China performs more abortions than any other country in the world, about 13 million a year, mostly for young single women who aren't using contraception. One expert says the figures show many Chinese now consider the cheap, widely available procedure an acceptable form of birth control.
In a rare disclosure of family planning statistics — which are considered state secrets — the official China Daily newspaper reported Thursday that about 13 million surgical abortions are performed in Chinese hospitals and 10 million abortion pills are sold every year. The pills can induce an abortion very early in pregnancy, and are commonly referred to as the morning-after pill.
The report said the real number of abortions is believed to be even higher since many are done outside of hospitals in unregistered rural clinics.
Ma Xiaonian — a well-known sex therapist who hosted a popular sex-focused talk show that was pulled off the air in 2007 for being too racy — said that the abortion figures showed the inadequacy of China's sex education.
"Young women don't know how to protect themselves when protection is most needed," he said. "Secondary school kids (aged about 13-16) are already having abortions. ... So it's not too early to start giving them sex education at that time but often they don't even get it until college."
Sex education is a part of school curriculums in China, in which students learn about sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS, but discussions about sex are vague and condom use is rarely addressed.
The China Daily article called the widespread use of abortions "an unfortunate situation" but did not directly say whether abortions were on the rise. No year-to-year statistics were given.
The most recent figures available for abortions in China come from the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute, which estimated that China performed 9 million such procedures in 2003, more than any other country. Russia had the world's highest abortion rate, with 53.7 per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, the 2007 report said. China's rate of abortions was about 24 for every 1,000 women, it said.
Therese Hesketh, a lecturer at the Centre for International Health and Development at University College London who has extensively studied family planning policies in China, said the 13 million figure sounded accurate, if perhaps a little low. She said there is little doubt that abortion figures have risen in China as attitudes toward sex have liberalized.
Chinese have become much more open about sex amid the sweeping economic and social reforms of the last several decades, and today are generally accepting of premarital sex. Sex shops selling erotic toys, books, condoms and lubricant are commonplace. Web sites, books and movies with graphic sexual content are all widely available, though pornography is technically banned.
Showing posts with label world news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world news. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Australia making tougher rules to protect foreign students
The Australian government is bringing in tougher rules to protect international students from dubious operators, a minister told Parliament on Wednesday. The move follows a string of attacks on Indian students and reports of overseas students being exploited.
"The message to providers is, if you're not providing your students with a quality education in a safe environment, clean up your act or risk being shut down," The Age quoted Education Minister Julia Gillard as telling Parliament on Wednesday.
Gillard was introducing amendments to the law regulating schools that provide courses to the nearly half a million overseas students who come to Australia each year, the report said.
She said the industry had grown too fast, with insufficient checks and balances, which attracted a small number of unscrupulous operators.
"We need to weed out the shonky operators," she said.
It will now require all institutions registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students to re-register under tougher criteria by the end of next year and make the use of education agents "more transparent and accountable".
Gillard said requiring re-registration would restore confidence in the quality of Australian education.
She said all providers would have to publish a list of the agents, whether within or outside Australia, they use.
The government was also considering forcing providers to develop websites to allow students to make anonymous comments about agents.
Nearly 100,000 students from India are enrolled in various courses in Australia. The assaults on Indian students and reports of colleges exploiting international students had caused uproar in India.
ndia's External Affairs Minister SM Krishna had visited Australia, during which he was assured that students would be protected. The attacks had caused concern in Australia's education sector with many fearing a significant drop in the number of students enrolling here.
Former Liberal MP Bruce Baird was recently appointed to review the laws covering overseas student services.
"We'll take advice from the Baird review, but this is the first, important step in the process of cleaning up an industry that has grown too fast, too soon," Gillard said.
"The message to providers is, if you're not providing your students with a quality education in a safe environment, clean up your act or risk being shut down," The Age quoted Education Minister Julia Gillard as telling Parliament on Wednesday.
Gillard was introducing amendments to the law regulating schools that provide courses to the nearly half a million overseas students who come to Australia each year, the report said.
She said the industry had grown too fast, with insufficient checks and balances, which attracted a small number of unscrupulous operators.
"We need to weed out the shonky operators," she said.
It will now require all institutions registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students to re-register under tougher criteria by the end of next year and make the use of education agents "more transparent and accountable".
Gillard said requiring re-registration would restore confidence in the quality of Australian education.
She said all providers would have to publish a list of the agents, whether within or outside Australia, they use.
The government was also considering forcing providers to develop websites to allow students to make anonymous comments about agents.
Nearly 100,000 students from India are enrolled in various courses in Australia. The assaults on Indian students and reports of colleges exploiting international students had caused uproar in India.
ndia's External Affairs Minister SM Krishna had visited Australia, during which he was assured that students would be protected. The attacks had caused concern in Australia's education sector with many fearing a significant drop in the number of students enrolling here.
Former Liberal MP Bruce Baird was recently appointed to review the laws covering overseas student services.
"We'll take advice from the Baird review, but this is the first, important step in the process of cleaning up an industry that has grown too fast, too soon," Gillard said.
SRK to frisk Angelina?
After his much publicized row over the frisking hassle during his recent US trip, SRK held a press meet to set things straight. Speaking to media persons, the King of Bollywood agreed that he respected the law of the land but what really triggered his annoyance was the deliberate attempt by the American immigration personnel to make this usual procedure an ordeal for him.
He said, ''I don't want to be treated differently from the rest of the people. But, what made me furious was the fact that the immigration authorities at the airport wanted someone to vouch for my identity despite the fact that a huge crowd had gathered to take my autograph. Even when a senior airport official came forward to vouch for me, the immigration authorities were relentless with the interrogation.''
Though SRK's frisking has evoked mixed reactions from various quarters with some people calling this row a publicity stunt. Replying to such allegations, SRK says, ''I don't need to create cheap publicity stunts when everyone knows who SRK is. And why would I engage in such thrills when my film is still nine months away from its release date.''
When asked about how we should treat the Hollywood celebs, SRK in his candid mood added, ''I heard Angelina Jolie is coming to town soon. I would like to frisk her this time since I know what it means to go through such an ordeal.''
It must be recalled that SRK returned from US today after attending a special Independence day function organized by the Indian community.
