BRICs, a new economic block

BRICs is an acronym that refers to the fast growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first coined and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001. Of late BRICs has organized themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, like the European Union has done and are seeking to form a "political club" or "alliance" to convert "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout"

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is an intergovernmental mutual-security organization which was founded in 2001 by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Except for Uzbekistan, the other countries had been members of the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996.

Departure Statement by the PM Dr Manmohan Singh on his visit to Russia on June 15, 2009 in New Delhi

At the invitation of the President of the Russian Federation, His Excellency Mr. Dmitry Medvedev, I am leaving today to attend the BRIC and SCO Summits being hosted by Russia in Yekaterinburg.

The countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) together account for 40% of the world’s population and 40% of global Gross Domestic Product. The BRIC grouping has the potential to lead global economic growth. In fact, global economic recovery is closely linked to the success of the BRIC economies. India is among the fastest growing BRIC economies, and we are ready to play our part in coordinating international efforts to overcome the ongoing financial and economic slowdown. BRIC countries also have a role to play in promoting the principle of multilateralism in international affairs, and in the reform of institutions of global governance, including the United Nations, to reflect contemporary realities. From these points of view, the convening of the first stand-alone summit of BRIC countries is a significant development.

I will also be attending the Summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) for the first time. India has been an observer of the SCO since 2005. My decision to attend the Summit is a reflection of the high regard we have for Russia’s Presidency of the SCO, and our desire to intensify our engagement with countries of our extended neighbourhood in Central Asia. There are issues which concern both of us, such as the fight against terrorism and extremism and cooperation in areas of energy security, infrastructure development, agriculture, transportation, science and technology and education. India and the SCO stand to gain considerably from each other through such cooperation.

During my visit, I look forward to meeting and exchanging views with the other world leaders who will be present in Yekaterinburg.

MIsuse of Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure

Note: Procedural Establishments Under The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives protection to a person who is still a Public Servant at the time the prosecution is launched, and also when he is no longer a public servant. This is to protect the Public Servant from a case being filed against him after his retirement. When the government servant or the employee is not removable from his office without the sanction of the Central Government, then the same is necessary. Sanction under this section is not necessary before a Public Servant could be prosecuted for an offence of bribery under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There are three facets in the consideration of the protection given by Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. to the acts done by public officers. (i) The act complained attaches to it the official character of the person doing it; (ii) The official character or status of the accused gave him an opportunity of doing the act, and (iii) The offence is committed at a time when the accused was engaged in his official duty.

"Nutan Thakur" wrote:

The Lavalin Case- Rethinking over section 197 CrPC

Pinarayi Vijayan is the state Secretary of the Kerala CPI(M) and is also the member of the Central Polit bureau, which is the highest decision making body of the Party. The 19th Congress of the CPI(M) had elected a 87 member Central Committee, which on April 03, 2008 elected a 15 Member Polit Bureau. Pinarayi Vijayan is a member of both these.

The other members of this Polit Bureau include such stalwarts as the General Secretary Prakash Karat along with his wife Brinda, Sitaram Yechury, Biman Basu, Manik Sarkar, the two CPI(M) Chief ministers Buddhadev Bhattacharya and V S Achuthanandan along with others. He is thus among the most important members of the CPI)M).

The so-called Lavalin case relates to memorandum of understanding (MoU) Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) signed with SNC-Lavalin, a Canadian company in August 1995. During the initial period of the contract, G. Karthikeyan of the Congress Party was the Minister for Electricity. Later during further contracts in February 1997 Pinarai Vijayan was the Minister for Electricity.

Later the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) found that Lavalin was only a consultant intermediary and not the original equipment manufacturer and that the supply of goods and services was made by other firms at a much higher cost leading to excess expenditure. According to the CAG, various avoidable (and at times deliberate) failures on the part of the Board and the government to properly execute the deal resulted in heavy losses to the government of an amount nearly Rs 25 crores.

