Situational ethics

Although Classical Realism and Machiavelli do not require indifference to political ideals and moral principles, but they condone hypocrisy and double standards when dealing with domestic and foreign policy issues. Machiavelli attempts to rationalize this hypocrisy by calling it a distinction between what’s desirable and what’s possible, or as Lincoln contends “distinguishing between official duty in terms of national interest and personal wish in terms of one’s moral values and political principles realized throughout the world” (Kauffman et al, pp. 149)

This double standard approach and the disregard to the less powerful nations’ political and economic interests seem to have characterized the U.S. foreign policy during the last several decades, leading to rise in Anti-Americanism, which in turn provided Islamic fanatics with the fuel they needed to inflict terror and destruction upon the U.S. and promote their ideology of hate across the Muslim world.

After 9/11, U.S. seemed to realize that it has to be mindful of the popular demands for freedom, justice and democracy dominating the world which the U.S. itself championed, and it can no longer apply the same Machiavellian standards in dealing with domestic and foreign affairs in an era of globalization and interconnectedness.

In June 20 of 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a historic speech at the American University in Cairo that seemed to have put an end to “situational ethics” and marked a major U.S. policy shift from political realism to neo-liberalism when she declared that “For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people”

Unfortunately, the hopes for more liberal foreign policy faded away after the rise of political Islam on the wings of democracy, which prompted the U.S. to revert back to its realist views and pursuit stability and security at the expense of democracy by continuing to support authoritarian regimes in the Middle East.

Role of religion in politics and public life

Recent study by the Pew research center indicates the falling support among Americans for the role of religion in politics and draws a distinction between secular Europe and religions America. There are two separate issues; the role of religion in public life, and the role of religion in politics.

In my previous post, I did not suggest that most Americans believe religion should have a bigger role in politics, because clearly that is not what the public opinion is heading, according to Pew forum. My argument was that among the majority of individuals across the world, religion is gradually taking bigger role in their public life. By majority, I meant most of people in Asia and the Middle East who represent more than two thirds of the world population. My statement was a reflection of opinions and subjective observations circulating in foreign literature, however, I could not find objective data to support it, and it is subject to scrutiny.

Furthermore, on the issue of role of religion in public life most recent data show that Americans are equally divided, although the rise of religious issues to the center of debate in the U.S. is an indication of what could be an impending shift in the public opinion in favor of more assertive role for religion. Issues like stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, school prayers and the display of the Ten Commitments on government property, are all becoming of huge public interest that is even reshaping our political discourse.

Nonetheless, we ought to define exactly what do we mean by “religion” when we ask these questions. If by religion we mean invoking the scriptural interpretations of the Bible and sectarian religious ideology into political life, then I believe that would be a violation of the Bill of Rights which declared that “the legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” which was later expressed by Thomas Jefferson in 1785 in his infamous “wall of separation between church and state. However, if by “religion” we mean the moral values and traditions that strengthen the society social fabric and the commitment to family and equitable justice, then I believe that current trend in the U.S public opinion favor that role by religion.

Should the U.S. be contained or balanced?

Despite of its unrivaled power after the World War II and then the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the United States has not only used its power responsibly but also helped create and participate in a range of international institutions that constrained its actions. The United States also introduced the fundamental liberal principles into the rules and regulations of the international society including democracy, global free trade, liberty and equality (Balyis et al pp. 116-117).

However, the U.S invasion of Iraq and the war on terror have raised concerns throughout the world about what is considered an unrestrained use of power by the United States, seen as a result of disturbance in the balance of power after the collapse of the USSR.

Liberals in general believe that U.S. power should be restrained and embedded into the international system as the most effective and acceptable way of exercising global hegemony. Most realists believe that other great powers would in time emerge to the balance the United States (Balyis et al, pp 76)

In his fascinating book “The Post-American World”, Fareed Zakaria explains eloquently that the real challenge for the future of American power is not its own decline but rather the rise of the rest. Zakaria predicts the power of the U.S. will ultimately be balanced by new rising nations and that the U.S. will face a choice of whether it stabilizes the world order by accepting a world with a diversity of voices and viewpoints. Or it can watch the world it helped to build over last 60 years to be slowly torn apart by greater nationalism, diffusion, and disintegration.

