Naeem's Blog

It's time we inject some much-needed perspective into our discussions of groups like the Taliban and Somalia's Al-Shabab. Too many Muslims living in the West have gotten sucked into the efforts to demonize these groups. While I'm not here to defend them, I must clearly state that I don't believe they are evil, as some fellow bloggers have declared them to be.

Sure, these groups are peddling a version of Islam that is foreign to our sensibilities (as reported by Western media) - enforcing the hudood, restricting women's rights, oppressing minorities, etc.

However, it just seems that so many of us are bending over backwards in denouncing these "deviant" groups to appease our compatriots. In either trying to prove our allegiance to liberal, democratic ideals or establishing our credentials in the ongoing war on terror, we're ok with the collateral damage caused by throwing these groups under the bus. All the while conveniently overlooking the societal context in which they came to existence - extreme warlordism, civil war, foreign occupation, rampant crime and rape, and so on.

For all the negative hoopla surrounding these groups, people forget one most essential consideration: they have succeeded where countless others have failed - establishing peace and stability. Western media is quick to focus on the undoubtedly extremist views they impart, but overlooks a more critical benefit that is welcomed by the local population - peace of mind.

My father traveled to Afghanistan back in the 90's as part of a medical support team and the overwhelming sentiment shared by the population was their collective sigh of relief with the safety situation established by the Taliban. After years of war with Russia and the ensuing warlord-based government, the Afghan on the street was finally able to feel some sense of safety and security. Sure, many didn't take kindly to the harsh interpretation of Islamic law, but they found that a small price to pay for a relatively crime-free, stable society.

Exactly the same feelings were expressed by Marian Zeila, chairperson of the Somali Media Women's Association, in this BBC report:

"Sharia law is a part of Islam, it's in the Koran. But it's their interpretation of the law that I disagree with. They are turning Islam into a harsh religion, which I don't believe it actually is...While the transitional government was in charge there was insecurity in Baidoa, they were unable to protect civilians. At least the al-Shabab have restored stability - for the time being."

So before we decide to get on our high horses and offer up our knee-jerk condemnations of these groups for misrepresenting or distorting Islam, let us try and understand the socio-political context of their rise. Or at the very least, as some have suggested, let's simply leave them alone.

So the latest news coming out of Somalia is that as Ethopian troops are moving out, in-fighting has begun between the moderate Ahlus Sunna wal Jamaat and the more extreme Al-Shabab. Al-Shabab is accusing the Ahlus Sunna group of being warlords, while the Ahlus Sunna accuses Al-Shabab of being foreign fighters sympathizing with Al-Qaeda.

And then there are unsubstantiated reports that the UIC (Islamic Courts) are in battle with the Shabab.

Eerily similar to what happened in Afghanistan after Russia pulled out.

Here we go again. Sigh.

It's quite confusing trying to sort out fact from fiction, truth from propaganda, but my understanding is that most Somalis are moderates with links to Sufism, so they aren't very welcoming of the firebrand version of Islam enforced by Al-Shabab. I recently saw a lengthy interview on Al-Jazeera with one of their leaders and while he seemed sincere, humble, and committed to Islam, he was parroting the Al-Qaeda sales pitch which definitely won't go over well with many Somalis.

But let us look at the bigger picture and agree that such militant movements are really incapable in achieving the real goal of Shariah. The level of adherence to the laws of Allah (swt) in the societal level are merely a reflection of the adherence to those laws on a personal level. The Shariah can never be implemented through the barrel of a gun or the casting of a ballot - it must come via the transformation of the hearts.

I wrote about this before:

And therefore, as a blessing to us (as well as the rest of world), Allah (swt) has placed a political straitjacket on the Ummah – preventing it from tasting any political power so as to prevent it from causing any harm unto others or to itself.

As a blessing to us (and the rest of world), we will continue to see failed political/military efforts for establishing Muslim states or electing Muslim leaders (Algeria, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Hamas, Anwar Ibrahim).

