The three “terrorist” stations are carried on the two largest satellite providers in the Middle East, NileSat of Egypt and ArabSat of Saudi Arabia. Between them, NileSat and ArabSat offer hundreds of stations, most of which show cheesy movies, game shows, and cartoons for kids, as well as the official state programming of the various Arab nations. This resolution, known as H.R. 2278, would require NileSat and ArabSat to block any channel the U.S. labels as terrorist, or see themselves labeled as supporters of terrorism. The resolution still needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by the president to become law — it is currently before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chaired by John Kerry. So there is still time for Washington to come to its senses, but it should be clear that by issuing such a heavy-handed demand for censorship, Congress has sent exactly the wrong message to the Arab world.

Al Manar is the voice of Hezbollah, which besides being an armed resistance movement against Israel, is a political party active in the Lebanese government. Al Aqsa is linked with Hamas, also a resistance movement and the de facto government of the Gaza Strip. Al Rafidayn is an Iraqi station described by the Open Source Center, an arm of the U.S. intelligence community, as a “pro-Sunni, anti-U.S. Iraqi channel believed to be affiliated with the Association of Muslim Scholars.” Of the three, only Al Rifadayn could remotely be accused of “incitement to violence against the United States,” since it supports resistance to the American occupation of Iraq. There is a blurring of lines here between “terrorism” and legitimate resitance — a difference which is in the eye of the beholder. None of these stations supports random acts of violence against civilians, such as suicide bombings or kidnappings, which is the usual definition of terrorism. All provide legitimate news services to the population. And the target of resistance for both Al Manar and Al Aqsa isn’t the U.S. at all, but the state of Israel.

I’ve watched Al Manar here in Morocco, and while they have their share of pro-resistance propaganda — scenes of heroic battles from the 2006 Lebanon War, accompanied by patriotic songs — they are also a news source with high standards of professionalism. In fact, they were the only ones providing on-the-ground coverage during the Israel–Lebanon conflict — even Al Jazeera used their footage — and it was through their station that I became aware of the devastation Israel was raining down on a beleaguered nation. Perhaps that’s what bothers the U.S. Congress. It’s certainly what bothers Israel. Henry Lamb, an American lawyer living in Lebanon, who seems to be the only one writing in depth about H.R. 2278, cites a “Washington DC observer” on the motivations behind the proposed law.

“Regarding Al Manar it’s personal for Israel. The reason is that Al Manar did to the Israeli government propaganda machine during and following the July 2006 war what Hezbollah fighters did to Israeli troops. Al Manar kicked butt. That station must be made to disappear. The plan is to stop the 15-20 million daily viewers of Al Manar from receiving its transmission and well as to intimidate all the other Middle East TV channels that are suspected of moving toward the growing ‘Culture of Resistance’….”

In another article, Lamb praises Al Manar’s “reputation for accuracy, thoroughness and objectivity and getting the latest news on the air fast.” Speaking of the tragic crash of an Ethiopian airliner in Beirut on January 25, he adds:

“As Lebanese woke to the news this morning an estimated 80% of the population is thought to have turned into Al Manar at least once sometime between the hours of 7 am and 11 am, as they and the region regularly do during war or crisis. … Al Manar was the first Lebanese station to give the most details…. Ironically, staff at the American Embassy, and surely the large contingent of CIA agents here, almost certainly sat glued to Al Manar to evaluate what really has happened. [If H.R. 2278 becomes law] US officials may be deprived of this reliable source of information.”

During a recent visit by Senator John McCain, Lebanese president Michel Sleiman asked “that Washington backtrack on its decision to ban certain television channels, including Al Manar,” according to an official statement. Meanwhile Nabih Berri, the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, sent a letter to U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi denouncing the proposed law.

“[The bill] harms the principles of freedom of expression and civil rights, and leads to further complication in relations. … This bill represents bypassing to the sovereign national laws of the targeted countries, among them Lebanon which is a free ‘Hyde Park’ for the Lebanese and Arab satellite ‘public opinion’ media channels. … Therefore, the bill issued by your Congress undermines our sovereignty as well as the sovereignty of many countries….”

Lebanon is proud of its diversity of opinion, which is the thread holding society together after a generation of civil strife. The above statements show that Congress, in its hastily considered attempt at censorship, has united the entire Lebanese political class in protest — not just Hezbollah, a political movement the U.S. still labels “terrorist,” but the elected government as well, which Washington supports.

