Saturday, August 23, 2014

Who do you think you are

Incidents that have unfortunately plagued the world for decades but become more pronounced over the last 8 years or so, show an increasing ‘emphasis’ for political violence flavoured by faith, culture and identity where the world is seen through a singular lens of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and  an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ attitude.  This unhealthy uni-polar view, congruent to a ‘Clash of Civilisation’ concept, has led to ambiguities and complexities with regards the perception of current global conflicts and the pivotal role played in the popular mobilisations against the West from sections of disaffected Third World Opinion.   In particular, one key source of trans-national conflict has stemmed from the rise of political Islam as a force in international relations, the end of the Cold War and the emergence of distinct tensions between Western countries with a Christian heritage and countries, around the world, with a distinct Muslim heritage. 

Often one of the key catalysts for these global conflicts  and the ethnic / faith identity violence that stems from them, is the issue of poverty  and  the process of allocation of resources, which perpetuates the view through this singular lens and ensures that  a vicious cycle of competition is generated and maintained.  Many will argue though that in the globalising world of today such rivalry, competition, conflict and ultimately violence are a necessary tool to preserve the ‘values of freedom’.   However the violence we have seen to date has been perpetuated from deeply delusive and divisive assumptions of single exclusive identities by sectarian activists, who want people to ignore all affiliation and loyalties in support of one specific identity.    Such exclusive identities are negative, stressing difference rather than belonging and ‘opposition to’ rather than ‘support for’ something. Unfortunately whilst faith may rarely be the original source, it often becomes the arena in which conflicts are played out.  The result is that conflicts manifest themselves into rumour, hearsay and generalization which are the first steps towards the stereotyping of people (their faith, their culture and identity) and the denial of a diverse, lived reality, the opposite of respect, understanding and acceptance. As a consequence, faiths (beliefs, culture and identity) become judged by the attitudes and actions of small and aberrant minorities. 

It is precisely in this scenario with the world experiencing such kind of  turmoil, that there are calls for new solutions.  With the collapse of socialism, and now with the global financial crisis, an apparent sign of the failure of capitalism, this search for the new solutions has intensified, to look for answers outside the box that will address the turmoil and their causes. 

Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen’s premise in his book ‘Identity and Violence’ is that the key to good citizenship and social cohesion is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.   It is the recognition of this plurality and the searching for commonalities within this pluralism that will lead to greater respect and ultimately understanding and acceptance.

Thus these new solutions will have to challenge people to accept diversity and create equal opportunities for diverse communities, ethnicities, traditions, cultures and faiths.  The new solutions will also have to take into account  the existence of multiple identities which add a richness and variety to diversity and pluralism as part of a common wealth that needs to be celebrated in the global civil society and integrated into life as a positive force for development. 

The role of faith and spirituality in particular in the search for new solutions will be very important as it offers a simple and easy access to communities (strong in their spiritual and faith teachings) and a simple language to express the commonalities of existence and create the prerequisites for forgiveness, respect, understanding and acceptance.  Whilst dialogues are a beginning it is important that engagement goes beyond this, engaging practically with faith leaders and communities, to help resolve and avoid conflict and achieve gains that make a difference to people’s lives



In Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, Kwame Anthony Appiah writes eloquently of the urgent need for ‘ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become’ (2006: xiii).  The roots of all global crises can be found in human denial of the eternal principle of peace.   In order to fight this denial there needs to be self-critical reflection.  Sir Richard Burton once wrote that  ‘All Faith is false, all Faith is true: Truth is the shattered mirror strown In myriad bits; while each believes his little bit the whole to own’ (The Kasidah of Haji Abdu El-Yezdi), where he meant that you will find parts of the truth everywhere and the whole truth nowhere.  The shattered mirror concept enables us to see that ‘each shard reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle’. Our mistake in the world today is to consider ‘our little shard can reflect the whole’ (Ibid: 8).
This is the current problem with all spiritual and religious teachings that everyone thinks that their little truth is the whole truth.  However if we think in the grander scheme of things (beyond theology and ideology) to unite humanity with peace, respect and understanding, then each of us (with our faith and spiritual teachings) have a bit of that shard of broken glass. This can be pieced together on issues of commonality, as opposed to focusing on our points of difference. Then we would have made the first step towards  spiritual reconciliation between communities. 
Thus all of the differences mentioned above represent small shards of glass which, in the analogy of Kwame Anthony Appiah, require careful positioning to create a compelling mosaic.  The initiatives described above then offers an antidote to sectarianism, the polarisation of different faiths in multi-cultural societies and the potentially divisive effects of selective aid flows to particular faith communities.   In particular, the partnership between Muslim Aid and UMCOR represents a template for a large cosmopolitan mosaic seeking to piece together the broken shards of a greater truth of serving humanity.  There is a need to remain committed to engineering the software needed to work effectively in a range of situation. This will never be easy, but remains vitally important for, as Kwame Anthony Appiah illustrates, it involves creating the very ‘ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become’.

