ReportWire

Tag: Azza Karam

  • The Age of Holy War & Poetics of Solidarity – (Part 1)

    The Age of Holy War & Poetics of Solidarity – (Part 1)

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
    • Opinion by Azza Karam (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Jun 24 (IPS) – “Holy War” is how the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church referred to the Russian war on the Ukraine, and indeed, on “the West”1 . “Holy War”, aka “jihad” is a foundational principle of “the Base” or “al-Qaeda”, which has grown into a non-state hydra with too many names and atrocities to list here (but if you are curious, one of the hydra faces is ISIS).

    In a recent opinion piece published in Foreign Policy, columnist Caroline de Gruyter noted that “Israel and Palestine Are Now in a Religious War”, in her attempt to argue why the Middle East conflict has been getting increasingly brutal, and increasingly hard to solve.

    The intersection between holiness and war is even more nuanced in Zvi Bar’el’s Opinion piece in Haaretz, when he notes that “the war in Gaza is no longer about revenge for the murder of 1,200 Israelis or the hostages.

    If they all die, along with hundreds of more soldiers, the price would still be justified for the Jewish Jihad waging a war for Gaza’s resettlement” . Hamas’ own name –the acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic Resistance Movement) – needs no elaboration. Neither does Lebanon’s Hizbullah (Party of God).

    In India, a report by the Indian Citizens and Lawyers Initiative (in April of 2023), entitled “Routes of Wrath: Weaponising Religious Processions”, notes

    Indian history is rife with instances of religious processions that led to communal strife, riots, inexcusable violence, arson, destruction of property and the tragic deaths of innocent residents of the riot-hit areas. There have been horrific riots and bloodletting caused by other factors too, most prominently the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984 and the Gujarat pogrom of 2002, but no cause of interfaith riots has been as recurrent and widespread as the religious procession. This is as true of pre-Independence India as during the 75 years since we became a free nation…Post-Independence, we have faced numerous communal riots in diverse parts of India, under different political regimes, and the vast majority of these have been caused by the deliberate choice of communally-sensitive routes by processionists, and the pusillanimity of the Police in dealing with such demands, or even their collusion and connivance in licencing such routes.2

    Already back in August of 1988, in an article entitled “Holy War Against India”, explicitly speaks of “Sikh terrorism” in the Punjab, noting that it “took about a thousand lives in 1987 and more than a thousand in the first five months of 1988.

    If it continues at the present rate, Sikh terrorism in the Punjab will have cost more lives in two years than the IRA campaign in Northern Ireland has cost in twenty.” 3 Speaking of Northern Ireland, the marching season remains a flashpoint among Catholics and Protestants.

    Politicised religion, or religionised politics – whence religious discourse is part of political verbiage, tactics, expedient alliances, sometimes informing foreign policy priorities, occasionally used to justify conflict – are not new phenomena. In fact, they may well be one of the oldest features of politics, governance – and warmaking.

    The Crusades against Muslim expansion in the 11th century were recognized as a “holy war” or a bellum sacrum, by later writers in the 17th century. The early modern wars against the Ottoman Empire were seen as a seamless continuation of this conflict by contemporaries. Religion and politics are the oldest bedfellows known to humankind.

    What is relatively new, is that after the 100-year war in Europe, and the subsequent moves towards secularisation or the so-called ‘separation of Church and State’ (again, really only in parts of Europe), provided a false sense of the dominance of secular governance in modern times.

    Yet, even in the citadels of secular Western Europe, a relationship binding Church and State always existed, for the religious institutions and their affiliated social structures, remain critical social service providers – and humanitarian actors – till today. A reality now understood to be relevant in all parts of our world.

    Nevertheless, what we are seeing today is a resurgence of religious politics, and the politics of religion, in almost all corners of the world. Before the Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed its “holy war” narrative, the reference to religion and politics almost always focused on Muslim-majority contexts, specifically on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

    Other realities would often go unnoticed, or somehow deemed as ‘odd’ or one-time phenomena – for instance the fact that the 2016 US elections delivered a Trump administration with full and public backing by a significant part of the Evangelical movement (many of whom are backing a potential comeback of him now); or the fact that related Evangelical counterparts backed Bolsenaro’s rise to power in Brazil; or the fact that religious arguments against abortion remain a key US electoral feature for decades; or the fact that a number of right-leaning anti-immigrant political discourses and blatant white supremacist politics have religious backing in parts of Europe and Latin America.

    Was it perhaps that since these took place in ‘white’ and Christian-majority polities, somehow set these aside from being factored as part of the global resurgence of religious politics?

    Whatever the case may be, it is time to smell that particularly strong brew of coffee, now. And as we do so, we are also obliged to note that it is no coincidence that this ‘brew’ is taking place at a time of remarkable social and political polarisation in many societies.