The integration of worldwide economy and the intensifying interdependence have made it almost impossible for a single country to stall the emergence of new political actors and regaining the balance of power. Baylis et al explain how countries like Britain in 1992 was forced to abandon its economic strategies to adjust to new global market realities, adding that no government even the most powerful has the resources to resist sustained speculations against its currency and thereby the credibility of its economic policy. (Balyis et al, pp. 16)

Unlike the downfall of the British superpower trigged by its economic failures, the largest challenges facing the U.S. and seem to be undermining its hegemony are political rather than economic. Fareed Zakaria explains that although the economic problems in the U.S. today are real, but different policies can quickly put the economy back on track, however, the U.S. political system is dysfunctional and unable to make simple reforms that can secure the country’s future. He argues that Washington seems largely unaware of the new world rising around it and shows few signs of being able to reorient its policies for the new age (The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria)

In another word, and as Morgenthau puts it—the structure of the international relations in U.S foreign policy is irrelevant to the reality of international politics. The incompatibility between both will cause unmanageability of international relations and anarchy (Kauffman et al, pp. 148-149)

Therefore, I do not think the U.S. has a choice whether to allow other balancing powers to take its place at the helm, and should not resist it. A world in which the United States takes up less space, but is one in which the American ideas and ideals are overwhelmingly dominant, is a lot more stable than a world in which the U.S. is a superpower but Anti-Americanism is fueling hate and violence and making America less secure.

Muslim Brotherhood wants “scientific conference” before deciding to stand up against terrorism!

The chief of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) political bureau, Dr. Mohamed Morsi issued a statement posted on the MB official English website, Ikhwanweb, on the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Dr. Morsi accused the U.S. of “irrational behavior” and rushing to wars before any “meaningful probe into the attacks” and adding that the MB “demanded fair trial for the 9/11 suspects and the issuance of a detailed scientific report about the attacks, but the U.S. administration did not respond till now”

The U.S. government has independently investigated the events leading to the 9/11 and the 9/11 commission report was released on November 2004 and took over two years to prepare. The report was issued by the National Commission on Terrorism Attacks Upon the US. The commission interviewed over 1200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over a half million pages of documents before it issues its final report.

As far as “fair trial” I believe Khaled Sheikh Mohamed and Ramzi bin al Shibh are currently on trial in U.S. courts and have attorneys appointed to defend their case paid for by taxpayers money!. I don’t know of any Islamic country that would put those who admittedly killed nearly 3000 of its innocent citizens on trial—their most likely fate would have been public beheading without trial.

The MB leader also suggested that the U.S holds “huge scientific conference” to analyze the 9/11 attacks, and should this happen the MB “will stand firmly against whoever committed this horrific crimes against innocent civilians” according to the website, which suggests that MB has not done that so far!

It is interesting how Dr. Morsi used the word “terrorism” only when describing the U.S. actions as “it [U.S.] assaulted entire nations and peoples without any evidence”. However, he stopped short from calling the 9/11 attacks terrorism—describing it as “horrific crimes”

MB did not of course forget to add its usual rhetoric to the statement by condemning the “zionist lobby” and its influence on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, which he warned will increase the anti-American sentiments and will harm the American people and spread hatred against them!

The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest political movements in the Islamic world that operates within religious framework. In Egypt, the MB enjoys wide support and recently won 20% of parliament seats representing the biggest opposition bloc in parliament.

Globalization and imperialism

Critics of contemporary globalization, mainly Marxists theorists, argue it is latest phase of Western imperialism and it is a tool used by the West to impose new form of hegemony disguised in economic, humanitarian and democratization projects to control the wealth and resources of the less advantaged countries outside a central triad (U.S., Western Europe, and Japan) which comprises only %20 of the world population but benefited the most from a system where globalization only applies to the developed world, as Balyis et al argue

Moreover, Samir Amin in 2001 contends that the ideological discourse of this new phase of imperialism is now founded on a “duty to intervene” that is supposedly justified by the defense of “democracy” the “rights of peoples” and “humanitarianism” but it is designed to ensure the West’s absolute hegemony by a show of military might that will consolidate behind it all the other partners in the triad (Samir Amin: Imperialism and globalization, Independent Socialist Magazine, Jun2001, Vol. 53, Issue 2, pp.10)

Alexander Anievas adds that the world since September 11 is witnessing return to an era of “inter-imperialist rivalries” especially after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (Cambridge Review of International Affairs, volume 19, June 2006)

However, Ray Kiely in 2006 explains that the current era is one of greater openness and international integration than the pre-1914 era, and there is far greater cooperation between the core capitalist states, as well as sovereign states in the developing world (United States hegemony and globalization: what role for theories of imperialism?, Cambridge review, June 2006)

Those who consider globalization a triumph for the Western, market-led values across the world stop could not explain the economic success that some national economies in Asia like Malaysia, Taiwan, Singapore and Korea—known as Tigers’ of Asia—have had but meanwhile rejecting Western values.