On 16 January 2007, Kerala High Court ordered a CBI enquiry into the scandal. On February 19, 2008, the CBI informed High court of Kerala that the investigation was progressing and hinted at the complicity of former Electricity Ministers Pinarayi Vijayan and G. Karthikeyan.

On 21 January 2009, the CBI filed a progress report on the investigation in the Kerala High Court where it named Pinarayi Vijayan as the 9th accused. A total of 11 persons have been arraigned.

As per CBI's version Vijayan, while serving as Electricity Minister between May 1996 and October 1998, colluded with K. Mohanachandran, Principal Secretary (Power) in a criminal conspiracy already in motion in the matter of awarding supply contracts of the projects to Lavalin.

The investigations revealed that the supply contract for renovation and modernisation of the Panniyar, Shengulam and Pallivasal hydel projects was given to SNC Lavalin at an exorbitant rate and the per MW cost for the same was the highest. This caused a loss to the Government of Kerala with corresponding wrongful. Thus CBI requested an order for prosecuting Vijayan.

Thus came the question of Prosecution. As per our statues, section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with prosecution of Judges and public servants. Section 197(1) states that when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the concerned government.

There are two important Supreme Court judgements in this regards, both exactly opposite to each other. While in the state of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nath Singh, the Supreme Court has ruled that a public servant cannot be given the protection of sanction under Section 197 CrPC if he is facing allegations of indulging in criminal offences.

The Court said that forgery, criminal conspiracy, cheating and taking gratification cannot form part of official discharge of duty by a public servant saying-''A public servant, however, is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities,''. The apex court also noted, "It is no part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the code is therefore no bar."

At the same time, in another case related to some senior police officers of Maharashtra another bench of the SC had held the prosecution of these officers under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) illegal, on the ground that the accused cannot be prosecuted without proper prior sanction.

The CPI (M) leadership and the workers, both at the Center and in the state of Kerala have refused to take this prosecution lightly decided to fight it out. While the Press Statement in its statement dated June 8, 2009 said that the CBI case "is politically motivated" and that "it is unfortunate that the Governor of Kerala decided to grant permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation to initiate prosecution proceedings" , the workers on the street took the message wholeheartedly and went for a heavy rampage and large-scale ransacking and violence.

Previously Vijayan had also issued threats of retaliation and punishment to K. Gopalakrishnan, Editor, Mathrubhumi Malayalam for having played a lead role in exposing and pursuing the Lavlin case.

Thus all these efforts are being made to save a person who is primarily being seen as an accomplish in a criminal case where he has supposedly misused his official position to cause heavy losses to the State exchequer. This from a party that has always boasted of belonging to the toiling masses- the workers and the peasants. But more important than the individuals, it is the basic legal postulate that I want to harp upon. Do we really need section 197 of the CrPC?

Isn't this provision of law being misused persistently or is being used selectively for political ends? For the same criminal acts, the governments and the authorities go by different yardsticks. Against some they grant the prosecution sanction while for others they withhold it for years.

From all this, it seems that this provision of section 197 CrPC is primarily being misused or is being used for specific purposes. At least, it shall be scrapped for cases related with forgery, misappropriation, cheating, misuse of official positions for wrongful gains etc. This is something that is immediately required.


Dr Nutan Thakur
Editor,
Nutan Satta Pravah
Lucknow

In China, Bicycles Are Back

Of all the things that have changed in China over the past 30 years, transportation has undergone one of the most obvious of transformations. Where city streets once swarmed with bicycles, they are now full of automobiles. Cars clog intersection and expressways. Their exhaust clouds the sky and the air is full of the sound of horns. But zipping through the congestion is the vanguard of another transportation revolution: vehicles that use no gas, emit no exhaust and are so quiet they can surprise the unwary pedestrian.

