Dec 01, 2007

by

in ,

Peace Activists Must Oppose the US Africa Command

In February 2007, President Bush announced that the Defense Department would create a new Africa Command (Africom) to coordinate U.S. government interests on the continent. Under this plan all governmental agencies of the US would fall under the military, i.e., USAID, the State Department, the US Departments of Energy, Treasury, and the Department of Education, etc. In pursuance of the plans for the militarization of Africa, the US Department of Defense announced the appointment of General William “Kip” Ward (an African American) as head of this new military command. On September 28, 2007, Ward was confirmed as the head of this new imperial military structure and, on October 1, 2007, Africom was launched in Stuttgart, Germany. The major question that is being posed by African peace activists and by concerned citizens is, why now? One answer may lie in the diminished power of the United States in the aftermath of the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will maintain in this article that it is urgent that peace activists who want reconstruction and transformation in Africa oppose the plans for the remilitarization of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism in Africa.

Why Now?
At the end of World War II the United States emerged as a leading political, economic and military force in world politics. It was in this period that the US established unified military command structures such as the European Command, the Pacific Command, the Southern Command, the Northern Command, and Central Command. Each command covers an area of responsibility. When this command structure was being refined, Africa was an afterthought, insofar as the United States had relegated the exploitation of Africa to the former European colonial exploiters. Hence, Africa fell under the European Command with its headquarters in Germany. Africa had not been included in the geographic combatant commands because it was expected that France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal and other colonial powers would retain military forces to guarantee western ‘interests’ in Africa. The collapse of the Portuguese colonial forces in Mozambique, Angola, Guinea and Sao Tome, and the collapse of the white racist military forces in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) gradually led to a rethinking by the US military. During this period the US had labeled all African freedom fighters as terrorists. In fact, when the US was allied with Osama Bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi, Nelson Mandela had been branded a terrorist.

Central Command
After the Iranian revolution in 1978-1979, the US established the Central Command. CENTCOM, based in Florida, was responsible for US military activities in East Africa and the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia and the Sudan). The Pacific Command, based in Hawaii, was responsible for the Comoros, Diego Garcia, Madagascar and Mauritius. Added to these commands in six continents are the logistical command structures, such as the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), the Space Command (SPACECOM), the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Transport Command (TRANSCOM).

At the end of the era of formal apartheid, the US military had established the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) with the goal of supporting humanitarianism and ending genocide. This was the same US government that had lobbied the United Nations to withdraw troops from Rwanda in the midst of the fastest genocide in Africa.

Throughout this period the US military had been cautious about involvement in Africa in the aftermath of the painful experience in Somalia in 1993. This cautious stance changed after the events of September 2001. In the next year, the USA updated its ACRI “plans” to organize the African Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA). Under ACOTA, African troops were supposed to be provided with offensive military weaponry, including rifles, machine guns, and mortars. The Africa Regional Peacekeeping Program (ARPP) was also established in order to equip, train, and support troops from selected African countries that are involved in “peacekeeping” operations. Additionally, the US government launched a Pan Sahel anti-terrorism initiative (later called Trans Sahara Counter Terror Initiative). Behind these grand mutations lay one clear fact: the USA wanted to control the oil resources from Africa. Presently Africa supplies more petroleum to the USA than the Middle East, and US corporations want the US military to guarantee the dominance of US oil conglomerates.

The Failures in the Middle East
The United States Central Command launched two major wars; these wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) pointed to the reality that high technology weapons couldn’t guarantee military superiority in battles. It was in the face of the quagmire that the US faced in Iraq that the United States government announced the formation of a new command structure called Africom.

African Oil – The Real Objective
The invasion of Iraq, the instability on the border between Turkey and Iraq (with the threat of a Turkish invasion of Iraq), the stalemate over the future of Lebanon, and the continued struggles for self-determination in Palestine have sharpened the conflict between imperialists and the peoples of the Middle East. In the face of this situation, there are scholars who have argued and presented evidence that the government of the United States has been “fabricating terrorism” in Africa. This fabrication of terrorism carries with it racial stereotypes of “failed states harboring terrorists” to support a US military buildup in Africa. The hypocrisy of the US government in this region is clear when we see that while there is a major campaign against genocidal violence in Darfur, the government of the US is actively cooperating with the government of the Sudan on the grounds of “intelligence sharing to fight terrorism.” It is in the Sudan that the neo-cons are stoking the fires of war in order to get access to the oil resources of that country.

Challenging the European Union and China in Africa
The changed realities in the Middle East and in Africa have been accompanied by a new activist posture of China in Africa. Outmaneuvered in Asia by China, and challenged by the rising democratic forces in Latin America, the opportunities for the accumulation of capital by US imperialists are dwindling.

In the past, when there was a crisis (such as the period after the Vietnam War), the US could transfer the crisis to other countries via the IMF. But the European Union has challenged this calculus and created the Euro as an alternative to the US dollar.

It will not be possible for the IMF to transfer the crisis to Asia, Europe, India, the Middle East or Latin America.

This means that there is only one area of the world where the US imperialists will have free rein. This is in Africa. It is also in Africa where there is a movement against the economic terrorism of neo-liberalism and the unjust conditions of the IMF and World Bank.

African Responses
Thus far the majority of African states have refused to host the Africa Command. Despite the aggressive military and diplomatic efforts by the US government, not even the closest “partners’ of the imperialists have supported this call for the Africa Command. There are but one or two states (such as Gabon and Liberia) that have openly called for basing the US Africa command on African soil. Though the United States has 5,458 “distinct and discrete military installations” around the world there are pressures from the military-industrial and oil complex for the US to have more effective resources in Africa to defend US capitalism.

In 1980 when the US Central Command was being debated, the citizens of the Middle East and North Africa did not sufficiently grasp the full meaning of this new military structure. After the militarization of the Middle East, five major wars and millions dead, however, it is urgent that peace activists oppose the plans to bring Africa closer into this arc of warfare.

The quest for peace in Africa has been hampered by the crude materialism of the present period and the intensified exploitation of Africans in the era of imperialist plunder and looting. This looting is hidden behind the Orwellian wordplay of “liberalization”, “privatization”, “the freedom of markets”, “humanitarianism” and “the global war on terror”. Racist images of war, anarchy and “failed states” are mobilized by the international media to justify the launch of the US military command structure for Africa. Those who support real cooperation, solidarity and anti-racism must oppose the US Africa command.

We should remember the statement by New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman who has written, “The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist – McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”

About the Author

Professor Horace G. Campbell is a scholar-activist who teaches African American Studies and Political Science at Syracuse University. Reprinted by permission of the author, from: the Syracuse Peace Council Newsletter, December 2007.
http://www.peacecouncil.net/pnl/08/770/770peace.html.

Dec 01, 2007

by

in ,

The Campaign to Resist AFRICOM

Join the Campaign to Resist AFRICOM

In the summer of 2007, a group of concerned U.S. and Africa based organizations and individuals opposed to the creation of Africom—the new U.S. military command for Africa—came together in Washington, DC, to organize Resist Africom to campaign against the increasing militarization of U.S. policy toward Africa. ACAS voted to join Resist Africa at the membership meeting on 20 October 2007, during the ASA meeting in New York City. Resist Africom is working to educate people both in the United States and abroad about Africom and to mobilize people in a campaign to prevent the creation of Africom in its present form.