Bitter truth: India drought may trigger world sugar crisis
India has enough grain stocks to ride out an expected poor harvest, but the failure of the monsoon adds to global uncertainty about food and grain stocks, the head of an agricultural think tank said on Wednesday.
India's monsoon rains have been 29 per cent below normal since the beginning of the June-September season, hurting crops such as rice and cane and triggering a sharp rise in food prices in India and sugar futures abroad.
For the time being, India has built up sufficient grains stocks, said Joachim von Braun, director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute, but warned that the uneven rainfall has raised concerns.
"If government food distribution systems and national markets operate well, there should not be any serious issue for increasing hunger," he said in Beijing.
"But it will draw down stocks and that will make the international market again more nervous. It is very difficult to rebuild stocks from the low levels we have."
IFPRI in April released a report that warned of a rush by wealthier nations afraid of food shortages to buy agricultural land, particularly in Africa.
It called for standards of transparency and ethics in the acquisitions, to avoid people being displaced from land or food being exported during a crisis.
The deal spree was triggered by a spike in agricultural prices in 2008, as high energy prices triggered greater interest in biofuel, that caused many countries, especially in Asia, to limit exports and build domestic reserves.
"It's systematic, it's there to stay, and it shouldn't surprise us. The undermining of trust in trade through the export bans of last year... has not been forgotten," he said.
"It was a huge failing of the world trading system."
IFPRI has tracked land deals and leases totalling 20 million to 25 million hectares, an area greater than France, von Braun estimated. Investors in overseas land include hedge funds, private entrepreneurs and state-backed corporations, as well as government-to-government deals.
Between one-third and one-half of the overseas land deals studied by IFPRI have been for the purpose of growing crops for biofuels, he said
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
‘Taliban may hijack airplanes to repeat 9/11’
Pakistan intelligence authorities have warned that the Taliban may hijack airplanes to carry out a terror strike similar to 9/11. Quoting from an intelligence report, a private television channel said that some detained Taliban operatives have revealed that their associates often use commercial airlines operating in the country to travel from place to another, and are on the look out to hijack the airliners to repeat the September 11, 2001 incident.Intelligence agencies have also asked the concerned authorities to implement certain fundamental changes in the security procedures for commercial airliners to ensure safety of passengers and avoid any untoward incident, The Daily Times reports. Airplanes have become more susceptible to be used for terror strikes ever since the 9/11 incident when four commercial aircrafts of a US airliner were hijacked by al Qaeda and deliberately crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon building in Washington.
Jackson wanted to marry me: Brooke Shields
Actress Brooke Shield, who described her relationship with Michael Jackson as "the most natural and easiest of friendships", has revealed that the pop star wanted to marry her but she turned it down. The actress, who fought back tears as she remembered her long-term friendship with Jackson in a memorial service yesterday, said that Jackson proposed to her because he was afraid of losing her.
"There were times when he would ask me to marry him, and I would say, ''You have me for the rest of your life, you don''t need to marry me, I''m going to go on and do my own life and have my own marriage and my own kids, and you''ll always have me," Shields said in an interview to Rolling Stone magazine. "I think it made him relax.
He didn''t want to lose things that meant something to him," she added. The ''Blue Lagoon'' actress married televison writer Chris Henchy in 2001 after her divorce to Tennis player Andre Agassi.
Shields, now 44, first met Jackson when she was 13 year old and she has always maintained that they shared a unique bond of friendship. "Both of us needed to be adults very early but when we were together, we were two little kids having fun," she had said recalling their early fame.
"Michael always knew he could count on me to support him or be his date. .
We had a bond and maybe it was because we both understood what it was like to be in the spotlight from a very, very young age," Shields said at the memorial.
"There were times when he would ask me to marry him, and I would say, ''You have me for the rest of your life, you don''t need to marry me, I''m going to go on and do my own life and have my own marriage and my own kids, and you''ll always have me," Shields said in an interview to Rolling Stone magazine. "I think it made him relax.
He didn''t want to lose things that meant something to him," she added. The ''Blue Lagoon'' actress married televison writer Chris Henchy in 2001 after her divorce to Tennis player Andre Agassi.
Shields, now 44, first met Jackson when she was 13 year old and she has always maintained that they shared a unique bond of friendship. "Both of us needed to be adults very early but when we were together, we were two little kids having fun," she had said recalling their early fame.
"Michael always knew he could count on me to support him or be his date. .
We had a bond and maybe it was because we both understood what it was like to be in the spotlight from a very, very young age," Shields said at the memorial.
World starting to pull out of deep recession
The global economy is starting to pull out of its deepest recession since World War Two but recovery will be sluggish and policies need to remain supportive, the International Monetary Fund said on Wednesday.
In an update of its World Economic Outlook, the IMF said the global economy is likely to contract 1.4 percent this year, a touch steeper than the 1.3 percent decline it expected in April.
However, it now sees world economic growth of 2.5 percent in 2010, compared with an April projection of 1.9 percent.
"Financial conditions have improved more than expected, owing mainly to public intervention, and recent data suggest that the rate of decline in economic activity is moderating, although to varying degrees among regions," the IMF said.
The IMF said while the world's advanced economies are expected to recover slightly next year, growth will remain below potential until later in 2010, suggesting unemployment will continue to rise.
It said the U.S. economy will contract 2.6 percent this year, slightly less than it thought in April, with growth resuming in 2010 albeit at a mere 0.8 percent.
It said the euro-area economy would shrink by 4.8 percent in 2009, a downward revision of 0.6 percentage point from its April forecast. Next year, the IMF said the euro-area would contract 0.3 percent, slightly less than it forecast in April.
Japan's economy is expected to contract by 6 percent this year, with growth resuming slightly to around 1.7 percent next year, the IMF said.
Emerging and developing countries are likely to regain growth momentum during the second half of 2009, it said.
The fund said policies should remain supportive until growth resumes and deflationary risks dissipate. Where there is room, central banks should explore cutting interest rates further and signal that they intend to keep them low until a durable recovery is under way.
In a separate updated report, the fund underscored the need for sustained economic stimulus.
"Financial conditions have improved, as unprecedented policy intervention has reduced the risk of systemic collapse and expectations of economic recovery have risen," it said in an update to its global financial stability report.