    Indeed. we speak of multiple and simultaneous crisis (e.g. climate change, catastrophic governance, wars, famines, rampant inequalities, soaring human displacement, nuclear fears, systemic racism, rising multiple violence, drug wars, proliferation of arms and weapons, misogyny, etc.) and we also acknowledge the wilting multilateral influence to confront these. But as we acknowledge these, we must also recognise that social cohesion is a lasting and tragic victim.

    Some governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental entities have turned to religion(s) as a possible panacea. Religious leaders are being convened in multiple capitals (at significant cost) in almost all corners of the world.

    Regularly touting the peacefulness and the unparalleled supremacy of their respective moral standpoints. Religious NGOs are being sought out, supported and partnered with more regularly to help address multiple crisis – especially humanitarian, educational, public health, sanitation, and child-focused efforts.

    Interfaith initiatives are competing among each other, and with other secular ones, for grants from governments and philanthropists in the United States, Europe, Africa, many parts of Asia (with the notable exception of China), and the Middle East. Engaging, or partnering with religious entities is the new normal.

    But just as the largely secular efforts we lived through (and some of us served for decades) in the 1960s to the 1990s, did not realise a brave new world, religious ones, on their own, cannot do so either. Especially not with the kind of historical baggage and contemporary narratives of holy war, we are living with now.

    It is time we re-consider, re-engage and re-envision a poetics of solidarity rooted an abiding adherence to (and re-education about) all human rights for all peoples at all times. What would that entail?

    1https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/88aug/obrien.htm
    2 Connor O’Brian, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/routes-of-wrath-report-2023-2-465217.pdf
    3 Connor O’Brian, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/routes-of-wrath-report-2023-2-465217.pdf

    Part 2 follows.

    Dr. Azza Karam is President and CEO of Lead Integrity; a Professor and Affiliate with the Ansari Institute of Religion and Global Affairs at Notre Dame University; and a member of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The Common Good, or Transactional Religion?

    The Common Good, or Transactional Religion?

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Azza Karam (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Jun 28 (IPS) – For the last 30 odd years, I have maintained that religions matter. I noted the reasons for why they matter, and always listed how they matter —as social service providers, as first responders in humanitarian crisis; as mediators in tensions and conflicts, as upholders of common good and the values of humanity; as protectors of children and of the most vulnerable; and even as political actors.

    All to name but a few. I still feel amused when some of those I trained among the UN staff and the faith-based NGO community, quote something I said, in public – albeit without even being aware they are quoting (I am trying to be kind here) – such as: “we should not be talking about whether religions matter, but how they matter”.

    In 2007, while at UNDP, I was told, more than once, “we do not do religion”. By the time I left the UN in 2020, after building two bodies – an Interagency Task Force on Religion and its Multi Faith Advisory Council – it was clear that almost all UN entities were competing to ‘do religion’. In fact, some UN entities are competing for religious funding.

    While I have not lost that faith in faith itself, over the last years, I have grown increasingly incredulous of those who would speak in the name of ‘religion’. It is hard not to feel distinctly bemused, when versions of ‘if religious actors/leaders are not at the table, they will be on the menu]’, are being told in one gathering after another.

    Often by the same kinds of speakers, among the same kinds of audiences, albeit meeting more and more frequently – and often more lavishly — in different cities around the world.

    The reason for bemusement, is not disillusion with the unparalleled roles that various religious institutions and communities of faith play. Far from it. These roles are, in short, vast. In fact, they are as impossible to quantify, as they are implausible to assume full comprehension of.

    After all, how do you accurately measure the pulse of our individual spiritualities – let alone our collective sense thereof? Religious leaders, religious institutions, faith-based and faith-inspired NGOs (FBOs) – let alone faith communities – are massive in number, and permeate all the world’s edifices, peoples and even languages. Faiths, and expressions of religiosity, are likely as numerous as the hairs on an average head (not counting those who may be lacking vigour in that department).

    No, the reason for bemusement is disillusionment with the trend of commercialisation of religion, the business of ‘doing religion’. The emerging marketplace of “religion and ” is reminiscent of not too many decades ago, when so many academics, consultants, think tanks, NGOs, worked on the business of democracy and/or good governance and/or human rights. Then, as now, projects, programmes, initiatives, meetings, and more meetings, were hosted.

    A global emerging elite of ‘experts’ in the above (or variations thereof) permeated the four and five-star hotel meeting rooms, gave business to caterers and conference centres as they traipsed the ‘conference circuits’ from north to south, populated proposals to governments, philanthropists and various donor entities.

    They defined the missions of for-profit consultancies claiming to enable the strategic capabilities, to inform the media presences, to refine the narratives, to provide the leadership coaching, to jointly express the common values, to uphold the good in public service… And so on.

