By Kavi Chongkittavorn

What former ASEAN heavyweight leaders Indonesian President Suharto, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed had in common was a passionate belief in the regional grouping and a readiness to defend the Asean identity and values. They did it with valour and stood firm against heavy criticism from non-Asean countries. In short: no kowtowing to external demands without a consensus.

By Dr. Thitinan Pongsudhirak

Despite unsurprising official spins to the contrary, Thailand's chairmanship and hosting of Asean has fallen well short of expectations. On the one hand, it turned out to be a casualty of Thailand's domestic political crisis and confrontation. On the other, Asean's longstanding structural constraints, underpinned by internal shortcomings and external challenges, were underlined yet again.

By Kavi Chongkittavorn

The fall of the Berlin Wall two decades ago has ushered in a great transformation to the lives of millions of Eastern Europeans. The continent of Europe as a whole has become stronger than ever and has a bigger profile in international politics. Greater impacts are also being felt at the global level with more openness, democratisation and flow of peoples across borders.

By David I. Steinberg

As a Burmese colleague reminded an unofficial Washington conference on Burma/Myanmar a few days ago, departing passengers on the London tube (subway) were warned to “mind the gap” between the train and platform, otherwise there might be an accident.

That advice, he noted, also has merit in thinking about Burmese relations with the US.

By Barun Mitra

On 9 November 1989, the Berlin Wall that divided the East and West Germany, both physically and ideologically, finally fell. It was a political earthquake which signaled the end of communism.

Zainah Anwar

PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

When I began to speak publicly of finding equality and justice in Islam 20 years ago, a common response was "why bother?" Muslim feminists told me it was a waste of time because religion is inherently patriarchal: for every alternative interpretation I could offer to justify equality, mullahs could counter with 100 others.

The secularists said it was dangerous, as I was giving legitimacy to the position of religion in the public square. And human rights activists thought it was a losing battle. A feminist working within the religious framework, they argued, would never be recognized as having any authority to speak on Islam. For them, justice and equality could only be fought for through a human rights framework.

This decision of so many activists to ignore religion has had undesirable consequences. It has left the field wide open for the most conservative forces within Islam to define, dominate and set parameters of what Islam is and what it is not. They decide what a good Muslim is, they dictate how to be a good Muslim woman, wife and daughter, and then prescribe laws and policies that keep us shackled as second-class Muslims, indeed, second-class citizens. When we protest, they shut us up, saying we have no authority to speak about Islam.

Yet, Islam, in their own words, is a way of life. Islam has all the answers. Islam is the solution. But how can Islam be all this when those who question the orthodoxy are far too often intimidated into silence? How can it be a tenable solution when some quarters are persecuted in the name of the religion?

We've had enough. This was boldly declared by some 250 activists and scholars from 47 countries at a recent conference in Kuala Lumpur to launch Musawah (equality in Arabic), the global movement for equality and justice in the Muslim family.

The meeting brought together feminists working with religion, those working within a human rights framework, scholars of Islam and the Muslim world, lawyers, journalists and activists. All came sharing a mission to break the monopoly that authoritarian governments and religious leaders have over how Islam is understood and used to govern their lives.

Conference participants served notice to the United Nations and to Muslim governments that there would now be an alternative global force led by Muslim activists and scholars. The movement would make it its business to challenge the use of religion and culture to undo advances in human rights and women's rights.

For me and Sisters in Islam, the group I helped to found in 1987, Musawah was in some ways a vindication of a long and difficult struggle to find liberation within my faith and to translate into collective action my utter belief in a just God. This is the last frontier in the feminist movement, to break the theological stranglehold of the patriarchs that prevents Muslim women from enjoying equal rights.

The message is simple and clear: For there to be justice in the 21st century, there must be equality.

For too long, Muslim women who demanded reform to discriminatory laws and practices have been told, "this is God's law" and therefore not open to negotiation and change. To question, challenge, or change would supposedly go against Shariah (God's revealed way), weaken our faith, and lead us astray. We have been accused of being Westernized elites, anti-Islam, anti-Shariah people who have deviated from our faith. Reports are regularly made against us to the menfolk in our families to keep us under control, to the police and to the religious authorities to charge us for insulting Islam and to ban our groups.

To all this we'd like to say: When Islam is used as a source of law and public policy, then all citizens must have the right to speak on the subject, Muslims or non-Muslims, secularists or Islamists. Public law and policy must necessarily be open to public debate, and pass the test of public reason.