"Nonetheless, vulnerabilities remain and complacency must be avoided."
In the update to its economic outlook, it said the main priority for policy-makers should be repairing the battered financial sectors, with a focus on removing toxic debt from bank balance sheets and restructuring institutions.
It said concerns about rising government debt from efforts to shore up economies highlight the need to establish plans to tighten budgets over the medium-term.
"Although fiscal policy should stay supportive through 2010, plans should be made for rebuilding fiscal balances and ensuring sustainable debt paths after growth is firmly re-established," the IMF said.
In an update of its World Economic Outlook, the IMF said the global economy is likely to contract 1.4 percent this year, a touch steeper than the 1.3 percent decline it expected in April.
However, it now sees world economic growth of 2.5 percent in 2010, compared with an April projection of 1.9 percent.
"Financial conditions have improved more than expected, owing mainly to public intervention, and recent data suggest that the rate of decline in economic activity is moderating, although to varying degrees among regions," the IMF said.
The IMF said while the world's advanced economies are expected to recover slightly next year, growth will remain below potential until later in 2010, suggesting unemployment will continue to rise.
It said the U.S. economy will contract 2.6 percent this year, slightly less than it thought in April, with growth resuming in 2010 albeit at a mere 0.8 percent.
It said the euro-area economy would shrink by 4.8 percent in 2009, a downward revision of 0.6 percentage point from its April forecast. Next year, the IMF said the euro-area would contract 0.3 percent, slightly less than it forecast in April.
Japan's economy is expected to contract by 6 percent this year, with growth resuming slightly to around 1.7 percent next year, the IMF said.
Emerging and developing countries are likely to regain growth momentum during the second half of 2009, it said.
The fund said policies should remain supportive until growth resumes and deflationary risks dissipate. Where there is room, central banks should explore cutting interest rates further and signal that they intend to keep them low until a durable recovery is under way.
In a separate updated report, the fund underscored the need for sustained economic stimulus.
"Financial conditions have improved, as unprecedented policy intervention has reduced the risk of systemic collapse and expectations of economic recovery have risen," it said in an update to its global financial stability report.
"Nonetheless, vulnerabilities remain and complacency must be avoided."
In the update to its economic outlook, it said the main priority for policy-makers should be repairing the battered financial sectors, with a focus on removing toxic debt from bank balance sheets and restructuring institutions.
It said concerns about rising government debt from efforts to shore up economies highlight the need to establish plans to tighten budgets over the medium-term.
"Although fiscal policy should stay supportive through 2010, plans should be made for rebuilding fiscal balances and ensuring sustainable debt paths after growth is firmly re-established," the IMF said.
Muslim priests at 900-year old Shiva temple in Kashmir
Pahalgam (Jammu and Kashmir), July 8 (PTI) Situated on the banks of the icy Lidder river, a 900-year old Shiva temple is the only Hindu shrine in Kashmir valley which has Muslim priests. After the migration of Kashmiri Pandits from a nearby village, two Muslim priests - Mohmmad Abdullah and Ghulam Hassan kept the doors of the Mamalaka temple open and bells continued to toll.
"We not only took care of temple but also held ''aartis'' everyday," Ghulam Hasan told a visiting PTI correspondent here. Besides ensuring the safety of the 3-feet-long black stone "shivaling", Abdullah and Hassan have ensured no devotee goes without prasad even for a single day.
Built by Raja Jai Suria, the temple was once a must stop over for pilgrims going to the Amarnath cave shrine in South Kashmir Himalayas.
"We not only took care of temple but also held ''aartis'' everyday," Ghulam Hasan told a visiting PTI correspondent here. Besides ensuring the safety of the 3-feet-long black stone "shivaling", Abdullah and Hassan have ensured no devotee goes without prasad even for a single day.
Built by Raja Jai Suria, the temple was once a must stop over for pilgrims going to the Amarnath cave shrine in South Kashmir Himalayas.
He saw Sania mirza playing in a tournament and fell in Love
Two days before tennis star Sania Mirza's engagement, a youth who claim to be in love with her was arrested Wednesday for allegedly creating nuisance at her residence here.
Police said Mohammed Ashraf, 28, late Tuesday created a scene at the player's residence claiming that he is in love with Sania. The civil engineering student from Kerala demanded that her engagement be cancelled.
Ashraf along with his friend D. Mohanty went to Sania's house and had a heated argument with her father Imran Mirza. They demanded Imran cancel Sania's engagement.
India's number one woman tennis player's engagement is scheduled July 10 with Sohrab Mirza, son of a local businessman.
On a complaint from Imran Mirza, a case was registered at the Banjara Hills police station. Police Wednesday arrested Ashraf for trespass and making threatening calls to the player. He will be brought to a court later in the day.
Asharf told police that he was in love with Sania and wanted to marry her. On learning about Sania's scheduled engagement with a local man, Asharf and his friend went to her house to demand that the engagement be cancelled.
A police officer quoted Asharf as saying that he saw Sania playing in a tournament in Bangalore and fell in love with her. He was also sending messages and making threatening calls to Sania on her mobile phone.
Policemen were posted at Sania's house after the incident
Police said Mohammed Ashraf, 28, late Tuesday created a scene at the player's residence claiming that he is in love with Sania. The civil engineering student from Kerala demanded that her engagement be cancelled.
Ashraf along with his friend D. Mohanty went to Sania's house and had a heated argument with her father Imran Mirza. They demanded Imran cancel Sania's engagement.
India's number one woman tennis player's engagement is scheduled July 10 with Sohrab Mirza, son of a local businessman.
On a complaint from Imran Mirza, a case was registered at the Banjara Hills police station. Police Wednesday arrested Ashraf for trespass and making threatening calls to the player. He will be brought to a court later in the day.
Asharf told police that he was in love with Sania and wanted to marry her. On learning about Sania's scheduled engagement with a local man, Asharf and his friend went to her house to demand that the engagement be cancelled.
A police officer quoted Asharf as saying that he saw Sania playing in a tournament in Bangalore and fell in love with her. He was also sending messages and making threatening calls to Sania on her mobile phone.