The struggle against Africom has already achieved one major victory. The Bush Administration had expected to have little trouble finding governments in Africa that would welcome an Africom headquarters. But there has been so much public opposition to the idea in Africa that no government—with the exception of Liberia’s—has agreed to let Africom set up shop on their territory, even though many of them have privately reassured American officials that they are eager to work with the new command. As a result, the Bush Administration had to announce in February 2008 that Africom’s headquarters would have to remain in Stuttgart, Germany, for the foreseeable future. This is eloquent testimony both to the impressive political maturity of the people of Africa’s many nations and to the increasing capacity of civil society groups in Africa and of individual Africans to force their governments to limit their military cooperation with the United States.

This web site contains the current version of the statement of concern issued by Resist Africom in August 2007, along with analysis and data on Africom and other U.S. military activities in Africa, articles, and other useful documents. You are invited to go to the Resist Africom website: (www.resistafricom .org) for more information and to join the campaign.

What is AFRICOM?
Africom is a new military command that will take over responsibility for an area previously overseen by the European Command, the Central Command, and the Pacific Command and will assume operational control of activities formerly conducted by these three commands. President Bush made the first public announcement of the creation of Africom on 6 February 2007. Africom attained the status of a sub-unified command under the European Command on 1 October 2007, and is scheduled to be fully operational as a separate unified command no later than 1 October 2008. The new command will initially be based in Stuttgart, Germany, while it searches for African countries willing to host a base or set of regional bases on the African continent. It will constitute a unique new type of “hybrid” command, as it will oversee foreign operations previously undertaken under the direction of the State Department (DoS), the Agency for International Development (AID), and other U.S. government agencies. In addition, the deputy commander and many other staff positions will be filled with civilian personnel from DoS and AID.

Why Resist AFRICOM?
The Bush administration has emphasized the uniqueness of this hybrid structure as evidence that the new command has only benign purposes and that and that, in the words of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Africa Theresa Whelan, while “there are fears that Africom represents a militarization of U.S. foreign policy in Africa and that Africom will somehow become the lead U.S. Government interlocutor with Africa. This fear is unfounded.” Therefore, Bush administration officials insist that the purpose of Africom is misunderstood.

It is clear, however, that the differences between Africom and other commands—and the allegedly “unfounded” nature of its implications for the militarization of the continent—are not as real or genuine as the Bush administration officials would have us believe. Of course Washington has other interests in Africa besides making it into another front in its Global War on Terrorism, maintaining and extending access to energy supplies and other strategic raw material, and competing with China and other rising economic powers for control over the continent’s resources; these include helping Africans deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic and other emerging diseases, strengthening and assisting peacekeeping and conflict resolution efforts, and responding to humanitarian disasters.

But it is simply disingenuous to suggest that accomplishing these three objectives is not the main reason that Washington is now devoting so much effort and attention to the continent. And of course Washington would prefer that selected friendly regimes take the lead in meeting these objects, so that the United States can avoid direct military involvement in Africa, particularly at a time when the U.S. military is so deeply committed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and preparing for possible attacks on Iran. The hope that the Pentagon can build up African surrogates who can act on behalf of the United States is precisely why Washington is providing so much security assistance to these regimes and why it would like to provide even more in the future.

The establishment of Africom is also a further instance of the continuing transfer of the control and funding of American foreign policy from “civilian” agencies like the State Department and the Agency for International Development to the Defense Department. And along with control, comes freedom from existing legislative restrictions and oversight mechanisms. Furthermore, it is clear that Africom will rely heavily on the services of U.S. private military contractors, who are already participating in large numbers in current operations in Liberia and Sudan, among other countries. These “dogs of war” will be now be set loose all over Africa, just as they were in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition, neither African governments nor the people of African countries were consulted in the creation of Africom and their response to the president’s announcement has been almost unanimously negative. For example, the government of Nigeria has publicly stated that it would not host Africom facilities and leaders of SADC have said that no member state should allow Africom to set up shop on their territory either. And public opinion, as expressed by civil society groups and in Africa’s increasingly vigorous press, has been extremely critical, and even hostile, demonstrating that the creation of the new command itself is causing unrest and instability in Africa.

Therefore, the creation of Africom is the latest, and most dangerous, stage in the increasing militarization of U.S. policy toward Africa. It is a command designed to fulfill the short-sighted and ultimately self-destructive vision of U.S. interests – to expand the Global War on Terror and to satiate America’s hunger for oil and other resources. We are particularly concerned that the creation of Africom constitutes another step in the removal of existing legal restraints and congressional oversight mechanisms on the conduct of foreign policy and in the transfer of control of foreign policy to the Defense Department and to private military contractors.

Nov 20, 2007

by

in ,

No Easy Victories party

nullBook Party for No Easy Victories: African Liberation and American Activists over a Half Century, 1950-2000.

When: Saturday, October 20, 2007 from 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm., during the 50th anniversary meeting of African Studies Association

Where: McGee’s Pub, 240 West 55th Street (between Broadway and 8th Avenue, 3 blocks north on Broadway from Sheraton Towers)

What: Drinks, light snacks, and informal conversation

Sponsored by: Africa World Press, Solidarity Research and Writing LLC, Association of Concerned Africa Scholars, and AfricaFocus Bulletin

Who: Editors, writers, and activists featured in No Easy Victories. Activists and friends living in or visiting New York or attending the African Studies Association annual meeting.

Aug 01, 2007

by

in ,

Winning Another Front in the War on Terror – What the West Could Do Better in Somalia

Right after 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan Somalia surfaced on the international agenda again. After nearly fourteen years without any central administration Somalia seemed to have become what some observers have called a second Afghanistan, a failed state that could serve as a potential safe haven for terrorists with links to Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda itself. However, international attention shifted to Iraq rather than Somalia, and the U.S.-administration, that had initially been keen to tackle the problem of failed states, set out to change the whole Middle East by intervening in Iraq. But why was Somalia dropped as a major source of concern by the U.S. administration again? Part of the answer is that the U.S. was looking for a means to fundamentally change the Middle East region, which it considered as the major source of threats to its national security. The whole concept of the Broader Middle East Initiative was designed to inspire a process of democratic transformation in the region. The war in Iraq can be seen as part of that particular campaign, although it soon overshadowed the whole initiative. Africa came only second on the agenda. Moreover, another military intervention in Somalia could have caused heavy casualties. Therefore the U.S. administration looked for a way of containing the problem of state failure in Somalia and chose to establish a maritime mission on the Horn of Africa in order to monitor the movements into Somalia and into the Middle East region. But by adopting this strategy the problem of Somalia will not be solved, quite on the contrary the Horn of Africa will remain as volatile and insecure as ever. Keeping in mind the limited resources now available, what could the West do better in Somalia?

Recognising Somali Efforts

The beginning of the 1990s brought considerable change to the Horn of Africa. The influx of cheap weapons and small arms from the former Soviet Union and its allies destabilised the region in the early 1990s, while many countries in the Horn had to rebalance their foreign policy as the collapse of the Soviet Union robbed them off their closest ally. At the same time a long history of deterioration in Somali politics washed away the dictatorship of Siad Barre leaving Somalia, once the most influential power in the Horn, to chaos and anarchy. However, the north-western province of Somaliland went through a process of peaceful conflict resolution. While Somalia had been a former Italian colony, Somaliland had been a British protectorate before it entered a union with the former Italian part in 1960. After Barre was ousted from power in 1991, Somaliland declared its independence again and has since been establishing a functioning democratic order. A new constitution was introduced after a referendum held nationwide in May 2001 and the presidential elections in April 2003 which were considered being free and fair. But although the Somalilanders managed to maintain political stability and even introduced democratic reforms the international community is still reluctant to acknowledge the efforts being made by Somalis without foreign help and the considerable success they had in doing so.