In China, electric bicycles are leaving cars in the dust. Last year, Chinese bought 21 million e-bikes, compared with 9.4 million autos. While China now has about 25 million cars on the road, it has four times as many e-bikes. Thanks to government encouragement and a population well versed in riding two wheels to work, the country has become the world's leading market for the cheap, green vehicles, helping to offset some of the harmful effects of the country's automobile boom. Indeed, as engineers around the world scramble to create eco-friendly, plug-in electric cars, China is already ahead of the game. Says Frank Jamerson, a former GM engineer turned electric-vehicle analyst: "What's happening in China is sort of a clue to what the future will be."

Right now the future buzzes along at a sedate pace. Government regulations limit the top speed of e-bikes to about 12 mph. But manufacturers are building bigger and bigger machines with speed regulators that are easily removed. E-bikes that are basically pedal-powered machines with an electric boost are common in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, but e-scooters with heavier motors and top speeds of around 30 mph, fast enough to rival mopeds, are growing in popularity.

The e-bike boom owes much to Chinese policy. The government made developing e-bikes an official technology goal in 1991. Major Chinese cities have extensive bicycle lanes, which means riders can avoid the worst of rush-hour congestion. In cities such as Shanghai, local governments have drastically raised licensing fees on gas-powered scooters in recent years, effectively driving hoards of consumers to e-bike manufacturers.

The relative simplicity of the machines and their components has encouraged a huge number of e-bike companies to open in China. In 2006 there were 2,700 licensed manufacturers, and countless additional smaller shops. Rising to the top of the heap is not easy. Leading manufacturer Xinri (the name means "new day") was founded in 1999 by Zhang Chongshun, an auto parts factory executive who recognized the potential of the field. In its first year Xinri built less than 1,000 bikes; last year it churned out 1.6 million.

Xinri's Zhang puts in thousands of miles on the road a year, visiting as many as six cities a day to investigate local market conditions. But ultimately what makes Xinri successful is that electric bikes have hit a sweet spot in the Chinese economy. As Chinese grow richer, they want more convenient means of transportation. But not everyone can afford a car. "Motorcycles are too dangerous, cars are too expensive, public transportation is too crowded and pedal bikes leave you too tired," says Hu Guang, Xinri's deputy general manager. "So people buy e-bikes."

The company's ads show Jackie Chan riding an e-bike alongside a model in a glamorous European capital. Reality is much more mundane. E-bikes are commonly used by migrant laborers who schlep across town from their quarters in the suburbs to work sites across town, with their drills and saws strapped to their bike racks. Police stations are often fronted by a row of blue and white patrol e-bikes. Delivery workers from McDonald's and KFC haul plastic cases stuffed with Big Macs and fried chicken to office parks. "At first, I picked an e-bike because I couldn't stand the sickening smell of gas from my scooter," says Zhang Dengming, 50, a construction supervisor in Shanghai. "But after awhile, I realized that e-bikes are actually much safer than motorcycles, and better for the environment. Although e-bikes are generally slower than gas scooters, I find them fast enough for my daily commutes. Their price, which is typically just over 2,000 renminbi ($290) is also more acceptable, so I don't feel as bad when they get stolen."

Last year Chinese bought about 90% of the 23 million e-bikes sold worldwide. Experts say that next regions to likely embrace e-bikes are Southeast Asia, where gas-powered scooters are popular, and India, where rising incomes mean personal transportation is starting to be in reach of hundreds of millions. Japan has seen steady annual sales of about 300,000 for several years, and in the cycle-crazy Netherlands e-bikes are beginning to take off. In the U.S., where bikes are still overwhelmingly used for recreation rather than transportation, e-bike sales are expected to break 200,000 this year, or about 1% of China's sales.

E-bikes weren't always so popular on the mainland. Early models were even slower than today's; range was limited and batteries died in less than a year. Now they can travel as far as 100 km on a full charge, more than enough for a day's riding. But batteries remain the weak point. Most e-bikes rely on lead-acid batteries, cheap century-old technology unsuitable for the growing demands of daily commuting. "The battery is the key limiting factor," says Jonathan Weinert, a transportation expert who wrote his doctoral dissertation on electric bikes in China.

