Barack Obama and Islam

During my recent trip in Kenya, I spent some days with Barack Obama’s family in Western Kenya, especially with his grandmother Sarah and his uncle Said.

Both of them are muslim.

Obama’s roots are clearly muslim.

But when asked about Barack’s religious background, Sarah and Said become almost nervous, saying : ‘it’s not what you think. We are not this kind of muslims that is depicted in the media. We are not fanatic at all.’
And Barack’s father ? ‘Ok, he was a muslim, but I swear he never practiced !’
And himself ?  ‘His father was a muslim, but on the day he was born, he decided to make him a christian, because in Kenya it’s more difficult to get a job when you’re muslim’, a cousin explains.

I personaly do not consider that it is a problem to have a muslim as a candidate for the US presidency.

The main problem is that, because of a nauseous campaign, this candidate has to hide his religious origins and to assure that he –indeed- converted to christianism to have a chance to be elected.
It is shameful for America that someone is denied the right to be proud of its origins to be given the opportunity to become a leader.

Back from Kenya

I just completed a two-week trip to Kenya. I crossed the country, traveling especially through the war torn central Rift valley. From Nairobi to Naivasha, from Nakuru to Eldoret and then to Kisumu, I have seen both sides of the conflict. A very sad story indeed. It’s impressive to witness the birth of a virtual civil war.

I have seen killers on both sides. Heard many lies too. And met victims on both sides as well. The responsability of Kenyan politicians is huge in the killings.

Why these ethnic clashes ? Basically, they are the legacy of the British colonization. The land issue is a time bomb that was never diffused.

But it shows as well the failure of Kenyans to establish a real political system, based on actual politics, i.e. debates on ideas, and not on tribalism. To make it short, the Kenyan president, Mwai Kibaki, was fraudulously reelected and stick to power to keep his priviledges (and the Kikuyu tribe he belongs to is quite ready to fight to keep the advantages awarded by this presidency). On the other hand, Luo and Kalenjin tribe members, whose candidate Raila Odinga was probably the winner of the last polls, kill their opponents in order to get their share of power.

This is also the result of a high pressure on land and ressources in this country where the birth rate is still very high, with streets crowding with children.

What could be the solution ? The only way out seems to be a local way to go beyond tribalism. The share of power proposed by the African Union mediator Kofi Annan is not satisfying, because it would mainly lead to a ‘two tribes’ system. Actual political parties, and not tribes, must be the players.

But the Africans must find their own way out of tribalism.

Two conflicts, two treatments

In Congo, governement negociators and rebel groups just reached an agreement to end fightings in the east – an undercovered sequel of the 1994 Rwandan genocide in this region rich with natural resources.
This deal is announced as a survey, published by the aid group International Rescue Committee (IRC) and carried out with the Australian Burnet Institute, reveals that this conflict claimed 45,000 lives every month. By killing in total 5.4 millions Congolese since 1998, it appeared to be a more lethal war than any other since World War Two.

And even if the fightings stop, life is still alarmingly precarious in Congo, with only 15$ per capita available every year for health care (compared to 6.000 $ in the US).

On the same continent, Darfur is still attracting pop stars. Just a couple of days after being appointed «messenger of peace» for the UN, George Clooney travelled to Chad to campaign against Sudan and the Janjaweed militiamen.

According to international experts, 200,000 have died because of the conflict in Darfur and 2.5 millions have been driven out from their home.
Of course, this is a tragedy and these are figures that the world can not accept. No excuses for those who kill in Darfur. But the war in Darfur has becomed a cause for lobbies in the West and is discussed in every political campaign, in the US as well as in Europe.

What about Congo ? Until this last survey, very few media outlets talked about the consequences of this war.

On the one hand, a conflict opposing an islamic regime and «moderate muslims». On the other hand, the aftermaths of a conflict partly ignited by the Western imperial policy.
Hollywood pays no attention and the press follows…

NB: I just watched a CBS 60 Minutes programm on the war in Congo. And Paul Moreira shot a good piece for Arte as well. It’s good to see that there are exceptions…

Does democracy help terrorism ?

It is a very common but dangerous idea to say that islamism takes advantage of any progress of democracy and that, subsequently, democratic moves promote terrorism. A very good example was provided by a report, dated from Nouakchott (Mauritania), published in the French conservative daily Le Figaro (read the article here). Under the title ‘democratization of Mauritania helped islamic radicals’, the reporter explains that the country experienced a move to polical liberalization after the coup that ousted the (pro-western) dictator Maaouyya Ould Taya a couple of years ago. The writer then quotes an ‘intellectual’ saying : « That was a mistake because in this country with an oriental mentality and where the public strongly ask for despotism, that was a democratic concession that sounded like admitting weakness. »

No wonder that with such intellectuals (hopefully anonymous, the worst source ever in our job), Mauritania will not move very far towards democracy. This kind of report propagates the idea that a part of mankind cannot access to democracy, or should not. And if it does, it would become dangerous.

Should we explain again that dictatorship and denial of sovereignety are the main reasons for the development of violent action, such as terrorism.

But democracy is a principle that we tend to use only when it serves our interests…