Article: America's War against Terrorism vs. War against Islam: The Voice of Amb. Mary Ann Peters

While surfing the TV channels a few nights ago, I was drawn to the Fox News channel as it flashed the word "Bangladesh". During the next two minutes, the Fox News reporter talked about Bangladesh as it appeared on a report on Time magazine, adding the statement from Mary Ann Peters, US Ambassador to Bangladesh, who repudiated and dismissed the report. Bertil Lintner's April 2002 cover story on Far Eastern Economic Review thrusted Bangladesh into the international limelight as a next potential hotbed for Muslim militants. It is now receiving further international coverage as the story has been picked up by Wall Street Journal a few months ago, and by Time magazine recently.

While it might be a concern for America and others if Bangladesh were to turn into a hotbed of radical and militant fringe of Islam, it would undoubtedly be a grave concern for Bangladesh, as well. No one has greater interest in this matter than the people of Bangladesh, and no one has greater culpability than the government of Bangladesh. The government has strongly protested the Time report. People of Bangladesh, I presume, are also deeply gratified by the comments of Ms. Peters.

I had the opportunity to personally meet Ms. Peters at ISNA's "Islam in America" conference earlier this year, held in Chicago, where she was the keynote speaker. During that conference she privately met with a few leading Bangladeshi expatriate Muslims. She appeared convincingly knowledgeable about Bangladesh and its people, and also expressed strong interest about the expatriate Bangladeshi community here in the US.

Both in her keynote address and face-to-face meeting, Ms. Peters came across as very cordial and warm about Bangladesh, but she was also candid and poignant about certain pertinent issues. As part of the American diplomatic core, she seemed knowledgeable about terrorist activities and the anti-Americanism in many parts of the world. She also concurred about the need for vigilance by the Muslims against such fanaticism and fringe groups.

While she deserves much appreciation by Bangladesh, it seems only reasonable to speculate that her public repudiation of the Time's report might just be part of her job. Does anyone really believe that she is inadequately vigilant in her job or simply ignorant about the situation, but she is doing a favor to Bangladesh for reasons not so clear? If Ms. Peters has any information or corroboration of terrorist activities in Bangladesh, based on U.S. intelligence, does anyone expect her to speak to the contrary?

She also seems to be endeavoring to build some bridges. A vast majority of Muslims in Bangladesh and around the Muslim world would unhesitatingly be against terrorism and hurting others, especially unarmed civilians. Regardless, American foreign policy often strongly alienates Muslims. American Muslims cast almost a block vote for President Bush. Yet, Muslims in America have been on a roller coaster ride since 091101 in regard to their identity, status, and safety.

There looms a greater concern in the Muslim world that, under the cloak of a war against terrorism, another war might be brewing, which is directed against Islam and Muslims. The world remembers that George Bush originally dubbed this war as a new Crusade, which, as Robert Parry points out, "has a European connotation of chivalrous knights in shining armor driving the infidels out of the Holy Lands, but conjures up very different memories in the Islamic world, of a bloody Christian holy war against Arabs. In 1099, for instance, the Crusaders massacred many of the inhabitants of Jerusalem." ["Bush's Crusade", in Consortium News, September 25, 2001] As an astute politician, Bush quickly recognized his blunder and moved away from the Crusade label. However, many of the conservative loyalists have mounted a new campaign to directly vilify Islam, and even the Prophet Muhammad is one of their core targets.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter proposed forcible conversion of Muslims, adding: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, a conservative magazine, called for dropping a "dirty bomb" or even a nuclear one on Mecca. Apparently, "judging from the e-mail he's received, there's 'lots of sentiment for nuking Mecca', which in his view would send a signal." [Jeremy Lott, "That's Rich," in The Prospect, March 11, 2002]

Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of well known Rev. Billy Graham, directly attacked Islam. In his view, "Muslims are evil." In an NBC News interview, he commented: "The God of Islam is not the same God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."

At the 2002annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention Jerry Vines, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Fla., declared that Muhammad was a "demon-possessed pedophile" and that Islam teaches the destruction of all non-Muslims. [CBS News, 10/11/2002]

Not to be outdone, another loyal conservative Evangelist, Rev. Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, remarked during a CBS 60 Minutes interview: "I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and - non-Muslims, (to know) that he was a violent man, a man of war."