While lead-acid batteries are improving, Weinart says that electric bikes will create a larger market for lithium-ion batteries — a newer, lighter technology whose development is key for the future of electric vehicles. Already Giant, the world's largest manufacturer of pedal bicycles but a small player in the Chinese e-bike market, has made headway in northern Europe selling high-end e-bikes that use lith-ion batteries. "To the extent that the electric bike industry can help get battery costs down, test the technology and get it in the market, that may lead" the development of electric vehicles with more than two wheels, Weinert says.

Chinese market leaders like Xinri and Yadea have partnered with top schools like Tsinghua and Peking universities to improve battery technology. And like a slew of other Chinese companies, some e-bike makers are already working on electric cars. Yadea plans to create electric cars for special uses such as shuttling sightseers at tourist destinations. At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Xinri provided e-bikes and an electric car for use by police at the Bird's Nest stadium.

Electric cars will require more powerful recharging stations than the standard wall outlets used to juice up bikes. But when four-wheeled technology becomes road-ready, it will find a willing customer base in China. "The Chinese have a hundred million people on electric bikes," says Jamerson. "That means a hundred million potential customers" for electric cars. When he worked at GM, which filed for Chapter 11 on June 1, Jamerson said he once suggested the company give away an electric bike with every new car, just to get customers used to the idea of a means of transportation you plug in every night. His bosses thought he was joking. When the electric revolution final comes, China's e-bike makers could have the last laugh.

By Austin Ramzy / Beijing

—with reporting by Jessie Jiang/Beijing and Natalie Tso/Taipei

Source:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904334,00.html

Giving in to prior restraint

Is civil society mounting enough of a fight against the extraordinary powers Mr Raja's ministry is arming itself with? The rules being framed for the IT (Amendment Act) 2008 are ominous, says SEVANTI NINAN

This article is an expanded version of a column which appeared in the Hindu, on June 7, 2009 titled, “In the name of national security”.

After 26/11 when the Information and Broadcasting Ministry tried to come up with sweeping restrictions on TV channels in the interests of national security there was the predictable outcry and the government backed down very quickly.

Why then is there not enough of an outcry when websites are affected, for the same reason? Particularly over the way rules are being framed for the IT (Amendment) Act of 2008? The powers they give the Government to block websites amount to prior restraint, permitting blocking without informing the affected party, or giving him/her a chance to be heard. Obviously it has been done to deal with terrorism, and it could be argued that you will not be seeking permission from a non-state actor when you are seeking to track him by intercepting his email or blocking the websites he uses to spread his message. But civil liberties can end up being curtailed in the name of combating terror, and individual privacy can be violated the same way. Both are endangered as the new government goes about putting teeth into the amended IT act.

The controversial Mr A Raja does not just preside over telecom, which the country’s biggest industrialists are interested in. He also presides over the lawmaking which governs the use of the Internet in India. Surely that is something which deserves at least as much media vigilance as the awarding of telecom licences to companies?

Last year, a few weeks after the Mumbai attacks in November, a Bill which had been sitting around in a Standing Committee since 2006 was hastily passed, without much debate in parliament. The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 seeks to give teeth to existing laws on information technology and cyberspace. Last month, shortly before Mr Raja began his second stint, the Department of IT posted on the Internet the results of its labours in drafting rules for this Act. Since the devil is in the details, the import of the Act resides in the rules. These are still at the draft stage, you are invited to send your comments to the Government of India, which does this feedback exercise to show how democratic it is. http://www.mit.gov.in/default.aspx?id=969.

Here, then, is a idiot’s guide to what Mr Raja and his men are proposing to do, in the name of national security, safe internet use, and suchlike.

a) Intercept email, under section 69 of the Act.