    We are not living in better democracies now, in spite of all that business. Will we have more faithful societies? Will people pray more, for one another and serve more selflessly now that ‘religion’ is in? Somehow, I doubt it.

    By the time we realised the extent of the commercialisation of democracy and human rights, the commercial nature had corrupted much of the sagacity – and the necessary courage – there was. Even autocrats bought into the business of doing democracy and human rights, and used the narratives to enhance their respective agendas.

    Few democratic actors worked together, and even fewer collaborated to serve – and save – the whole of humanity. As with any business venture, the motive of profit – and power – of some, dominated.

    And rather than a consolidated civil society effort holding decision makers accountable for the sake of the most vulnerable, and collectively and successfully eliminating the tools of harm, we are living in the era where money, weapons – including nuclear ones – control over resources, and war (including war on this earth), dominate.

    Today, some of the most authoritarian and self-serving regimes, and some of the most power-seeking individuals, and their retinues, are vested in the business of ‘religion’. And why not? It is among the most lucrative domains of financial, political and social influence.

    Decades of study, however, point to some simple questions to ask, to distinguish the transactional nature of ‘religious affairs’ claiming to be for the good of all, from those actually serving the common good.

    The questions include the following:

    How many of those engaged in the work of religion (whether as religious or secular actors) actually give of or share, their varied resources, to/with one another (including those from other/different religions, entities, age groups, countries, races, etc.)?

    How many different religious organisations plan and deliver, jointly, the same set of services to the same set of needs, in the same neighborhoods or in the same countries?

    How many ‘religious actors’ actually partner with ‘secular’ civil society organisations to hold institutions of political and financial power equally accountable – if need be, at cost to their own welfare. In other words, how many stand on principle, irrespective of the cost?

    And, my personal favourite: what are these religious actors’ respective positions on women’s rights, on gender equality and/or on women’s leadership?

    The more diplomatic way to frame that is also one of the most powerful litmus tests: which human rights do these actors working on/with/for religion, value more? You see, those who are engaged in transactional practices wearing a religious garb, will invariably prioritise some rights, or some privileges, over others.

    The answer to this question therefore, will indicate the difference between a coalition of religious fundamentalists (including secular power seekers and some religious and political leaders), and a multilateral alliance dedicated to serving the common good – for each and all, barring none, especially in the most challenging of times.

    Azza Karam is a Professor of Religion and Development at the Vrij Universiteit of Amsterdam and served as a member of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • COP27: Religious Multilateralism: An Endangered Species in the Age of Triple Planetary Crises

    COP27: Religious Multilateralism: An Endangered Species in the Age of Triple Planetary Crises

    [ad_1]

    The 7th Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions in Almaty, Kazakhstan.
    • Opinion by Azza Karam (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Nov 09 (IPS) – In this year’s COP 27 two-weeklong summit in Egypt, which concludes November 18, a rough count indicates there will be 40 different sessions organised by, for, and about, religious engagements in/on climate change and related issues. This is likely the highest number of events by and around religious actors, organised at a COP event.

    The reason? Religions, religious engagement, interfaith, etc., are the flavour of our geopolitical times. For better or worse.

    His Holiness Pope Francis and His Eminence the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar were just addressing a major conference in Bahrain on East-West relations, with the King of Bahrain. After also putting in a similar appearance and speaking together with the President of Kazakhstan, in September. Both countries were hosting major international meetings of religious leaders, in the fanciest of hotels, convened from many corners of the world, replete with lavish food banquets and generous hospitality and care for their every need.

    I should know, as I am a most grateful recipient, albeit not a religious leader, but an aspiring servant to religious multilateralism. But I run ahead of myself here.

    In convening, countries appear to be competing with Saudi Arabia, which hosted such a seminal gathering (in May 2022, bringing together Buddhist and Hindu faith leaders, for the first time, as equals with their Muslim, Christian and Jewish brethren), as well as with the UAE, Qatar, and Oman, who are also hosting international gatherings of religious leaders this very month.

    This year alone, there have been over 50 meetings of religious actors, that is more than 2 per month, and this is not a comprehensive tally.

    Each of these major and rather expensive conferences, provides a platform not unlike the UN General Assembly, where each leader gets his (for invariably they are mostly men) time to speak, often eloquently, about their own faith tradition.

    Each of these speeches regales with how diligent the efforts of faith/community/organisations are, to secure peace and human dignity for all people. As they remind of the spiritual wisdom each faith upholds, they also speak of past and upcoming initiatives, meant to safeguard dignity for all. Sometimes they also remember to speak about the planet and our responsibility to save it.