Policemen were posted at Sania's house after the incident
Friday, June 26, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Building bridges over the Gulf
I remember that in the class 4 (or was it five?) history book we were prescribed, there was just one chapter that related to Islamic history, on Prophet Muhammad. But there was a chapter devoted to Simon Bolivar, the founder of Bolivia. In later classes too there was a curious lack of information on Islamic history. Had it not been for my readings outside of course material, I would never have known of Caliph Umar, the man under whom Islam became, in our modern terminology, a world power, or any of the other notable figures of Islamic history.
When in later years I came across writings on the contributions of Islam to modern civilization (mostly written by Muslim writers for a Muslim audience) I tended to look upon them with a great deal of skepticism. We all want to believe we are inheritors of a great civilization without which the world would not have progressed this far, as with others so with Muslims.
It was still later, though my readings of the renaissance, and Islam’s contribution to making it possible, that I gradually started believing these claims. That Islam indeed is the fountainhead of a civilization, much of which still flowed in the modern world.
Since then it has always worried me that there is so precious little known about Islam, about the side that gave men a sense of direction when they had none, and taught them to gaze at stars when the world itself was imperfectly known. Indeed there is so little of these in our mainstream, that talking about them is to talk not of history but of myths and fables. One has to labour against manifest disbelief and very often the labour is lost.
Listening to Obama’s speech in Cairo, after the spontaneous urge to applaud his assalam alailum had passed, the thing that moved me most was his acknowledgement of the great contributions to civilizations that Islam had made. To talk of compass, and algebra is to repeat the truisms of history, and yet these truisms bear repeating.
It is the first step in fighting negative stereotypes of Islam, which have so rankled with the Muslim world. Obama’s promise, that he would fight it wherever and whenever they appear, is heartening, as quite a lot of it comes from America itself. This should go a long way towards curbing the kind of gratuitous provocations (like the Danish cartoons) that had become fashionable in the aftermath of 9/11.
More than that, his speech was an acceptance of the cultural differences between Muslims and non Muslims. They would do certain things differently, look different, wear different clothes, and take their oath on the Quran rather than the Bible, and it was not just alright, but a matter of pride for America as it was a celebration of its cultural diversity and tolerance.
His comments on granting the Muslim women their right to wear the hijab (he pronounced it hajib, but no matter) would have an impact on Muslim women seeking to embrace modernity while remaining within the boundaries of their religion all over the world.
For decades popular culture had tended to see such women as prisoners of a regressive culture, the hijab itself has been portrayed as a symbol of suppression. Governments around the world have granted Muslim women the right to wear hijab uneasily, or have denied it altogether.
Obama’s comments should go some distance furthering their cause in countries as culturally diverse as France and Turkey.
Resolving conflicts
Apart from speaking on these larger issues which cannot be confined to a set timeframe, nor to any geographical locality, he spoke forcefully and candidly (quoting the Quran: “Be conscious of God, and speak the truth", and so, he said he would speak the truth) on some of the most grating points in US-Muslim relations, Iraq , Israel-Palestine conflict, Bosnia, the threat of militants in ‘a stretch of mountains,’ and Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
Quite a lot of it would have been music to Arab ears. In each of these theatres Obama made a decisive break, if not with policies – we are still to wait and watch how that pans out - with the rhetoric of his predecessor.
He said he was against Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, and that the condition of Palestinians was "intolerable".
He said the US pursued no claim on the land or resources on Iraq; and sought no permanent military bases, neither in Afghanistan or Iraq. He even spelt out a timeframe for the withdrawal of combat troops and for the total withdrawal of US forces from Iraq (2012).
The tone he took towards Hamas was remarkably softer than that chosen by the Bush administration (in fact Bush’s speechwriter called it a major policy shift on Fox News which, by the way, was busy blasting the speech) and on Iran he put the no-nukes-for-Iran, in the larger context of no-nukes-for-the-world, and spelt out a vision where even the US would function sans its N arsenal.
All these efforts at a tight balancing act did not go unnoticed.
It would take away one of the main arguments against American approach in the Middle East that it follows double standards, that while it pats Israel on the back for its repeated incursions, military raids, and bombing campaigns against neighboring Arab states, it cries holy murder the moment Hamas fires rockets across the high wall Israel has built.
That while it expertly twiddles its thumbs when the Palestinians are blockaded into poverty and deprivation, it sets its entire diplomatic machinery in motion to condemn Hizbollah and Iran if some of Israel’s soldiers are killed or captured.
How far would his efforts go towards changing perceptions. And making a "new beginning?"
Well, that's a billion dollar question. On the one hand the speech would certainly improve the sentiment on the street, 'improve' being the operative word here, as opposed to 'change.' The principle players on the other hand (Iran, Israel, Hamas, Palestinian authority) would see in his speech the beginnings of a new approach, but would wait cautiously before actually modifying their positions. In fact that is exactly what they have done.
Israel ‘welcomed’ Obama’s speech, without referring to his settlement comments. Iran too welcomed the speech, but it too said nothing of his comments on nukes.
Palestinian Authority welcomed the two state solution but left out everything else. It is obvious that each cherry picked from the speech according to their convenience.
Another issue, that America should not be reduced to the stereotype of a hegemonic power, would only be resolved once America demonstrates in its deeds that it does not intend to behave like one. The impression has formed over long decades, when America relentlessly pursued imperialistic goals, changing regimes that were not conducive to its economic interests, supporting one side in a war, and then supporting the other depending which way its interest lay.
No single speech can wipe out that impression. The speech is a beginning, and unless it is followed by actions it would not bring about the desired change. That said, America remains popular, not just in Arab countries but in south Asian ones too, as a destination of opportunity. This sentiment may have been overwhelmed by the war on terror, but it is there. And in this America has an ally in its efforts to improve its image.
I hope – and one can but hope – that Muslims buy into the vision – as I did – of a world undivided by conflicts, free of nukes, and with equal rights and opportunity for everyone. Cynicism is like a self fulfilling prophecy, believe that an idea cannot succeed, and you damn its chances of success.
A vista of opportunity?
It would be naive to read in Obama’s speech a radical shift in its core policies, vis a vis, Israel or Iran. He is not about to start having dinner dates with Ahmadinejad, nor is he going to rattle America’s ballistic missiles at Israel and say, give up your nukes or else...