But there is another dimension to the problem, namely the excuse that H.R. 2278 gives to Arab nations with reasons of their own for censoring opposing views. Chief among them are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which coincidentally or not, are home to NileSat and ArabSat, respectively. Egypt has been ruled by Hosni Mubarak, known as “the Pharaoh,” for 28 years under martial law. Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahhabism and the obscenely rich Saudi royal family. Both have a history of silencing domestic critics, and both are sponsors of an Arab League proposal to monitor TV stations in all its 22 member nations.

The Arab League first discussed a satellite TV charter back in February 2008, but the recent action by Congress has given new momentum to their plans. On January 24, 2010, Arab information ministers met in Cairo to discuss the proposal. According to Reporters Without Borders, the plan would set up an “Office for Arab Satellite Television” to ensure that stations “respect the ethical standards and moral values of Arab society” and “no longer serve as fronts or outlets for ‘terrorist’ organisations.” In a statement, the Paris-based watchdog group warned of the potential for abuse.

“The danger is that this super-police could be used to censor all TV stations that criticise the region’s governments. It could eventually be turned into a formidable weapon against freedom of information.”

Anthony Mills of the International Press Institute issued a similar warning.

“The International Press Institute is wary of efforts to engage in that kind of monitoring particularly given the record of most, if not all, Arab Middle Eastern countries on press freedom. It’s an example of states in the Arab world using the notion of security to in fact monitor and stifle independent reporting.”

The influence of H.R. 2278 can be seen in two of the stations mentioned by Reporters Without Borders as targets of the new plan — Al Aqsa and Al Manar — along with the plan’s emphasis on “terrorism.” However, as Daoud Kuttab shows in a 2008 article, the original motivations have little to do with “terrorism” or “incitement to violence.” Arab governments simply want to shield themselves from an increasingly independent and critical media universe.

“[Arab information ministers] have been gradually losing power to the satellite stations. For some time governments have been resigned to the fact that the rich and elite will have access to alternative information coming from satellite but the poor masses will continue to be spoon fed through the terrestrial stations. But as the prices of satellite dishes have become affordable to the poor masses, and as the satellite stations have cut deeply into the audience of national broadcasts, the alarm bells started to sound and the ministers of information increased their meetings hoping to find a regional solution to this problem. …

“Couched between clauses that prohibit broadcasting obscenity, pornography and scenes encouraging smoking, the charter calls for ‘Abstaining from broadcasting anything that would contradict with or jeopardize Arab solidarity….’ It also calls for ‘abidance by objectivity, honesty and respect of the dignity and national sovereignty of states and their people, and not to insult their leaders or national and religious symbols.’

“The strange notion that politicians are somehow immune from attack, that leaders are not to be insulted or that the satellite broadcasters are obliged not to jeopardize Arab solidarity is nothing short of censorship.”

It’s clear that by taking up the issue just one month after the passage of H.R. 2278, the Arab League is doing its best to defuse to the claims that NileSat and ArabSat are enabling “terrorism.” However, it’s equally clear that they were given an excuse to do what they want to do anyway — rein in stations whose independence is a thorn in their side. One indication is that along with Al Aqsa and Al Manar, Reporters Without Borders names Al Jazeera as a target of the proposed “super-police.” Al Jazeera is the most popular news channel in the Middle East, and the only one with an international reputation for journalistic excellence and independence. They have reporters around the world, even providing excellent coverage of the 2008 American presidential elections. Their investigative reporting is provocative, as are their discussions with public figures and intellectuals. They are an indispensible actor in the move toward greater freedom of expression in the Arab world.

Some in the U.S. seem to have the impression that Al Jazeera is a jihadi station that shows nothing but suicide bombings and tapes from Osama bin Laden. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is frankly insulting. People in Morocco rely on Al Jazeera to get an independent perspective on what is happening in their own country, and I’m sure the same is true in other Arab nations. This forces the official state channels to compete in a world where they are no longer the sole source of information. This makes them uncomfortable, and forces them to get better if they want to retain credibility. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera has earned its reputation. They aren’t pushing an agenda. They simply provide balance to Western networks like CNN and the BBC by showing what the world looks like from a perspective outside the West. This can be refreshing, even for an American.