Baylis et al argue that if these continue to follow their path towards modernization and economic prosperity while withstanding complete cultural take over by the West, then we must anticipate future disputes between “Western” and “Asian” values over issues like human rights, gender, and religion (Balyis et al, pp. 11)

To what extent can certain countries preserve their cultural identity, religious traditions and heritage in face of an enormous and merciless global economy and the tsunami of new ideas, values and technologies that fascinated people around the world— especially conservative nations across the Middle East and Asia—but meanwhile triggered fears of an imminent “clash of civilization” along geo-cultural fault lines as described by Huntington in 1996.

The September 11 attacks and the “Tigers of Asia” in addition to United Arab of Emirates, represent two competing examples of how the non-Western world might respond to globalization. While some countries and cultures were able to achieve economic success and progress and be part of global economy while adhering to its values and preserving its identity, on the other hand some of those in the Muslim world who rejected globalization as the latest stage of Western imperialism and hegemony undertook the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon which they considered the symbols of Western power and hegemony.

Mehdi Parvizi Amineh argues in 2007 that Huntington’s actual fault lines are socio-economic not geo-cultural, and that conflicts in today’s world do not take place between cultures but within them. Those societies that are more successful in adapting to the challenges of modernity show a relatively stronger capacity to cope with the growing complexity of political and cultural pluralism (The challenges of modernity: the case of political Islam, PGDT 6 (2007).

Democracy Vs. Apathy

We often talk about the U.S. backtracking on democracy promotion in the Middle East and its abandoning of reformers in the region, however, it remains unclear to me as to what precisely Egyptians would like the U.S to do to help bring democracy to their country. Quite frankly, I don’t think Egyptians themselves have a clear answer to that question.

Ask any member of the opposition whether Islamist, liberal or leftist about U.S. role and they will immediately declare their rejection of any meddling by the U.S. in Egypt’s internal affairs, even refusing any pressure on the Egyptian regime from nationalist stand point. On the other hand, when the U.S. decide not to intervene in Egypt’s domestic affairs the same opposition cries out loud for its alleged backtracking on democracy and keeping blind eye the Egyptian government practices.

The truth of the matter is that Egyptians themselves are to be blamed for the crisis their country is facing right now mainly because of their political apathy and their worship of their rulers, something Egyptians are known for since the ancient days of the Pharos. Throughout history Egyptians have never revolted against their rulers and will never do no matter how corrupt and unjust they can get. It is the exactly the same overly forgiving , laid back, unconfrontational and apathetic nature of Egyptians that stands today a major obstacle in their way to attain freedom and democracy.

In a country that 60% of its people are illiterate and more than 45% earn less than $2 per day, it is almost impossible to mobilize them for the sake of democracy or human rights- they could care less. The average Egyptian is struggling to put bread on the table for his/her children and they can be beaten day and night by their heavy handed police forces and will not move a finger in protest. They’re prone to fear the government- typical feeling for those who are living in police state.

All the voices of reform you listed- journalists, moderate Islamists, judges, liberal opposition, bloggers, constitute small portion of the patriotic and educated elite and who are unable, so far, to mobilize the masses because simply politics is not the center of their attention- they are struggling to make living.
What does the U.S. have to do with this? And why should we get involved if the people themselves prefer the status quo!

When thousands of the people in Ukraine (population of 48 millions) took to the streets in 2004 protesting against their corrupt government forcing it to resign in what became known as the “Orange revolution” they did it by themselves and did not sit around waiting for the U.S. to rescue them.

I find it hard to believe that the 2 Billion dollars the U.S. give to Egypt in aid every year is the main reason responsible for keeping the Egyptian regime in power against the will of its own people. If Egyptians rise up against tyranny and corruption and demand change and democracy the U.S. will never object or intervene to save the regime or suppress the people.
Egyptians themselves are confused, divided and unwilling to change, so why bother!

Diplomacy discussions, week 1 & 2

Are International Relations (IR) a science or an art?

I believe that contemporary international relations (relations between nation-states) are indeed an art crafted based on evidence that is derived from science; therefore International relations ought to be considered both an art and science. The application of evidence-based scientific prescriptive formulas setting forth ways of how states should behave requires an art that puts into perspective the cultural, religious and societal differences among nation-states and civilizations when deciding which “color to paint to world politics with”, as phrased by Baylis et al pp.4

The world has endured major transformations throughout the twentieth century which witnessed two global industrialized wars, decolonization of European empires, and the end of the cold war. The traditional philosophical theories of world politics seemed inadequate to better explain and deal with the challenges and intellectual complexities of a new globalized world.