No, this is not happening. Broadly his policy objectives would remain the same as that of his predecessor. But his shift, in tone and tenor, is enough to give a chance to those who would want to come out of the barricades of their old positions.
It has long been said that even Hamas sees that Israel is going to remain in the midst of Arab states, and that it must work to move away from its position of denial of that fact. In fact the signals coming out of Hamas, right after it won the Palestinian elections, indicated that it was prepared to live with Israel as its neighbour.
It was America’s and Israel’s decision to deny the fruits of that election to Hamas, by blockading and then splitting Palestine, that made Hamas retreat back to its old rhetoric.
(On the way by the bye, America demonstrated that elections matter as long as they give the results America wants. If democracy gives results contrary to America’s interests, then too hell with the ballot, and out with the guns and bullets.)
That position now needs to be resurrected, as Obama said, “Israel is not going to go away.” To believe otherwise is wishful, and dangerous thinking. Iran too needs to get out of its gratuitous denial of the holocaust. Such a position serves on ones interest and justifies Israel’s fears that an armed Iran would be an existential threat.
By softening America’s position, Obama has given an opportunity to the leaders of Arab states to soften theirs, and therefore move to a mutually acceptable solution. If this were to happen it would indeed be the new beginning that Obama sought with the Muslim world.
Obama’s speech, as the Hamas spokesperson said, may have been a projection of soft power, words designed to make US manufactured solutions more acceptable to the Arabs, and the Arabs seek not words but acts. But let’s make this clear, a statement of purpose by the President of the United States, whether it is followed by concrete steps or not, is an act in itself.
And if the width of my room partner’s grin, after listening to Obama’s speech is any indication, this act is already having an impact.
Shafey Danish
I remember that in the class 4 (or was it five?) history book we were prescribed, there was just one chapter that related to Islamic history, on Prophet Muhammad. But there was a chapter devoted to Simon Bolivar, the founder of Bolivia. In later classes too there was a curious lack of information on Islamic history. Had it not been for my readings outside of course material, I would never have known of Caliph Umar, the man under whom Islam became, in our modern terminology, a world power, or any of the other notable figures of Islamic history.
When in later years I came across writings on the contributions of Islam to modern civilization (mostly written by Muslim writers for a Muslim audience) I tended to look upon them with a great deal of skepticism. We all want to believe we are inheritors of a great civilization without which the world would not have progressed this far, as with others so with Muslims.
It was still later, though my readings of the renaissance, and Islam’s contribution to making it possible, that I gradually started believing these claims. That Islam indeed is the fountainhead of a civilization, much of which still flowed in the modern world.
Since then it has always worried me that there is so precious little known about Islam, about the side that gave men a sense of direction when they had none, and taught them to gaze at stars when the world itself was imperfectly known. Indeed there is so little of these in our mainstream, that talking about them is to talk not of history but of myths and fables. One has to labour against manifest disbelief and very often the labour is lost.
Listening to Obama’s speech in Cairo, after the spontaneous urge to applaud his assalam alailum had passed, the thing that moved me most was his acknowledgement of the great contributions to civilizations that Islam had made. To talk of compass, and algebra is to repeat the truisms of history, and yet these truisms bear repeating.
It is the first step in fighting negative stereotypes of Islam, which have so rankled with the Muslim world. Obama’s promise, that he would fight it wherever and whenever they appear, is heartening, as quite a lot of it comes from America itself. This should go a long way towards curbing the kind of gratuitous provocations (like the Danish cartoons) that had become fashionable in the aftermath of 9/11.
More than that, his speech was an acceptance of the cultural differences between Muslims and non Muslims. They would do certain things differently, look different, wear different clothes, and take their oath on the Quran rather than the Bible, and it was not just alright, but a matter of pride for America as it was a celebration of its cultural diversity and tolerance.
His comments on granting the Muslim women their right to wear the hijab (he pronounced it hajib, but no matter) would have an impact on Muslim women seeking to embrace modernity while remaining within the boundaries of their religion all over the world.
For decades popular culture had tended to see such women as prisoners of a regressive culture, the hijab itself has been portrayed as a symbol of suppression. Governments around the world have granted Muslim women the right to wear hijab uneasily, or have denied it altogether.
Obama’s comments should go some distance furthering their cause in countries as culturally diverse as France and Turkey.
Resolving conflicts
Apart from speaking on these larger issues which cannot be confined to a set timeframe, nor to any geographical locality, he spoke forcefully and candidly (quoting the Quran: “Be conscious of God, and speak the truth", and so, he said he would speak the truth) on some of the most grating points in US-Muslim relations, Iraq , Israel-Palestine conflict, Bosnia, the threat of militants in ‘a stretch of mountains,’ and Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
Quite a lot of it would have been music to Arab ears. In each of these theatres Obama made a decisive break, if not with policies – we are still to wait and watch how that pans out - with the rhetoric of his predecessor.
He said he was against Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, and that the condition of Palestinians was "intolerable".
He said the US pursued no claim on the land or resources on Iraq; and sought no permanent military bases, neither in Afghanistan or Iraq. He even spelt out a timeframe for the withdrawal of combat troops and for the total withdrawal of US forces from Iraq (2012).
The tone he took towards Hamas was remarkably softer than that chosen by the Bush administration (in fact Bush’s speechwriter called it a major policy shift on Fox News which, by the way, was busy blasting the speech) and on Iran he put the no-nukes-for-Iran, in the larger context of no-nukes-for-the-world, and spelt out a vision where even the US would function sans its N arsenal.
All these efforts at a tight balancing act did not go unnoticed.
It would take away one of the main arguments against American approach in the Middle East that it follows double standards, that while it pats Israel on the back for its repeated incursions, military raids, and bombing campaigns against neighboring Arab states, it cries holy murder the moment Hamas fires rockets across the high wall Israel has built.
That while it expertly twiddles its thumbs when the Palestinians are blockaded into poverty and deprivation, it sets its entire diplomatic machinery in motion to condemn Hizbollah and Iran if some of Israel’s soldiers are killed or captured.
How far would his efforts go towards changing perceptions. And making a "new beginning?"
