You may have realized by now that I am a true fan of Fareed Zakaria, and I try never to miss his program on CNN, called GPS (short for Global Public Square). He has some of the most relevant discourse on cable television, and his guests are usually not going to be found talking to anyone either at CNN or Fox News, which make them valuable.
I was astounded to find Bernard Henri Lévy in today's panel. He's a French Jewish philosopher who has been on the receiving end of death threats by Islamist radicals in Europe. Also present was polemicist Christopher Hitchens (who was recently beaten in Beirut for writing nasty stuff on the walls), Fawaz Gerges, a Lebanese American scholar and author, and Indian-American Muslim journalist, author, and feminist Asra Nomani.
The subject of debate today was how to deal with radical Islam, are we dealing with it the right way, is there a right and wrong way of dealing with it, etc...As a sub-topic, there was also the question of differentiating between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The discussion seemed very timely as we saw Pakistan, this past week, make a deal with the Taliban in the Swat Valley to institute Sharia'h law in return for some 'peace'. Thus, if we had been trying to assuage extremism, this is certainly a step in the wrong direction.
The most passionate arguments came from Henri Lévy and Gerges. Naturally, their views were opposing. One has also to take into account that Henri Lévy's France has nearly six million Muslims, where most feel marginalized; riots and arson are fairly routine in the Parisian suburbs. For him, democracy is the operative word; fundamentalist religion is fine if it is not used to rule society, and condone violence brought upon women and young girls. He advocates separation of church and state. As far as he's concerned, the Swat deal is capitulation to extremism. He does not see a difference between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and he recommended that we (the Americans) tie conditions to the enormous sums of money being thrown at the Pakistani and Afghan governments. Something quite interesting concluded his view: the clash of civilization is not between the West and Islam, but rather between fascist Muslims and moderate Muslims.
Christopher Hitchens was his usual somber, gloom and doom self. Or perhaps he hadn't recovered from his beating. He indicated that there existed a symbiosis between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban (which is not entirely incorrect). To prove the point, he suggested that the Taliban could have turned over Mullah Omar when Bush's government asked for him, and they didn't. Then came the statement that would most likely have Obama cringe: 'Any government that harbors or abets these people, we should make their lives unlivable'. And to the suggestion that these sorts of tactics only serve to create more terrorists, he simply said it was 'nonsense'. Perhaps there is an extra room at Crawford Ranch for this man.
Gerges was visibly annoyed at the idea of promoting yet more violence against the Taliban. He advanced the notion that it was rather al-Qaeda that was waging an all out war on the US and its allies and that the Taliban was absolutely not interested in global jihad. The war in Afghanistan and now Pakistan has played into the hands of the Taliban and is producing the opposite of desired results (which is not entirely incorrect either). He pointed to the relative success in Iraq when America finally figured out the differences in the local factions. The struggle in Afghanistan/Pakistan against the bloody, regressive and reactionary groups must be won by the people of those countries. He reminded the panel that even though Pakistan is allied with the U.S., it also denounces the arbitrary attacks on its people. He pointed out that Al-Qaeda's image has suffered in the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, as it has been denounced by Islam's top clerics. He cited Tantawy as an example.
Nomani's contribution to the discussion was minimal at best, and did not reveal anything extraordinary. She indicated that 'we lost the Swat Valley because of the war'; she also reiterated that most moderate Muslims are under siege, and thus are afraid to speak or go against extremist regimes for fear of reprisal.
Though Zakaria moderated, one could sense that his take was a bit different. He appears to condemn Western military force and intervention. He suggests that perhaps this radicalism accompanied by Sharia'h law could be a phenomenon that can be diminished through education, cultural exchange and political discourse. He also intimates that a distinction needs to be made between Islamic fundamentalists and people who are out to kill us. The man has a point.