A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Monday, June 19, 2017
The Middle East tinder box again
Gulf Absolutism - Jihadism – ‘Trumpism’
The world’s largest gas field; North Field to Qatar, South Pars to Iran
by Kumar David-June 17, 2017, 5:16 pm
To make sense of the Middle East, three dimensions - the Saudis and Gulf
States, jihadism now reaching into Iran, and Trump, have to be tied
together. The Qatari royals and Emir Al Thani, have for two decades had
outreach ambitions, by which I mean they don’t want to be excessively
bound to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the seven-sheikdom UAE,
dominated by one of its constituents Abu Dhabi. The whole lot are
satrapies of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi monarchy, and its feudal court and
state, is the big player in this oil and gas abundant region.
Why are the Qatari royals bidding to carve out a modicum of autonomy?
The sheikdoms of the Arabian Peninsula were separate tribes till British
Imperial power (Cor Blimy! The Raj moulded more than India!)
subordinated Arabia, the Gulf, Persia and the Middle East. When Britain
withdrew after the WW2, a medley of kingdoms, sheikdoms and nations
surfaced (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, Trans-Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait,
Oman and the seven sheikdoms in the UAE). But the similarity ends there.
Qatar shares with Iran, the world’s largest single gas field under the
south-central portion of the Persian Gulf. Exploitation of the 9,700 sq.
km, 43 trillion cu meter field necessitates cooperation with Iran. So
it needs to befriend Sunni Saudi Arabia’s arch Shia enemy.
Qatari desire to keep at arm’s length from the Saudi led bunch creates
problems. Its capital Doha hosts pesky Al Jazeera which competes with
CNN and BBC globally and is the premier regional broadcaster. Its
unconcealed contempt for human rights violators, enthusiasm for the Arab
Spring and its Westernised male and, Allah forgive, headscarf-less
female announcers, is a gadfly in the groin of their Majesties and
Emirs. (Qatar, a sheikdom, is no democracy; but of a more liberal sort).
Qatar has invested billions in housing and welfare in Gaza and
bankrolls the Hamas admin - no doubt Hamas puts aside a cut to buy arms.
And it backs the Muslim Brotherhood while the Saudis lie awake at night
fretting over the Brotherhood, regional challenger of Wahhabism - the
Saudi version of Sunni Islam and the root ideology of jihadism.
The Saudis and Abu Dhabi accuse Qatar of financing terrorism. This is
rich coming from the Saudis who lay out billions spreading Wahhabism,
promoting fundamentalism, financing religious schools that teach nothing
else but the Quran in classical Arabic and whose products are
recognised on par with University graduates in bankrolled Bangladesh and
elsewhere. It funds thousands of mosque building projects across Asia.
The Saudis are in bed with Islamic fundamentalism while embracing an
America purportedly at war with Islamic terrorism.
But there is truth to the charge that Qatar too slips generous dollars
to terrorists and "terrorist" groups - there are so many it’s confusing
which is which. Erica Solomon alleges in the Financial Times of 6 June
that Qatar doled out a billion dollars to secure the release of a
falconry party of Qatari royals and 50 militants (security guards?)
taken hostage in Iraq in 2015. The collectors she says were Iranian
figures and Katalab Hezbollah (Shia mercenaries?). The point is this -
there are wheels within wheels; everybody is involved in some way;
radical Islam has become ubiquitous in the context of the breakdown of
the global order that there is no escaping its shadow.
Jihadism
A bit of vocabulary first. I use Islamic fundamentalism for harking
back, seeking to live as in the Prophet’s days, strict adherence to the
religious code and literal interpretation of primary texts. If a
movement goes further and demands social and political reorganisation
along these lines, but only by persuasion and peaceful means, I use the
term extremist. If it goes the whole hog and precipitates violence
against Muslims or non-Muslims, that’s terrorism. These are working
definitions; many such as ISIS fit the last. Activist theocratic
leaders, preachers and writers, fit the second category.
In this classification Wahhabism properly speaking is
fundamentalist. Its founder Ibn Abd al-Wahhab refrained from advocating
force against unbelievers. Unfortunately he found a patron in Muhammad
Ibn Saud, a chieftain of the Najd tribe and originator of the House of
Saud which reigns to this day. Wahhab refused to endorse Saud’s
campaigns of plunder and insisted jihad was justified only if
the umma was endangered. He forbade killing prisoners, destruction of
property and slaughter of civilians. Nor did he say those killed in
battle or suicide missions were martyrs. Ideological conflict with Ibn
Saud simmered but after Wahhab’s death, later Wahhabis cast aside
inhibition and encouraged Ibn Saud to enforce a version of Wahhabi Islam
which consolidated absolute monarchy by sword and faith. The first
jihadists were none other than the founding fathers of the House of
Saud!