What the West could do better in this instance is to finally acknowledge the progress being made by Somalilanders; meanwhile Somalilanders developed a strong feeling of nationalism towards their country. Fourteen years of independence and relative prosperity produced a national dynamic, a reluctance to accept any central authority that could possibly emerge in Mogadishu or anywhere else in the South of Somalia. A success of the current peace process in the South – although the Transitional Government was relocated from Kenya to Jowhar near Mogadishu, a success remains highly unlikely – would necessarily lead to a war between Somaliland and Somalia as soon as the new administration would set out to tighten its grip on the country. International recognition of Somaliland is not only a prerequisite for any successful peace process within Somalia but would also show the West’s willingness to readily acknowledge indigenous efforts for stability. Moreover, international recognition of Somaliland would not pose a precedent for state secession in other parts of Africa. As Somaliland has been a single entity before independence its recognition would be in line with the international communities’ politics of maintaining the colonial borders in Africa. Like in Eritrea’s case for national independence in 1993 colonial borders would be restored rather than destroyed. An independent Somaliland would also offer an ideal base for strengthening East African governments in their stance against terrorism and Somaliland could easily be integrated in the US’ East African Counter Terrorism Program (EACTP) that already unites Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Tanzania in the global struggle against terrorism. So far only the U.S. and the United Kingdom are considering international recognition, but doing so would require an active U.S. policy in overcoming especially Italy’s aversion of an independent Somaliland.

Combating Terrorism

The 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam by Al-Qaeda left 224 people dead, most of them Africans. The embassy bombings proved to be one of the deadliest attacks until 9/11. However, the reaction of the Clinton-Administration was a confused mixture of a rapid military retaliation and a half-hearted political initiative to offer military instruction for African-peacekeepers in the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) that was meanwhile succeeded by the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Programme (ACOTA). It soon became clear that terrorism was a problem not only of Arab origin. The attacks on U.S. forces in Somalia during mission ‘Restore Hope’, the Embassy bombings, the attempted shooting down of an airplane at Mombassa airport in 2002 and the attack on an Israeli owned hotel complex again in Mombassa showed that the problem of terrorism in Africa will not simply disappear. On the core of the increasing number of terrorist incidents in East Africa lies a longer lasting strong drive towards further Islamisation of the East African coast sponsored by Saudi Wahabbism as well as Sudanese fundamentalist imperialism. Whilst many West African states are already being Muslim the attention of Islamic fundamentalists shifted towards East Africa in the late 1980s and early 1990s. State failure in Somalia provided a fertile ground for movements like Al-Ittihad Al-Islamiya (AIAI), an Islamic organisation being held responsible for a number of attacks on American forces during mission ‘Restore Hope’ and for other terrorist attacks in East Africa. Al-Ittihad was sponsored by the Islamic Sudanese government in the early 1990s, and the U.S. administration subsequently focused on containing Sudanese influence in the region. As Walter Kansteiner, former Assistant Secretary for African Affairs put in 2002 with regard to state failure in Somalia:

“What better place for the seeds of international terrorism and lawlessness to take root?”

In fact, this rhetoric question shed some light on events unfolding in Somalia in 2006. Virtually at the beginning of this year did Islamists of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) challenge the authority of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG). For the first time in the past one and a half decade is Mogadishu no longer divided between various warlords but under the firm control of one group, the Islamists. At the end of 2006 it looks as if the seeds are finally taking roots.

With international attention focused elsewhere another conflict, the bloody border war between Eritrea and Ethiopia from 1998 to 2000 went by largely unnoticed by the U.S. and the international community. While a wide range of conflicts in the Horn remained unsettled, ‘purer’ versions of Islam could attract people looking for some sort of identity and stability. Moreover, the spread of Islamisation never really stopped. Apart from a Christian Ethiopia nearly all East African states are today Muslim or Muslim dominated, with an overwhelming majority belonging to Sunni Islam: As the scholar John Nyuot Yoh recently noted:

”The emerging latent rivalry between the Sunni and Shiite versions of Islam along the eastern coast of Africa might well pose a threat in some countries in the Horn where the numbers of Muslims and Christians differ widely.”

The East African coastal strip has indeed become an area most suitable for terrorist activities ranging from money laundering to carrying out attacks on Western targets. State dysfunctions, informal economies, and weak security infrastructures allow for an easy penetration of East African States by terrorist networks. What is more is that there is an inviting range of possible targets in these states: Embassies, liaison offices, and Western based Non-Governmental Organisations. The recent attacks on employees of the World Food Programme (WFP) in Somalia show how difficult it could become to serve the people in such an insecure environment. Especially Somalia should be of concern in this regard as a new terrorist group has recently emerged in Mogadishu under the alleged leadership of a certain Aden Hashi ‘Ayro. The group is being held responsible for the killing of four aid workers in Somaliland in 2003 and 2004 and is suspected of having links to Al-Qaeda.

Despite the insurgency in Iraq, parts of Africa and especially the Horn of Africa could still become a potential safe haven for terrorists as well as potential targets for terrorist attacks. Countries such as Kenya and Somalia have become a transit hub for fundamentalists from all over the world. Combating terrorism therefore requires a bunch of initiatives that could easily be started and should aim at:

1 making harbours and airports more secure,
2 promoting a system that could effectively prohibit money laundering,
3 promoting good governance,
4 and finally put an end to de facto free trade of small arms

These initiatives could allow for a better monitoring of the movement of people and goods, funding of terrorism could be seriously hardened and would finally support African governments in their attempts to fight terrorism and achieve greater in depth control of their national territory. Although many African countries are part of the international coalition against terror, they lack the means to effectively combat terrorism. Even though the U.S. national security strategy considers failed states as a threat to its national security the U.S. has so far been relative reluctant of getting involved in failed states or post conflict policing. As the U.S. military capacities are now largely bound in the Middle East the U.S. should seriously enhance its training efforts with African troops, as Gayle Smith, put it:

“If the United States is unwilling to commit troops to peace-keeping in Africa, then I think we have to be prepared to seriously support African Nations that are prepared to fill the gap.”

If these initiatives could be started multilaterally, national security would be enhanced and the international prestige of the United States would possibly improve.

Bringing Stability into the Region

The major obstacle to lasting peace in the Horn and in Africa in general is the free availability of small arms. Yemen has served as the supermarket for small arms trade to Somalia for years, despite a UN arms embargo. Although the maritime mission Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa (CJTF-HoA) already monitors the region, the influx of small arms into the Horn from Yemen has never really ended. The limited authorities of the naval mission do not allow for the stopping of suspicious vessels leading directly to a continuing breakdown of the UN arms embargo against Somalia. Given the fact that Yemen and Somalia are either failed or failing states, the only way of stopping the free trade of small arms is during its journey on the sea. Therefore the international community should seriously consider that in combating terrorism it will be necessary to police the important waterways and, in doing so, the international community must give the participating naval forces the means to fulfil the assigned tasks effectively. By broadening the mandate of the Joint Task Force the Operation Enduring Freedom could contribute to multilateral efforts to combat the trade of light weapons that were being made under the auspices of the United Nations (UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects – UNPoA) and on the multilateral initiative of East African countries (as formulated in the Nairobi declaration on the Problem of the Proliferation of Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons).