Congress did not name Al Jazeera in H.R. 2278, but the Arab League is using the resolution as an excuse to pressure the station. After all, they hold the power. If Al Jazeera were denied access to NileSat and ArabSat, it would vanish from TV screens across the Middle East. This recently happened to another station that annoyed Saudi Arabia, Al Alam of Iran. When Saudi Arabia got involved in a Yemeni civil war that its propaganda blames — falsely — on Iran, it pressured Egypt to kick Al Alam out of the NileSat lineup. Since ArabSat is controlled by Saudi Arabia, there was no problem there. The station went dark across the Arab world, upsetting my friend’s aunt who liked to watch it daily because “it tells the whole truth.” She also likes Al Manar, also for its independence. What business does Congress, none of whose members have ever watched an Arab news channel, have telling my friend’s aunt that she likes “terrorist” TV?

The Arab League is divided on the “super-police” proposal, with Egypt and Saudia Arabia as key sponsors, and Qatar and Lebanon strongly opposed. Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, where it began as a project of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, so Qatar is defending its own interests there. We’ve already seen that the Lebanese political leadership is ready to defend Al Manar on the grounds of national sovereignty. So it comes down to a test of wills between two nations, Qatar and Lebanon, who are pioneers of Arab media diversity, and two others, Saudia Arabia and Egypt, who represent state censorship and control. Guess which side the U.S. Congress is on? And isn’t it ironic that around the same time Hillary Clinton made a big speech defending the “freedom to connect” on the internet, Congress should be demanding that Arab states use their authority to pull independent media off the air?

“There is no national institution left that can accurately be described as democratic. … Our transformation into an empire, as happened in ancient Athens and Rome, has seen the tyranny we practice abroad become the tyranny we practice at home. We, like all empires, have been eviscerated by our own expansionism. …

“Liberals, socialists, trade unionists, independent journalists and intellectuals, many of whom were once important voices in our society, have been silenced…. The uniformity of opinion is reinforced by the skillfully orchestrated mass emotions of nationalism and patriotism…. This means no questioning of the $1 trillion in defense-related spending. It means that the military and intelligence agencies are held above government, as if somehow they are not part of government. The most powerful instruments of state power and control are effectively removed from public discussion. …

“The America we celebrate is an illusion. It does not exist. Our government and judiciary have no real sovereignty. Our press provides diversion, not information. … Capitalism, as Karl Marx understood, when it emasculates government, becomes a revolutionary force. And this revolutionary force…is plunging us into a state of neo-feudalism, perpetual war and severe repression.”

Hedges’ point is that the three branches of government no longer answer to the American people, they answer to powerful corporations. Borrowing a term from political philosopher Sheldon Wolin, he calls this “inverted totalitarianism.” The traditional term for it is “oligarchy” — government by the few.

This has been noted by left-wing populists (progressives), who have no real voice in today’s politics — and by right-wing populists (the Tea Party movement), who just elected Scott Brown as the new senator from Massachusetts. But the populists on the right, despite their justifiable anger at special interests in Washington, tend to support policies that will skew things even further to the wealthy and well-connected. Meanwhile President Obama, who promised during the election to fight for “you the American people” against “corporate lobbyists,” has proven to be the ultimate insider and tool of the oligarchs.

The cost of empire is eroding American democracy. Poverty at home, or the deaths of innocents in foreign wars, used to be scandals requiring profound change in our system — no more. Perhaps that’s why I’m in Morocco, which is arguably moving towards democracy rather than away from it. It’s time for the smaller, poorer nations to move beyond American leadership. It’s time to find new models, and a better way.

“I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.”

It’s nice to know that my voice is the one everyone else is listening to. It certainly doesn’t feel that way.

I wanted a much stronger economic stimulus back in the spring, focused on creating jobs by building a new, “green energy” infrastructure. I wanted at least some of the big banks to be taken over by the government, and thoroughly reformed before being broken up and resold to the private sector. I wanted guaranteed health care for everyone, paid for through a national system like in Britain, France or Canada. I wanted an immediate end to the use of drone aircraft in war, which invariably kills civilians. In fact, I wanted all troops withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq, closure of most American bases overseas, and a massive cut in our defense budget. I wanted an end to all those unconstitutional things Bush was doing in the name of national security. I wanted a criminal inquiry into torture, secret prisons, and the illegal war in Iraq. I wanted the U.S. to join the International Criminal Court, and to recognize the Goldstone Report that found Israel guilty of war crimes. I wanted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with a right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel. I wanted full diplomatic relations and open exchange with Iran, Cuba and Syria. I wanted to allow anyone, anywhere in the world who wants to move to the U.S. to be able to do so, unless she has committed a violent crime. I wanted a new era of peace and prosperity worldwide, based on economic justice and respect for human rights — and if that wasn’t possible, I at least wanted the U.S. to try really hard to make it happen, without firing a single bullet.

I know my voice isn’t being heard in Washington, and President Obama isn’t hearing it either. There’s probably good reason for that, because my voice is one of many, and not eveyone agrees. But at least spare me the fatuous talk, Mr. President, because you don’t even know me.

He compares a speech by Hillary Clinton, “outlining America’s commitment to ‘internet freedom,’” with an article published the same day “by two key Bush administration public diplomacy officials, James Glassman and Michael Doran, calling on the U.S. to use the soft power of the internet to promote regime change in Iran.”

“[For] Glassman and Doran, who both held important public diplomacy positions in the previous administration and have long been enthusiastic advocates of using the internet…the point is not abstract, universal freedoms — it is using those tools against an adversary. They urge the U.S. to use the new media to undermine the Iranian regime and to help the Green Movement by providing moral and educational support….

“Set aside the question of whether these steps would work to undermine the Iranian regime or strengthen the Green Movement…. The key point here is that internet freedom…[is] clearly and unapologetically a weapon to be wielded against the Iranian regime. For better or for worse, most of the world probably assumes that Clinton has the same goal in mind…even if she doesn’t say so. And that’s a major problem if you think about it. When the U.S. says to Iran or to other adversarial regimes that it should respect ‘freedom of internet expression’ or ‘freedom of internet connectivity,’ those regimes will assume that it is really trying to use those as a rhetorical cover for hostile actions. And if Glassman and Doran have their way, they will be right.”

Lynch goes on to describe the “moral hazard” involved if the U.S. is unwilling or unable to look out for those who might take Clinton’s words at face value.

“It’s great to support and encourage internet activists and protestors of all sorts. But such support can lead them to take some very risky, dangerous activities against their brutal governments, perhaps in the expectation that the United States will protect them from the consequences. Will it? If a blogger inspired by Clinton’s speech decides to launch a corruption monitoring website, and is summarily imprisoned and tortured, does the U.S. have any plan in place to protect her?”

While I share Clinton’s hope that “the freedom to connect…can help transform societies,” Lynch shows the danger of looking at the world solely through a prism of American interests. American words and actions have consequences, to real people outside the U.S. If “internet freedom” is treated as an arm of American foreign policy in which activists are used and then abandoned, it will make the U.S. look like a cynical manipulator and a feckless hypocrite. If, however, the commitment is real and for the long term, it will mean supporting the internet’s many voices even when they are saying what America doesn’t want to hear.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Has it gotten any better?

Thanks to the generosity of one of my readers, I’ve been nominated for the 2010 Best of Morocco Blog Awards in two categories, best news blog and best overall blog.

Check out the Morocco Blogs website, and vote for me or any of your favorites. At the very least, you’ll discover some great blogs, including several who’ve become my friends over the years.

Morocco Blogs periodically reviews English-language blogs about Morocco, with a sample post from each one. They reviewed my blog here.

When I started in 2006, there were just a handful of bloggers writing about Morocco in English. Now there are culture blogs, travel blogs, personal blogs, blogs about news and politics — both by Moroccans and other by lovers of Morocco.

Voting is open for a whole month, until Feburary 21, and nominations are still open for now as well. Good luck to all the nominees!

Early Period

A thousand years ago, the region was dominated by the Sanhaja, a Berber tribe. They spread south into Senegal and Nigeria, east into Algeria, and north as far as the Rif Mountains. Abdallah ibn Yassin, the spiritual founder of the Almoravid dynasty, was from this tribe. He formed an alliance with Yahia ibn Ibrahim of the Lamtuna, another local tribe, to spread orthodox Islam. Their string of millitary victories led to the founding of Marrakech in 1070, and an empire stretching as far north as Andalusia in Spain. So a religious movement from the Sahara was responsible for one of the major turning points of Moroccan history. Later, over the centuries, the Sanhaja intermarried with Arab tribes that came into the region, resulting in the Sahrawis of today.