Well, that's a billion dollar question. On the one hand the speech would certainly improve the sentiment on the street, 'improve' being the operative word here, as opposed to 'change.' The principle players on the other hand (Iran, Israel, Hamas, Palestinian authority) would see in his speech the beginnings of a new approach, but would wait cautiously before actually modifying their positions. In fact that is exactly what they have done.
Israel ‘welcomed’ Obama’s speech, without referring to his settlement comments. Iran too welcomed the speech, but it too said nothing of his comments on nukes.
Palestinian Authority welcomed the two state solution but left out everything else. It is obvious that each cherry picked from the speech according to their convenience.
Another issue, that America should not be reduced to the stereotype of a hegemonic power, would only be resolved once America demonstrates in its deeds that it does not intend to behave like one. The impression has formed over long decades, when America relentlessly pursued imperialistic goals, changing regimes that were not conducive to its economic interests, supporting one side in a war, and then supporting the other depending which way its interest lay.
No single speech can wipe out that impression. The speech is a beginning, and unless it is followed by actions it would not bring about the desired change. That said, America remains popular, not just in Arab countries but in south Asian ones too, as a destination of opportunity. This sentiment may have been overwhelmed by the war on terror, but it is there. And in this America has an ally in its efforts to improve its image.
I hope – and one can but hope – that Muslims buy into the vision – as I did – of a world undivided by conflicts, free of nukes, and with equal rights and opportunity for everyone. Cynicism is like a self fulfilling prophecy, believe that an idea cannot succeed, and you damn its chances of success.
A vista of opportunity?
It would be naive to read in Obama’s speech a radical shift in its core policies, vis a vis, Israel or Iran. He is not about to start having dinner dates with Ahmadinejad, nor is he going to rattle America’s ballistic missiles at Israel and say, give up your nukes or else...
No, this is not happening. Broadly his policy objectives would remain the same as that of his predecessor. But his shift, in tone and tenor, is enough to give a chance to those who would want to come out of the barricades of their old positions.
It has long been said that even Hamas sees that Israel is going to remain in the midst of Arab states, and that it must work to move away from its position of denial of that fact. In fact the signals coming out of Hamas, right after it won the Palestinian elections, indicated that it was prepared to live with Israel as its neighbour.
It was America’s and Israel’s decision to deny the fruits of that election to Hamas, by blockading and then splitting Palestine, that made Hamas retreat back to its old rhetoric.
(On the way by the bye, America demonstrated that elections matter as long as they give the results America wants. If democracy gives results contrary to America’s interests, then too hell with the ballot, and out with the guns and bullets.)
That position now needs to be resurrected, as Obama said, “Israel is not going to go away.” To believe otherwise is wishful, and dangerous thinking. Iran too needs to get out of its gratuitous denial of the holocaust. Such a position serves on ones interest and justifies Israel’s fears that an armed Iran would be an existential threat.
By softening America’s position, Obama has given an opportunity to the leaders of Arab states to soften theirs, and therefore move to a mutually acceptable solution. If this were to happen it would indeed be the new beginning that Obama sought with the Muslim world.
Obama’s speech, as the Hamas spokesperson said, may have been a projection of soft power, words designed to make US manufactured solutions more acceptable to the Arabs, and the Arabs seek not words but acts. But let’s make this clear, a statement of purpose by the President of the United States, whether it is followed by concrete steps or not, is an act in itself.
And if the width of my room partner’s grin, after listening to Obama’s speech is any indication, this act is already having an impact.
When in later years I came across writings on the contributions of Islam to modern civilization (mostly written by Muslim writers for a Muslim audience) I tended to look upon them with a great deal of skepticism. We all want to believe we are inheritors of a great civilization without which the world would not have progressed this far, as with others so with Muslims.
It was still later, though my readings of the renaissance, and Islam’s contribution to making it possible, that I gradually started believing these claims. That Islam indeed is the fountainhead of a civilization, much of which still flowed in the modern world.
Since then it has always worried me that there is so precious little known about Islam, about the side that gave men a sense of direction when they had none, and taught them to gaze at stars when the world itself was imperfectly known. Indeed there is so little of these in our mainstream, that talking about them is to talk not of history but of myths and fables. One has to labour against manifest disbelief and very often the labour is lost.
Listening to Obama’s speech in Cairo, after the spontaneous urge to applaud his assalam alailum had passed, the thing that moved me most was his acknowledgement of the great contributions to civilizations that Islam had made. To talk of compass, and algebra is to repeat the truisms of history, and yet these truisms bear repeating.
It is the first step in fighting negative stereotypes of Islam, which have so rankled with the Muslim world. Obama’s promise, that he would fight it wherever and whenever they appear, is heartening, as quite a lot of it comes from America itself. This should go a long way towards curbing the kind of gratuitous provocations (like the Danish cartoons) that had become fashionable in the aftermath of 9/11.
More than that, his speech was an acceptance of the cultural differences between Muslims and non Muslims. They would do certain things differently, look different, wear different clothes, and take their oath on the Quran rather than the Bible, and it was not just alright, but a matter of pride for America as it was a celebration of its cultural diversity and tolerance.
His comments on granting the Muslim women their right to wear the hijab (he pronounced it hajib, but no matter) would have an impact on Muslim women seeking to embrace modernity while remaining within the boundaries of their religion all over the world.
For decades popular culture had tended to see such women as prisoners of a regressive culture, the hijab itself has been portrayed as a symbol of suppression. Governments around the world have granted Muslim women the right to wear hijab uneasily, or have denied it altogether.
Obama’s comments should go some distance furthering their cause in countries as culturally diverse as France and Turkey.
Resolving conflicts
Apart from speaking on these larger issues which cannot be confined to a set timeframe, nor to any geographical locality, he spoke forcefully and candidly (quoting the Quran: “Be conscious of God, and speak the truth", and so, he said he would speak the truth) on some of the most grating points in US-Muslim relations, Iraq , Israel-Palestine conflict, Bosnia, the threat of militants in ‘a stretch of mountains,’ and Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
Quite a lot of it would have been music to Arab ears. In each of these theatres Obama made a decisive break, if not with policies – we are still to wait and watch how that pans out - with the rhetoric of his predecessor.
He said he was against Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, and that the condition of Palestinians was "intolerable".