Initially published in The News Hub



Sunday, August 10, 2014

Myanmar: The International Community's Dilemma

As international community focus centres on the events unfolding in Gaza, in Myanmar, the silent genocide of the Rohingyas is still continuing as it has been for decades previously. Like the Palestinians, the Rohingya are not only stateless or lack citizenship rights, they are officially in the eyes of the Government of Myanmar, identity less. Like the Palestinians with Israel and Zionism, the Rohingya are also dealing with a racist and xenophobic system & culture that links ethnicity to religion, a purist form that ironically saw an emergence in the early 20th century with Nazism.
The entire Myanmar nation is complicit, from the president down to the grassroots, in terms of how the Rohingyas are perceived, accepted and treated. The situation is so bleak that calls for the extermination of the race of the Rohingyas are not uncommon. This intolerance is not just reserved for the Rohingya community, but observers will testify that it exists towards Muslims (and even Christians) i.e. anyone non Buddhist. These anti minority sentiments especially against the Muslims are not as some claim an 'unfortunate social consequence of transition from authoritarianism to democracy'. They are part of a decade long persecution of the community in the country often led by the authorities who have manufactured, endorsed, committed and allowed to be committed such violence. Myanmar's military in particular have played a large part in manufacturing this Burman-Buddhist nationalist ideology and institutionalizing a culture of fear and distrust of minorities. In recent times, the Military have taken a back step largely due to Myanmar's chairmanship of ASEAN as well as planned elections of 2015 as reasons why there has been a restrained effort by the government whilst indirectly proxies have been allowed to perpetuate the violence and keep alive this xenophobic nationalistic rhetoric.
It is this fear of "the other" within Myanmar's society especially when it comes to the issue of the Rohingyas that are the "elephant in the room" for the international community much more adept at black-and-white depictions of Myanmar's history as a struggle between military and "democratic" civilian forces. So far the international community have failed to put pressure on the Government or indeed its famous opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi (who has famously remained reticent on this issue). It is also an issue that donors have been reluctant to chastise the government on. If anything, the international community has gone out of its way to avoid unnecessary criticism for the fear that it could jeopardise not only the transition of the country to democracy but more importantly the economic benefits that such a transition could bring.
This can only be the reason to explain the meekness behind certain actions of the international community this year itself. Take for example, the recent apology issued by UNICEF for using the term Rohingya in an official document, something that they tried to deny. Or the violence in March of this year that saw the destruction of millions of dollars of assets of the UN and other INGOs, which caused the agencies to withdraw for a few months from humanitarian operations in the affected areas of the Rakhine State. Despite such wanton destruction, unlike in other country there was hardly an international outcry.
The recent census which took place at the beginning of the year supported largely by the international community against the advice of activists and observers is yet another example of a confused position. Despite the government's undertakings to allow a self-identification of the Rohingya as well as an agreement on allowing Rohingya enumerators to conduct the census, both of these promises were broken. People were not allowed to self -identify while in some cases, officials had to be bribed in order for people to be allowed to participate in the census. The recent violence in Myanmar's second biggest city Mandalay against the Muslim community has sparked fears of a demographic redistribution in the preemption of a census not showing the desired ethnic distribution by the extreme elements of Myanmar.
This reluctance by the International Community to engage on the issue in the hope that democracy will wash away the problems is ideologically problematic. It doesn't fully comprehend the history of community relations; minority existence and ethnic tensions of the country. There are deep seated problems which cannot be solved merely through elections and a legal system. It needs a deeper engagement between faiths and a deeper social understanding of the concept of citizenship. This needs time and patience. It needs to undo the power of the military (and their vision of nationalism) and the influence that they have even within some of Myanmar's Buddhist monasteries.
Building trust and better relationships between ethnic groups from the grassroots level should be a priority for the Myanmar government supported by the International Community. A democratic system is not just about elections, but about citizenship and understanding basic notions of political rights. Much more effort and investment needs to be undertaken to ensure that these mechanisms and institutions are set right at the grassroots level before imposing a top-down electoral process. More must be done to hold the government accountable for the role it has played in supporting organizations and movements responsible for inciting hatred and violence. Its institutions need to understand the basis of the rule of law and ensuring safety and security for all.
Otherwise, there is a great danger of repeat violence prior to next year's elections. Myanmar and its people need to fundamentally understand the roles, rights and responsibilities of citizens in a multicultural, democratic country. This takes time, effort and investment and cannot and will not be solved by prematurely pushing for a census or elections. Programs at all levels of society need to be quickly developed to teach people how they can be part of a democratic process.
If Myanmar is to truly join the global community, the floor must be open to debate the issues of the Rohingya and other ethnicities. Approaching the problem both sensitively and directly, unlike even powerful figures in the pro-democracy movement, has to be part of the international community's much-needed road map for this country. If the foundations of democratic understanding at the grassroots level are not built, the 2015 elections will be a superficial showpiece and Myanmar runs the risk of retreating back into its shell.

this originally appeared on huffington post