In bringing stability to East Africa the West can again contribute to measures being taken by Africans themselves. Thirteen East African countries are currently in the process of establishing an East African Standby Force (EASBRIG). To support this development the West should assist the participating countries on a wider scale. The American ACOTA Initiative and the French Reinforcement of African Peacekeeping Capacities Programme (RECAMP) are already leading in the right direction but in order to avoid another clash of French and U.S. interests in Africa these initiatives could be melt under the aegis of NATO. This would allow for significant contribution by new and small members of the Transatlantic Community. What should be envisaged is a Partnership for Peace for Africa, a way of offering military instruction, technical support and logistical competence to partners rather than recipients. Still the costs of such measures would be limited especially as the burdens would be shared among the NATO member countries.

Regional integration should be another essential part of any effort to achieve a lasting and sustainable peaceful environment in the Horn of Africa. A good way of promoting regional integration would be to bring in the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which is still a weak regional organisation founded originally in 1993 to promote food security. Renamed in 1996 it had to focus primarily on security issues in the Horn; in the meantime the Sudan and Somalia peace processes have become the major focus of the IGAD as continuing political instability persists as the major obstacle to enhanced food security. While the United Nations was preoccupied with the violent border war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, IGAD focused on the peace process in Sudan. A peace treaty between the Sudanese government and the SPLM/A in Southern Sudan could open a way of ending the insurgency of the Lords Resistance Army in Northern Uganda, leaving Somalia as the remaining major threat to lasting security in the Horn. Especially Djibouti and Kenya had been very keen to initiate a peace process in Somalia but so far every effort to bring the contending parties together failed. The current 14th attempt to establish a new government for Somalia is sponsored by IGAD and has so far been the most successful initiative to restore order in Somalia reaching a climax with the relocation of a Transitional Government and Transitional Parliament to Jowhar near Mogadishu. But the return of the two provisional bodies to Somalia caused deep divisions between two varying parties in the transitional institutions over the question where the government should be based; in Mogadishu or Jowhar until the security situation in Mogadishu improves. This dispute meanwhile led to a serious encounter with some observers fearing an armed conflict between the two parties. As nearly all figures in the transitional institutions are warlords and the Prime Minister Abdullah Yusuf is regarded by most Somalis as an Ethiopian puppet the new government lacks authority and legitimacy. If the peace process shall be successful it cannot rely on warlords longing for peace but must be prepared with the help of the international community. An unavoidable prerequisite for lasting peace apart from recognizing Somalia is the prevention of further small arms trade. The Joint Task Force could easily be integrated into this task. Effectively stopping the arms influx to Somalia will make it much easier to achieve a peaceful settlement.

Conclusion

As the Horn of Africa is located in a strategic zone with access to two of the most important waterways in the world, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, the limited intervention by the international community is more than debatable. But with a bitter insurgency in Iraq and a state-building mission in Afghanistan the West’s resources are strained. However, the international community cannot afford to leave any continent behind in the war on terror, nor can it afford that another safe haven for terrorists emerges while the West tries to rebuild Afghanistan. While failed states from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Liberia and Somalia can easily be penetrated by terrorist network organisations like Al-Qaeda, rebuilding failed states is a major task that stresses the financial and military resources of the U.S. and its allies over years. On this point terrorists can claim a strategic advantage. But the West can still try to balance this disadvantage by relatively modest and financially cheap means. Doing so would first of all require a greater political willingness, a greater awareness of how easily weak and failed states in East Africa can be penetrated by terrorist networks and better multilateral co-operation in bringing together East African governments and the West.

_________
From ACAS Bulletin 77

Dustin Dehéz is Director for Northeast African Studies at the Düsseldorf Institute for Foreign and Security Policy (DIAS).

Aug 01, 2007

by

in ,

Ethiopia Rides the Tiger

The Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, must have been studying the magnificent successes of the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq and Israel’s recent foray into Lebanon. He has clearly decided to emulate them. His argument is exactly that which was given by George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert. We must attack our neighbor because we have to keep Islamic terrorists from pursuing their jihad and attacking us.

In each case, the invader was sure of his military superiority and of the fact that the majority of the population would hail the attackers as liberators. Zenawi asserts he is cooperating in the U.S. worldwide struggle against terrorism. And indeed, the United States has offered not only its intelligence support but has sent in both its air force and units of special troops to assist the Ethiopians.

Still, each local situation is a bit different. And it is worth reviewing the recent history of what is called the Horn of Africa, in which countries have switched geopolitical sides with some ease in the last forty years.

Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, Ethiopia was a symbol of African resistance to European imperialism. The Ethiopians defeated the Italian colonial troops at Adowa in 1896 and the country remained independent. When Italy tried again in 1935, Emperor Haile Selassie went to the League of Nations and pleaded for collective security against the invasion. He received no help. Ethiopia then became the symbol of Africa throughout the Black world. The colors of its flag became the colors of Africa. And at the end of the Second World War, Ethiopian independence was restored.

In the difficult genesis of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963, Haile Selassie used his prestige to play a key role as intermediary between differing African states. The OAU established its headquarters in Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa. But if Ethiopia served this symbolic role throughout Africa, it also had an oppressive and aristocratic state machinery. And when acute famines began to plague the country in the 1970s, internal discontent mounted rapidly. In 1974, an army officer, Mengistu Haile Mariam, led a revolution against the “feudal” monarchy and established a military government which soon proclaimed itself Marxist-Leninist.

Before Mengistu, relations between the United States and Ethiopia had been warm. Ethiopia’s neighbor, Somalia, had strained relations with the United States. It also had a military government under Siad Barre. However, it called itself “scientific socialist” and had fairly close relations with the Soviet Union, offering it a naval base. After the 1974 coup, when Mengistu proclaimed his government Marxist-Leninist, the Soviet Union dumped Somalia and embraced the larger and more important Ethiopia. So the United States embraced Somalia in turn, and took over the naval base.

To understand what happened next, a few words of ethnic analysis of the two countries is needed. Ethiopia is an ancient Christian kingdom, long dominated by Amhara aristocrats. There is another large Christian group, the Tigre, who speak a different language. There are also two other quite large groups in the country – the Oromo (half of whom are Muslim) and the Muslim Somalis. In addition, at the end of the Second World War, Ethiopia absorbed the coastal Italian colony of Eritrea. Under Haile Selassie, only the Amhara counted, and Eritrea was waging a war for its independence. Without Eritrea, Ethiopia is landlocked.

Somalia was quite different. There had been two colonies – Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland. Italian Somaliland became independent in 1960 in the course of liquidating Italian colonies, and British Somaliland was added onto it. In the 1960s, when ethnic conflicts began to plague many African states, it was commonly said that the one African country that would never know ethnic conflict was Somalia, since almost everyone in the country was ethnically Somali, spoke Somali, and was a Muslim.

People in both countries chafed under the respective dictatorships. And when the Cold War ended, neither government could survive. Both Mengistu and Barre were overthrown in 1991.

What replaced Mengistu was a Tigre liberation movement, which at first spoke a “Maoist” nationalist language. As a way of distinguishing itself from the Mengistu regime, it acceded to Eritrea’s independence, only to regret this later. Christian (if not Amhara) dominance soon became the major theme of the new government and Oromo and Somali uprisings began. Human rights activists do not consider Zenawi’s government much better than Mengistu’s.