He said the US pursued no claim on the land or resources on Iraq; and sought no permanent military bases, neither in Afghanistan or Iraq. He even spelt out a timeframe for the withdrawal of combat troops and for the total withdrawal of US forces from Iraq (2012).
The tone he took towards Hamas was remarkably softer than that chosen by the Bush administration (in fact Bush’s speechwriter called it a major policy shift on Fox News which, by the way, was busy blasting the speech) and on Iran he put the no-nukes-for-Iran, in the larger context of no-nukes-for-the-world, and spelt out a vision where even the US would function sans its N arsenal.
All these efforts at a tight balancing act did not go unnoticed.
It would take away one of the main arguments against American approach in the Middle East that it follows double standards, that while it pats Israel on the back for its repeated incursions, military raids, and bombing campaigns against neighboring Arab states, it cries holy murder the moment Hamas fires rockets across the high wall Israel has built.
That while it expertly twiddles its thumbs when the Palestinians are blockaded into poverty and deprivation, it sets its entire diplomatic machinery in motion to condemn Hizbollah and Iran if some of Israel’s soldiers are killed or captured.
How far would his efforts go towards changing perceptions. And making a "new beginning?"
Well, that's a billion dollar question. On the one hand the speech would certainly improve the sentiment on the street, 'improve' being the operative word here, as opposed to 'change.' The principle players on the other hand (Iran, Israel, Hamas, Palestinian authority) would see in his speech the beginnings of a new approach, but would wait cautiously before actually modifying their positions. In fact that is exactly what they have done.
Israel ‘welcomed’ Obama’s speech, without referring to his settlement comments. Iran too welcomed the speech, but it too said nothing of his comments on nukes.
Palestinian Authority welcomed the two state solution but left out everything else. It is obvious that each cherry picked from the speech according to their convenience.
Another issue, that America should not be reduced to the stereotype of a hegemonic power, would only be resolved once America demonstrates in its deeds that it does not intend to behave like one. The impression has formed over long decades, when America relentlessly pursued imperialistic goals, changing regimes that were not conducive to its economic interests, supporting one side in a war, and then supporting the other depending which way its interest lay.
No single speech can wipe out that impression. The speech is a beginning, and unless it is followed by actions it would not bring about the desired change. That said, America remains popular, not just in Arab countries but in south Asian ones too, as a destination of opportunity. This sentiment may have been overwhelmed by the war on terror, but it is there. And in this America has an ally in its efforts to improve its image.
I hope – and one can but hope – that Muslims buy into the vision – as I did – of a world undivided by conflicts, free of nukes, and with equal rights and opportunity for everyone. Cynicism is like a self fulfilling prophecy, believe that an idea cannot succeed, and you damn its chances of success.
A vista of opportunity?
It would be naive to read in Obama’s speech a radical shift in its core policies, vis a vis, Israel or Iran. He is not about to start having dinner dates with Ahmadinejad, nor is he going to rattle America’s ballistic missiles at Israel and say, give up your nukes or else...
No, this is not happening. Broadly his policy objectives would remain the same as that of his predecessor. But his shift, in tone and tenor, is enough to give a chance to those who would want to come out of the barricades of their old positions.
It has long been said that even Hamas sees that Israel is going to remain in the midst of Arab states, and that it must work to move away from its position of denial of that fact. In fact the signals coming out of Hamas, right after it won the Palestinian elections, indicated that it was prepared to live with Israel as its neighbour.
It was America’s and Israel’s decision to deny the fruits of that election to Hamas, by blockading and then splitting Palestine, that made Hamas retreat back to its old rhetoric.
(On the way by the bye, America demonstrated that elections matter as long as they give the results America wants. If democracy gives results contrary to America’s interests, then too hell with the ballot, and out with the guns and bullets.)
That position now needs to be resurrected, as Obama said, “Israel is not going to go away.” To believe otherwise is wishful, and dangerous thinking. Iran too needs to get out of its gratuitous denial of the holocaust. Such a position serves on ones interest and justifies Israel’s fears that an armed Iran would be an existential threat.
By softening America’s position, Obama has given an opportunity to the leaders of Arab states to soften theirs, and therefore move to a mutually acceptable solution. If this were to happen it would indeed be the new beginning that Obama sought with the Muslim world.
Obama’s speech, as the Hamas spokesperson said, may have been a projection of soft power, words designed to make US manufactured solutions more acceptable to the Arabs, and the Arabs seek not words but acts. But let’s make this clear, a statement of purpose by the President of the United States, whether it is followed by concrete steps or not, is an act in itself.
And if the width of my room partner’s grin, after listening to Obama’s speech is any indication, this act is already having an impact.
Shafey Danish
I remember that in the class 4 (or was it five?) history book we were prescribed, there was just one chapter that related to Islamic history, on Prophet Muhammad. But there was a chapter devoted to Simon Bolivar, the founder of Bolivia. In later classes too there was a curious lack of information on Islamic history. Had it not been for my readings outside of course material, I would never have known of Caliph Umar, the man under whom Islam became, in our modern terminology, a world power, or any of the other notable figures of Islamic history.
When in later years I came across writings on the contributions of Islam to modern civilization (mostly written by Muslim writers for a Muslim audience) I tended to look upon them with a great deal of skepticism. We all want to believe we are inheritors of a great civilization without which the world would not have progressed this far, as with others so with Muslims.
It was still later, though my readings of the renaissance, and Islam’s contribution to making it possible, that I gradually started believing these claims. That Islam indeed is the fountainhead of a civilization, much of which still flowed in the modern world.
Since then it has always worried me that there is so precious little known about Islam, about the side that gave men a sense of direction when they had none, and taught them to gaze at stars when the world itself was imperfectly known. Indeed there is so little of these in our mainstream, that talking about them is to talk not of history but of myths and fables. One has to labour against manifest disbelief and very often the labour is lost.
Listening to Obama’s speech in Cairo, after the spontaneous urge to applaud his assalam alailum had passed, the thing that moved me most was his acknowledgement of the great contributions to civilizations that Islam had made. To talk of compass, and algebra is to repeat the truisms of history, and yet these truisms bear repeating.
It is the first step in fighting negative stereotypes of Islam, which have so rankled with the Muslim world. Obama’s promise, that he would fight it wherever and whenever they appear, is heartening, as quite a lot of it comes from America itself. This should go a long way towards curbing the kind of gratuitous provocations (like the Danish cartoons) that had become fashionable in the aftermath of 9/11.