No one demands that you have a degree in political science or economics or social studies before you can talk about politics, economics or social ills. We are deemed qualified to comment simply because we live these realities. But when it comes to talking about Islamic laws, qualifications suddenly become indispensable. We must hold a degree in Islamic studies, we must be able to speak Arabic. Once you've jumped through these hoops, a new condition is set: the hijab. And when we wear the hijab, their masterstroke is delivered - they say our ideas are against Islam.

In a world where women's rights are considered part of human rights, where modern constitutions of Muslim countries hold up equality and non-discrimination, where the reality is that many women are the providers and protectors of their families, the relentless discrimination found in many Muslim family laws is unacceptable.

There is a clear disconnect between reality and the family laws that govern us. In most Muslim countries, a man can divorce his wife at will. He can have four wives, whom he can beat with impunity. Women cannot marry without a male guardian's approval, and they must obey their husbands or lose their rights to maintenance. They are not entitled to guardianship of their children even if they have custody over them and act as their sole provider and protector. The list goes on and varies from country to country.

But in 2004 a corner was turned that ushered in new energy and hope. Morocco introduced comprehensive reform of its Islamic family law, changes founded solidly on Islamic teachings and the realities of life today. Marriage was now regarded a partnership of equals, with equal rights given to men and women. So why can't other Muslim governments do the same?

Evidently, the problem is not with Islam. It is with the position that men in authority take in order to preserve their privilege. Naturally, the easiest and most effective way to safeguard this position is to employ the divine sanctity of God's will. To conflate patriarchal laws and practices with Islam is nothing more than tactical power play.

While all Muslims accept that the Koran is one, it must be recognized that the interpretation of the Koran is a human effort and has thus led to diverse opinions. Hence, in Pakistan and Bangladesh, a woman can marry without permission from her father or male guardian, but not in Malaysia or Indonesia. In Malaysia a woman's role as a wife and mother entitles her to a share of the matrimonial assets, but not in most other countries. In Indonesia, the Gambia, Morocco, Senegal, Tunisia and Turkey, men and women have equal rights to custody and guardianship of their children, but not in most other Muslim countries.

What Musawah brings to the table is a rich and diverse collection of interpretations, juristic opinions and principles that makes it possible to read equality and justice in Islam, and construe these twin values at national and international levels. It is a vital contribution at a time when democracy, human rights and women's rights constitute the modern ethical paradigm of today's world.

With its emphasis on knowledge-building, Musawah intends to bring to international attention that there is already a deep shift in perspective in Muslim theological and jurisprudential scholarship. The reform movement is hardly alien to the Muslim tradition, in which family laws have long been adapted to social standards of the time.

This time, however, the leading bearers of much-needed change will be Muslim feminists, working with progressive Islamic scholars. This last frontier will be conquered.

Zainah Anwar is project director of Musawah, a global movement for equality and justice in the Muslim family.

This article, first published in the 5 March 2009 edition of the International Herald Tribune, was republished by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation with permission from the author.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not represent the official views of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation.

Terry Lacey

PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

There is no avoiding the impact of this series of financial and economic downturns and the associated stock market crashes and wild currency fluctuations.

However, for the developing economies of Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, and even for Africa, these changes represent new opportunities as well as short-term problems.

These events are symbolic of a changing global balance of power where the United States and Europe have to adjust to the rising economic power of Asia, the Middle East and the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China).

More than half the Muslim population of the world is concentrated in a handful of larger states, most of them facing problems of mass poverty, illiteracy, and poor economic development performance often alongside weak political development and insecurity.

These states include Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan as well as India, Indonesia and Turkey. The last three are in a different position because they have, until now, higher economic growth and are consolidating political democracy.

The rest of the Muslim world is mostly focused in the Middle East, in North Africa and the Sahel, and the new Central Asian Republics.

So 80 percent or more of the Muslim world is located in the countries of the South, or the developing countries, including a relative minority of smaller population richer states mostly in the Gulf, but including Brunei and Malaysia.

How will the economic, financial and institutional changes that will follow on from the global financial turmoil affect the Muslim world and the issues of economic, social and political development of importance to the wider Muslim community?

Three great issues

Possible answers can be projected through the impact of the crisis on three great issues:

First the crisis will accelerate demands for economic and social progress within Muslim states and societies, but not on the basis of simply bowing down to Western theories of liberalisation and globalisation.

Second the crisis will foster greater trade and economic co-operation between Southern States who will no longer want to depend so much on the USA and Europe.

Thirdly the crisis will place the Palestine-Israel confrontation within far more realistic and updated parameters and force it to a conclusion.

Muslim countries need no longer feel out of step if their governments and people are not overwhelmingly convinced on the benefits of simply replicating Western liberalisation and globalisation.