Ibn Saud’s son, Ibn Muhammad, used religion to justify wholesale
slaughter of populations. In 1801, he sacked the city of Karbala in
modern Iraq, plundered the tomb of Shia founder Imam Husain and
slaughtered thousands including women and children. Now Jihadism has
hijacked Wahhabism to the point where all who don’t practice its form of
Islam or accept its vision of a global Caliphate are deemed infidels
and enemies worthy of death. Horrific slaughter and mindless terror
stalks Western, Syrian, Afghan, Indian and Iranian streets.
What I have put together here is no scholarly or political thesis of two
centuries of fundamentalism and it bypasses mainstream Islam
altogether. Nor have I touched on the persecution of Muslims in parts of
the world like Burma, India, China and recently anti-Muslim arson in
Lanka, all of which can provoke a backlash. That’s because my task is
limited; it only formulates a simple story line specifically for the
needs of this essay.
The tangle of terrorism
More important than the historical links between jihadist-like behaviour
and the rise of the Saudi royal house is that the Gordian knot of
modern jihadism is tangled with governments. In the best known case -
9/11 - all but four of the 19 terrorists were Saudis. Osama bin Laden
belongs to an influential Saudi family.
Reams of allegations from Western sources allege that Saudi private
funds flow to terrorist groups. The same is true of many other Emirates.
In a hard-hitting piece on website Counterpunch(6 June 2017) entitled
"London Terror Attack: It’s Time to Confront Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia"
John Wright says "US, British and French governments can no longer
credibly claim to be serious about fighting terrorism or religious
extremism while cosying up to what is a medieval kleptocracy in Riyadh.
Just days prior to the attack in London it was reported that a UK
government inquiry into the role of Saudi money in funding terrorism is
likely to be shelved due to the sensitive nature of its findings".
The case of the US is deeper and more convoluted; there have been links
between power brokers in America and Saudi, Gulf and Middle East ruling
cliques from the early days of oil. That’s old news; but new-style cloak
and dagger collaboration of these governments is the jihadist funding
lifeline. Taliban without Pakistan, Hezbollah without Iran and IS
without private Saudi slush would be a shadow of what they have become.
Absolutism, theocracy, feudal monarchy on one side, jihadist movements
on the other, cohabit comfortably. They feed each other through
variations in an Islamic concert and feed on a poverty-stricken,
ignorant and religion-duped populace. When Theresa May calls for the
defeat of evil Jihadist ideology she little understands what she is
talking about.
Enter Trump
Trump has a Midas touch. All he touches glitters for a moment and turns
leaden in a trice. I hope he is not impeached, nor ‘abdicates’ quickly;
America needs to ingest its medicine well lest it blunders again. In his
first tweets he took credit for the Qatar crisis saying in thinly
veiled words that he arranged it on his 2 May visit to Riyadh.
Embarrassed Washington officials scampered to cover up subsequently by
arranging for him to phone the Qatari royals and by offering to mediate a
settlement. Secretary of State Tillerson went 180 degrees and called
for the lifting of the Qatar embargo. It’s all blind man’s buff in
Washington. Trump in America and worldwide, and Theresa May in Britain
and Europe, like the Rajapaksas of Lanka, are damaged goods.
But it runs deeper than the idiosyncrasies of a comical president. US
foreign policy in the Middle East (and now in East Asia and China) has
become disoriented. In 1956 Eisenhower set a new tone when he forced the
UK and France to abandon their invasion of Egypt when Nasser
nationalised the Suez Canal. The next big setback was America’s defeat
in the Vietnam War but the US reconciled itself to the new power balance
in the Far East and policy consistency resumed. But when Bush invaded
Iraq for trumped (sic) up reasons with his poodle Teflon Blair in tow;
the downward spiral resumed. Obama’s composure restored a modicum of
calmness.
Though some sobriety resumed during the Obama presidency, his inability
to deliver on the Palestine imbroglio (the most profound of the regions
dilemmas) means the US writ no longer runs. America’s policy on jihadism
is resisting those who threaten the homeland; in all else it consorts
with different groups at different times (Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and
the blind eye on the horrid Saudi monarchy). Welcome to a new rice
puller, the Qatari-Saudi-American achcharu.