RSSAlle Einträge in der "Afrika" Kategorie

Die Initiative der Muslimbruderschaft als Reformprogramm

Sayed Mahmoud Al-Qumni
On March 3, 2004, Herr. Mahdi Akef, the leader and guide of the Muslim Brotherhood launched the Brotherhood’s Initiative to Participate in Awaited Democratic Reform, presenting the Brotherhood as a political faction that deems itself competent to participate. The Brotherhood presented itselfnaturallyin the best possible light, which is everyone’s right. And on May 8, 2004, Dr. Essam Aryan, a Brotherhood luminary well known due to his appearances on the local Egyptian satellite station, Dream TV, said this initiative is a comprehensive, complete program for soon converting the Brotherhood into a political party.
Demokratie, in its liberal sense, means rule by the people, legislating laws for themselves according to their conditions. It doesn’t just mean elections. More importantly, and to lay the foundations for elections, democracy is a pluralistic political system that guarantees citizenspublic and private freedoms, especially freedom of expression and opinion. It also guarantees their human rights, especially freedom of religion. These are absolute freedoms, without any limitation or monitoring. The democratic system allows peaceful change of power in society and is based on a separation of powers. The judicial branch, especially, must be totally independent. Democracies adopt the free market economy that is based on competition, and that encourages individual initiatives. Democracies are based on channels of dialgoue and peaceful understanding among citizens. In dealing with local and international conflicts, they avoid military options as much as possible. Along with those who believe in democracy, it confronts the mentality of terrorism and violent fundamentalist dogmatism. Democracies oppose absolutist ideas that claim to own the absolute truth, and defend relativistic and pluralistic principles. By doing so, they provide all religions the right to be active safely, except opinions that aim to confiscate freedoms or impose themselves on other parties by force or violence. So democracies are concerned with freeing religion from the monopoly of one interpretation or one sect.
In summary, democracy is a group of regulatory and legal measures for society that humankind has reached after a long history of conflict to refine authorities where religious figures cannot impose their will. Religious authorities were disengaged from the
authorities of the state, to guarantee the state’s neutrality toward all religions. This is what allows for freedom of religion and opinion, and freedom of worship for all in total freedom and equality. This prevents conflict in the name of religion, which leads to the security of the state and its citizens.

On March 3, 2004, Herr. Mahdi Akef, the leader and guide of the Muslim Brotherhood launched the Brotherhood’s Initiative to Participate in Awaited Democratic Reform, presenting the Brotherhood as a political faction that deems itself competent to participate. The Brotherhood presented itselfnaturallyin the best possible light, which is everyone’s right. And on May 8, 2004, Dr. Essam Aryan, a Brotherhood luminary well known due to his appearances on the local Egyptian satellite station, Dream TV, said this initiative is a comprehensive, complete program for soon converting the Brotherhood into a political party.Democracy, in its liberal sense, means rule by the people, legislating laws for themselves according to their conditions. It doesn’t just mean elections. More importantly, and to lay the foundations for elections, democracy is a pluralistic political system that guarantees citizenspublic and private freedoms, especially freedom of expression and opinion. It also guarantees their human rights, especially freedom of religion. These are absolute freedoms, without any limitation or monitoring. The democratic system allows peaceful change of power in society and is based on a separation of powers. The judicial branch, especially, must be totally independent. Democracies adopt the free market economy that is based on competition, and that encourages individual initiatives. Democracies are based on channels of dialgoue and peaceful understanding among citizens. In dealing with local and international conflicts, they avoid military options as much as possible. Along with those who believe in democracy, it confronts the mentality of terrorism and violent fundamentalist dogmatism. Democracies oppose absolutist ideas that claim to own the absolute truth, and defend relativistic and pluralistic principles. By doing so, they provide all religions the right to be active safely, except opinions that aim to confiscate freedoms or impose themselves on other parties by force or violence. So democracies are concerned with freeing religion from the monopoly of one interpretation or one sect.In summary, democracy is a group of regulatory and legal measures for society that humankind has reached after a long history of conflict to refine authorities where religious figures cannot impose their will. Religious authorities were disengaged from theauthorities of the state, to guarantee the state’s neutrality toward all religions. This is what allows for freedom of religion and opinion, and freedom of worship for all in total freedom and equality. This prevents conflict in the name of religion, which leads to the security of the state and its citizens.