Who can give orders for such interception? Technically only the Union Home Secretary or the Home Secretary at the state level, but in unavoidable circumstances also a joint secretary. In further unavoidable circumstances---in an emergency (not defined) in a remote area (not defined)---a security officer of the rank of an inspector general of police can order the interception. They have to get it okayed in a week’s time by a home secretary or joint secretary or cease intercepting.

What about laws protecting privacy? This provision circumvents those in the name of security.

b) Block websites and web content, under section 69A.

A designated officer of joint secretary-level is empowered to handle requests for blocking from departments or individuals. He submits the request to an inter-ministerial comittee of joint secretaries, including one from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. In an emergency, scrutiny by just the designated officer will do, and the final permission has to come from the Secretary, Department of Information Technology. What can be the basis for a request to block? The Sovereignty or Integrity of India, the Defence of India, the Security of the State, Friendly Relations with Foreign States, Public order, and, for "preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above." Apart from the fact that all of the above are open to interpretation, do note the 'preventing incitement' bit. In case somebody thinks you might provoke someone to do something, they can block your website.

What about a right to be heard before the blocking? There is none. The job of Secretary, Department of Information Technology, suddenly becomes a pivotal one in the matter of freedom of expression. He has the final say in any blocking.

Review of the decision? A committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary, GOI, needs to meet at least once in two months for that. As a CERT IN official said at a recent meeting when questioned about the inordinately long time taken for a review, "Bahut cases hote, saab. Cabinet Secretary khali nahin baithe hota." His point was that overall there is a four-level scrutiny, and that so far blocking of web pages or sites has been very rare indeed, three to four cases in the last five years.

c) Monitor and collect traffic data relating to a website, in the name of ensuring cyber security, and foiling cyber security incidents. Under section 69B.

d) Set up an Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN), whose constituency “shall be the Indian cyber community,” under section 70B (1)

If you plough through all the citizen-friendly sounding stuff that this team is supposed to do, you will hit upon this clause: “For carrying out its functions prescribed in section 70 (B) of the Act, CERT-IN may seek information and give directions for compliance to the service providers, intermediaries, data centres, body corporate and any other person, as may be necessary.” This innocuous body can order your service provider to cough up any data it wants. And what level of officer can do this? Any officer of CERT-In, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India. Again the defence is that this clause only relates to cyber security. The rules empowering CERT-IN are drafted by the organisation itself. Talk of giving yourself powers because you are making the rules!

e) Define the liability of Network Service Providers, under section 79.

This is a section for which the rules have not yet been posted, because there is hectic lobbying going on by industry. It seeks to protect the companies that operate in India as Network Service Providers from being liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by them. They are not liable so long as they “do not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of the transmission, and select or modify the information contained in the transmission, and so long as they observe due diligence while discharging their duties under this Act.” But once they come to know of data posted on their servers which could be interpreted as violating the “integrity of India, defence of India, friendly relations with foreign States” bits and do not remove it, they become liable.

Who will be defined as a network service provider? What will be defined as due diligence? What will be the definition of an intermediary? Industry is lobbying with CERT-IN on these issues. Sachin Pilot is the minister in charge.

But is civil society mounting enough of a fight to protect privacy, and prevent web content blocking without a prior right to be heard? Is it doing enough to oppose the extraordinary powers Mr Raja's ministry is arming itself with?

Because given the way we handle technology, actions officially ordered do not end up have the restricted impact they are supposed to. Back in 2003 when there was an attempt at Internet censorship through the blocking of a discussion group on the Web, the Internet Service Providers went beyond the targeted blocking they were asked to do. An organisation in Meghalaya which advocates seccession had set up this group, and the request for blocking it came from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Had the service providers quietly blocked this one discussion group, nobody might have noticed. But they had never received such a request before and three of them (Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Data Access and Sify) wrote back immediately to DoT to say that since their infrastructure made it technically impossible to block just one group they had ("as per your directive") blocked all of Yahoo Groups, thousands of them. Predictably, there was a huge outcry.