In Somalia, the “perfect” ethnic state fell apart, as Somali clans began to fight each other for power. After 1991, the United States began to embrace the new leader of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, who abandoned his “Maoism” altogether. Somalia was left out in the cold. When the United States sent in troops on a “humanitarian” mission to quell disorders, the United States got the brutal drubbing we now call “Blackhawk down,” and it withdrew its troops. A long multi-sided civil war continued. In 2006, a group called the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took over the capital, Mogadishu, and expelled the feuding clan leaders, restoring relative peace for the first time in more than a decade.

The United States saw the UIC as a replica of the Taliban and allied to Al-Qaeda. So did Zenawi. So Ethiopia decided to invade, oust the UIC, and prop up the powerless central government that had existed on paper since 2004 but had been unable even to enter the capital city. There we went again. Of course, Ethiopia (with the United States) has won the first round. The UIC has abandoned Mogadishu. But the Somalis aren’t welcoming the Ethiopians as liberators. The clan leaders are fighting each other again, and Mogadishu is again in turmoil. The Ethiopia government is facing troubles not only in Somalia but now increasingly at home as well.

As Israel had to withdraw from Lebanon, and as the United States is going to have to do in Iraq, so Ethiopia will have to pull back soon from Somalia. The situation within Somalia will not have been improved because of its preventive attack. Preventive attacks are always a potential boomerang. Either one wins overwhelmingly or one loses badly.

__________
From ACAS Bulletin 77

Immanuel Wallerstein teaches at Yale University and is a board member of ACAS. This commentary originally appeared in Commentary No. 201, Jan. 15, 2007, and is distributed by Agence Global.
Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein.

Aug 01, 2007

by

in ,

In Pursuit of al-Qaeda in Somalia: A Critical Analysis of U.S. Foreign Policy Towards Somalia

In an attempt to monitor and curb terrorist activity in East Africa, the United States launched an aggressive campaign against the Union of Islamic Courts—a rising political force in Somalia, including a direct invasion, which ensued a failed attempt by the CIA to defuse the movement. In this effort to weave the Horn of Africa into this ever-exhaustive war on terrorism, there has been a tendency to demonize the UIC and portray the organization as another menacing and monolithic Islamist movement without doing justice to the complexity of Somali politics. It is often the case that the UIC is inappropriately linked with other Islamist movements, such as al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. Such allegations have largely been reported as fact in media outlets even though supporting details remain weak. Publications and news stories with headlines, such as, “The Hunt for al-Qaeda in Somalia,”[1] “Al-Qaeda Threat Seen Looming if Government Fails,”[2] and “U.N. Says Somalis Helped Hezbollah Fighters,”[3] dominate media discourses and perpetuate the idea of a menacing movement emerging in Somalia. Additionally, much of the existing representations of the UIC in Western media invoke an alarmist sense of urgency to act and dismantle the group. In this paper, I argue that the U.S. approach to Somali politics has largely been shortsighted and uncritical. I deepen this argument by examining the tactics employed by the U.S. and the ramifications of such policies.

U.S. Policy in East Africa

In general, U.S. foreign policy towards Somalia is characterized by strong disapproval of UIC. This condemnation manifests itself in two forms. The first is an aggressive military campaign, which developed into support for the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. The second is a propaganda assault in which there exists strong demonization of the UIC in political, and consequently media circles. Somalia became an area of interest after senior members of the Bush administration conveyed that instability in Somalia posed a significant terror threat for the United States,4 and on May 2006, a U.S. spokesperson openly confirmed that the president would not allow Somalia to exist as a safe haven for terrorists.[5] U.S. officials also conveyed that five al-Qaeda operatives, including some connected with the U.S. embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania were in Mogadishu.[6] This was perhaps the beginning of the formal declaration of opposition against alleged terrorist elements in Somalia. Though the U.S. openly expressed concern regarding Somalia’s status as a failed state and also regarding the question of the five al-Qaeda operatives, it became clear that there was more anxiety over the increasing popularity of the UIC and the existence of Islamist politics in Somalia. Instead of pursuing a more surgical approach to the issue of the al-Qaeda operatives or attempting to mediate collaboration between the UIC and the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) for a more stable Somalia, the U.S. took a different course.

On February 2006, Washington began its campaign to exert political pressure on the UIC through the CIA funded “Alliance for Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism in Mogadishu” (ARPCT). The alliance created a coalition of warlords to monitor and defuse Islamist politics in the capital.[7]This network was eventually defeated by the UIC, and this defeat was followed by a deepening of U.S. involvement in Somali politics via neighboring Ethiopia. In recent months, Ethiopian presence on ground has escalated. As early as July 2006, Ethiopian forces were seen crossing into the country and in October, Meles Zenawi declared that the state was “technically at war” with the UIC.[8] In November, the UIC conveyed that Ethiopia was shelling a town in Bandiradley[9] and the UIC launched an attack in response. Ethiopia does not admit fighting until December 24, 2006, and then claims that it was an act of “self-defense,” as the states actions received little criticism from abroad, in addition to the blessing of the U.S. government. Aside from the green light Washington gave to Ethiopia, the U.S. itself has actively participated in air strikes in the south. The attacks by foreign elements and those by the national army have been dismissed by the United Nations. The internationally recognized and U.S. and Ethiopia backed Somali president, Abdullahi Yusuf, has openly expressed that his troops will shell civilian areas in order to eradicate rebel forces. Even so, Yusuf has been free of adequate criticism by international governmental bodies and human rights organizations alike.[10] The latest assault on the Somali people is the utilization of Ethiopian prisons. Nowadays, it seems that carrying out the “war on terror” includes the service of interrogators and the use of detention centers; the conflict in Somalia is certainly no exception. But given the disturbing history of prisoner abuse in Ethiopia, the future of hundreds of individuals captured from Somalia and Kenya is a grave concern for Somalis.[11]

The collective impact of these various pressures has been the most draconian events to ensue since the Somali Civil War. Since the initiation of ground combat, chaos has unfolded in the capital. Hundreds of Somalis have perished in the hands of Ethiopian troops and TFG soldiers. Mass displacement continues to spillover neighboring countries and towns, and many of the city’s two million inhabitants are seeking refuge elsewhere. Astonishingly, the reverberations of the human suffering of this conflict have yet to be experienced beyond the regional borders Somalia, with the exception perhaps of the vibrant Somalia Diaspora abroad. This disregard can perhaps be attributed to the framing of the discussion. The tragedy that results from this propaganda assault is that the death of the other suddenly becomes justified, as the conflict is seen as a necessary component to the greater “war on terror.” Instead of mourning for the dead, a lost life suddenly becomes “collateral damage.” And since the culmination of the Cold War, politicking in this era of globalization has replaced “the enemy” from the communists to the Islamists. More recently, the events on 9-11 invoke a sense of urgency and fear that has not previously existed. By effectively using the rhetoric of post 9-11 discourse, it becomes easier for individuals to accept the fall of Mogadishu and the loss of Somali life. Likewise, U.S. approach to the political factions in Somalia has relied heavily on the exploitation of the fear of the Muslim other. Moreover, by creating false binaries, such as, “good, secular Muslim” versus “bad, extremist Muslim,” and imagining an al-Qaeda connection that did not exist, the rhetoric against the UIC becomes a powerful political and military tool. Ultimately, the construction of such a polarizing factions leads to unchecked power and uncritical alliances.

