Mentally Disabled, Fourteen, and Framed

In a story that is reading increasingly like a soap opera, the Pakistani Christian girl who has been jailed for three weeks on blasphemy charges was finally released on bail today.  Fourteen-year-old Rimsha Masih was arrested after she was found allegedly carrying burnt pages of the Qur’an on 16 August. She has been held in a maximum-security facility as fears for her safety run high and her family has been taken into protective custody. In a dramatic twist, Imam Khalid Chishti was arrested shortly before Rimsha was bailed. He allegedly was given burned pages of the Qur’an by a witness, then added more to the pile and planted them on Rimsha to incite violence against Christians and force them from the neighborhood and, more broadly, the country. His own deputy Maulvi Zubair and two others came forward to testify that he, not Rimsha, had desecrated the holy book.

Christian protestors march in Faisalabad in 2011 following the desecration of a Christian cemetery and gang rape of a Christian woman.

It is unclear whether or not Rimsha is mentally disabled and thus easier to manipulate. Doctors who examined her described her mental faculties as being below the level of her “chronological age.” Regardless, hers is only the latest in a long line of blasphemy cases in Pakistan being used to exact revenge on Christians and other minorities. Pakistani blasphemy law is constantly under fire from human rights agencies for legalizing discrimination against Christians, who number at least 2.8 million and form a significant minority bloc. Under the law, a person can be jailed for life or even executed for various forms of blasphemy, such as insulting the Prophet Muhammed or damaging the Qur’an.

Although Rimsha’s case has garnered sympathy from many Pakistanis due to her age, mental capacity, and apparent innocence, she will still have to live in hiding in Pakistan for the rest of her life. Violent reprisals for criticism of the law alone have reached the highest levels of society. In March 2011 the minister of minority affairs Shahbaz Bhatti, a Catholic, was murdered for speaking out against the blasphemy laws. A few months earlier in January, the Governor of Punjab Province Salmaan Taseer was assassinated by his own security guard for his opposition to the law. The guard has been hailed as a hero by many in Pakistan and celebrated by extremist groups. The Governor’s son Shahbaz Taseer was kidnapped the same year and has yet to be found and no ransom has been demanded. Most assume he is dead.

Those who allegedly break the blasphemy laws also face harsh punishments. In the most high profile case, Christian Asia Bibi was arrested in 2009 for insulting the Prophet and sentenced to death by hanging a year later. The mother of five was engaged in a dispute over water with coworkers as well as an argument with a neighbor over property damage when she made the illegal remarks. Many suspect that she was framed as retaliation for the disagreements. Despite worldwide condemnation of her sentence including a call for clemency by Pope Benedict XVI, Asia remains in prison and legal limbo.

St. Patrick's Cathedral in Karachi.

Unfortunately for the millions of Christians in Pakistan, the blasphemy laws are publicly very popular and repealing them is often labeled as blasphemous itself. Many Christians and observers report that the misuse of the laws to punish Christian neighbors for unrelated arguments is widespread. In Rimsha’s case, it is fairly clear that an innocent girl was manipulated as a pawn by an overzealous cleric hoping to incite violence and chaos. His tactics appear to have worked. Hundreds of Christian families have fled the area in fear of reprisals, forced to leave all they own behind.

Until Pakistan fully repeals the laws, no minority can be totally secure knowing that at any time their neighbors and enemies could bring charges of blasphemy against them. It is a human rights travesty that such a significant portion of Pakistan’s population is forced to live in fear and doubt. The mere existence of a case in a neighborhood can spell out displacement for the entire Christian community simply for believing in a different creed than most Pakistanis. For Pakistani Christians, a repeal cannot come soon enough. Given the political and religious climate of Pakistan, however, such a positive change is very unlikely to happen for this generation, which leaves fourteen-year-old girls vulnerable to be preyed upon by extremists, peaceful activists to be murdered by those who are supposed to protect them, and millions of Pakistanis to be legally discriminated against and marginalized.

The Forgotten Foreign Affairs During the Presidential Elections

In America during an election year, reality almost feels a bit warped. Recent bombardment of party conventions and radio and TV ads designed to grab voter attention have kept most Americans in an almost constant state of party euphoria. Campaign promises--both big and small--add to this intoxication. It is hoped that, while swept up it in all, likely voters will amass the polls and cast their vote for the future leadership of the United States of America, with party leaders hoping for the best outcomes for their candidates. Topping the list of concerns Americans have, according to a recent poll, are the economy, health care, government ethics and taxes. At the bottom are the War on Terror and Afghanistan. Domestic issues almost always dominate public dialogue around election time, but are foreign affairs unfairly sidelined? After all, the U.S. is one of few countries able to shape the world around it, and our presidential candidates have wildly different approaches to American foreign policy. So while Obama and Romney bicker over how they're going to 'fix' the recovering economy, since that issue appeals to most voters, huge foreign policy stances are being deliberately overlooked and marginalized in a time of greater globalization, the rise of Chinese and Indian economies, climate change and revolution across the Arab world. Voters, pay attention.

