Below is the editorial by Sahib Mustaqim Bleher
in issue 28 (Spring/Summer 1999) on the topic of:
10 Years of
Islamic Politics in a Fast Changing World
When the Islamic Party of Britain was
first announced in the autumn of 1989, it was the
result of idealism on behalf of its founding members who, whilst not under
the illusion that they could single-handedly change the whole world, nonetheless
believed they could have a decisive impact upon the political discussion
within the British Isles. We knew all along that we were
going to walk a tight rope between raising the political awareness of
British Muslims whilst trying to compel the non-Muslim majority to take
Muslims and Islamic alternatives seriously. The first by-election
in Bradford we participated in taught us that we expected too
much too soon. It was encouraging to have received some
votes from entirely non-Muslim areas, but disheartening to have
been let down so badly by the Muslim majority whose leaders had told
them to support Labour blindly, thus electing the first ever Mormon to
Westminster. Many Muslims have since been disappointed with the Labour party, whilst
others still try to get crumbs from under the master's table, but the challenge
we posed to the political establishment in those days cannot be repeated
again.
Within that
decade, the political scene has changed forever. Political debate
has given way to slick advertisement campaigns, and electoral
success is no longer dependent on issues or even personalities. The
mass media's capability to brainwash large masses of people in short
spans of time has proven itself beyond belief. Although we led many
Muslim organisations out of the world of cultural bickering into
facing the realities of everyday life in Britain, we have descended
from a sudden challenge to the UK establishment to being a mere
dissenting voice.
The Islamic
Party of Britain was founded shortly after the furore over Salman
Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses". Muslims at the time thought the
insult to Islam outrageous, yet did not know how to respond
adequately. Our own response, our party leader's book "Satanic
Voices", pointing at the powers behind the scenes who stood to
benefit from the affair, never enjoyed the same "freedom of speech"
as the controversial novel. But nothing prepared the Muslims of the
West for the all-out attack by their host countries against their
Iraqi brethren during the Gulf War. This war was fought partly to
"kick the Vietnam war syndrome", and partly to replace the waning
communist empire with a new enemy. As Dan Hallock puts it aptly in
his new anti-war book "Bloody Hell", published by The Plough
Publishing House:
"On the surface, it seemed to be about oil and the
urgent need to stop a brutal dictator. But there was more: a kind of
panic had set in at the collapse of the Soviet Union and the abrupt
end of the Cold War. No one denied that the last serious threat to
American national security had been removed, but the military budget
was still enormous, and the defense industry seriously bloated. To
begin to dismantle it all would mean the loss of hundreds of
thousands of jobs… Bush's war worked. The punishing air strikes
against Iraq brought about an immediate surge in Bush's popularity,
and the defense industry was satisfied. A cheering crowd of
executives at the opening of the Fifth Annual Defense Contracting
Workshop chorused, 'Thank you, Saddam Hussein!'"
The gulf war
was reported by a well-managed media as a highly sanitised war, more
akin to a computer game. Officially there were no civilian
casualties, and the smart bombs always hit their targets. We have
since, in the air strikes on Kosovo learnt that those bombs aren't
all that smart, and it is hardly believable that they were any
better back then. But the problem of Vietnam was, that the truth
about the war was reported before the war was over, and an
opposition to the war developed. Modern warfare takes care of that.
Information will only filter through well after the event and whilst
public attention is already grapped by another show. Dan Hallock's
book contains vivid recollections of the reality of war from both
sides of the battle line, covering the major wars of our age from
the First World War onwards. About the gulf war we read from the
mouth of an allied soldier:
"It was like a boxing match in which you
blindfold your opponent first and then tie his hands behind his back
and then turn out the lights."
A veteran of the Iraqi army who took
part in an uprising against his country's leadership says:
"But
then, when we made the uprising, the Americans let the government
crush us. We were between two powers. The Americans said, 'We
support you', and nothing happened. All they did was support the
government for no reason. They said they were enemies, but they
looked very friendly in that time. They allowed our government to
use helicopters, against the United Nations law, to crush the
uprising. They said, 'Now only helicopters can fly inside Iraq.'
