WASHINGTON - Aboard Air Force One, en route from Bangkok to
Singapore on Oct 21, a senior administration official travelling
with President George W. Bush gave a background briefing to the
White House press corps.
'Help moderate Muslims to refute extremists'
WASHINGTON - Mainstream Muslims must do more to undermine
extremists and boost the influence of moderates in the global war
on terrorism, US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has
said.
He also said Washington had to help strengthen the hand of Muslim
moderates by promoting an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
which was 'a huge factor' in US-Muslim relations.
The war on terror 'is a fight that cannot be won by the West
alone', he said on Thursday, adding: 'In fact, the fight against
the killers who pervert and exploit a great world religion is most
effectively fought by Muslims themselves. It is more appropriate
for Muslims to refute the extremists' false arguments.'
The United States 'should do everything we can to support those
moderate voices... and that is just one of many reasons why it is
so important for us not only to succeed in Iraq, but also to
achieve a peace between Israelis and Palestinians', he said in a
speech at Georgetown University. -- Reuters
He was asked about how risky it would be for the President to visit
Indonesia after Singapore.
He replied, and this is from the official transcript: 'Well, I
don't think the President has any worries about his personal safety
if that's what you're trying to imply.
'Don't forget, Bali is a peaceful island, 95 per cent Hindu.'
It is a shocking statement. But there is no need to
overreact.
Yes, it was a senior White House official saying that Bali would be
safe because it has a majority Hindu population. By implication, he
meant that were it Muslim, it would be dangerous.
But caution should be exercised in concluding, as some in
Washington have done, that it betrays a mindset in which Muslims
are viewed as the enemy and that we are at war with Islam.
Yet, it cannot be denied that it is an increasingly common mindset
in the United States. If that is not acknowledged and serious
remedial action not taken, what the American novelist James Baldwin
called 'the fire next time' would be in grave peril of
happening.
Consider what appears regularly in the American press and, what is
worse, goes unchallenged.
Last Monday, the New York Daily News, which has a circulation of
three-quarters of a million in the largest US city, carried an
article by its senior editorial writer Stanley Crouch.
Mr Crouch, who publicly advocates the US shutting its doors on
Muslims, said: 'I have been writing for a while in this space that
I believe we should have a moratorium on immigration from anywhere
in the Islamic world.
'War always shuts down borders, and we are, ladies and gentlemen,
in a war,' he says.
Again, there is need to be cautious about overreacting.
It is true that if the New York Daily News had carried an article
urging a halt to Jewish immigration, there would have been an
outcry that would almost certainly have led to Mr Crouch losing his
job. But his opinion is not isolated. It is, increasingly, the
consensus in the US.
That is why no voices were raised against his anti-Islamic
generalisation. The reaction to Dr Mahathir Mohamad's remarks about
Jews ruling the world, made at the recent meeting of the
Organisation of Islamic Conference, was very different.
It is worth-noting that in his article about Dr Mahathir's speech,
The Washington Post's columnist Richard Cohen wrote: 'Sadly,
throughout the Islamic world, anti-Zionism has been corrupted into
anti-Semitism.'
It is a valid, and profoundly disturbing, observation.
Even more disturbing, yet rarely addressed, is that throughout the
Western world, anti-terrorism has been corrupted into
anti-Islamism.
The remarks of the White House official and of Mr Crouch attest to
this. So, too, does the large advertisement that the American
Jewish Committee placed in The New York Times last Sunday
chastising Dr Mahathir.
Under the bold headline 'Shame', it said: 'The Muslim leaders
assembled for the conference, to their everlasting shame, gave
Mahathir a standing ovation.'
It went on to say: 'Bigotry is bigotry. When an entire people or
religion is assailed, all people and all religions are
threatened.'
Yet when Islam is assailed, as it increasingly is in the US, few
voices are raised and no 'Shame' advertisements appear.
If only the advertisement had included a sentence or two rebuking
General William Boykin, one of President Bush's senior intelligence
officers, for his recent anti-Islam remarks. He likened the US war
against Muslim extremists to a battle against Satan.
Instead, while the US Senate voted to stop US$1.2 million (S$2
million) in military aid to Malaysia because of Dr Mahathir's
comments, Gen Boykin remains unpunished. Said Ms Bridget Welsh, a
South-east Asian expert at Johns Hopkins University: 'The Senate's
action is a mistake. It reflects a view that Malaysia is a radical
country, which is completely inaccurate.'
Unfortunately, many congressmen regard Malaysia, and the rest of
the Islamic world, as radical and in need of censure.
Yet, it is no good censoring those who make radical anti-Jewish and
anti-Christian remarks, while tolerating those who make virulent
anti-Islamic statements. It merely reinforces the corruption of
anti-terrorism into anti-Islamism.
On Wednesday, one of Mr Crouch's fellow columnists at the New York
Daily News, Mr Zev Chafets, wrote: 'Bush can insist all day long
that America isn't at war with Islam. But that misses the point. In
varying degrees, the Islamic world is at war with the US.'
He went on to write that whenever Mr Bush says the US is not at war
with the Islamic world, he always wins a round of polite
applause.
'But not a single one of his guests believes it. They all know
better.'
Mr Chafets is right.
And while there is no need to overreact, it is important to face up
to this. And start doing something about it.
Or next time will be the fire.