Caricature by Magnus Manske

Syria

Although Obama has rejected arming the Syrian rebels, reports confirm that in fact the CIA has been steering weapons to the Syrian opposition, and UN proposals for intervention have proved futile with Chinese and Russian vetoes. For now, it seems Obama's policy regarding Syria is to favor multilateral intervention and to unwillingly allow the conflict play out, even as the International Committee of the Red Cross has reported a deteriorating humanitarian situation there. Unable to pursue an intervention like the one in Libya, Obama has been blocked from a similar feat in Syria and by default has allowed diplomacy to fail for far too long. Romney, on the other hand, advocates isolating Syria economically and diplomatically as well as partnering with Turkey and Saudi Arabia to persuade Syrian forces to protect civilians, not attack them. If that sounds unfeasible to anyone, it's because it probably is. Brownie points for wanting to work with the neighbors, though.

Israel

Two-state solution or unconditional support? President Obama has a cold stance toward our greatest ally in the Middle East. His infamous mistrust enlightens Obama's attitude toward the leader and his policies. President Obama is definitely worried about getting entangled in foreign messes that might fall on the U.S. to clean up, especially since the recent deterioration of relations between Israel and Iran. Obama has been careful to assert his support for Israel within the context of limited American engagement in any issue that arises. Obama has pledged his support of a preemptive Israeli military strike only if Iran builds a bomb. Romney, representing the general Republican consensus, advocates unconditional support for Israel, even in the event that Prime Minister Netanyahu decides to preemptively attack Iranian nuclear enrichment sites under the suspicion of nuclear capability. The prevailing and implicit understanding of Israel's importance to the Republicans is that Israel must stay strong as the beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, especially since American military presence there is proving less and less effective. But is this beacon really shining the light of democracy over the Middle East or is the Middle East and North Africa fighting for the change that will suit them best? Is democracy one size fits all? How come undemocratic monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Morocco remain stable? Is Israel really setting an example or are they seen as an unwelcome proxy of the United States? The implications of the U.S. presidential election could prove monumental for the Middle East, especially if Israel strikes Iran before election day. Or perhaps the race will decide whether or not Israel will take preemptive military action, with a Romney election raising the chances of an Israeli strike and an American back-up. 

Russia

Throughout his presidency and hopefully continued in a second term, Obama has refrained from the outdated Cold War mentality. He's pushed for mutual nuclear weapons reductions and negotiations on the removal of strategic missile sites aimed at Russia. On the other hand, Romney has strongly opposed negotiating a reduction in nuclear stockpiles and in fact sees Russia as a major threat to U.S. interests abroad. He proposes increasing missile defense as an act of deterring Russia from interfering with American geopolitical and economic interests. So the choice is pretty clear. While Obama favors a warming of relations (at least on the security front) with Russia by reducing nuclear stockpiles, Romney sees Russia as a caged animal that could wreak havoc on the world America helped create. The threat of Russia with less nuclear weapons is far less than an America with more missile defenses. 

Americans have a tough decision to make this election season. And their decision may very well dictate the immediate evolution of world politics.

Al Qaeda and the Syrian Opposition: A Terrorist Triumph

In a recent CFR article, Ed Husain argued that Syria’s ongoing civil war is overshadowing the infiltration of Al Qaeda into the rebel forces, and they are now winning the ideological battle for the revolution. Although acknowledged by western policymakers including CIA Director Leon Panetta, the presence of the terrorist group has not stopped leaders such as French President Francois Hollande from declaring that they would recognize any interim government formed by the Syrian government. Such a move would completely disregard the fact that no interim government could be formed without the support of the well-organized, amply funded and armed Syrian Al Qaeda.

As early as May, Panetta admitted that the U.S. believes that Al Qaeda has established a solid presence in Syria among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army, or FSA, but that the nature of their movements and organization were still cloaked in mystery. The group believed to be behind the Al Qaeda attacks of recent months calls itself Jabhat al-Nusra l’al-Ahl al-Sham, or Victory Front of the Syrian People. Al-Sham is the traditional name for the region encompassing Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Israel, a reference to the group’s long-term goal of redrawing the regional borders starting with a liberated Syria.

An FSA fighter on the streets of Homs. Photo by Bo Yaser.

The term “liberation” is, of course, misleading when it comes to Al Qaeda. What “liberation” means to them is a casting off of both Asad and Western influence, to be replaced with a strict form of Sunni Islamic law, a totalitarian religious government, and a continuation of jihad waged against countries like Israel. Jabhat al-Nusra benefits from many of the same circumstances that allowed Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Afghanistan in the 1980s: a welcoming population, ideological appeal, a steady supply of weapons and money from Arab donors, a pre-existing conflict in need of recruits, and Western reluctance to interfere. Much like the Taliban discovered their regime could not succeed without the Al Qaeda mujahideen, any interim government will find itself unable to dislodge the extremist elements within the opposition once they have become a crucial part of its operations.

According to Husain, the group had already conducted 66 attacks in Syria by June, including many car bombings that the Asad regime was quick to publicize for the international community as terrorist attacks. The global community for its part is even less likely to give aid to a Syrian opposition it views as infiltrated by extremist Salafi jihadists. Overlapping political affiliations in Syria already make any direct support of the opposition complicated at the very least; that the likely outcome of such aid would see U.S. weapons in the hands of a group like Al Qaeda precludes such support from becoming reality. After all, America learned its lesson the hard way in Afghanistan when the mujahideen it had armed against the Soviets became the terrorist group responsible for 9/11 and some of the most fervently anti-American organizations on the planet. Many of the Syrian jihadists are thought to be from Anbar Province in Iraq, and as such they are not an unfamiliar enemy to the United States.

The Syrian opposition itself is fully aware of how precarious its position is, especially given that it will eventually need outside support to survive. It has deliberately tried to hide the Al Qaeda-associated groups within its ranks from the view of the media. When reporters discovered opposition soldiers sporting Al Qaeda’s flag in a neighborhood in Damascus, they were ushered away by opposition leaders before they could interview the fighters. The Free Syrian Army has rejected videos and photos blatantly showing opposition soldiers wearing Al Qaeda symbols and insignia.

Syrian opposition fighters stand behind an Al Qaeda flag.

Yet the evidence is mounting that without Al Qaeda, the resistance would be nowhere near as successful as it has been.  Which means that Jabhat al-Nusra has the power and the resources to demand a part in whatever government emerges from the Syria conflict. While Western countries have wasted no time disavowing Asad, they have been much slower to provide concrete support to the opposition forces that desperately need it. In part, the opposition can thank groups like Jabhat al-Nusra both for propping up the rebellion, and also, perhaps, condemning it.

A Promising Step Forward in El Salvador (and Hopefully, the World)

Up until March of this year, the tiny Central American state of El Salvador was known to have one of the highest homicide rates in the world every year. A recent State Department study estimated that there were approximately 70 homicides annually per every 100,000 people. This ranking put them in second globally, behind only Honduras – as comparison, the U.S. came in at approximately 4 per 100,000. However, this was all before March, and by most accounts, was due to the overwhelmingly violent gang wars prevalent not only throughout El Salvador, but much of Central America. Two gangs in particular – Mara Salvatrucha, more commonly known in the U.S. as MS-13, and Barrio Diesicho, more commonly known as Barrio 18 – had over the decades had recruited armies that at the beginning of 2011 had a comprised 50,000-100,000 soldiers that routinely fought bloody wars on the streets with many innocent casualties.

An MS-13 member.

In March, these two gangs set a hopeful precedent and reached a heroic milestone in setting aside their differences and agreeing to a truce. An article yesterday details the tense meetings, occurring amongst leaders of both sides, all of who are currently imprisoned, as soldiers stood by with unmasked leeriness waiting for things to go sour and fighting to break out. This never happened though, and more surprisingly, the truce has survived over 150 days. Statistically, over the first half of 2012, the Salvadoran government has said that homicides are down 32% and kidnappings a whopping 50%. This is both indicative of the ferocity and strength of these gangs, as well as the optimism this type of a truce brings to other regions of the world.

One such other region is Mexico. Although not necessarily on as quite grand of a scale as the gangs in El Salvador, the drug cartels of Mexico have wreaked havoc on the state for decades. Estimates suggest that since just 2006, over 50,000 people have been killed in the drug wars that former President Felipe Calderón fought so hard to ameliorate. These cartels have much to fight for: the Sinaloa Cartel alone brings in roughly $3 billion annually between their drug sales, kidnapping and extortions. But good business requires “turf,” something the Sinaloa Cartel, Los Zetas, the Tijuana Cartel, and several others viciously battle over.

Despite former President Calderón’s best efforts, these drug wars have not slowed. If anything, weeding out the corruption within the government and police force and beginning to crack down on the gangs only escalated the violence. Today, it is uncertain what will be able to successfully alleviate some of the chaos caused by the cartels. The U.S. will always have the market for cocaine, heroin and other major exports of the cartels, and as long as they can continue to reap the small fortunes they generate annually, the violence will not cease.