Newly rehabilitated Rev. Jimmy Swaggart called for expelling all Muslim students on student visa, and the leader of 700 Club, Rev. Pat Roberson identified Islam as anti-Semitic and commented: "This is worse than Nazis." [Washington Times, November 22, 2002]

Even though some of them have subsequently offered public apology, theirs are not isolated voices. Notably, these public figures claim to do God's work and regard themselves as men of God. After the initial slip, Bush has been trying to steer clear of the Crusade mode in any rhetoric, but his loyal conservative circle keeps him and his administration under constant pressure. While Bush may not be politically too cozy with the word Crusade, he can't afford to be even minimally cozy with Muslims or Islam.

In reality, it seems that America's war against terrorism might be gradually mutating into a war against Islam. That is a rather strong perception among the Muslims, at any rate, and the posturing of the U.S. administration and certain vested interests lends little help. This is where Ms. Peters may stand apart from the establishment crowd, because it is possible that she personally views America's war as against terrorism, not Islam and Muslims. While the zealous evangelists and the Islamophobic establishment are constantly ringing the alarm about Islam and Muslims and demonizing the Mullahs or the religious establishment in the Muslim societies, she is proactively staging dialogs with the same religious circles. May be her philosophy is that the respect and graciousness one offers to the religious establishment might elicit some reciprocity. May be an opportunity to listen to them would usher in some reciprocity so that they would be amenable to what she has to say, as a representative of America. Maybe there is some wisdom in the approach that insult, disdain, and demonization are only matched by the same in return, and so are grace, respect, and courtesy.

However, Bangladesh must not count on Ms. Peters either to do its PR work or to escape the probability that, given its alarming domestic law and order problem, it could be susceptible to serving as a hub for some radical, militant fringe groups.

Bangladeshi government ought to take adequate measures so that the country does not become a hotbed for such groups. There is no room for complacency. Presence of al-Qaeda-type extremist forces notwithstanding, Bangladesh is a focus of serious and relentless campaign against her peace and sovereignty, due to both internal and external reasons. Internally, the 4-party alliance that came to power has been a thorn in the eyes of many. More than anything, it is an anti-Awami League alliance. However, it consists of Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamically-oriented force to reckon with, and also Islami Oiykko Jote, a potpourri of traditional-orthodox Islamic groups. This change of political landscape has merited major attention to Bangladesh. The political force that lost election in October 2001 has been part of the campaign against Bangladesh, to first label Bangladesh as a fundamentalist country and then to draw up the image that it has become hotbed of al-Qaeda-type networks.

The political changes in Bangladesh coincide with the political changes in India, where the extremist fundamentalist groups now have the grip on power, and aspiring further--to emerge as regional superpowers. In the context of 9/11,some misguided activists may now feel that, if anyone could just allege that a nation or group enjoys a covert al-Qaeda link, thus catapulting it to the spotlight for America's campaign of War against Terrorism, then America would take care of their communal grievances.

The reality may not be so simple. While it is one thing for the Bangladeshi Government to deny the existence of al-Qaeda-type forces, it is completely another to ensure that they really do not exist. Whether under the former or the current regime, the civilian government infrastructure has proven to be a dismal failure. That the current government had to call in the military is an indisputable testimony to that failure. Therefore, Bangladesh faces a much bigger challenge. The real solution lies with the leadership, both in the government and the opposition, as well as with the people of Bangladesh. Those from the outside can also help the country by not simply misportraying or maligning it. Terrorism that wrongfully targets civilians is a menace to not just any particular country but to the entire humanity. There ought to be a common front against such terrorism, and Bangladesh can and must be a partner to such front. The challenge is that such a front can't be built over the bedrock of a War against Islam, but it can become united over a War against terrorism that targets terrorism sincerely, seeking its holistic solutions.

The voice and role of Mary Ann Peters seem to prefer the argument that it is not a War against Islam. Yet, just like the Bangladeshi government is sending a mixed message to the world due to its poor handling of many domestic issues, the American government in general is also sending a mixed message to the world - whether the war is against Islam/Muslims or against terrorism. Working as a common front, we all need to contribute our fair shares--to our common cause of humanity.

Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters
Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters Ambassador Mary Ann Peters