Thus, a new approach to international relations has emerged utilizing to a greater extent the comparative study of quantitative data and reinforced by the rise of analytical and quantitative research concepts, models and methods in order to look for pattern of behavior and for probabilities that certain behavior would occur (Russett & Starr, pp 17-18)

What is the value of studying International Relations from a theoritical perspective?

Studying International Relations (IR) from theoretical perspective enables us to understand how a complex world works and helps us determine which things matter and which don’t when dealing with the dynamic and ambiguous nature of the post-Cold-War international environment.

In their chapter “How do we think about world politics” Russett & Starr defines theory as an intellectual tool that provides us with a way to organize the complexity of the world and order facts into data (Kauffman et al, pp 19). Similarly, Smith defines theory as a kind of simplifying device that allows us to decide which facts matter and which do not (Balyis et al, pp.4)

Yet, many scholars doubt the ability of the four dominant theories in IR to meet challenges and the dynamics that underline global politics. Therefore, a fifth debate has emerged intersecting traditional theories with the Complexity Theory (CT) which found its way into social science soon after its development in the natural science (Emilian Kavalski: Emergence of complex international relations theory. Cambridge Review, Sept. 2007, pp 437). Retrieved [September 8, 2008], [EBSCO host, Norwich]

Being theoretical means to be able to describe our world and explain policy decisions we make, as well as having the ability to predict events and prescribe solutions for the world’s challenges in a systematic fashion, as Kauffman et al explain in their analysis of the four primary tools of IR to measure against events (Kauffman et al, pp.1-2)

Do you agree with Rosenau that “to think theoretically one must be constantly ready to be proven wrong.”

Yes, I do agree with Rosenau that when thinking theoretically one must be constantly ready to be proven wrong. Since theory is a science—all relevant data pertaining to the theory in question including hypotheses, research methods and analysis must be laid out and scrutinized in order to determine the validity of its conclusions. Critiquing a theory and testing its hypothesis in systematic approach will uncover any possible flaws that might prove it to be wrong; such process highlights the hallmark of science.

Russet & Starr also explain that unlike clinical or laboratory experiments, in social science we simply cannot conduct a real-life experiment, therefore we depend on “thinking experiment” based on rigorous empirical data on the case we are discussing (Kauffman et al, pp.23). One major challenge is the complexity of human behavior and individual relations within a society, with many different factors influencing the probabilities of an event, and our knowledge of these complex phenomena is still so imperfect (Kauffman et al, pp. 21)

This complexity could be paramount when policy makers have to make decisions dealing with unfamiliar cultures where values, traditions, religion and history have to be taken into perspective. A vivid example is when the U.S invaded Iraq in 2003 and hypnotized that Iraqis would welcome U.S soldiers who came to topple Saddam Hussein and his authoritarian regime. The next thing we know is an insurgency that dramatically changed the war tactics and expectations. War strategists failed to carefully examine and recognize the complexity of Iraqi society where religious teachings and tribal values prohibiting aiding foreign occupation transcend political disagreements.

How is the state power measured?

According to David Armstrong, in modern international society, state power lies in its ability to establish centralized and efficient military power, in addition to other elements which include professional diplomatic service and an ability to manipulate the balance of power (Balyis, et al (Ed.), 5th ed., pp.44)

Although Armstrong emphasizes the state political power, I believe that in today’s world where globalization is the main international actor, a state power is more inclusive and can be mainly measured by the strength of its national economy and its ability to maintain its sovereignty and identity while competing in an open and free market. State power also can be measured by the abundance of its natural resources, the coherence of its social structure, and the level of freedom and equality its citizens enjoy.

Stopford and Strange in 1991 echoed similar meaning when they concluded that states were manifestly less interested in the acquisition of territory than in the pursuit of wealth for the national economy: "national choices of industrial policy and efficiency in economic management are beginning to override choices of foreign or defense policy as the primary influences on how resources are allocated" (Geoffrey R.D. Underhill (2000, March). Gobal economy and the decline of state power. Working paper. pp.4) Retrieved [September, 3, 2008) from [Ciao]

Measuring the power of the state by its ability to serve its best interests and resorting to the carrot and stick policies in dealing with other nation-states can be viewed as selfish, and imply a form of state supremacy which can be best described as a realist view of world politics (more accurately for realists international politics), which will eventually lead to struggle for power between states each trying to maximize their national interests, according to Balyis et al, pp. 5
Balyis also argue within this realist scheme, states must ultimately rely on its own military resources to achieve their ends and the potential for conflict is ever present.

