Al Arabiya
“Think before you speak, read before you think.”
(Fran Lebowitz)
Two days ago, news agencies in city of al-Diwaniyah in southern Iraq, reported the “warning” of the Iraqi Transport Minister Hadi al-Amiri to Turkey regarding “exceeding the limits against Syria and its people”. According to agencies, Minister Amiri, who was delivering a speech on the occasion of anniversary of the Iraqi Revolution of 1920, said that “the reason of the crisis in the political course in Iraq is known and catastrophic; it aims to expedite the conspiracy in Syria”.
And then he continued: “I am amazed by the Arab countries… Aren’t they zealots anymore? Today, Turkey is threatening an Arab country ─ Syria ─ and no one has reacted; they would all rather remain silent.
“Would they have been silent if Iran had threatened Arab nation? We say to the Turks: We will not remain silent regarding your transgression on Syria, and will not let any country infringe on any Arab country.”
I must admit I am not familiar with Minister Amiri’s history in the arena of nationalistic struggle; I just know that he is the Secretary-General of the “Badr Organization” the military wing of the Shiite Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, as well as being a member of the Iraqi Council of Representatives (parliament) and that he is considered close to the Iranian leadership. On the other hand, I do not claim that I am familiar with the minister’s physical and mental health record, but I tend to think that he often forgets and strays, unless he is selective in his definition of struggle and nationalism ─ although being selective is not proper for a “legislator” in the land which saw “the code of Hammurabi”, the first code in the history of human civilization.
Mr. Minister “forgot” for example, that in 2003, Iraq suffered a “foreign” military attack, which ended with “foreign” occupation that continues to this day. If I am not mistaken, the Iranian and Syrian regimes abstained from confronting the “foreign” forces in order to prevent the occupation of Iraq. In fact, what happened was quite the opposite: the organizations that the minister and the senior ministers in his the government belong to benefited from the situation, and left Iran where the “Wali al-Faqih” was depicting the United States as “the Great Satan”, and arrived full of dignity and pride, and were received, in occupied Iraq … this, unless he considers the U.S. forces descendants of Kahlan bin Qahtan (an old Arab tribe).
Unfortunately, such talk is neither new nor surprising, and such unhealthy logic is not limited to an Iraqi politician adherent to Tehran. It is the same poor logic that we hear and witness every day from the highest Iraqi authorities, in addition to Lebanese, Syrian, Gulf and other groups, who have shamelessly ignored the massacres committed in Syria for 16 months against a people who rose against a “hereditary” regime that has ruled over them since through security apparatuses since the autumn of 1970.
Here, we are back to the “Alliance of Minorities” disease against what is described as the risk of “Sunni Fundamentalist Islam”. The calls for such “alliance” have intensified in parallel with rise of the religious discourse in an Arab world where Sunni Muslims constitute 75 percent of the population. They gathered pace too as traditional leaderships – the military ones in particular – became weak and flabby, and following the demise of the two alternatives: nationalism and leftism that fell victims of nepotism, clan affinities and factionalism/sectarianism; such demise was also accelerated by the way “the cold war” ended.
After the Sunni “Islamists” managed to win executive power in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt electorally ─ for the first time since the dawn of the “Arab Spring” ─ the Arab world faces a major challenge in terms of the coexistence of its constituents and their intra-factional interaction, as well as their interaction with the major regional forces who have conflicting as well as converging interests in the region.
Undoubtedly, the acute polarization which we witnessed in Egypt before the presidential elections and after the Muslim “Brothers” and “Salafis’ won the legislative elections, is an example of the problem of coexistence. The problem will become even more complex when we as observers think of the fact that there may be ideological differences even between the two major Islamist movements regarding critical issues like the civil state, the separation of powers, the commitment to international treaties and accords and the relationship between an Islamist-led authority and its non-Muslim citizens who must fully enjoy their rights and fulfill their duties. Some may even ask questions about the role of “the military” and consider them as “partners in power” and guarantors of the rights of minorities and the respect of international commitments.
In the Arab “Maghreb” states of North Africa, Islam embraces a racial and linguistic pluralism, thus, the term “alliance of minorities” should not be used in its religious and communal dimension as it is used in Iraq and the Levant region. The Copts’ experience with the first Islamist president in Egypt does not come in line with the situation in Morocco, but is highly relevant for states like Syria and Lebanon where minorities are directly ruling the two countries, and Iraq where the “political Shiism” is in power and reflects the interests of certain elements in a local majority and a regional minority.
The words of Minister Amiri reflect a negative attitude in the relationship with the Sunni majority in the region. He seems ready to mobilize his regional, apparent and hidden allies in order to serve the “alliance of minorities” project. The danger here is that the apparent and hidden allies in this critical regional situation do not seem unhappy with the continuous bloodshed in Syria; on the contrary, they are ready to open other simmering fronts, especially in Lebanon, where the same religious, sectarian and racial-linguistic constituents existing in Syria live and coexist.
On the other hand, it is no longer possible to hide the international “failure” to stop the bloodshed in Syria by merely talking of the Russian and Chinese “stubbornness”. It is true that the Russian and Chinese stances are openly against the Syrian people who have been slaughtered for 16 months by its rulers, but these stances are part of a greater and more complex problem; in fact, the silence regarding the situation in Syria during Vladimir Putin’s visit to Israel was suspicious.
It was also weird to see the “Geneva Meeting” on Saturday closing with other deadlines without any time limit to save what is still standing from the international-Arab initiative known as “Annan’s initiative” and that has a clear text, especially after the incidents witnessed on the Syrian-Turkish borders.
In Iraq, as well as in Syria and Lebanon, Muslim and non-Muslim “minorities” need to evaluate the cost of any armed confrontation with the “political Sunnism” and they also need to remind themselves that the real “battle” to win is that of “coexistence” and not that of “confrontation” and impossible dominance. In other words, “minorities”
need to gain the trust, moderation and openness of Sunnis instead of waging a war against them that is rationally doomed to be lost.
The history of Islam has taught us that the Islamic state, during its days of prosperity and strength, was open and tolerant. However, during the periods of decline, it resorted to conservatism, retreat, paranoia and siege mentality. These were the factors that paved the way to skepticism eventually leading towards accusing others of blasphemy.
“Minorities” are facing today two stark choices ─ and only two.
(The writer is a columnist at Asharq al-Awsat where this article was first published on July 2 and translated from Arabic by Sarah Sfeir)
.