This was a crisis of capitalism and even the greatest advocates of the free market are forced to face reality that when capitalism fails it has to be bailed out by the state. It is capitalist when it goes up and socialist when it comes down.

This does not mean, as suggested by the Indonesian Vice President Kalla, that Islamic banking can suddenly present the comprehensive alternative to capitalism.

The reality is that so far Islamic finance has been very integrated into global capitalist structures, with little emphasis on extending the more radical and unique profit and loss sharing concepts to poorer Muslims in poorer countries.

Attempts to turn Islamic finance into a comprehensive alternative to capitalism have been pursued by Muslim economists in Iran and Sudan but with little support from the rest of the Muslim world.

Nonetheless one consequence of the crisis is that Arab sovereign funds will become more important and Islamic banking can play an increasing role in global financing, its expansion relatively unaffected by the financial crisis.

The Muslim fundamentalist fringe might think that the impending collapse of capitalism affords them a great opportunity, both to take advantage of instability and to pose some utopian impractical Muslim economic theory based on theocratic dictatorship.

However the lesson of the crisis will be the reverse of such utopian dreams. The reality is that support for Islamic parties will decline unless they can greatly improve their skills in economic management.

Perversely, like the rise of the dollar in the midst of chaos, liberalisation and globalisation will emerge from the crisis reorganized and stronger, but based on a more equitable distribution of power.

The Indonesian example

Indonesia is an interesting example of a large Muslim state which can resist the negative impacts of the financial crisis. It has a large enough population and state budget to propel steady economic growth, even faced by a financial tsunami, and every prospect of diversifying export markets and funding sources reasonably fast.

Most Indonesians will have their jobs and incomes reinforced by a strong decisive state, based on the minimum of bailing out and the maximum of pushing infrastructural investment, especially in energy, with state development budget disbursements helping to maintain the rate of growth and consumption.

The Indonesian example may inspire other Muslim-led states to do likewise and not be demoralized by the bursting of an Anglo Saxon ideological bubble based on easy and endless access to cheap credit, an unsustainable housing and credit boom, and on living beyond your means.

The change in the balance of international economic power will bring with it a more stable global system, based on the new power balance and a stronger state regulatory framework, with much better enforcement in future than in the past.

Alongside reform of globalization will come the second great change that the Southern economies, while still seeking strong relations with the United States and Europe, will now seek to avoid becoming over-dependent upon them again. Better to globalise strengths rather than weaknesses.

The Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) has already declared, in the earlier Dakar Summit and elsewhere, that Muslim economies should co-operate in support of mutual trade and investment, the strengthening of Small & Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and expansion of Islamic Finance in banking services and investment.

The great convergence of interest would come if the Islamic Banking Institutions (IFIs) would grasp the opportunity presented by the current financial crisis to greatly expand joint investments with governments and other financing sources, including multilaterals and bilateral aid funds, to finance the power stations and water and sanitation projects which the Muslim world lacks. This would be a great spin off from the financial crisis.

The third great area where we can expect some positive impact from the financial crisis is on the resolution of the Palestine-Israel dispute.

Frankly, not very many people care any more whether or not Israel and Palestine are going to agree to one state, two states, three states or three-and-a-half (as in the case of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

Most sane people in the Muslim world just wish that whatever they are going to do they should get on with it before they miss the bus for ever, and become a sad and marginalized side-show in a very busy circus.

The point of the impact of the global financial crisis is precisely that Israel and the Palestinians risk finding themselves marginalised and increasingly irrelevant to the main thrust of the critical problems facing most Muslim states, namely economic survival and development, addressing climate change, and strengthening civic culture, political structures and political institutions.

The arrival of Tzipi Livni as prime minister of Israel would be a very welcome change and hopefully she can drag the Kadima party back to its original idea, to try and find a way out of the impasse by doing new things. Like a non aggression pact with Lebanon, a peace treaty with Syria and finally a deal with the Palestinians.

Time for a new deal

Now is the time for Hamas and Fatah to agree a new deal and new elections, even though the treatment of the democratically elected Hamas government was a disgrace.

It’s also time for the Palestinians and Israelis to astonish the world with some new thinking. The level of settlements and balkanization of Palestine, plus prevarication on the twin state, is already such that a unitary state with Israel may be the only possible outcome.

One joint confederation comprising two states with a single economic union would be a better response to the global financial crisis and end the protracted agony on the classic two-state solution.

Or extend the confederation and invite Jordan to join it. Israelis might feel safer and have better prospects for more rapid economic prosperity in a three state confederation.

Alternatively drop all the fuss about nation states, find any workable solution for the Palestinians and Israelis to live together (cantons, unification, whatever) and focus on a single free trade area and economic union from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, and let everybody who wants to join it. Crazy? No more crazy than what the Europeans have done since 1945.

