In the past few
weeks, the Arab media have been buzzing with shocking news: the West
is engaging in open talks with Islamists. While this is not really
unexpected coming from the European Union, which has always been
quite appeasing with Islamists, it is all the more surprising coming
from the Bush administration.
It all really
started with reports in the Arab press of a "secret" meeting in Beirut on March 22 between US officials and
representatives of terrorist organizations. In attendance: Musa Abu
Marzuk, Sami Kheter and Osama Hamdan from the Palestinian Hamas;
Nawaf Mousawi from the Lebanese Hizbullah; Ibrahim al Masri and
Assad Harmouche from the Lebanese Gamaa Islamiya; and three
representatives from the Pakistani Gamaa Islamiya.
Eli Lake from the New York Sun is among the only
journalists in the US media who has reported at length
about this meeting.
At the same time,
the European Union was on the same active path of engaging dialogue.
At an EU meeting in Luxembourg on
April 16 foreign ministers decided it was high time to get into
talks with "moderate" Islamists. They regretted that in the past
they only dealt with the seculars in the Middle
East.
Finally, some Arab
newspapers -- including Al Quds al Arabi, TelQuel and
At Tajdid -- reported that another "secret" meeting occurred
between April 17 and 21 in Marrakech, Morocco, between US officials
and members of the Islamist opposition, in particular leaders of the
Egyptian and Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
Interestingly a
passionate debate on Saudi TV Al Arabiya on April 19 -- translated
by Proche-Orient.info -- touched on this new dialogue. One of the
panelists was the Islamist, Azzam
Al-Tamimi, head of The Institute of Islamic Political
Thought in
London.
Tamimi, who took part in that now infamous Beirut meeting, made clear that it was an
all-Western initiative. He explained this American change of heart
by a new realism: Americans know that in a democratic process, the
Islamists will win.
Then, Hizbullah's
Nawaf Mousawi
clarified that the Beirut meeting was just a
prelude and that he has to build a common platform with the
Americans. Another panelist,
Mohammed Bacheri, president of the Islamic European Congress,
explains that this dialogue is quite advanced and that, for
instance, the German and British foreign ministries are creating a
section exclusively devoted to relations with Islamist movements.
Then perhaps most surprisingly, Neil Livingstone, a terrorism
expert, agreed, arguing that since Hizbullah is part of the
political landscape in Lebanon, it is fine to engage
dialogue with them. What about if Al Qaeda became a political party
and ran in elections in
Saudi Arabia? Would we engage
dialogue with them? Where would be the difference?
What We're Dealing With
Let's look at who it is we are really talking to.
First, Hizbullah. Before
September 11, Hizbullah was the terrorist organization which had
killed the largest number of Americans. Richard Armitage, former
Deputy Secretary of State had labeled it "the A team of terrorists
while Al Qaeda might be the B team." On February 24, 2004, ex-CIA
Director George Tenet warned that Hizbullah had cultivated an
extensive network of operatives on American soil and an "ongoing
capability to launch terrorist attacks within the
United States."
Jordanian King Abdullah recently warned the
US and
Israel that Hizbullah may
launch attacks in the West Bank and Gaza, thus derailing the already faltering
peace dialogue. Hizbullah's leader Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah,
said in March 2003: "Death to America was, is and will stay our
slogan."
The Palestinian
terrorist organization Hamas -- whose charter calls for the
destruction of our staunchest ally in the region,
Israel -- is on the
US and EU list of terrorist
organizations. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zohri gave an interview to
the French daily Liberation on May 6 where he declared that
attacks against civilians are not terrorist attacks but merely
"martyr operations". Also as Daniel Pipes noted in a recent article, President Bush stated in June 2003 that "the free
world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with
Hamas" and that "Hamas must be dismantled."
Last but not least,
the Muslim Brotherhood. Just a few recent facts about them. Al
Qaeda's number 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri is a Muslim brother. Bin Laden's
mentor is none other than Said Qutb, the leader of the Brotherhood
in the 1950's. Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi, the head of the European
Muslim Brotherhood, called in a fatwa for the killings of all
Americans in
Iraq, civilian or not. MEMRI
reported that a recently arrested Saudi terrorist in Iraq followed this very fatwa.
MEMRI also had a
translation of an article published in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa
by Ahmad al Baghdadi, a professor of political science at the University of Kuwait. In it, he called for outlawing and
disbanding the Muslim Brotherhood organization, and confiscating its
sources of funding. He is also very critical of the US, he writes:
"Perhaps the most puzzling thing is the US's silence regarding the
Muslim Brotherhood, despite the fact that this organization supports
terrorism, whether by supporting Bin Laden…or by publishing
terrorist fatwas, or by calling to destroy democracy."
Some would like to
make us believe that the Muslim Brothers are "moderate"
Islamists.
Is there such a
thing as a "moderate" Islamist?
Indeed, as Rifaat al
Said, the President of a leftist opposition Egyptian party,
said it:" The moderate Islamists do not exist. To be moderate is to
accept the Other. And the very Muslim Brothers' doctrine is based on
the non respect of other religions." Said deemed it a major mistake
to think -- like Europeans and Americans do -- that democracy in a
Muslim country has to go through a "moderate" Islamist power phase.
It is true that by
strongly pushing for democracy in the Middle
East, the Bush administration is taking some risks. One
of them being bringing to power our very own mortal enemies: the
Islamists like Hizbullah, Hamas or the Muslim Brothers.
Some realists or
cynics are posing the question: Is there a good alternative to
dealing with Islamists? Yes, as Robert Satloff, of the Washington
Institute, recently advocated: "The goal of US policy should
be to undermine and defeat Islamists by identifying, nurturing, and
supporting a wide coalition of non- and anti-Islamists." Also, there
must be another option than just the tyrants in place and the
Islamists: just look at how many non-Islamist political parties were
formed in Iraq after the
2003 liberation.
At least, before
engaging Islamists, the
US should wait that they stop, once
and for all, terrorism and lay down arms. By dialoguing with our
very own enemies so early in the War, we are shooting ourselves in
the foot. The Bush administration is on a very
slippery slope: how can you justify speaking with Hamas, Hizbullah
and the Muslim Brotherhood? Where is the "We don't negotiate with
terrorists."? What kind of credibility will the
US have? If on one hand, we are
fighting terrorism but on the other we are talking to these very
same terrorists…We went from "Shock and Awe" to "Charm and Talk" and
thus we just handed ourselves our first defeat in this war.
Olivier Guitta is
a freelance writer specializing in the Middle East and Europe.
If you are a
producer or reporter who is interested in receiving more
information about this article or the author, please email
your request to
interview@techcentralstation.com. |