And it achieved the opposite of what it set out to do because it sent the curious rushing to a little-visited discussion group. Despite being blocked, the page could be accessed through an anonymizer site on the Net whose express purpose is to allow people to circumvent blocks. Censorship does stay quiet in this country, which is a great thing. Nor does it achieve its objective. See what this attempt did for Kynhun.BriU Hynniewtrep, the Meghalaya discussion group, seeking a separate state for the Khasis. Its membership grew from 25 or so before the censorship, to 214 after it. The year-old group had meandered along unnoticed, with an average of three postings a month. Post ban, it got 23 in four days.

Censorship does stay quiet in this country, which is a great thing. But the point to remember about governments is that where arbitrary powers are concerned, they never stop trying to exercise them.

(This article also draws upon an earlier column available at http://www.hindu.com/mag/2003/10/12/stories/2003101200180300.htm)

Source: The Hoot

Obama reinforces presumed religious identities

Marieme Helie Lucas asks, 'Where are women and secularists of Muslim countries in Obama's speech in Cairo?' (WLUML Networkers/SIAWI)

It is beyond doubt that many people around the world, of various political opinions and creeds, will feel relieved after the speech the President of the USA delivered in Cairo today. It is apparently a new voice, a voice of peace, quite far from Bush's clash of civilisations. But is it so?

I presume that political commentators will point out the fact that Obama equates violence on the part of occupied Palestinians to violence on the part of Israeli colonizers, or that he has not abandoned the idea that the United States should tell the world how to behave and fight for their rights, or that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is reduced to a religious conflict, or that he still justifies the war in Afghanistan, etc...

All those are important issues that need to be challenged. However, what affects me most, as an Algerian secularist, is that Obama has not done away with the idea of homogeneous civilisations that was at the heart of the theory of the 'clash of civilisations'. Moreover, his very American idea of civilisation is that it can be equated to religion. He persistently opposes ' Islam and the West' (as two entities/civilisations), ' America and Islam'(a country vs. a religion); he claims that 'America is not at war with Islam'. In short 'the West' is composed of countries, while ' Islam' is not.

Old Jomo Kenyatta used to say of British colonizers: “When they came, we had the land, they had the Bible; now we have the Bible, they have the land.” Obama's discourse confirms this: religion is still good enough for us to have, or to be defined by. His concluding compilation of monotheist religious wisdom sounds as if it were the only language that we, barbarians, can understand. These shortcomings have adverse effects on us, citizens of countries where Islam is the predominant and often the state religion.

First of all, Obama's discourse is addressed to 'Islam', as if an idea, a concept, a belief, could hear him; as if those were not necessarily mediated by the people who hold these views, ideas, concepts or beliefs. As Soheib Bencheikh, former Great Mufti of Marseilles and now Director of the Institute of High Islamic Studies in Marseilles, used to say: “I have never seen a Qur'an walking in the street...”

Can we imagine for one minute that Obama would address himself to '’Christianity' or to 'Buddhism'? No, he would talk to Christians or Buddhists – to real people, keeping in mind all their differences.

Obama is essentialising Islam, ignoring the large differences that exist among Muslim believers themselves, in terms of religious schools of thought and interpretations, cultural differences and political opinions. These differences indeed make it totally irrelevant to speak about 'Islam' in such a totalizing way. Obama would not dare essentialise, for instance, Christianity in such a way, ignoring the huge gap between Opus Dei and liberation theology...

Unfortunately, this essentialising Islam feeds into the plans of Muslim fundamentalists whose permanent claim is that there is one single Islam – their version of it – one homogeneous Muslim world, and subsequently one single Islamic law that needs to be respected by all in the name of religious rights. Any study of the laws in 'Muslim' countries show that these laws are pretty different from one country to the other, deriving not just from different interpretations of religion, but also from the various cultures in which Islam has been spreading on all continents, and that these supposedly Muslim laws are rooted, as well, in historical and political factors including colonial sources*, which are obviously not divine .