Moreover, the definition of what exactly represent a national interest can vary from one political party to the other, and therefore the measure of the state power can be subjective based on which party is in power.

Most of the problems that we are encountering in the world today are caused by the desire and active pursuit of states to influence others. And if we expand this statement by including non-state actors like organizations and groups, we will actually get to the cause of the core problems the world is facing today ranging from wars to terrorism and their repercussions on global economy.

States should not attempt to influence others whether utilizing their soft or hard power, rather focus on achieving prosperity to its citizens and make a good example for other states to follow if they themselves deem suitable based on their cultural and religious values.

Huntington’s assumption in 1996 that Western and non-Western values are simply incompatible is true to a large extent especially when it comes to social values and religious beliefs, much as Christianity and Islam interacted in the Middle Ages. Huntington’s warning of an imminent clash civilization could be understood based on the desire by one culture to influence the other.

Hurrell argues the need to develop globally institutionalized political process in which norms and rules can be negotiated on the basis of dialogue and consent, rather than simply imposed by the most powerful (Balyis et al, pp. 50-51)

Is globalization an actor, which implies that it can accomplish things? Or is it a condition that has an effect?

Globalization is a much disputed term in itself, however analysts at least agree that it describes a one-world system where all actors have to play by the same economic rules. (Balyes et al pp. 75). Prahalad in 2007 described globalization like gravity: there is no point denying its existence. So, although we still cannot agree on what exactly that can best define globalization, but we have seen its impact on humankind and its accomplishments in the twentieth century.

Isn't the abundance of natural resources one of the strengths of a state, more like capital that can be put to good use during financial hardships than a true measure of power? For the coherence of social structure and level of freedom and equality of its citizens, I think those are actually things that are measures of a country's development, rather than the power they can bring to bear on a given situation. Although resources, development, freedom and equality are important, how does a state accomplish its international goals?

I agree that the abundance of natural resources is one of the strengths of a state, and I also agree with her that the coherence of its social structure and the level of freedom and equality of its citizens could be a measure of a country’s development. However, I consider that a nation’s economic strength and its social and political development are indeed some of the aspects of its power, and they’re things that we should be able to use to measure a state power.

I believe that a powerful state is the one that has strong economy, stable political environment, a free society, strong social structure and a powerful military power that can deter the enemies of the state from threatening its prosperity. This argument actually raises a fundamental question of how do we actually define state power?

What is globalization? How does it combine elements of politics, economics, culture, society, and more besides? What does it mean to speak of the "globalization of world politics"?

Globalization simply means a “shrinking world”. The massive advances in global communications, transport and informatics technologies over the past several decades have created worldwide interconnectedness causing transnational spread of ideas, cultures and information in an accelerating pace. The result is a world that became a single social space with global tendency evident in all sectors including economic, military, legal, ecological, cultural and social aspects (Balyis et al, pp. 16-21)

However, globalization is also complex process; it is asymmetrical (not uniformly experienced across all regions), and multidimensional (patterns of economic and cultural globalizations are not identical) (Balyis et al, pp22)

Globalization represents a conceptual shift in the way we think about global politics. It transformed politics from the state-centric geopolitics and the struggle for power to an era where states are becoming embedded in an overlapping web of a Global Governing Complex within which interests are articulated, decisions are made and policies are conducted through transnational political process (Balyis et al, pp24-25)

Within this global governance complex civil society or private and non-governmental agencies have become increasingly influential in the formulation and implementation of global public policy, and in some cases exercising political power across national boundaries and undermining the state authority (Balyis et al, pp.26-27). Thus, contemporary globalization although did not abolish but has shaken and transformed the very basic covenants of the Westphalian constitution (territoriality, state sovereignty and autonomy) which established the legal basis of modern statehood (Balyis et al, pp. 23-24)

American Muslims–Shed the Cynicism and Get Engaged

By Parvez Ahmed
Muslim Media Network

I was there. One of the 84,000 at Invesco Field witnessing history. The day and the moment were as inspiring as it was profound. As the chants of “yes we can” reverberated through the stadium, they re-ignited feelings of optimism about America’s future, which in the last eight years had been jaded by the politics of fear and divisiveness. Perhaps no group has been more vilified and continues to bear the brunt of this politics of fear than Muslims and Arabs.