U.S. Policy and the Miscalculation of Intra-Somali Politics

The recent attacks on Somalia, although largely labeled “successful,” were shortsighted, as it failed to do justice to the political context in Somalia and socio-economic realities that Somalis face. The excursion achieved the shallow objective of ousting the UIC temporarily from one area without establishing stability or eliminating any of the existing condition, which plague the Somali populace. The fighting did not draw out peace, security or order. In fact, since the direct invasion of Ethiopian forces, Mogadishu has returned to its anarchic—post bellum status quo and the U.S. has chosen to unconditionally align itself with an unpopular force.[12] In addition to the resurfacing symptoms of the old anarchy, Somalia has recently experienced its first suicide bomb, in addition to an overall escalation in what some identify as insurgency attacks. Despite that, the bombardment on civilians and the destruction of the city is indeed contributing to the resistance that the TFG and Ethiopian forces confront. Although many Somalis did not initially embrace the UIC or its policies, even more are fundamentally opposed to the Transitional Federal Government for its ineffectiveness and corruption. Members of the TFG parliament include ruthless warlords previously supported by the U.S. Additionally; its membership can be deduced to clanmanship—a dangerous practice for a country already torn by tribal loyalties.[13] Furthermore, Prime Minister Gedi and the TFG have no authority in Mogadishu; they have long attempted to command Somalia from Nairobi, Kenya. For leaders who until recently did not dare reside in the country they supposedly rule, it’s clear that they are disconnected from the vast majority of the people.

Since the recent events, the Somali populace is understandably skeptical of this regime, which allowed Ethiopia to destroy the infrastructure of its own country, especially given the context of the historically bloody border between Ethiopia and Somalia—a history that is without a clear reconciliation process. The decision to embrace Ethiopian troops at the expense of Somali lives is not well received by Somalis. In addition to this skepticism, there is the fear of Ethiopian influence in the country. And while this influence does exist, the mere presence of this perception of power and influence brings about tremendous outrage. This is perhaps most evident in the riots and protests against the TFG, Ethiopia and the Americans that have been erupting in Somalia’s capital,[14] and as articulated previously, the inception of newer resistance in Mogadishu.

Both political figures and the media exploited what Maxine Rodinson refers to as theologocenrism—a term used to describe how some professionals wrongfully use Islam to explain and describe the actions of Muslims. I contend that the actions and the debate surrounding the UIC as a whole demonstrate a promotion of Orientalist notions about Islam, specifically an attempt to manufacture a monolithic Islam. The term theologocenrism refers to a Western school of thought, which discusses all observable events about Muslims to Islamic theology.[15] The practice of this approach narrows the rise of the UIC to a strictly religious development; it ignores the context of lawlessness in Somalia and the role of the UIC in establishing a nationalist and more effective alternative to the TFG. It’s ignores the crucial context from which the UIC emerged. The UIC was able to glean support from Somalis for pragmatic reasons. The organization quickly becomes known for its honesty, as well as its success in providing much needed security. The UIC launched a strong weapons confiscation campaign, reopened the airport and seaport and established policies that attempted to limit drug use.[16] The UIC essentially established order and governance that has not existed since the fall of the Siad Barre regime. Regrettably, the smear campaign against the UIC not only fails to consider the diversity within the UIC or recognize the UIC as a popular, nationalist movement, but it rationalizes the unsubstantiated assaults on Somalia from various forces. Ultimately, such discourse prevents critical diplomacy from taking course.

Conclusion

I maintain that the exaggerated fears and the shortsighted incorporation of Somalia by the U.S. into the “war on terror” not only pushes the state near total collapse, but also compromises the prospects of regional stability, in addition to breeding more radical elements of discontent and advancing the U.S. towards an increasingly isolated world. The flagrant human rights violations, from the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian neighborhoods to the existence of detention centers in Ethiopia mimic the failed policies the U.S. employs in Afghanistan and Iraq. To avoid similar conditions in Somalia, it behooves the U.S. government to work towards a more neutral approach in the region. For a sustainable Somalia, it’s crucial to win hearts and minds—something the TFG, Ethiopian officials and the U.S. have yet to achieve from this military venture. When waging the “war on terror” exceeds the boundaries of democratic values and pushes struggling nations further collapse, it’s important to question how proportional such strategies are, especially as U.S. foreign policy continues to engage in destructive interventionist campaigns in the broader Islamic world.

_________
From ACAS Bulletin 77

Ramla Bile immigrated to the United States with her family in 1989. She is finishing a Bachelor of Arts in Global Studies and Political Science at the University of Minnesota. She served on the editorial board of The Minnesota Daily where she currently works as a columnist. Ramla is also on the board of directors of the Arab American arts organization, Mizna.

Jeff Koinange, Barbara Starr, Jim Clancy, and Ralitsa Vassileva. The Hunt for al-Qaeda in Somalia (2007, January 13). In Inside Africa. CNN International.

2 Sands, David (2007, January 12). Al-Qaeda Threat Seen Looming if Government Fails. The Washington Times, World, A13.

3 Worth, Robert (2006, November 15). U.N. Says Somalis Helped Hezbollah Fighters. The New York Times. International.

4 Menkhaus, Dr. Ken (2007, February 6). “Exploring a Comprehensive Stabilization, Reconstruction, and Counter-terrorism Strategy for Somalia.” Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate.

5 Kelemen , Michele (2006, June 7). Islamist Militia Seizes Capital of Somalia. In Day to Day . National Public Radio.

6 Jeff Koinange, Barbara Starr, Jim Clancy, and Ralitsa Vassileva. The Hunt for al-Qaeda in Somalia (2007, January 13). In Inside Africa. CNN International.

7 Menkhaus, Dr. Ken (2007, February 6). “Exploring a Comprehensive Stabilization, Reconstruction, and Counter-terrorism Strategy for Somalia.” Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate.

8 Ethiopia is ‘technically at war’. (2006, October 25). BBC News, Africa.

9 Ethiopia accused of Somalia attack. (2006, November 28). Al Jazeera, Africa.

10 Lee, Matthew (2007, April 06). Bombing of Civilians Justified by UN-Supported Somali President, War Crimes Questions Raised. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from Inner City Press: Investagative Reporting from the United Nations Web site: http://www.innercitypress.com/somalia040907.html

11 Mitchell, Anthony (2007, April 4). U.S. agents interrogating terror suspects held in Ethiopian prisons. International Herald Tribune, Africa & the Middle East.

12 Gettleman, Jeffrey (2007, February 20). In Somalia, Violence is Status Quo. New York Times.

13 Menkhaus, Dr. Ken (2007).Somalia: The Back-up Plan. CSIS African Policy Forum.

14 Ethiopia accused of Somalia attack. (2006, November 28). Al Jazeera, Africa.

15 Abu Khalil, As’ad (2006, March 20). “The Bush Doctrine: Assumptions and Realities in the Arab World.” Rice University . Fansworth Pavilion.

16 Mire, Amina (2007, January 2). Return of the Warlords. Counterpunch.

Aug 01, 2007

by

in ,

Political Islam in Morocco: The Case of the Party of Justice and Development (PJD)

The impact of America’s War on Terror on the evolution of the Moroccan democratic initiative and especially on its impact on the moderate Islamic Party of Justice and Development (PJD) is important to comprehending the current political conditions in Morocco. This analysis will look at the evolution of the PJD since the Casablanca bombing in 2003 and will explain how this event has created new political dynamics between the government and the party.