Allah (swt) will either send the Americans or a military junta or the Ethiopians or the Israelis or even a 23-year-old political aide, but the results will be the same – no power for the Muslims.

We simply are not ready for the immensely grave responsibility of being representatives of the Most High (khalifat-Allah).

As I see it, I refuse to place a gun in my child's hands. Similarly, Allah (swt) has refused to place power in the Ummah's hands.

That's why Islamic political parties (as found in Turkey, Malaysia, Palestine) will never succeed. Nor will militant groups (as found in Somalia and Afghanistan). Sure they may bring about short-term relief in repelling occupying forces, but they will never succeed in the long-term.

Not until the hearts of the masses begin to respect the words of Allah (swt) and the practice of His beloved Prophet (saw).

In this short yet comprehensive interview with Wayne Madsen, he provides an excellent 5min summary on the major players involved in the Congo crisis. Plus he provides this little tidbit:

"It's much easier to loot a country when it has a destabilized government and various warring factions. You don't have to deal with one central government - you can deal with whatever warlord is controlling whatever diamond or gold mine you're trying to exploit."

That's exactly what I wrote in a previous post where I detailed the roots of the war in Congo.

BTW, be sure to bookmark the Real News Network. They've got amazing news reports with perspectives you'll never find in the MSM.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse in Somalia...

1. The US is trying to push through a UN resolution allowing any nation fighting piracy to "take all necessary measures ashore in Somalia, including in its airspace". This would make Somalia officially a no-holds-barred, full-time war zone - as if it wasn't already.

2. BBC is reporting that more than 80% of Somalia's forces (almost 15,000 officers and soldiers) have deserted their posts and almost 70% of the funding for the government's security budget has disappeared amidst major corruption.

3. And in the weirdest twist of all, according to CNN more than a dozen Somali-American youth have returned to their home of origin to take part in the war. Although their plans are shrouded in mystery, they were most likely convinced to go back and partake in the jihad on the side of the Islamic Courts against the warlords and the Ethiopian occupiers.

Not sure what to make of this last bit of news. While I fully support the struggle of the Islamic Courts in trying to bring a semblance of peace and security to their war-torn nation, I'm not sure it's the wisest of tactics for American youth to go there to fight. Their energy and exuberance could have been channeled so much more productively if they had stayed in the US and actively participated in their local communities. Surely there is no dearth of work on the local front.

But on the other hand, I can see where that logic may lead us down the slippery slope of lazily justifying our lethargy when it comes to taking action. After all, if Somalia is not a proper arena for real Jihad against oppression and injustice, then what is?

What happened to the days when armies were mobilized from one side of the Muslim world in order to redress an injustice carried out on the other side of the Muslim world?

In these confusing times, may Allah (swt) guide us all to what is best!

We all know the history of the CIA in Afghanistan during the 80's. We all know how they trained, funded, and armed the Afghan mujahideen against the Russian occupiers. We all know how America had little humanitarian concern for the Afghan well-being, but rather used them as pawns in the Cold War.

So does it surprise us when we look at Darfur as another playing field in this on-going war of international politics. The venue has shifted and the enemy is different, but the game is the same. Instead of Afghanistan, it's now Sudan. Instead of Russia, it's now China. Instead of America, it's...oh wait...that's the same.

You see, while Sudan may not mean so much to America, it's a major business partner with China. This pesky relationship is built on massive infrastructure construction projects, huge military contracts, and of course oil. China is eyeing Sudan as a primary source of energy to source its economic growth.

That being said, is it beyond the scope of reason that the rebel groups (Sudan Liberation Army, Justice and Equality Movement*, and others) are being instigated by outside forces for the purpose of destabilizing Sudan. Has not America supported 'rebel groups' across Central America and South America in the past, turning a blind eye to the ensuing devastation, so long as her own interests were served? Why would Darfur be any different?