Seated next to me at Invesco was Mazen Asbahi, the Chicago attorney who was appointed as national coordinator for American Muslim and Arab outreach by the Obama campaign. Mazen lasted only a few weeks. His resignation came in the wake of discredited websites spuriously alleging his links to an imam (Muslim spiritual leader) and that imam’s links to the Muslim Brotherhood, a socio-political, albeit often controversial, movement that originated in Egypt.

Mazen resigned not because he did anything wrong but simply because he put his country first. He understood the importance of this election and did not want smears to distract the American public from failing to heed Obama’s message of change. He firmly believes that Obama will restore America’s respect abroad while addressing many of the pressing issues of our time from the economy to global warming.

In Mazen’s story is a lesson for all Americans. The first lesson is for those who fail to stand up to the merchants of fear. The American public and the mainstream media need to realize that there is a well coordinated effort to discredit promising American Muslims and thus marginalize the American Muslim community. These thugs of bigotry feed on ignorance and fear of the unknown. Not standing up to these bigots is not only un-American, but also leads to bad policy.
Although the Obama campaign never asked Mazen to resign, the perception remains that the campaign did not stand-up and challenge the underlying bigotry that led to his unfortunate departure. Obama was correct in denying that he was a Muslim, but in addition he should have added a Seinfeld moment by simply asserting, “Not that there’s anything wrong with it (being a Muslim).”

The second lesson is for American Muslims. Community organizers are reporting a lack of enthusiasm in the Muslim community’s support for Obama. Standing at the crossroads where history is being shaped, the American Muslim community must not backslide into the familiar comforts of cynicism. Despite the hurt that the Muslim community feels and the scorns they bear they need to look beyond their immediate discomfort to what serves America and the world best. Instead of the all too familiar horse-trading that special interest group’s engage-in, the American Muslim community needs to transcend their disappointments and look to the future and take into account the seriousness of the issues at stake in this election: the rule of law, war and peace, economic justice, education and health care. They must understand that an Obama presidency will not be perfect (no presidency ever is), but a John McCain presidency will only be worse. McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin reinforces the perception that McCain lacks both judgment and temperament. We had enough with one decider who makes decisions from the gut. We can ill-afford another.

Beyond the emotions, objectively is there any doubt that from economic policy to environmental stewardship, Obama offers superior solutions? Is it not plainly obvious that Obama prefers diplomacy over war? In Denver he clearly stated that the decision to commit our nation to war can only be made in the face of a clear and present danger and not in the pursuit of some ideological utopia. Is it not refreshing to hear Obama’s view that hearts and minds in the Muslim world can be won over by sustained American engagement in improving the lives of those affected by years of war and neglect? Yes not all is palatable in Obama’s position, especially his appeasement of the pro-Israeli lobby. But if Muslims define an Obama presidency by the one issue of Israel then they are as guilty of being parochial as AIPAC and ADL (major pro-Israeli organizations), which often ignore all other realities in their blind and obsessive defense of Israel.
Undoubtedly American Muslim participation this election cycle is at record highs. However, given the closeness of the race and the enormity of its consequences, the community will have to provide all hands on deck to make sure that the right candidate gets elected.

Muslims cannot repeat the mistakes of the past when major American Muslim organizations hastily endorsed George Bush over the objections of African American Muslims, the largest sub-group in the community. Nor can they tread the path of 2004 when they gave a “qualified endorsement” to John Kerry, which understandably dampened Muslim enthusiasm at the polls.
Back to Mazen. He has every reason to sulk because he was unfairly “swift-boated.” Yet he remains optimistic and enthusiastically chugs along (although not officially part of the campaign). Throughout the evening in Denver while remaining fully cognizant of the historicity of the moment, Mazen did not waste any time and kept furiously working his Blackberry making phone calls and texting friends urging them to support Obama and in the process hoping to contribute to the transformation of American politics.

Just as Mazen looks beyond the dirty politics he fell victim to, so should American Muslims look beyond the flaws of the Obama campaign and take into consideration the bigger picture.
The time has come for American Muslims to demonstrably show that they can make the necessary contributions to return American politics to be once again get rooted in the universal values of peace, liberty and justice for all. It is time for the Muslim community to join the growing legions of fellow Americans who are inspired by hope and powered by a sense of optimism that things can and do change. Change does not come from just wishing for it. The way forward is clearly indicated in the Quran, “God does not change the condition of a people unless they change that which is within themselves.”

[Parvez Ahmed is Associate Professor at University of North Florida.]