More than that, his speech was an acceptance of the cultural differences between Muslims and non Muslims. They would do certain things differently, look different, wear different clothes, and take their oath on the Quran rather than the Bible, and it was not just alright, but a matter of pride for America as it was a celebration of its cultural diversity and tolerance.
His comments on granting the Muslim women their right to wear the hijab (he pronounced it hajib, but no matter) would have an impact on Muslim women seeking to embrace modernity while remaining within the boundaries of their religion all over the world.
For decades popular culture had tended to see such women as prisoners of a regressive culture, the hijab itself has been portrayed as a symbol of suppression. Governments around the world have granted Muslim women the right to wear hijab uneasily, or have denied it altogether.
Obama’s comments should go some distance furthering their cause in countries as culturally diverse as France and Turkey.
Resolving conflicts
Apart from speaking on these larger issues which cannot be confined to a set timeframe, nor to any geographical locality, he spoke forcefully and candidly (quoting the Quran: “Be conscious of God, and speak the truth", and so, he said he would speak the truth) on some of the most grating points in US-Muslim relations, Iraq , Israel-Palestine conflict, Bosnia, the threat of militants in ‘a stretch of mountains,’ and Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
Quite a lot of it would have been music to Arab ears. In each of these theatres Obama made a decisive break, if not with policies – we are still to wait and watch how that pans out - with the rhetoric of his predecessor.
He said he was against Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, and that the condition of Palestinians was "intolerable".
He said the US pursued no claim on the land or resources on Iraq; and sought no permanent military bases, neither in Afghanistan or Iraq. He even spelt out a timeframe for the withdrawal of combat troops and for the total withdrawal of US forces from Iraq (2012).
The tone he took towards Hamas was remarkably softer than that chosen by the Bush administration (in fact Bush’s speechwriter called it a major policy shift on Fox News which, by the way, was busy blasting the speech) and on Iran he put the no-nukes-for-Iran, in the larger context of no-nukes-for-the-world, and spelt out a vision where even the US would function sans its N arsenal.
All these efforts at a tight balancing act did not go unnoticed.
It would take away one of the main arguments against American approach in the Middle East that it follows double standards, that while it pats Israel on the back for its repeated incursions, military raids, and bombing campaigns against neighboring Arab states, it cries holy murder the moment Hamas fires rockets across the high wall Israel has built.
That while it expertly twiddles its thumbs when the Palestinians are blockaded into poverty and deprivation, it sets its entire diplomatic machinery in motion to condemn Hizbollah and Iran if some of Israel’s soldiers are killed or captured.
How far would his efforts go towards changing perceptions. And making a "new beginning?"
Well, that's a billion dollar question. On the one hand the speech would certainly improve the sentiment on the street, 'improve' being the operative word here, as opposed to 'change.' The principle players on the other hand (Iran, Israel, Hamas, Palestinian authority) would see in his speech the beginnings of a new approach, but would wait cautiously before actually modifying their positions. In fact that is exactly what they have done.
Israel ‘welcomed’ Obama’s speech, without referring to his settlement comments. Iran too welcomed the speech, but it too said nothing of his comments on nukes.
Palestinian Authority welcomed the two state solution but left out everything else. It is obvious that each cherry picked from the speech according to their convenience.
Another issue, that America should not be reduced to the stereotype of a hegemonic power, would only be resolved once America demonstrates in its deeds that it does not intend to behave like one. The impression has formed over long decades, when America relentlessly pursued imperialistic goals, changing regimes that were not conducive to its economic interests, supporting one side in a war, and then supporting the other depending which way its interest lay.
No single speech can wipe out that impression. The speech is a beginning, and unless it is followed by actions it would not bring about the desired change. That said, America remains popular, not just in Arab countries but in south Asian ones too, as a destination of opportunity. This sentiment may have been overwhelmed by the war on terror, but it is there. And in this America has an ally in its efforts to improve its image.
I hope – and one can but hope – that Muslims buy into the vision – as I did – of a world undivided by conflicts, free of nukes, and with equal rights and opportunity for everyone. Cynicism is like a self fulfilling prophecy, believe that an idea cannot succeed, and you damn its chances of success.
A vista of opportunity?
It would be naive to read in Obama’s speech a radical shift in its core policies, vis a vis, Israel or Iran. He is not about to start having dinner dates with Ahmadinejad, nor is he going to rattle America’s ballistic missiles at Israel and say, give up your nukes or else...
No, this is not happening. Broadly his policy objectives would remain the same as that of his predecessor. But his shift, in tone and tenor, is enough to give a chance to those who would want to come out of the barricades of their old positions.
It has long been said that even Hamas sees that Israel is going to remain in the midst of Arab states, and that it must work to move away from its position of denial of that fact. In fact the signals coming out of Hamas, right after it won the Palestinian elections, indicated that it was prepared to live with Israel as its neighbour.
It was America’s and Israel’s decision to deny the fruits of that election to Hamas, by blockading and then splitting Palestine, that made Hamas retreat back to its old rhetoric.
(On the way by the bye, America demonstrated that elections matter as long as they give the results America wants. If democracy gives results contrary to America’s interests, then too hell with the ballot, and out with the guns and bullets.)
That position now needs to be resurrected, as Obama said, “Israel is not going to go away.” To believe otherwise is wishful, and dangerous thinking. Iran too needs to get out of its gratuitous denial of the holocaust. Such a position serves on ones interest and justifies Israel’s fears that an armed Iran would be an existential threat.
By softening America’s position, Obama has given an opportunity to the leaders of Arab states to soften theirs, and therefore move to a mutually acceptable solution. If this were to happen it would indeed be the new beginning that Obama sought with the Muslim world.
Obama’s speech, as the Hamas spokesperson said, may have been a projection of soft power, words designed to make US manufactured solutions more acceptable to the Arabs, and the Arabs seek not words but acts. But let’s make this clear, a statement of purpose by the President of the United States, whether it is followed by concrete steps or not, is an act in itself.
And if the width of my room partner’s grin, after listening to Obama’s speech is any indication, this act is already having an impact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