Terroristischen und extremistischen Bewegungen im Nahen Osten

Antonius H. Cordesmann

Terrorismus und asymmetrische Kriegsführung sind kaum neue Features des Nahen Ostens militärischen Gleichgewichts, und islamisch
Extremismus ist kaum die einzige Quelle extremistischer Gewalt. Es gibt viele ernsthafte ethnische und konfessionelle Unterschiede
Im mittleren Osten, und diese haben lange Zeit zu sporadischer Gewalt innerhalb bestimmter Staaten geführt, und manchmal zu großen bürgerlichen
Konflikte. Beispiele sind die Bürgerkriege im Jemen und die Dhofar-Rebellion im Oman, ebenso wie die lange Geschichte der zivilen
Krieg im Libanon und Syriens gewaltsame Unterdrückung islamischer politischer Gruppen, die sich dem Regime von Hafez al widersetzten-
Asad. Die aufstrebende Macht der Palästinensischen Befreiungsorganisation (PLO) führte im September zu einem Bürgerkrieg in Jordanien
1970. Die iranische Revolution in 1979 Es folgten ernsthafte politische Kämpfe, und der Versuch, einen Theokratiker zu exportieren
Revolution, die dazu beitrug, den Iran-Irak-Krieg auszulösen. Bahrain und Saudi-Arabien hatten beide zivile Auseinandersetzungen zwischen ihnen
sunnitischen herrschenden Eliten und feindseligen Schiiten und diese Zusammenstöße führten im Fall Saudi-Arabiens zu erheblicher Gewalt.
Dort auch, jedoch, hat eine lange Geschichte des gewalttätigen islamischen Extremismus in der Region, manchmal ermutigt durch
Regimes, die später zum Ziel eben jener Islamisten wurden, die sie ursprünglich unterstützten. Sadat versuchte, das Islamische zu verwenden
Bewegungen als Gegengewicht zu seiner säkularen Opposition in Ägypten, nur um von einer solchen Bewegung nach seiner ermordet zu werden
Friedensabkommen mit Israel. Israel hielt es für sicher, islamische Bewegungen danach zu sponsern 1967 als Gegenstück zum
PLO, nur um das rasche Auftauchen gewaltsam antiisraelischer Gruppen zu sehen. Nord- und Südjemen waren Schauplatz
Staatsstreiche und Bürgerkriege seit den frühen 1960er Jahren, und es war ein Bürgerkrieg im Südjemen, der schließlich zum Zusammenbruch führte
seines Regimes und seiner Fusion mit dem Nordjemen in 1990.
Der Sturz des Schahs führte zu einer islamistischen Machtübernahme im Iran, und Widerstand gegen die sowjetische Invasion in Afghanistan ausgelöst
eine islamistische Reaktion, die immer noch den Nahen Osten und die gesamte islamische Welt beeinflusst. Saudi-Arabien musste sich damit auseinandersetzen
ein Aufstand in der Großen Moschee in Mekka in 1979. Der religiöse Charakter dieses Aufstands teilte viele Elemente
der Bewegungen, die nach dem sowjetischen Abzug aus Afghanistan und dem Golfkrieg entstanden sind 1991.
Algerische Bemühungen, den Sieg islamischer politischer Parteien bei demokratischen Wahlen zu unterdrücken 1992 gefolgt wurden
ein Bürgerkrieg, der seitdem andauert. Ägypten führte einen langen und weitgehend erfolgreichen Kampf mit seinem eigenen Islam
Extremisten in den 1990er Jahren, aber Ägypten hat es nur geschafft, solche Bewegungen zu unterdrücken, anstatt sie auszurotten
Sie. Im Rest der arabischen Welt, Die Bürgerkriege im Kosovo und in Bosnien trugen dazu bei, neue islamistische Extremistenkader zu schaffen.
Saudi-Arabien litt zuvor unter zwei großen Terroranschlägen 2001. Diese Angriffe trafen eine Nationalgarde
Ausbildungszentrum und USAF-Kaserne in Al Khobar, und mindestens einer scheint das Ergebnis des Islam gewesen zu sein
Extremisten. Marokko, Libyen, Tunesien, Jordan, Bahrein, Katar, Oman, und Jemen haben alle Hardliner-Islamisten gesehen
Bewegungen werden zu einer ernsthaften nationalen Bedrohung.
Obwohl nicht direkt Teil der Region, Der Sudan hat einen 15-jährigen Bürgerkrieg geführt, der wahrscheinlich über zwei gekostet hat
Millionen Leben, und dieser Krieg war von radikalen islamistischen Elementen im arabischen Norden unterstützt worden. Somalia hat auch
seitdem Schauplatz eines Bürgerkriegs 1991 das es islamistischen Zellen ermöglicht hat, in diesem Land zu operieren

Terrorismus und asymmetrische Kriegsführung sind kaum neue Features des Nahen Ostens militärischen Gleichgewichts, und der islamische Extremismus ist kaum die einzige Quelle extremistischer Gewalt. Es gibt viele ernsthafte ethnische und konfessionelle Unterschiede im Nahen Osten, und diese haben lange Zeit zu sporadischer Gewalt innerhalb bestimmter Staaten geführt, und manchmal zu großen zivilen Konflikten. Beispiele sind die Bürgerkriege im Jemen und die Dhofar-Rebellion im Oman, ebenso wie die lange Geschichte des Bürgerkriegs im Libanon und Syriens gewaltsame Unterdrückung islamischer politischer Gruppen, die sich dem Regime von Hafez al-Asad widersetzten. Die aufstrebende Macht der Palästinensischen Befreiungsorganisation (PLO) führte im September 1970 zu einem Bürgerkrieg in Jordanien. Die iranische Revolution in 1979 Es folgten ernsthafte politische Kämpfe, und ein Versuch, eine theokratische Revolution zu exportieren, die dazu beigetragen hat, den Iran-Irak-Krieg auszulösen. Bahrain und Saudi-Arabien hatten beide zivile Zusammenstöße zwischen ihren sunnitischen herrschenden Eliten und feindlichen Schiiten, und diese Zusammenstöße führten im Fall von Saudi-Arabien zu erheblicher Gewalt. Auch dort, jedoch, hat eine lange Geschichte des gewalttätigen islamischen Extremismus in der Region, manchmal von Regimen ermutigt, die später zum Ziel genau der Islamisten wurden, die sie ursprünglich unterstützten. Sadat versuchte, islamische Bewegungen als Gegengewicht zu seiner säkularen Opposition in Ägypten einzusetzen, nur um nach seinem Friedensabkommen mit Israel von einer solchen Bewegung ermordet zu werden. Israel hielt es für sicher, islamische Bewegungen danach zu sponsern 1967 als Gegenpol zur PLO, nur um das rasche Auftauchen gewaltsam antiisraelischer Gruppen zu sehen. Nord- und Südjemen waren seit den frühen 1960er Jahren Schauplatz von Putschen und Bürgerkriegen, und es war ein Bürgerkrieg im Südjemen, der schließlich 1990 zum Zusammenbruch seines Regimes und seiner Fusion mit dem Nordjemen führte. Der Sturz des Schahs führte zu einer islamistischen Machtübernahme im Iran, und der Widerstand gegen die sowjetische Invasion in Afghanistan lösten eine islamistische Reaktion aus, die bis heute den Nahen Osten und die gesamte islamische Welt beeinflusst. Saudi-Arabien musste mit einem Aufstand an der Großen Moschee in Mekka fertig werden 1979. Der religiöse Charakter dieses Aufstands teilte viele Elemente der Bewegungen, die nach dem sowjetischen Abzug aus Afghanistan und dem Golfkrieg 1991 entstanden. Algerische Bemühungen, den Sieg islamischer politischer Parteien bei demokratischen Wahlen zu unterdrücken 1992 folgte ein Bürgerkrieg, der seitdem andauert. Ägypten führte in den 1990er Jahren einen langen und weitgehend erfolgreichen Kampf mit seinen eigenen islamischen Extremisten, aber Ägypten hat es nur geschafft, solche Bewegungen zu unterdrücken, anstatt sie auszurotten. Im Rest der arabischen Welt, Die Bürgerkriege im Kosovo und in Bosnien trugen dazu bei, neue islamistische Extremistenkader zu schaffen. Saudi-Arabien litt zuvor unter zwei großen Terroranschlägen 2001. Diese Angriffe trafen ein Trainingszentrum der Nationalgarde und eine Kaserne der USAF in Al Khobar, und mindestens einer scheint das Ergebnis islamischer Extremisten gewesen zu sein. Marokko, Libyen, Tunesien, Jordan, Bahrein, Katar, Oman, und Jemen haben allesamt miterlebt, wie islamistische Hardliner-Bewegungen zu einer ernsthaften nationalen Bedrohung geworden sind, obwohl sie nicht direkt Teil der Region sind, Der Sudan hat einen 15-jährigen Bürgerkrieg geführt, der wahrscheinlich über zwei Millionen Menschen das Leben gekostet hat, und dieser Krieg war von radikalen islamistischen Elementen im arabischen Norden unterstützt worden. Seitdem ist Somalia auch Schauplatz eines Bürgerkriegs 1991 das es islamistischen Zellen ermöglicht hat, in diesem Land zu operieren.

Kommentar: Hollow-Ring für Demokratie

Arnaud de Borchgrave

WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) — The White House’s crusade for democracy, as President Bush sees it, has produceda critical mass of events taking that (Mittlerer Osten) region in a hopeful new direction.And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just toured the area, making clear at every stop whenever the United States has a choice between stability and democracy, the new ideological remedy would sacrifice stability.

Veteran Mideast hands who have dealt with five regional wars and two intifadas over the past half century shuddered. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger first among them.

For the U.S. to crusade in every part of the world to spread democracy may be beyond our capacity,” he says. die US-. system, he explains, “is the product of unique historical experiences, difficult to duplicate or to transplant into Muslim societies where secular democracy has seldom thrived.If ever.

If stability had been sacrificed for democracy, the former national security adviser and secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford could not have negotiated major Arab-Israeli disengagement agreements: Sinai I, Golan and Sinai II. Without the undemocratic, benign dictatorial figure of Anwar Sadat at the helm in Egypt, or without the late Syrian dictator and master terror-broker Hafez Assad, yet another page of war history would have been written.

With a democratic parliament in Egypt in 1974, presumably dominated by the popular Muslim Brotherhood, Sadat could not have made his spectacular, death-defying trip to Jerusalemand suddenly become the most popular leader in Israel. A peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and between Jordan and Israel were possible only because absolute rulersSadat and the late King Hussein, led both Arab countries.

Sadat knew his courageous act of statesmanship was tantamount to signing his own death warrant. It was carried out in 1981 — by Islamist extremistson worldwide television.

Rice proudly proclaims it is no longer a war against terrorism but a struggle for democracy. She is proud the Bush administration no longer pursues stability at the expense of democracy. But already the democracy crusade is not only encountering speed bumps, but also roadblocks on a road to nowhere.

The much-vaunted Palestinian elections scheduled for July have been postponed indefinitely.

Im Libanon, the ballot box has already been nullified by political machinations. Gen. Michael Aoun, a bright but aging prospect who came back from French exile to take on Syria’s underground machine, has already joined forces with Damascus. While denying any deal with Syria, the general’s henchmen concede he was compensated munificently for his retirement years in Paris from his post as army chief of staff and his time as premier. Aoun collected $22 million, which included compound interest.

In Ägypten, Rice, presumably attempting to confer respectability on President Hosni Mubarak’s challengers, took time out to receive a known political charlatan who has over the years been exposed as someone who forged election results as he climbed the ladder of a number of political parties under a variety of labels.

Even Mubarak’s enemies concede Ayman Nour fabricated and forged the signatures of as many as 1,187 citizens to conform to regulations to legalize his Ghad (Tomorrow) Party. His career is dotted with phony academic credentials, plagiarism, a staged assassination attempt on himself, charges of embezzlement by his Saudi media employer, and scads of document forgeries.

Rice had canceled a previous trip to Egypt to protest the indictment and jailing of Nour pending trial. And before Rice’s most recent accolade, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had also gone out of her way to praise Egypt’s master political con man. Makes you wonder what kind of political reporting is coming out of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

With this double-headed endorsement by the United States, Nour is losing what little favor he still has in Egypt. He is now seen as a U.S. stooge, to add to a long list of failings.

Die Muslimbruderschaft, which is outlawed but tolerated since it renounced terrorism, is more representative of Egyptian opinion than Nour. There is also the Kifaya (Enough) movement that groups Egypt’s leading intellectuals. But they declined to meet with Rice.

The United States is seen throughout the Arab world as synonymous with Israel. This automatically limits the Bush administration’s ability to win friends and influence people. Those making the most out of U.S. pressure to democratize are organizations listed by the United States asterrorist.Both Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon are now mining opportunities both above and underground. Islamic legislators in Jordan petitioned King Abdullah to allow Jordanian Hamas leaders, evicted six years ago, to come home. The king listened impassively.

It took Europe 500 years to reach the degree of political maturity witnessed by the recent collapse of the European Union’s plans for a common constitution. Winston Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. But Churchill also said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.This still applies in the souks of the Arab world, from Marrakech to Muscat.

Das Problem der ägyptischen Muslimbruderschaft

Jeffrey Azarva

Samuel Tadros

On June 20, 2007, den USA. Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research convened ameeting ofU.S. intelligence officials to weigh the prospect of formal engagement with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,1known in Arabic as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin. The session was the result of several years of discussion aboutengaging the group considered by many to be the fountainhead of Sunni fundamentalism.Although the Bush administration established a diplomatic quarantine of the Brotherhood afterSeptember 11, 2001, members of the U.S. House of Representatives held several meetings in Egyptin the spring of 2007—almost three months before the State Department meeting—with MuhammadSaad al-Katatni, an independent member of the Egyptian parliament and the head of its Brotherhoodaffiliatedbloc. On April 5, 2007, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) broke with conventionand met with Katatni at the Egyptian parliament building and at the residence ofU.S. ambassador to Egypt Francis J. Ricciardone. Then, on May 27, 2007, a four-member U.S. congressionaldelegation led by Representative David Price (D-N.C.) met with Katatni in Cairo.Following Hoyer’s visit, den USA. Embassy in Cairo dismissed Egyptian criticism that his meetingspresaged a reversal of U.S. policy.2 In November 2007, Ricciardone also played down themeetings when he claimed that U.S. contacts with nominally independent Brotherhood members did“not imply American endorsement of the views of the individual parliamentarians or their politicalaffiliates.”3 Despite this reassurance, the meetings with Katatni are indicative of opinion leaders, bothinside and outside the U.S. Regierung, warming inevitable. Yet while the movement, gegründet von Hassan al-Banna in 1928, constitutes the most organizedand well-funded opposition in the country today—the byproduct of both its charitable services and da’wa (literally“call to God,” or preaching) network that operate outside state control—any examination of its rhetoricand political platforms shows U.S. outreach to be premature. Despite its professed commitment to pluralismand the rule of law, the Brotherhood continues to engage in dangerous doublespeak when it comes to the mostfundamental issues of democracy.

Auf Reform verzichten: Ägypten und Tunesien

Jeffrey Azarva

Im November 6, 2003, Präsident George W. Bush verkündete, „Sechzig Jahre, in denen westliche Nationen den Mangel an Freiheit im Nahen Osten entschuldigten und kompensierten, haben uns nicht sicher gemacht – denn auf lange Sicht“, Stabilität kann nicht auf Kosten der Freiheit erkauft werden.“ Diese strategische Verschiebung, gepaart mit den Invasionen des Irak und Afghanistans, Regionalregierungen in Kenntnis setzen. Im nächsten Frühjahr, Tunesischer Präsident, ZineEl Abidine Bin Ali, und Ägyptens Präsident, Hosni Mubarak – unerschütterliche Verbündete im von den USA geführten Krieg gegen den Terrorismus und zwei der proamerikanischsten Herrscher Nordafrikas – gehörten zu den ersten arabischen Führern, die Washington besuchten und über Reformen diskutierten. Aber mit diesem „arabischen Frühling“ kam der unbeabsichtigte Aufstieg islamistischer Bewegungen in der gesamten Region. Jetzt, als USA. Politiker erhöhen Druck, Ägypten und Tunesien sehen grünes Licht für Reformen.

Was geschah mit der "Arab Street?"

Neha Sahgal



Why do opposition movements engage in protest under some circumstances but not inothers? Why did the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt organize large scale protest during the 2005regime initiated political reforms while remaining largely off the streets during the United States’led war in Iraq in 2003? There is a common notion among Western public opinion and policymakers that United States’ policies in the Middle East have led to greater political activismamong Islamic fundamentalists. Noch, while citizens around the world protested the war in Iraq,Egypt remained largely quiet. The lack of protest and other acts of opposition were surprisinggiven the history of Arab-anti colonial struggle, the 1950s street politics in Egypt that broughtNasser to power and the flourishing civil society organizations in the region exemplified byIslamist parties, non governmental organizations and professional syndicates. More importantly,with the 2005 regime initiated political opening in Egypt, the country’s largest oppositionmovement, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood organized high levels of protests anddemonstrations exposing undemocratic practices of the current government and seeking greaterpolitical freedom. Das Jahr 2005, was marked by a “wave of contention” in Egypt standing instark contrast to the lack of mobilization against the Iraq war. Clearly, Muslim Brotherhoodprotest activity is guided by factors other than the prevalence of “anti-Americanism.”Scholars of contentions politics have developed and tested various theories that explainand predict protest behavior. Strain and breakdown theories explain protest as an outcome ofeconomic conditions while resource mobilization theories have stressed the role of material andorganizational constraints in organizing protest. Yet others have argued that protests are spurredby structural changes, zum Beispiel, divisions or breakdown in the government. In this paper, Iargue that explaining the protest behavior of one group should take into account the group’sinteraction with other opposition actors. Opposition groups operate in a dense network of allies,adversaries as well as counter movements. Therefore their strategies influence each other intangible ways. I present an analysis of how the 2005 political opening in Egypt led to changes inlegal parties such as al-Ghad and al-Wafd that were allowed to contest presidential andparliamentary elections. Des Weiteren, the new movement Kifaya, originally formed to expressopposition to the Iraq war, also gained momentum as an anti-Mubarak, pro-democracy alliance.The changes in the parties that were allowed to contest elections and the emergence of newmovements altered the socio-political context for the “officially banned, yet tolerated,” MuslimBrotherhood. The Brotherhood tried to reassert itself as the main voice of political opposition inthe country by organizing greater protest activity and in this way established similarity with legalopposition parties. While legal opposition parties remain weak and ineffective in Egypt, andnewer opposition movements are still small in their membership, they may still influence eachothers’ strategies in tangible ways.