Peaceful Taliban

     

     The Afghan Taliban on Saturday called for an end to violence against Muslims in the Central African Republic, a statement echoed by al-Qaida's North Africa branch. After weeks of atrocities and horrific acts of barbarity committed by the 'anti-balaka' militia against Muslim citizens, along with mutilations, death sentences, beatings, burnings and terrorization, the Muslim salvation group decided to speak out and call on the international community and the Christian leadership in particular to put an end to what is happening. The question is: where are they? They found their way to the US, and Iraq and now in Syria, fighting for the liberty and dignity of Muslim citizens across the world…does the Central African Republic not count? Do Muslim suffering in the African country fall under a second class category of Muslims? Fighters were able to infiltrate into the Middle Eastern region and North Africa, but could not go further south? In no way am I suggesting or promoting their involvement in Central Africa, or anywhere else, but perhaps the rhetoric and the hypocrisy of these militant organizations must be acknowledged by themselves first, and then by their admirers. To claim to defend an ideology/religion by all possible means and at any cost may sound heroic and idealist (to some), but to “pick your fights” changes the equation. It is no secret that Syria, Iraq and the Middle East in general is of greater interest to Al Qaeda (and to an extent Taliban), may it be of strategic, political or economic purposes, and the for the time being Central Africa does not seem a lucrative engagement.    

      Sirs (Taliban and Qaeda militants), a statement condemning what is happening and calling on the Pope to interfere do not sound like something you would generally say nor do they reflect your brutal and bloody strategies. If there is a change in heart in respect to your tactics and the African country's events have opened your eyes to a new diplomatic and peaceful way to tackle crises, then please advise. If not, then it would be more dignified (and credible) to retract your statement. It was pointless, and void, and will remain so.

     I will conclude with a George W. Bush statement that once made no sense (apologies) but now appears to be accurate: “you are either with us or against us”. Just as the political thinker Maurice Duverger suggested, there is no real centrality in politics…you either agree with one solution or the other, take the side of one party or the other. No matter how many variations of a decision there are, in the end, it is either “this” or “that”. Centrality is false. The same is applicable to our dear militias, you either choose the "diplomatic wing" or the "violence wing". It is either the political and diplomatic course when it comes to conflicts in all nations where Muslims are oppressed, or blood shed and violence. You can’t have it both ways...it is futile, just like everything elese you  did or said.

Note: This is a link to a video exposing what is happening in Central Africa…viewer discretion is strongly advised. http://alarabalyawm.net/?p=127216

What Machiavelli Said

The 16^th century politician and philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli argued in his morally controversial book “The Prince” that the final objective of politics is to conserve and augment political power. He championed absolute monarchy in the chaotic renaissance Italy which was facing a problem of a corrupt and damaged society, arguing that when the necessary virtues disappear from a given society, it is not possible to neither restore such virtues nor form an organized government except via tyrannical power. Such a tyrannical power, he argued, enjoyed a special status in respect to the society. The governor, according to Machiavelli, is above morality; morality that must be adhered to by the group of citizens, but not the governor himself. The only way to measure the success of such a governor is through the policies he applies to augment the power of his state. Machiavelli also recommended despotism in the creation of new states and the reform of a corrupt one, adding that when corruption is vast, laws would be impotent and incapable of containing such corruption, hence the need of an iron-fist governance model. To save a country, issues of justice and injustice, humanity and cruelty, glory and infamy are not to be considered…what is primordial is the salvation of the state and the protection of its existence and liberty.

The resonance behind Machiavelli’s masterpiece and his political thought amidst a corrupt and divided Italy (controlled by heads of the church at the time) is beyond the scope of this article. What is intended is to draw parallels between the arguments applied centuries ago with those used today by tyrannical leaders and oligarchic leaderships in Arab states. Observing the arguments used by the Assad regime, the defence strategy of actions made in the name of "protecting Syria" and the logic behind the positions it has been taking throughout the past three years, one can say that indeed, some do believe that the only path towards salvation of a nation is through tyrannical leaders. The constant reminding of the dangers of islamists, the hand of Israel in the riots, the personal and self-serving interests of the suggested alternative government and the hidden agendas of regional and international actors are the arguments used and repeated by this regime. The acts of violence, targeting of citizens, blood shedding and stubborn hold on to power are all being justified by Assad, his circle of elites and his sympathizers, both local and international.

  Perhaps the prophecy of Machiavelli is true…perhaps morality is not to be applied on all equally…perhaps the protection of the existence of the nation is an objective that justifies acts of cruelty and injustice…perhaps holding on to power is the ultimate objective of politics….but what is sure is that such a line of thought only exists in that part of the world. 

الدرس الاوروبي