They played games on the people…", and he ponders with bitterness:
"I think the United States doesn't agree with Saddam Hussein, but
they want to keep him in power because if the situation changed in
Iraq, they would lose their influence… Iraq lost everything after
the war. Saddam Hussein signed a blank check to give them everything
they wanted, so why would they want to replace him? … Who lost his
money, the Iraqi people or Saddam Hussein? Who lost his food? People
or Saddam Hussein? Saddam gets food from Italy and Britain, the best
furniture, the best things in the world. His wife is the richest
woman in the world. They didn't lose anything."
The book "Bloody
Hell" does not dodge the issues, and the author is to be commended
for giving a voice to the conscience of humanity. Simon Weston
writes in the foreword:
"And it's the civilians who become the real
innocent casualties of war. But the people who actually wage war are
so far behind the lines that they don't even get a smell of cordite,
let alone hear the shells explode… The only winners are the
financial houses, the arms industry, and the politicians who've used
the system and current affairs to aid and abet their desire for
power",
and the author puts it thus:
"War was good business, but it
was bloody, too, and the full extent of its bloodiness had to be
kept from the public view if economies were to continue to thrive."
At the end of the book a soldier concludes that:
"war is not the
beginning of evil in our society; it's the result of evil", and
Wendell Berry is quotes as saying that the Gulf war "was said to be
'about peace'. So have they all been said to be… But peace is not
the result of war, any more than love is the result of hate or
generosity the result of greed."
The book is
impressive, because it is honest, something rare in this new world
order where ministers no longer resign because of scandals. Right at
the beginning it sets the scene:
"A true war story is never moral…
There is no virtue… You can tell a true war story if it embarrasses
you."
A combatant in the Argentine war is truly embarrassed when he
admits:
"My own hypocrisy disturbs me, for I know that as long as
the majority of us continue to act out the plays that have been
written for us by the politicians, their priests and the men of this
world who control the money, then we shall never be able to put an
end to the horrors of war."
There are other, similar voices:
"How
can it be that a nation has a hundreds of billions of dollars to
spend destroying human beings, and yet not nearly enough to heal
them, and what values were we defending in Europe, Asia, and the
Gulf if we have money to send children to war, but none to heal
men?"
"One-fifth of
those killed in World War I were civilians; in World War II, this
figure rose to one-half. In the wars of the past few decades, it has
been ninety percent. The modern economic sanction is perhaps even
more cruel; it is a form of warfare in which one hundred percent of
the casualties are civilian", says Hallock.
His book is a sobering
read. So what are we to make of the helping hand America stretched
out to assist the Kosovans? This conflict is too new to be included
in Hallock's collection, but one of the contributors offers an
answer nonetheless:
"I knew that the United States has less than 5
percent of the world's population and yet consumes anywhere from
one-third to two-thirds of its resources. And to live like that you
have to steal resources from around the world. We are imperialistic
because we insist on living at a certain level of consumption, a
level that is impossible to support unless we steal, collectively."
Kosovo is rich in minerals. It has been suggested that the war was
more about America taking back from Russia what had been given to
Russia in the settlement after World War II. This might explain why
Russia was so keen, in the aftermath of the war, to be playing an
active part in the policing of the "peace", and why America insisted
that Russian troops should not be given their own territory. Then
the Balkan war established America's perceived right to act
unilaterally without UN approval in policing the world, and it
appeased many Muslims estranged by the carnage of the Gulf War.
Finally, it was an excuse of dumping outdated weapon stock, so that
its replacement at public expense can be justified. Rearmament is in
full swing in preparation of the next war. Meanwhile contractors
from the rich countries of the world have descended upon Kosovo like
the flies or the crows upon a carcass to divide the spoils and
tender for rebuilding opportunities.
With such
large-scale corruption, there is little room for idealism. People
have learnt to accept new realities in silence. Protests are
isolated and rare due to an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness.
It is refreshing, therefore, to encounter voices who are not afraid
to speak out, even though they will not effect a dramatic change
over night. There are still those, who have not been numbed by the
constant propaganda, and as long as those voices are out there, as
long as the truth is still spoken, it might reach someone willing to
listen. This is enough reason for us to continue.
Author: Sahib
Mustaqim
Bleher |
Date Published:
Spring
1999 |
Back To Top
|