This is the first adverse consequence of Obama's essentialising Islam and homogenising Muslims: as much as he may criticize fundamentalists – who he calls 'a minority of extremists' – he is using their language and their concepts. This is unlikely to help the cause of anti-fundamentalists forces in Muslim countries.

It follows suite that Obama talks to religions, not to citizens, not to nations or countries. He assumes that anyone has to have a religion, overlooking the fact that in many instances, people are forced into religious identities. In more and more 'Muslim' countries, citizens are forced into religious practice **, and pay for dissent with their freedom and sometimes with their lives. It is a big blow to them, to their human rights, to freedom of thought and freedom of expression, that the President of the USA publicly confirms the view that citizens of countries where Islam is the main religion are automatically Muslims (unless they belong to a religious minority).

Regardless of the fact that one is a believer or not, citizens may choose not to have religion as the main marker of their identity; for instance, they may choose to give priority or prominence to their identity as citizens. Many citizens of 'Muslim' countries want to leave religion in its place and divorce it from politics. They support secularism and secular laws, i.e. laws democratically voted for by the people, changeable by the will and vote of the people; they oppose unchangeable, ahistorical, supposedly divine laws, as a process that is alien to democracy. They oppose the political power of clerics.

Obama is claiming to defend democracy, democratic processes, and human rights. How can this fit with addressing whole nations through their supposed, hence imposed, religious identities? Where is the place for secularists in Obama's discourse – for their democratic right to vote in laws rather than have laws imposed upon them in the name of God, for their human right to believe or not to believe, to practice or not to practice? Secularists simply do not exist. They are ignored. They are made invisible. They are made 'Muslims'. Not just by our oppressive undemocratic governments, but by Obama too... And when he talks of his own fellow citizens, these ‘Seven million American Muslims', has he asked them what their faith is or is he assuming faith based on geographical origin?

In this religious strait-jacket, women's rights are limited to their right to education, and Obama distances himself from arrogant westerners by making it clear that women covering is not seen by him as an obstacle to their emancipation – especially if it is 'their choice'... Meanwhile, Iran is next door, with its morality police that jail women whose hair slips out of the aforementioned covering, in the name of religious laws. And what about Afghanistan or Algeria where women were abducted, tortured, raped, mutilated, burnt alive, killed for not covering***?

At no point does he raise the issue of who defines culture, who defines religion, who speaks for 'the Muslims' – and why they could not be defined by individual women themselves, without clerics, without morality police, without self-appointed, old, conservative, male, religious leaders – if their fundamental human rights were to be respected. Obviously, Obama trades women's human rights for political and economic alliances with 'Islam'... 'Islam' definitely owns oil, among other things.

No, this discourse is not such a change for an American President: Obama remains within the boundaries of the clash of civilisations/religions. How can this save us from the global rise of religious fundamentalism, which this discourse was supposed to counter? He claims that “as long as our relationship is defined by differences, this will empower those who sow hatred.../... promote conflict...”, but the only thing he finds we have in common is “to love our families, our communities, our God...” Muslim fundamentalists will not disown such a program. In God we trust....

04 June 2009

By Marieme Helie Lucas

Source: WLUML Networkers/SIAWI

*For example, from 1962 to 1976, the source for Algerian laws on reproductive rights was the 1920 French law; or, in 1947, the source for the Pakistani law on inheritance was the Victorian law that the UK itself had already done away with.

** One Malaysian state made daily prayers compulsory; Algerian courts condemned to prison non-fasting citizens in 2008; Iranian courts still jail women for 'un-Islamic behaviour'.

A NEW BEGINNING: OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Cairo,Egypt)

________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt

1:10 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

END
2:05 P.M. (Local)