Comments on issues raised by BBC WHYS

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced that the Iraqi province of Basra is to be handed over to Iraqi control within two weeks.

The new security measures in Iraq seem to be working. It’s time the Iraqis started to learn to look after their own security. They can’t indefinitely depend on foreign forces to keep their house in order.

Many countries have pulled their troops out of Iraq. Some left in response to terrorist attacks threats. Spain was the only country to withdraw following Madrid bombing attack which left about two 200 deaths and about a thousand injured. Comparatively very few countries are left. Continuous withdrawal or reduction of forces from countries like UK will just put more pressure on the US forces to stay there.

The British seem to have made victorious reduction in their troops. They were defiant of terrorist threats that can happen in UK although some were carried out like July 7^th deadly attacks in London. The British have reduced their forces or handed over areas to the Iraqis after accomplishing their mission and making sure the parts they withdraw from in Iraq are in safe Iraqi hands after training Iraqi forces to cope with security challenges.

The British have been successful in making Basra, relatively, one of the safest parts of Iraq. Casualties there seem minimum compared to Baghdad where thousands have died since 2003. The British can be remembered for having left a clean place that has comparatively suffered less violence.

For Iraq to become a stable country, it needs to pull all its forces, political and religious, for national unity. Having one part secure and another a great risk, especially for the locals, will make Iraq in constant state of trouble and bloodshed.

Christianity may look in decline if congregation attendance is the barometer. But it still inherent even in Western societies. Christmas is still celebrated although it has become for many a shopping and a party occasion. Its messages are still conveyed through the media.
There are preachers who convey their messages through different means. Christian values are still dominant, especially in many African countries. Poor people find their solace in religion. In the West, Christianity is in decline because of the material pursuits. Sunday or the weekend is no longer a time to get near to God but to enjoy the pleasures of the mundane world. In view of the different choices material pursuits offer, Christianity is marginalised. People fall asleep watching TV instead of reading the Bible.

Religion isn’t falling just in Christian countries but in different countries because new lifestyles. While religion is an escape for some, for others it is a set of fetters from which they want to liberate themselves. For those who don’t like “dos” and don’ts” find their comfort in no practising any religion at all. Not to forget those who like to get the best of all religions. The fact that there are new types of religions like Scientology shows many people aren’t against religion but they’re seeking a religion that suits them even if it isn’t revealed to them like Christianity it is the creation of their own spiritual leaning.

Morocco is a country where 99% of the population is considered as Muslim. The number of Jews has fallen to less than 5,000 due to their major exodus after Morocco’s independence and the set of Israel. Now there are more than 800,000 Israelis of Moroccan origins. Jews enjoy in Morocco the highest protections. There were Jewish ministers in the Moroccan government. One of the advisers to the Moroccan King is André Azoulay, a Jew. In Marrakesh, there is a big 500 years old Jewish cemetery in a popular neighborhood. Jews of Moroccan origins who migrated to Israel or another part of the world still hold their Moroccan nationality. They can come back at any time. Many notable Israeli politicians are of Moroccan origin.

Some have erroneous views of Islam and Muslims. They may have developed their views of them from news reports like the teddy bear teacher in Sudan or the Saudi girls sentenced to 200 lashes. In Morocco, there are no such insolent cases. Nobody has ever been beheaded, had his hand cut off or lashed as it is the case in Saudi Arabia. Geographically, Morocco is closer to Europe than to other Muslim countries geographically and culturally. In Morocco, Christians are on best terms with Muslims. There aren’t special districts for them. In Morocco, there is no obligation to show faith in public to be accepted.

The Christians who have established churches in its different Moroccan cities, mainly Casablanca, Rabat and Marrakesh were the French. This essentially happened after French colonialism of Morocco which lasted essentially from 1912 to 1956, a short period in comparison with other African countries like Algeria which was colonised for 130 years (1832 – 1962). France attempted to Christianise the Berbers in Morocco, which it considered of non-Arab origin. But its attempt failed. In Rabat, there is still the outstanding Catholic St Paul’s Cathedral in the city centre. Other churches have closed down after the departure of the French. Very few of them remained operational for a shrinking congregation.

In Morocco, preaching Christianity or for a Moroccan to openly convert to it is punishable by law. There were cases of Moroccan being arrested and imprisoned for propagating this religion. The Bible isn’t on sale or available in libraries although there are books that talk about Christianity or that compares Christianity to Islam. Many Europeans are coming to settle in Morocco, especially in big cities like Marrakesh. But the majority of them don’t practice any religion at all. They lead a secular life. But they are free to practice their faith as long as they don’t ask Moroccan Muslims to convert to Christianity. In a video tape, Al Zawahiri of Al Qaeda asked the Moroccans to attack the Europeans settling in Morocco as he saw them as crusaders. This hasn’t been heeded. The Europeans feel more secure in Morocco as the Moroccans in general have religious tolerance . In Marrakesh old city, the Europeans live side by side with the local inhabitants without any feeling of harassment.