With the continuing genocide taking place in Darfur, the UN has attempted a handful of times to enact economic sanctions, with China calling upon its veto power to ensure the sanctions remain only on paper. After all, a Sudan handcuffed by economic sanctions would be a crippling blow to China.

I alluded to a similar strategy taking place in DR Congo, where outside forces are undoubtedly playing a major role in sustaining an atmosphere of instability. Only difference being that while DR Congo is a financially-motivated war (reaping the profits from subterranean natural resources), the Darfur crisis is a geopolitically-motivated war (hamstringing the growing Chinese threat).

I'm not defending any of the atrocities carried out in Sudan nor am I absolving China for their role in arming the Sudanese government. I'm simply saying there is much more to this crisis than many care to know. It's so much easier to create a good-v-evil campaign with Sudan and China playing the bad guys and George Clooney and America playing the good guys. But the reality is never so black and white.

So let's stop with the overly simplistic presentation of the Darfur crisis as some ragtag rebels and freedom fighters versus evil 'Arab' Janjaweed militias and the Sudanese government, and let's look at it with a more critical eye, focusing on political interests and international alliances.

*It's worth noting that the rebel group JEM has attacked multiple China-run oil facilities in Sudan in recent years.

If you never understood the concept of Disaster Capitalism, the raging conflict in DR Congo is a textbook case.

More than 80 per cent of the world's coltan is in Africa, and 80 percent of that lies in territory controlled by DR Congo's various ragtag rebel groups, armed militia and its corrupt and underfunded national army. Coltan is a key ingredient in the production of electronic devices such as laptops, personal digital assistant, and mobile phones. Additionally, the country has rich deposits of diamonds, gold, cobalt, timber, and other natural resources.

"the Democratic Republic of Congo has the world’s purest and largest deposits of strategic minerals, including gold, coltan, niobium, cobalt, heterogenite, columbite (columbium-tantalite or coltan), copper and iron. Heterogenite exports coming out of Congo are alone valued at between $260 million (at $20/lb.) and $408 million (at $30/lb.) every month. That’s between 3.1 and 4.9 billion dollars a year. Diamonds account for another billion dollars annually. Oil has been pumping off the Atlantic Coast for decades, but now oil and gas deposits are being exploited from the great lakes border region—Lake Kivu (methane gas) and Lake Albert (oil)—and deep in the province of Equateur. And then there are the dark rainforest woods that sell by the thousands monthly for around $6000 to $12000 per log." [source]

With the re-surge in violence in DR Congo over the past weeks, it presents us with another opportunity to revisit Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism.

Basically the theory starts off acknowledging that old-school colonialism is long dead and new-age colonialism (Iraq) is too costly. Thus new ways have to be created to continue feeding the insatiable capitalist system. The newest way is to either wait for a disaster to strike (Katrina, tsunami) or initiate/agitate for one (civil war, invasion) and then send in the economic vultures to scoop up the natural resources at bargain basement prices. The West as well as newcomer China have become masters in exploiting the shock of the victim for their economic gain.

"If the Congo were at peace and able to hold democratic elections, its citizens might gain control over its resources, either by claiming national ownership (as Iran and Venezuela do with their oil) or by regulating the multinational companies that seek to profit from those resources. The violent atmosphere, however, makes it impossible for the Congolese government to challenge corruption within or to exert any authority over multinationals seeking profits. It is thus in the interest of the multinational companies to keep the Congo at war.

And this intentional destabilization is precisely what has been happening. A panel of experts set up by the UN Security Council in 2000 issued a series of reports over the next few years describing how networks of high-level politicians from Congo and neighboring countries, military officers, and business people collaborated with various rebel groups to fuel violence in order to gain control over Congo's resources. For example, in 2002 the UN panel noted that as much as 60 to 70 percent of coltan in eastern Congo was mined under the surveillance of the Rwandan military, using the forced labor of Rwandan prisoners.

A 2003 follow-up report by the panel listed eighty-five multinational companies that had profited from the war in Congo, including six U.S.-owned companies: Cabot Corporation, Eagle Wings Resources International (a subsidiary of Trinitech International), Kemet Electronics Corporation, OM Group, and Vishay Sprague." [source]

The chaos has not only been taken advantage of by these corporations, but has also been spurred on by them. What is commonly written off as internal tribal strife or a primitive war over land, the complex conflict in central Africa is much more indicting of the western corporatocracy.

By enlisting the services of Rwanda and Uganda, long time allies of the US, to maintain an atmosphere of political instability and civil strife, business interests remain protected.

"Rwanda and Uganda are allies of the United States, some would even say they are client states to US and British interests. Both countries receive financial and military aid from the United States, World Bank and other Western institutions. This aid has continued unabated even during the invasions of the Congo. During a Congressional Hearing in 2001 held by Congresspersons Tom Tancredo and Cynthia McKinney, it was documented by experts under oath that the US provided military aid to Rwanda during its first invasion of Congo in 1996." [source]

"A 2003 United Nations investigation into the illegal exploitation of natural resources accused both Rwanda and Uganda of prolonging their armed incursions into Congo in order to continue their plunder." [source]

Another angle often overlooked in the analysis is that of the contracts signed between multinationals and DR Congo - contracts heavily favoring the corporations.

As stated in this video report by Dan Rather, in 2005 the cash-strapped Congolese government signed unbalanced contracts handing over share of its mineral-rich mines to no less than 60 foreign companies. These deals were so rotten that even the World Bank, themselves notorious for privatizing national resources the world over, criticized their "complete lack of transparency" and stated that the government "may not have received the full value of the mines".

He also reports how the US embassy in DR Congo had a strong role in pushing one of those crooked deals through, involving Arizona-based Freeport-McMoran, one of the largest copper companies in the world. US support didn't just stop there. A US government agency by the name of Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) supported Freeport with $400million of financing for the projects.

However, those contracts are now under investigation by Congolese president Joseph Kabila.

"In a 2002 report, the U.N. alleged that many foreign mining companies, eager to exploit the lack of a strong central government in Kinshasa and avoid paying fair market value and taxes on the minerals they extracted, signed contracts with commanders from the invading countries as well as with then-President Laurent Kabila, who was struggling to cling to power in the face of the international onslaught. These contracts almost universally favored the mining companies. That is, until May of last year. In a move that sent ripples through the DRC mining community, the government announced that 63 mining contracts, many of them signed during the civil war of the late '90s, would be reviewed by a special ministerial committee." [source]

One wonders whether the current violence in DR Congo has anything to do with the review undertaken by the current Kabila administration of those 60+ mining contracts.

"Kabila’s government has taken the opportunity of a major review of mining contracts to terminate contracts with US, European and Australian companies in favour of Chinese firms. Few companies are prepared to discuss their position in Congo, but those under threat include First Quantum Minerals, Freeport McRoRan, BHP Billiton and Anvil Mining. Vast mineral reserves may be handed over to Chinese firms in the government review." [source]

So folks, be on the lookout for any military intervention sponsored by the UN, the US, or Europe. After all, business interests must be protected.

'Any armed “humanitarian” mission to Congo would be a thin disguise for a naked imperialist intervention that was intent on pillaging the resources of this mineral rich country.' [source]

Antonio Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reminded the world in his January 2008 interview with the Financial Times of London that “The international community has systematically looted the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and we should not forget that.”

Let us not forget that the root of the conflict in DR Congo is not a civil war. It is not local tribes jostling for control of subsurface resources. It is not about redressing injustices carried out in the Rwanda genocide (as justified by Rwanda president Kagame who has 'has vowed to root out the Hutu militias from eastern Congo').

It is a contrived conflict intent on destabilizing the region and shocking the locals while the international community plunders and loots.