This is why I am counting on the successful truce in Central America to act as a precedent and as a message to the cartels of Mexico that there is an alternative solution to the endless bloodshed that has become such a commonality of the region. With the assistance of the Salvadoran government, there will be improved prison conditions for gang convicts, better job prospects, and an overall reach towards a better quality of life. It is my hope that with some encouragement from the Mexican government, the drug cartels there will realize the same and begin talks towards a similar truce.

Ansar Dine: The Taliban of Northern Mali

It reads like a description of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in the 1990s: music banned, temples and monuments destroyed, women beaten in the street for failing to wear hijab, people stoned to death for having extramarital sexual relations. Yet this is not Kabul; this is Timbuktu, an ancient cultural center located in Northern Mali (Azawad) nearly 5,000 miles away. Despite the distance, in Azawad Aghan history is repeating itself, and it is unlikely that external intervention by the United States will put an end to the brutal extremist regime that has taken up residence in the cities and towns of the north.

Areas held by rebels. Source: Orionist.

Mali has been caught in a state of chaos since a Tuareg rebellion began in the north in January following the fall of the Qaddafi regime in nearby Libya. As fighters, weapons, and money poured over the border, what began as an ethnic nationalist movement was hijacked by extremists groups like the Salafist Ansar Dine and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. In March, the government in the southern capital Bamako was overthrown in a military coup, further destabilizing the country. Today, Islamist groups have declared the northern state of Azawad to be independent and have turned on their former allies the Tuareg and the MNLA.

The consequences for the local people have been tremendous and heartbreaking. Aid has virtually ceased to flow to the north following a looting of a UN World Food Programme warehouse containing over 2,000 tons of food. A worsening drought has left residents without food or fresh water and without any resources to obtain them. Rebels have taken to stealing from the people they claim to govern and protect and families must hand over scarce food stores or face harsh reprisals. As a result of the violence, extremism, and hunger, more than 200,000 people have fled the north thus far, a number that will likely only climb higher.

For those that cannot leave for whatever reason, they now live in a region known as the Tora Bora desert. The similarities of Ansar Dine and AQIM to the Taliban and the Afghan Al-Qaeda are difficult to not seize upon. Religious extremism is now the rule, not the exception. This clashes with the Islam practiced by most Malians: Sufi Islam is a sect based on mysticism, introspection, and respect for peace. Sufis also regularly visit shrines and other holy sites condemned by Salafists as blasphemous and heterodox. In a move that recalls the destruction of Afghanistan’s famous statues of the Buddha, the rebels are systematically destroying Timbuktu and other cities’ ancient and culturally irreplaceable monuments, temples, shrines, and even mosques. The UN estimates that at least half of the World Heritage sites in northern Mali have now been eradicated, driven back into the desert sands from whence they came.

Sankore Mosque in Timbuktu. Photo by Senani P.

The cultural cost to the country is insurmountable and has been mourned by people worldwide who understand the historical importance of a site like Timbuktu that was once the “Oxford of West Africa.” Neighboring states have also expressed their concern that the extremist views of the rebels could spill over into their countries and as a result have been supporting the government in the south. Although sanctions were imposed by the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) after the military coup in March, since then the attitude of Ecowas has been more conciliatory as the priority shifts to quelling the northern rebellion. To strongly encourage the southern interim government to form a permanent administration, Ecowas threatened Mali with expulsion in July. The move appears to have worked, with a national unity government formed in August. Ecowas has also approved 3,300 soldiers to be sent to Mali to aid with the battle in the north, an offer that has not received approval from the U.N. or the southern government in Bamako.

Western nations have been mixed in their responses. The civil war in Syria has absorbed the world’s attention for now, but some nations have been pitching in to help the southern government. France and the U.K. have been building runways in Niger, Mauritania and Burkina Faso to facilitate aerial strikes and military intervention if the time comes for that. The U.S. has refused to recognize the rebel government in the north; however, they also cut off all aid to Mali following the military coup in the south. A mysterious car crash in northern Mali in April in which three U.S. Army commandos were found dead has also suggested that Special Operations forces have been operating the country covertly.

The next step will have huge implications for the northerners currently living under the thumb of Ansar Dine and AQIM. Whatever form the next battle takes – be it an indigenous strike launched by Bamako, a regional force sent by Ecowas, or a full military intervention by global powers – it is almost certain to be drawn out and bloody due to the large stockpiles of arms controlled by the rebels. Yet the violence may be a price northerners are willing to pay; Timbuktu mayor Halle Ousmane Cisse called for intervention before it is too late, because “We cannot cook omelettes without breaking eggs.” If the “omelette” is the democratic future of the region, it may be worth breaking a few extremist eggs to achieve it.