Background

The moderate Islamic Party of Justice and Development (PJD) was founded by Dr. Abdelkrim Al Khatib, a politician known for his sympathy with the Monarchy, under the name of the MPDC (Popular Democratic and Constitutional Movement). The party was known for its political amnesia for many years until various members of a clandestine association Chabib Islamia (Islamic Youth), who later formed the MUR (Movement for Unity and Reform), joined the party, with the blessings of former interior minister Driss Basri. In 1988 the party officially became the PJD. Some scholars argue that the PJD name was inspired by the Turkish Party of Justice and Development. The Moroccan party differs from the Turkish PJD, however, in its brand of liberalism and modernity.

On September 27, 2002 during the legislative elections, the PJD took 42 out of 325 seats, winning most of the districts where it was represented. Since 2004, the party’s leader has been Saadeddine Othmani, a charismatic and a well respected politician. The PJD accepted the political game by participating in the political system and recognizing the institution of the monarchy, unlike Al Adl Wa Al Ihssane (Justice and Spirituality), a radical Islamist Organization that has refused to participate in the process of democratization that Morocco is going through.

Before the 2003 Casablanca bombings, the party used to publish harsh criticism and violent diatribes targeting Morocco’s opening to Western values in the MUR’s newspaper Attajdid (The Renewal). Since 2003 the party has been redefining its criticism and gives the appearance of having softened its political stances by adopting a more moderate rhetoric. Under pressure from the palace, the leaders of the PJD were urged to redefine their political discourse and to embrace the politics of modernization that constitute an important ideological tool for the new monarchy. Because of Mohammed VI’s agenda to develop a modern state with viable democratic institutions, Morocco became an attractive country to Western Europe and to the United Sates. As stated by Marvine Lowe,

As one of a handful of Arab countries which Washington can comfortably consider a friend, Morocco is viewed as a cornerstone for the American policy of promoting democracy in the region. Caught between the process of democratization and the growing momentum of political Islam, Morocco is a place that anyone concerned with the future of democracy in the Arab world should be watching closely.

The complication of the political games in Moroccan national politics should be understood within the context of the social and the economic strategic vision adopted by the palace and the government. It should also be articulated in the global context of the war on terror and of its impact on the evolution of the Islamist parties in Morocco. In order to grasp the evolution of Moroccan society toward a democratic stage, we should look at this evolution in its historical dimension.

After the death of King Hassan II, known for his autocratic and authoritarian regime, Morocco has gone through drastic political changes. In the last years of his reign, Hassan II’s political openness was crucial to the changes that were going to take place after his death. By offering the post of the prime minister to Abderrahman Youssoufi, the opposition leader of the socialist political party, Hassan II understood the historical necessity of change and of creating a new political atmosphere adapted to the liberal tendencies of his son. The heir to the throne, Mohammed VI, a well esteemed prince known for his political and democratic openness, took over in a smooth political transition. The regime change brought hope to the people of a country who were accustomed to living in a state of fear and insecurity under the ideology of the Makhzen. The Makhzen ideology, incarnated in the person of the interior minister Driss Basri, was based on oppression, humiliation and violation of the most basic human rights. In the early 1990s, Hassan II launched a political project that allowed opposition parties to freely participate in the new political process to pave the way to a smooth transition to the heir of the throne.

Reacting to the rise of Islamism in his own country, King Hassan II was able to avoid many of the problems facing other Arab countries at the time by successfully playing Islamist parties against the left, whom he saw as his main opponents. These measures kept Islamist groups at bay for most of King Hassan II’s 38-year reign. However, the prominence of political Islam started to grow again in the late 1990s as King Hassan II started opening up the government to opposition parties in order to ensure an orderly succession to the throne for his son Mohammed VI. This rise in popularity and appeal among Morocco’s Islamist parties was strengthened by the political relaxation carried out by King Mohammed VI upon his ascension to the throne in 1999. As a result of the king’s new policies, such as tolerating an independent press, Islamists benefited greatly from the freedom to exploit the government’s numerous unfulfilled promises. (Howe)

Democratization After 2003

Morocco’s political openness is coupled with multiple attempts to democratize society and to enhance a spirit of responsibility, ethics and nationalism. In this political context, parties that were banned under Hassan II, especially Cheikh Abdesslam Yassine’s radical movement Al Adl Wa Al Ihsane, started to emerge as anti-establishment parties embodying dissidence, contestation and a staunch criticism of the monarchy. On the other hand, the PJD’s moderate tone allowed it to continue to enjoy popularity among a large segment of the Moroccan population. The PJD’s ideological stances and its political position within the framework of the Moroccan political arena appeal to people who are disenchanted with the rhetoric of the secular parties. However, after the 2003 terrorist acts in Casablanca, the PJD was targeted by the security apparatuses as one of the movements that contributed to the spread of a culture of religious intolerance. As stated by Marvine Howe,

The debate over the PJD has intensified in recent months as the party has adopted a more assertive attitude. The Islamists lowered their profile after the 2003 Casablanca attacks, which led to a torrent of criticism that the PJD was contributing to a climate of intolerance. The attacks also provoked a new law banning political parties based on religion, leading the PJD to emphasize that it was no more than a party with “Islamic references.”

We should wait until the legislative elections to see the outcome of governmental manœuvres to contain the propaganda machine of the PJD. Because the PJD is viewed as a moderate political party by the United States and the European Union, it benefits from the support of the international community and from a growing number of Moroccan sympathizers. In this perspective, the PJD has succeeded in promoting an ideology that condemns political violence and recognizes the centrality of the structure of monarchy. Moreover, members of the PJD embrace social initiatives that have a strong impact on voters. Its charitable associations are very involved in social work in the whole country.

According to Roula Khalaf, earlier in 2006 polls showed that 47 per cent of the electorate embraced the party’s ideology. The PJD’s rise illustrates the trend across the Arab world where Islamist movements enjoy popularity because of their dedication to social justice coupled with a staunch opposition to American imperialism and a sustained criticism of failed social policies and initiatives of the coalition government in place. It is clear to Islamic scholars that the PJD defines itself as a political party that values communications, dialogue and negotiations and condemns any resort to violence as a means to political, social and economic gains.

In this perspective, PJD leaders’ resort to an ideology of proximity is associated with the party’s harsh criticism of the government’s failure to provide jobs and security to a growing number of Moroccans. Lahcen Daoudi, one of the top leaders of the movement, an economist by training and a significant political capital for the PJD, argues that the government is not performing and that Moroccans are looking for a political alternative. They are seeking a way out that is undoubtedly associated with the party’s reformist agenda and with a redefinition of the government’s priorities and previous initiatives. As an opposition party, the PJD criticizes the amnesia of a coalition government unable to implement economic structural changes.

