The current issue of Newsweek has an interesting commentary titled, “As Economies Sink, Religious Radicals Suffer Setbacks.” Apparently, the financial crisis is killing the prospects for more political Islam. The examples given are from: Turkey, Indonesia, Iran, and Lebanon. In Turkey, the AKP has lost support after focusing on Islamist platforms instead of Turkish economic concerns. In Indonesia, the people are saying that the government should focus more on economic development – leading to the results in the elections last week. In Iran, President Ahmadinejad is up for re-election, and although it is not clear that the economy will ruin his chances, the Iranian economic woes are seriously hurting the President’s conservative base. Finally, Adam B. Kushner and Solenn Honorine refer briefly to Lebanon and the positive steps the government there has taken to “insulate its leaders from the global crisis by making savvy economic moves.” The voters, therefore, may be able to push for more ideological agendas. This commentary, however, refers only to “voters” and the official democratic processes. Political Islam in societies, which are far less democratic or among the people who aren’t involved in the democratic process, cannot possibly be hurt by the economic crisis. Among the poorest segments of Muslim societies, political Islam will still appear to be a solution to government failures – particularly corruption.

The Economist has jumped on the debate train: This past week they looked at the resolution on religious defamation, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council. Actually, they asked the question (which shows perfectly the confusion in this debate), “What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw?” The answer to this question is fear. The Council is trying to restrict the defamation of religion with the hope that people of faith will be secure in their ability to practice their religions. According to the International Humanist, however, the resolution is dangerous because it does not distinguish what “hatred” of a religion could mean (ex: Islamophobia) as compared to mere criticism. This might show that we are not separating violent speech from regular speech. However, in the post-9/11 world, there is a fine line between the various kinds of anti al-Qaeda rhetoric and dangerous hate speech that affects ordinary Muslims.

As this blog has pointed out several times over the past year, the real fear for certain organizations is that “freedom of expression” will be damaged if there is substantial restrictions on the right to criticize. The question then becomes whether freedom of expression is a higher right under international law than freedom of worship and conscience. The main problem behind this debate is that the promoters of restrictions on defamation are countries facing public unrest on account of American and European rhetoric in the War on Terror. Pakistan, one of the sponsors of the resolution, has much to lose if the anti-Muslim rhetoric is not contained – at least partially. The U.S. is particularly pushing for a more stable Pakistan, and therefore, we should understand what kind of results come from the rhetoric of both government officials and ordinary citizens since 9-11.

This was the Turkish proverb quoted by President Obama in his speech yesterday before the Turkish Grand National Assembly to say that the U.S. does not aim to fight extremism through force. The President’s speech was remarkably general, but at the same time, he made some important gestures towards the Muslim world. In case you missed the major political element of the speech, this was the Executive’s first address to a majority Muslim country.

With respect to the Muslim world, President Obama gave the enduring quote: “The U.S. is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.” He clarified this comment with remarks about how America’s relationship with the Muslim world should not be based solely on opposition to terrorism. He also said that the U.S. will aim to convey deep appreciation for the Islamic faith.

Much of the speech was actually dedicated to Turkey’s achievements and future prospects. The New York Times has analyzed the choice of Turkey as both an example of cooperation between a Muslim country and the U.S. – but also as a way to push for “more acceptance of the separation of religion and state” – both in Turkey and throughout the world.

President Obama is expected to participate in the UN-connected meeting called the Alliance of Civilizations. It is the second forum of the alliance and scheduled for April 6-7 in Istanbul. The Alliance was established in 2005, and it aims to reduce cross-cultural tensions. The director of the alliance has said that Obama’s visit to Turkey (his first trip to a Muslim country since becoming President) would “signal an attitude in favor of a high dose of openness and cautious dialogue. It would also signal a preparedness to listen and to show respect – one of the basic tenets of the Alliance.” The hope that this brings to the other member countries that U.S. policy has shifted is immense. One topic, which we have been following in this blog is the debate “on defamation of religion versus freedom of expression.” The press release for the upcoming Alliance Conference reiterates that the Alliance tries to stay clear of that controversial and inflammatory debate.