Islamic law, that must lean on the general principles and authorities from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

This is true for all aspects of Islamic law, including politics. Whatever methods provided in the Qur'an and Sunnah form an inclusive definition of Islamic politics as opposed to an exclusive one.

The truth however remains that there are certain practices that are associated with democracy that are not completely in line with Islamic principles and ethical guidelines.

For example, the concept of human rights, as it is portrayed today, denotes the idea of complete equality, even if it does not establish equity. It also denotes the acceptance of certain deviances from rules of morality and canons of human nature. Religious freedom and freedom of speech, as 'democracy' portrays it, seem to indicate a total acceptance of all kinds of blasphemies and scandalous utterings. It also seems for some people that to nominate yourself for a post and to campaign for it means making false claims about traits that you never even dreamt of having. For others it is to make fabricate stories about the other parties that are contesting for the same spot. Even more dangerously, the power of money in politics means that the special interests of the rich are more protected than the rights and interests of normal citizens.

So, what are we to do as Muslims? Are we to go against a clear principle of Islamic law that Islamic politics is not restricted to the explicit provisions of the Qur'an and Sunnah there by rejecting Democracy as non-Islamic and a sin? Or are we instead to accept 'Democracy' as it is given to us on a gold plated platter, despite the clear deviations from Islamic teachings?

I believe neither of the above mentioned choices is an option for Muslims. To choose the first way would mean to let our governance go in the end to the hands of by non-Islamic people who have no care what so ever for the teachings of our religion. The second choice, would mean there's no difference between 'Islamic' people who 'love Islam' and those people whom we don't want to be governing us.

What choice are we left with then? As it has been repeatedly mentioned throughout this article, we Muslims have been given clear guidelines that we must follow. What is known as democracy is not a rigid set of rules, but rather a system that targets for the implementation of justice. Democracy can be shaped in accordance to the Islamic teachings. The reason for this is that while democracy is intended to provide the people with the goodness of this world, Islam is the way for the betterment of both this world and the next.

We as Muslims don't have to accept the Western definitions of democratic values. To be given human rights does not be to be given the right to fall below the standards of humanity. To be given religious freedom is not to be given the freedom to wage war against what Islam holds divine. To be given the right of free speech does not have to mean the freedom to utter whatever defamatory thoughts that come to your mind. To run for a political post with all your might is not the same as to run for that post with the might that you don't really have. And for politicians to follow every whim of special interest lobbyists, despite the danger it poses for the country as a whole, is not even a democratic value.

So, no. We don't want an imported version of democracy. We don't want a country where the people are supreme. We want a country where Islam is supreme. We want a country where justice is implemented. We want a political system that respects our values, and allows us to grow as a nation.

Iran Sure Has Balls!

Before you start reading this article, I'd like to warn you: for all those who think Sunnite Muslims are better than Shiite Muslims, and that all Sunnites are destined to be in Heaven while Shiites are condemned to Hell, this article may have some materials that you may find disturbing. READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED! And for those people who can't wait a second before passing judgments, keep this in mind when you're reading the article: I'm NOT Shiite.

I've spent 21 years on the face of this earth. And for at least 10 of those years, I was looking for some Arab leader to rise up to the wishes of the people on the streets of the Muslim countries. What I learned through out those 10 years was that for the 21 years that I've been around, the US government has been stuffing the extremely huge egos of Arab leaders. How the hell else did Israel manage to get two Arab countries to establish diplomatic relations with them?

Well, it seems that if Arab leaders want to keep on kissing American a$$, leaders of some other Muslim countries think they can all go to... well, where ever they want to go! We've seen how the Turkish Prime Minister gave a piece of his mind, on behalf of all the Muslims, to Shimon Peres at Davos. That was a breath of fresh air different from what the secular followers of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk would have wanted. The truth of the matter is that part of the beginning, and I say PART of the BEGINNING, of the Palestinian issue was the fall of the Ottoman Empire which was representing the Islamic Caliphate at the time.

Now, Iran has tested a nuclear reactor with unrefined uranium rods. What more, the US administration seems to be showing signs that the US foreign policy towards Iran will have a different colour. But mere signs aren't going to be enough this time. Enough US administrations have fooled Muslim countries with 'signs'. Now's the time for action, and Iran has made it clear. Iran has been put under a long embargo, and I personally expected them to be ready to give in any second. But they didn't. And that calls for a show of respect.

Look, I don't agree with all the policies of the Iranian government either. But truth is, I disagree more with the cowardice of the other Muslim governments. I found it silly when the Saudi government was refusing to support Hamas during the Gaza war with the excuse that Hamas get support from 'Shiites'. I found it sillier when the Egyptian government claimed the PA is the true voice of the people. Like, the Egyptian government which has been repressing any opposition for more than 20 years will know what the true voice of the people is.

OK, so the Iranian government is a Shiite government. OK, so there are some differences in the theology between Sunnites and Shiites. But let's face it: Right now, Iran is doing more for the betterment of the Ummah than any other Muslim country has managed to do for the long time.

Iran may not have an upper hand against the US or Israel at the moment. But they do at least HAVE a hand. And they're playing it. Let me summarise Iranian supreme leader's comments regarding Obama's offer to 'start over':

'We'll start over when the US stops greeting us with, "Happy new year, terrorists". It would be nice if you lift the economic embargoes you've put on us. And in the mean time how about reviewing your policies towards the Israeli nuclear program.'

So, yeah, somebody had the balls to say that, for once. My salutes.