Christians are free to practice their religion. This is to show you that in Morocco there is no animosity between Christians and Muslims. The first visit by a Pope to a Muslim country was by John Paul to Morocco. The former French president Jacques Chirac has settled in Morocco at the end of his presidency. Winston Churchill was one of the great admirers of Marrakesh. In the hotel (La Mamounia) where he used to stay there is still Winston Churchill suite, one of the most expensive ones.

With the Moroccans in their interactions with people of other faiths, especially Christians, there is no sign of religious discrimination. They accept one another.

In the Arab world, one of the category of Christians that suffer most are the Copts in Egypt as they are still viewed as second class citizens. Many feel obliged to hide their religion to get a good job.
In Iraq, it is evident that the Christians can’t feel secure. Under Saddam, they enjoyed full protection. Now with the infiltration of extremists like Al Qaeda, they are easy targets as for them the “Islamisation” of Iraq starts with eradicating the “infidels”.

As long as Christians keep to their religion without interfering in the faith of the others, they shouldn’t be harassed. They have the right to enjoy religious freedom. What makes relations between people of different faiths sour are political influences and ideologies. Christians in Iraq can feel better at home when the political problems are settled. If not, they will continue being a scapegoat for those who seek to attribute to them all the ills they suffer from.

Listen to BBC WHYS show on this topic.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has narrowly lost a referendum on controversial constitutional changes.

Chavez’s defeat is a victory for democracy. His admitting his defeat is an expression of respect for popular will. In his future policy making, he will bear in mind that there is a majority that wants him to rule democratically and that there is another political force in the country whose opinions should be taken into account.

Chavez was seeking to kill democracy in Venezuela by seeking to stand indefinitely in elections. This is an unfair game as through time he will wield more influence across all Venezuela’s institutions. This means his opponents will have little chance to defeat him. Now with his defeat, they won’t have an indefinite new Fidel Castro.

As Chavez failed to have support for his “socialist Revolution” at home, he’s unlikely to get full support for his policy among other neighboring countries, except among his far away ally Iranian president and the dying/aging Fidel Castro. This show that the Venezuelan people don’t easily buy slogans under the banner of revolutionary socialism that means having a president for life. Had Chavez he would wield more influence across all Venezuela’s institutions. This means his opponents would have little chance to defeat him. Anyone opposing him would even be seen as traitor of his “political revolution” aimed at diminishing the influence of “imperialist” USA.

Dictatorship would be the likely outcome of giving Chavez huge power and indefinite terms to rule if he had had the massive support he would use as a weapon to silence anyone calling for power sharing.

It should also be a sigh of relief to the USA which will see his back in 2013. But still it will have to bear with him for the legitimate years he still have in power. At that time, he will be just a veteran politician or he will take a pause to see what he can do in 2019, the time he will surely be older (65 years old) but probably unchanged in his views. In 12 years from now, Venezuela could change during his rule until 2013 and under the rule of his successor. It remains to see if he will have the ability and the authority to have any influence to materialize his view of “Revolutionary Socialism”.

The Democrats are hauling out the celebrities but one appears a lot fresher than the other.

Big stars have a great influence on people’s attitudes, especially when it comes to issues. Just their images attract attention. Oprah Winfrey is likely to appeal to black voters who Obama needs most top boost his chances to be elected as a presidential candidate. Oprah has a great history behind her. She can be the symbol of black success as she is the queen of US media. Her being a great communicator can make her Obama’s mouthpiece across the USA. While Oprah has the power to talk, Barbara Streisand has the power of musically influencing the audience.
What is must be regarded as the side effect of relying on celebrities is that political campaigns become just a mere show where candidates compete to get a galaxy of stars behind them to influence public attitudes. Without fanfares and the candidates’ ability to look a comedian more than a politician makes the voters shun from aspiring ones. Former vice president Al Gore was criticised for looking authoritarian and delivering his speeches with utmost seriousness. George Bush looked more likeable because of his ability to look more relaxed.

But in view of voters’ apathy, all means are sought to attract them to the polling stations. What matters after all is the sincerity of the candidates and their ability to keep their promises. Relying on the media, fanfares and celebrities serve as a warm-up for the voters to take their decisions. The risk is when voters see just the stars and forget about candidates. When they are voting, they have in mind just the like of Oprah and Streisand who simply blind them to cast a kind of vote without having any political conviction why the did it. Politics shouldn’t become just like advertising products and charming customers to buy them. The voters should have more political consciousness. They should be ready to listen to political debates at length and not to be swayed just by slogans and the majestic shows that stir just feeling leaving the mind dormant for a while.