The financial crisis means that we need some really fresh thinking from Muslim states, political parties and economists. Now is the time to build the new world.

DR. Terry Lacey is a development economist who writes from Jakarta, Indonesia, on modernisation in the Muslim world, investment and trade relations with the EU and Islamic banking.

The commentary was republished with permission from www.malaysiakini.com. It was originally published in the 25 November 2008 edition of the leading Malaysian news website.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not represent the official views of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation.

Thanong Khanthong

PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

At 3:25am on Thursday [20 Nov] morning, a bomb was thrown into the Government House compound, killing one person and injuring dozens of members of the People's Alliance for Democracy. The bomb exploded a day after the completion of the royal cremation ceremony for HRH Princess Galyani Vadhana.

It's official now. The declaration of civil war begins with that bomb. The crisis will continue around the Government House, where the PAD has fortified its position over the past 180 days, rallying for the removal of the Thaksin regime. At night ordinary people do not want to go near the Government House because they fear injury or death from random shooting and missiles.

With his back against the wall, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra can no longer run. He does not know where to go. He faces a two-year jail term. The UK has denied him a visa, dealing a blow to his international standing. He says he will fight back, an eye for an eye.

"Even if I retreat, even if I give in, they will still kill me. It has been proved that no matter how much I retreat, they will still not give me the space to stand. Retreating will not help improve my situation at all. So I have to fight back," Thaksin told a group of the People Power Party MPs, who visited him in Hong Kong over the weekend.

His aim is to return to Thailand and get back his Bt76 billion, now frozen, pending a trial on corruption charges against him. To succeed, Thaksin must prevail in politics through a sort of a revolution, because the law can't be changed to give him amnesty.

Thaksin has divorced his wife of 32 years, Pojaman, but this is a tactical move. She can keep her wealth. His three children are already grown up. Matichon newspaper yesterday speculated that after the division of wealth with Pojaman, Thaksin has Bt10 billion in his war chest to finance his comeback. Pojaman might fly back to Thailand first to pave the way for his return. She has been known to be a keen deal-maker. At the moment, Thaksin still trusts her the most.

Both the PAD and the People Power Party smell blood. The final clash is inevitable. Thaksin is not afraid of anybody. How do his opponents feel then?

Chamlong Srimuang, one of the leaders of the PAD, senses that the PAD is also being driven into a corner. He has declared a last-ditch effort on 23 November when the PAD protesters will hold an all-out rally to remove the government.

The military remains cool. But we'll probably see the red shirt mob and yellow shirt mob going against each other. Who will have more mettle? We can only wait and see.

The military will call the final shot. It will act only when it knows which side emerges victorious.

Thaksin will phone in to his supporters at the National Stadium on 13 December, when Thailand is about to play host to the Asean Summit in Chiang Mai. Thaksin would love to send his message to the regional leaders. This time he has promised that he will not be considerate or reserved. He will tell it all - those who were behind the military coup in 2006.

In December, a hearing on Thaksin's "unusually rich" case will begin. A verdict on the dissolution case against the People Power Party might also be reached. It is a ripe time for political turmoil. By that time, all conflicting parties can no longer hide in the shadows. We'll know who's wearing yellow and who's wearing red.

The final scene, as overseen by the big shots of the People Power Party, will produce one of two outcomes. First, there will be bloodshed, which will lead to a political compromise (Thaksin gets part of his money back; he has a room to move on Thai soil). Second, there will be bloodshed, which leads to the complete rout of one of the two sides. Either way, bloodshed is imminent.

PPP MP Pracha Prasopdee yesterday hinted to a way out. He said either Thaksin or Pojaman might return from exile on or before 25 December. Thaksin will make a big bet by going straight to jail. But his supporters will rally for his release. If the country is to overcome its predicament, all sides should support the passage of legislation granting amnesty to rival camps, Pracha said, arguing that the draft legislation should be on the fast track for debate at the next House session in January. The amnesty would allow a fresh start for all sides, including the People's Alliance for Democracy, and is the only hope to overcome the turmoil.

Thaksin, in short, would like to move the clock back to 18 September 2006 before the coup took place. He has played his cards. How will his opponents answer?

Thanong Khanthong is editor of The Nation, a leading English-language newspaper in Thailand. The analytical commentary was republished on www.fnfasia.org with permission from the newspaper. It was originally published on 21 November 2008 in the Opinion section of www.nationmultimedia.com.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s opinions and do not represent the official views of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation.

PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

As world leaders gather in Washington, they would do well to remember that we face two crises. The global financial crisis is most immediate; the more existential is climate change. The urgency of the first is no excuse for neglecting the second. To the contrary, it is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

Put aside the familiar arguments: that the science on climate change is clear, that every day we do not act the problem grows worse, that fighting global warming is a moral imperative. Instead, let us make the case purely in terms of pragmatic economics.

Global growth is slowing. Budgets are tightening. We will likely have fewer resources to tackle a lengthening agenda of global problems. What steps can we take, then, to create jobs and spur growth? How can we assure energy supplies at affordable prices? What must we do to insulate the global financial system from recurring shocks and cyclical bubbles, so that people of all nations can enjoy the promise of development and live in economic security?

The answer is to find common solutions to the grave challenges facing us. And when it comes to two of the most serious—the financial crisis and climate change—that answer is the green economy. If our way of life is threatened, our response must be to adapt. Scientists agree: to address climate change, we need an energy revolution, a wholesale change in how we power our societies.

Economists agree as well: the hottest growth industry in the world just now is renewable energy. That’s where jobs of the future are already being created, and where much of the technological innovation is taking place that will usher in our next era of economic transformation.

Practical philosophers remind us that tomorrow begins today. Yes, this weekend’s financial summit in Washington is critical. But we face no less a test in early December, when nations gather in Poznan, Poland, for the next round of UN climate convention negotiations.

The meeting marks the half-way point along the Bali road map, embraced amid great euphoria in Indonesia last year. It aims to set the stage for a grand bargain in Copenhagen next December, when world leaders come together to negotiate an ambitious and comprehensive climate change agreement that all nations can embrace.

At Poznan, environment and climate ministers will meet for the first time to chart out a long-term vision of cooperative action. To reach a deal in Copenhagen, we need a clear work-plan with specific goals for reducing emissions and adapting to the adverse effects of climate change. We need an agreed institutional architecture, a serious commitment an Adaptation Fund and, above all, a willingness of both developing and developed nations to do their part. Financing will be key. If developing nations lack the financial resources and technologies to “go green,” we cannot effectively fight climate change.

Wishes do not automatically translate into deeds. But let us be clear: that is what the world’s people want—businesses, investors, governments and citizens’ groups. In fact, it is already happening. The UN Environment Programme estimates that global investment in zero-greenhouse energy will reach $1.9 trillion by 2020—a significant portion of global GDP.

Worldwide, nearly two million people are employed in the new wind and solar power industries, half of them in China alone. Brazil’s biofuels program has been creating nearly a million jobs annually. In Germany, investments in environmental technology is expected to quadruple over the coming years, reaching 16 percent of manufacturing output by 2030 and employing more workers than the automobile industry.

We do not need to await the arrival of new technologies, nor need we worry excessively about the costs of taking action. Studies show that the United States could cut carbon emissions significantly at low or near-zero cost, using existing know-how. For evidence, consider how Denmark has invested heavily in green growth. Since 1980, GDP increased 78 percent with only minimal increases in energy consumption.

For businesses, such savings translate into profits. Poland has cut emissions by a third over the past 17 years, even as its economy boomed. Today, for example, European companies in the green tech sector enjoy substantial “first mover” advantages, accounting for one third of the world’s burgeoning market in environmental technologies.

With the right policies and financial incentives—within a global framework—we can steer economic growth in a low-carbon direction. With the right policies and the right incentives, we can be sure that developed and developing countries alike contribute to the cause of fighting global warming, each in their own way and without compromising every nation’s right to development and the economic well-being of its citizens.

The most forward-looking CEOs know this. That’s one reason why businesspeople in so many parts of the world are demanding clear and consistent policies on climate change—global policies for a global problem. In this regard, let us accept that there are many paths to Rome. In Poznan, and later in Copenhagen, some will seek strict emissions limits.

Others will prefer voluntary targets. Still others will debate the pros and cons of “cap and trade” carbon markets versus taxes and national conservation regulation. Many will call for policies to reduce de-forestation, accounting for roughly a fifth of green-house gas emissions. Investment of $17 billion to $30 billion annually could halve that amount while boosting conservation-related employment in such tropical countries as Indonesia

Alas, we cannot pick and choose. We need all of these approaches. Even more, we will need leadership—enlightened and global perspective, matched by action. Today’s global financial crisis is a wake-up call. It demands fresh thinking. It requires innovative solutions that take into account the larger challenges we face as a global people. It is not an invitation to defer what needs to be done to safeguard our future. We have no more time to lose.

Source: The United Nations website (www.un.org). The article was first published in the 10 November 2008 issue of the France-edition of the International Herald Tribune.

The article was jointly drafted by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen.