TURKISH Prime Minister Tayyip Urdogan has observed that the ongoing riots in France are a reaction among others to the French Government’s ban on wearing of scarf by Muslim girls. He was also of the view that poverty, unemployment and discrimination against immigrant community were other causes for the unfortunate unrest which continues to spread to other towns across France. Despite French President’s threat to use other coercive measures against the miscreants who have so far torched over 2,000 vehicles, the security forces have so far utterly failed to rein in the rioters.
It is indeed intriguing that whereas France continues to support oppressed nations in their just causes across the globe, back at home Paris has chosen to discriminate against the immigrant community on the basis of religion. The Turkish Prime Minister has rightly underscored the fallacious approach of the French authorities towards a purely cultural behaviour. Muslim girls and women settled in France for decades have been using scarf as a matter of their religious conviction. The use of scarf in no way demonstrates religious fanaticism. The French Government has perhaps gone too far in its war on terror. The scarf adds dignity to a female regardless of her creed. On the contrary, the French authorities feel that wearing of scarf symbolizes extremism and religious fanaticism.
While the angry youth have no right to torch public and private property, it is also not prudent to interfere with the cultural and religious conduct of a particular community. It is just as well that the Union of Islamic Organisation of France has termed the present looting and rioting as repugnant to the teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. However, the Muslim organisation is of the considered view that scarf is beneficial equally for the women in the East and the West. While France is a champion of freedom struggles of the oppressed people in Palestine and other Muslim dominated areas, it has betrayed its bias against Islam. The leaders of both East and the West have claimed that no clash of civilizations exists. However, the riots in France nevertheless belie them. President Pervez Musharraf has of late started criticizing a double standard of the West in regard to latter’s poor response to the monumental tragedy in Pakistan because no foreign nationals were affected. In the case of Tsunami devastation which claimed the lives of thousands of Western tourists holidaying in the tourist resorts of Thailand and Indonesia, the Western nations moved swiftly to rush adequate assistance to the victims. The survivors of the monumental earthquake disaster have not been lucky to receive a fraction of the relief assistance by Europe and the US. The attitude of Americas, Western NGOs and multinationals dominated by the Europeans and Americans towards the quake victims is quite pronounced, one fondly hopes the donors would the West would remove this perception at the forthcoming Donors’ Conference for earthquake victims to be held later this month in Islamabad.

Ambassador’s eye view

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is used to retired ambassadors attacking Britain’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq. A year-and-a-half ago, 45 British ambassadors put their names to a damning letter accusing him and George Bush of making no effective plans for the post-Saddam settlement. At the time the letter caused quite a stir — as it should have; never before had so many senior officials attacked the government on an issue on which they were the experts. But nothing came of the letter: Tony Blair, Britain’s only Teflon prime minister to date, weathered the storm. The British public’s shock was soon dissipated by the trivia of daily life. Now comes a fresh attack from a man who was in the best position possible to know the state of US-British planning at the time. The man — Christopher Meyer — was the British ambassador in Washington until February 2003 and was fully involved in pre-war planning. His accusation that the Iraq invasion was “terminally flawed both in conception and execution” is damning. Even more damning is his accusation that so desperate was the White House for British involvement that Blair could have insisted on a plan for Iraq’s rehabilitation as the price for participation but did nothing. It makes Blair as blinkered and inept as Bush.
It is a pity Meyer did not speak out at the time the other retired ambassadors did rather than waiting until his memoirs were published. That would have been far more effective. As it is, Blair is unlikely to suffer any pangs of guilt or any comeback from public opinion for this latest onslaught. His credibility may appear to be sinking, but is it? It certainly deserves to sink, particularly since, on Monday, Blair was forced to climb down on his plans for new tough anti-terrorism laws and also just after the damaging resignation of a close political colleague forced out of office for a second time on a matter of political propriety. Indeed, the resignation of David Blunkett ought to be devastating: Labor won the 1997 election, not because of its policies but because of public revulsion at Conservat.ive sleaze; Blair promised a government that would be squeaky clean. Instead there has been a succession of ministers departing from office under a cloud because they arrogantly thought they were above the accepted codes of conduct — two of them having to resign twice for that reason. So much for squeaky clean!
Yet — and this is what is so surprising about a country that in many ways has led the way with political probity and integrity — there is every reason to suspect that were Britain to have another election tomorrow, Blair would win it again. The reason is simple: There is no credible opposition in the UK — which is why he won his third consecutive election in May despite widespread opposition to the Iraq invasion. The only serious opposition is outside Parliament, mainly in the media. Were it not for them, there would be even more arrogance and more incompetence than there already are — if one can imagine that. This is true not only of Blair’s Britain, but also of Bush’s America.

—Arab News