Despite its popular appeal, however, the PJD remains a very controversial political party. The two main secular parties, the leftist Socialist Union of Popular Forces and the nationalist Istiqlal (Independence) argue that the moderate tone of the PJD is only a strategic move to win the upcoming legislative elections. They view the PJD’s political philosophy as anchored in a radical ideological framework. If the movement succeeds in building bridges beyond the national borders, it is still subject to criticism in a culture of Islamophobia.
Government officials as well as secular rivals accuse the party of embracing a radical ideology while presenting itself to the world with a moderate face. For example, Nabil Benabdallah, the minister of communication and a government spokesman, believes that the PJD’s ideology undermines the vision of modernity promoted by the king, including a 2004 Family Code that strengthens women’s rights. The party’s reactions to Marock, a controversial movie made by a young Moroccan woman film maker, are also revealing of the PJD’s deceptive position to issues of women’s anticipation, fasting, inter-ethnic/religious relationships, etc.
As a moderate state, Morocco has emerged as one of the most trusted Arab countries for the United States. Its new political culture has allowed it to occupy a leading position among the Arab nations that are in the process of modernizing their political institutions. However, this political opening is urging the palace and the government to redefine their political rhetoric and priorities. After attempts to implement a fully democratic electoral culture, the government is very aware that the radical Islamic movements might capitalize on this opening and be the first political parties to benefit from it. In this respect, new strategies and alliances have been taking place to contain the popularity of PJD and to minimize its political impact during the upcoming legislative elections. On the other hand, the leaders of the party multiply their social appearances and activities nationally and internationally to promote their political agenda. Othmani’s previous visits to the United States, Spain, and other European countries were the product of this strategy.
Leaders of the PJD are very aware of their political role in a country in the process of redefining itself. Since his ascension to the throne, King Mohammed VI has been striving to develop a strategic vision that will enhance Moroccan economic development to encounter the challenges of the 21st century. With the increase of youth unemployment, illegal immigration and drug trafficking, the PJD movement takes advantage of this historical situation to anchor its oppositional rhetoric within the framework of a country incapable of transcending its imminent contradictions. As a result, the party is well positioned to acquire the confidence of the voters.
PJD’s prospects for the future

According to national and international political observers, the PJD enjoys a very promising position in the Moroccan political landscape. Since the 2002 elections, the Islamist party continues to attract individuals from different strata of the Moroccan society. Its Islamic ideological referential is engrained within the context of a society striving to reconcile between tradition and modernity. The PJD leadership is very conscious of this fundamental polarity in Moroccan politics and culture. Since its inception as a political party, the PJD has been using a reconciliatory political rhetoric. The party tries to stay in tune with the modernizing strategies of the palace and to participate in the promotion of the ideals of an open and democratic state. Many political analysts are skeptical about the party’s ability to reconcile between these two drastic political agendas, arguing that even though PJD leaders embrace an “open” interpretation of Islam, their political success in the June 2007 elections may pave the way for more radical Islamist movements in Morocco. Some observers believe that their electoral success will certainly benefit Al Adl Wa-Al Ihsan (Justice and Charity), the most controversial Moroccan Islamist party.

However, some prominent PJD leaders urge the secularist critics to avoid deepening the polarization in society. For example, Dr. Daoudi argues that the PJD is a barrier against radicalization and weakening it will only benefit radical movements. According to Marvine Howe, this moderate Islamist party can be seen as a “buffer against al-Qaeda-inspired groups that have sought to mobilize impoverished Moroccans” such as those who were involved in the 2003 Casablanca bombings. From this perspective, one could argue that the PJD can be used by the Moroccan government and by the United States as a barrier to the development of radical violent Islamic movements that would challenge the monarchy. The US sees in this political party a promising departure from movements with an anti-imperialist and an anti-western stance. With an awareness of the evolution of fundamentalist groups around the Arab world as a result of their involvement in Iraq and Palestine, the United States is capitalizing on political parties that embrace moderation, tolerance and openness toward the West. As mentioned earlier, PJD has already taken many steps in this direction. Al Othmani’s trips to the US and Europe testify to the tendency of the party to articulate its tribulations within a moderate alternative.
As a moderate party, the PJD appeals to a variety of voters from different social and economic classes. The party’s benevolent associations are visible in the poorest areas of the big cities, such as Casablanca, Rabat, and Marrakech. The proximity strategies that the PJD has celebrated since its inception as a political organization are beneficial for a positive reputation of the party. The PJD’s good sense of organization and management is well respected by its opponents and its one of its major strengths.
PJD and the National Politics

The PJD currently has 42 out of 325 seats in the Chamber of Representatives won in most of the districts where it was allowed to compete during the legislative elections of 2002. Besides, the party participates in the government of about 60 municipalities, including Casablanca and Rabat and controls 14 municipal and village councils, including the city of Meknes. On the national level, the PJD representatives attempt to improve public services, redefine priorities for public spending, fight corruption, and reach out to the public. As reflected in the party’s title, the PJD’s motto is social justice and economic development; two major areas that need improvement in a country with a high level of illiteracy and unemployment. The organization’s electoral program has five pillars: authenticity, sovereignty, democracy, justice and development.
Authenticity: the concept of authenticity means the revival of an Arabo-Islamic tradition. Morocco, according to the leaders of the party, is sliding toward all forms of corruption; prostitution, drugs, etc. that destroy the fabric of an Islamic society. In order for the country to meet the challenges of the 21st century, it needs to embrace an ideology of reconciliation with its historical past.
Sovereignty: Like other political parties in Morocco, sovereignty is a sacred concept that needs to be integrated in the program of any party that promotes integration and nationalism. The PJD like other major national parties recognizes the “Moroccanness” of the Western Sahara. It also promotes the integration of all the northern enclaves (Ceuta and Mellilia) to the motherland.
Democracy: Morocco is going through a period of democratization of various institutions, including the creation of a number of organisms that promote human rights. The King’s controversial revision of women’s status is articulated within this perspective. The PJD encourages these initiatives, except the redefinition of women’s status, and proposes to continue in this direction in order to build a new Morocco attractive to foreign investment and tourism.
Justice: With the empowerment of the position of the prime minister, the PJD hopes that the minister of justice will be nominated by the prime minister instead of the king. The justice ministry is one of the sovereignty ministries under the Palace’s control. If the PJD wins in the upcoming legislative elections of June 2007, and in the case that the king appoints the leader of the party as the prime minister, the question of the reinvention of a new Justice department may well be raised. The revision of the constitution is one of the most important components of the party’s political agenda.
Since becoming king, Mohammed VI took many initiatives to modernize Morocco. His development strategies encompass a variety of economic sectors. The king’s strategic involvement in these endeavors is aimed at developing the country as well as at inhibiting the rise to power of oppositional parties, especially the PJD. In this respect, the PJD will need a strong economic package to offer to voters before elections day.
Conclusion

The American war on terror has certainly created a tense political environment in contemporary Morocco. Due to this ideology of war, the Moroccan government has felt the obligation to redefine its relationships to the main Islamic political movements and especially the Party of Justice and Development. However, the leaders of this party continue to promote their political agenda by offering a moderate interpretation of their political platform. In the aftermath of the 2003 Casablanca bombings, the government has engaged in its own war against Islamic extremism. The idea of integrating the PJD into the government, in the event that they win in the upcoming legislative elections, has provoked deep concern in the palace and beyond.

Currently, Mohammed VI is at a historical watershed, faced with two options. His first option is to integrate into his political agenda the growing voices of change by pushing for more economic, social and democratic reforms. His second option is to continue enjoying executive power by maintaining the politics of the status quo. If the king opts for the second strategy, the PJD will have a strong chance of gaining a majority in the upcoming parliamentary elections by appealing to the disenchanted segments of the Moroccan population.

____________
Mohammed Hirchi teaches Arabic and French language & literature at Colorado State University. He is the author of a number of articles on postcolonial francophone literature. Currently, he is working on a manuscript on Arabophone and Francophone Moroccan women writers.

References:
Mohammed Tozy. (1999). Monarchie et islam politique au Maroc. Paris: Presses de Science Po, Collection Références.

Marvine Howe. (2005) Morocco: The Islamist Awakening and Other Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

—–. http:www.mideasti.org/articles/doc385.html.

Roula Khalaf. “Morocco sees the rise of ‘acceptable’ Islamist party,” http://www. iri.org/newsarchive/2006/2006-05-23-News-FinancialTimes-Morocco.asp.