    As someone who spent decades serving at the United Nations and in diverse international academic and development organisations, and now listening to the religious actors speaking, I find myself asking the same question: if each of these governments, and now these religious bodies, are working so hard and serving so amazingly, why is our world the way it is?

    Why are so many governments and peoples and communities at war with one another inside and outside nation-state boundaries? Why are we listening to hate speech from every type of mouth and all types of platforms given ample media attention? Why are arms and drugs the biggest industries?

    Why are the rich getting richer and the poor poorer while our planet becomes more bare and parched in one part, and flooded to death, in another? Why is violence of all kinds, inside families and within all communities, a pandemic? Why are medicines, and now even values, a commodity to trade power and privilege with?

    Why is nuclear war back on the agenda of consciousness and politics? In short, why do we hate/fear one another one another so much, and so deeply?

    Because what ails our multilateral system, in spite of the speeches (and efforts) of political leaders (in and out of electoral times for those fortunate enough to have genuine elections of their national leaders), and now also in spite of the speeches and works of religious actors, is fundamentally the same: each to his own. Multilateral – as an adjective defined by the Oxford Dictionary, where “three or more groups, nations, etc. take part”, is an endangered species.

    The United Nations, the premier multilateral entity of 193 governments, is struggling to strengthen multilateralism, yet not necessarily by looking internally at its own behemoth infrastructures, or culture. Ever seen an organogramme of the United Nations system? One should. It is a universe of wonder where every human and non-human thought and action appears to have a dedicated office or structure of some sort.

    But before we point fingers at the political multilaterals (who are remarkably good at either ignoring faith communities, or using them to the hilt, or both), we need to ask ourselves, how often do we see or hear of “three or more” religious institutions (not of the same faith) working together to actually deliver needs to diverse peoples around the world?

    The answer is, that beyond the speeches, the lavish meetings and innumerable projects, multilateral religious collaboration (where money and efforts from many and diverse are pooled to serve, together, the needs of all, regardless of gender, national, ethnic, racial or religious affiliation) remains rare.

    Please do not misunderstand: religious institutions are working to serve hundreds of millions of people on every area of need, humanitarian and development – and now also political. Just as Indigenous Peoples are the original carers of all nature, religious leaders and institutions are the original carers for myriad human needs.

    There is plenty of evidence about this. HIV and AIDS, Ebola and the Covid pandemic highlighted how critical religiously managed health infrastructure is to communities – rich and poor. A glance at the education sectors, psycho-social care, migrants and displaced peoples, and other humanitarian areas of need, will show clearly that religious institutions still serve many, widely, and in the remotest areas.

    So, it is not a dearth of service to humanity that diverse faith actors need to come to terms with. It is the famine of multireligious collaborative services – as in giving and doing together. At Religions for Peace, for over half a century of supporting interreligious platforms serve the common good in over 95 countries, we live the challenges of multi religious collaboration, on peace mediation, food and human security, migration and displacement, education, gender and women’s empowerment, and trying to save together, the world’s remaining rainforests, through, among other efforts, the Interfaith Rainforest Initiative.

    We know that even within the realms of religion, the manner of dealing with these challenges tends to mirror prevailing colonial mindsets, with tendencies to give prominence to one religion, insistence on singular branding, and jockeying for more political influence and financial resourcing.

    More and more faith leaders – young and older – are (rightfully) expecting financial remuneration for their time and energies spent in international work, thus slowly but surely reversing a trend of volunteerism that used to uniquely characterise religious service and giving.

    Just as governments are failing to systematically work together as inhabitants and leaders of one planet, and just as too many civil society groups and corporations compete for branding and ‘market share’, so too, do religious organisations.

    Some religious entities are replicating a secular catastrophic practice of seeking to build other/new/different/more ‘specialised’ entities and initiatives, rather than shoulder the heavy cross of seeking to work together in spite of the damning challenges (both puns intended). In so doing, many of these religious actors are effectively dispersing efforts.

    One of the many lessons of failed multilateralism is that more, or different, or new and/or specialised, may well be the well-intentioned road to hell.

    When it comes to actually investing in one another’s work so that they are speaking as one and serving together, many religious leaders and leaders of religious organisations will smile, say some nice words, and move on to the next sermon/meeting/international conference, or nevertheless doggedly pursue their own special/unique initiative(s).

    Such that we have now so many religious initiatives, dominated by one or a bilateral religious partnership, or two and a half (relatively tokenistic representation of another faith), working on the same challenges, facing all of humanity.

    What ails multilateralism is not the absence of resources, tools, values, the clarity of the crisis, or even the will and creativity to serve. Multilateralism fails when some want only their values, truths, communities, nations, cultures, security needs, and/or specific institutions, to prevail.

    And with the failure of multilateralism is a failure of common humanity, and planetary survival.

    Prof. Azza Karam is Secretary General, Religions for Peace

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link