Colonial Period

Spain seized control of the region after a division of Africa into “spheres of influence” by European powers at the Berlin Conference of 1884. Hassan I of Morocco attempted to organize resistance to the Spanish incursion, but failed. During Spanish rule, governors were selected from prominent local tribes with the approval of the colonial administration. Each year on the Prophet’s birthday, they paid homage to the caliph of Spanish Morocco “to show loyalty to the Moroccan monarchy.” Morocco itself fell under the control of French and Spanish protectorates in 1912.

Modern Period

When Morocco regained its independence in 1956, Spain kept control of the Sahara provinces. The Polisario Front was formed in 1973 to lead an armed struggle for independence from Spain. In 1975, Spain promised the Polisario a referendum on independence, but Morocco and Mauritania went to the International Court of Justice with claims that the territory was historically theirs. Algeria opposed these claims and threw its support to the Polisario. In October 1975, the court found that the people of the Sahara had a right to self-determination. The court recognized that in pre-colonial times, certain Saharan tribes had ties of allegiance to the Moroccan sultan, but determined that these claims were insufficient to give Morocco a right to the territory.

In November 1975, as the Spanish dictator Franco lay dying, Hassan II organized the Green March, rallying 350,000 unarmed Moroccans on the southern border with the aim of peacefully occupying the Sahara provinces. Their entry into Spanish-held territory effectively dared the Spanish to open fire on them, but that didn’t happen. Instead, Spain signed an agreement with Morocco and Mauritania to divide the Saharan territory between them. Morocco would get two thirds, and Mauritania the other third. Three months later, the Spanish completed their withdrawal. Algeria continued to support the Polisario, which pressured Mauritania to give up its claims to the remaining third of the territory in 1979. Before the Polisario could move in, Morocco occupied it.

The Polisario continued their guerilla campaign against Morocco until 1991, when a UN-brokered cease-fire took effect. Since then, the battle has shifted to diplomatic channels. The Polisario has continued to demand a referendum on indepedence, in which only those families who lived in the Sahara before 1975 could vote. During the 1990s, Morocco accepted a referendum on principle, but disputed the question of who would be allowed to vote. These disputes were never resolved, so the referendum proved impossible to carry out. Shortly before his death in 1999, Hassan II decided to pursue a new strategy. Morocco would offer autonomy to the Sahara provinces, granting them the right to local self-government while retaining Moroccan sovereignty over the region.

Under Mohammed VI, autonomy has become the official Moroccan position. Morocco has withdrawn its support for a referendum of any sort, insisting that the Sahara is an integral part of Morocco. Sahrawis living on the Moroccan side of the cease-fire line have full rights as Moroccan citizens, and are free to travel anywhere in Morocco. Meanwhile, around 100,000 Sahrawis are living in refugee camps in Tindouf, just inside the Algerian border, which is also the Polisario base. Morocco views the Polisario as a tool of the Algerian generals, who seek to weaken Morocco and set up a client state on the Atlantic Ocean. Algeria denies being a party to the conflict, but it has armed, trained and funded the Polisario for more than thirty years.

In 2007, Morocco presented its autonomy plan to the United Nations. The plan states that “the Sahara populations will themselves run their affairs democratically, through legislative, executive and judicial bodies enjoying exclusive powers. They will have the financial resources needed for the region’s development in all fields, and will take an active part in the nation’s economic, social and cultural life.” The Moroccan Constitution would be amended to accommodate this new status. The UN Security Council responded by “welcoming serious and credible Moroccan efforts to move the process forward towards resolution.”

Today and Tomorrow

Mohammed VI has now gone a step further, proposing what might be seen as an extension of the Saharan autonomy plan to all of Morocco — a project he calls “advanced regionalization.” In his January 3, 2010 speech, he announced the formation a committee to report back to him in six months, with plans to devolve power from the center to Morocco’s regions. He linked this directly to the project for Saharan autonomy, saying, “We intend…to make recovered southern provinces among the first beneficiaries of the advanced regionalization. … Morocco cannot confine itself to the status quo…. We are determined to move forward in…[allowing the] Moroccan Sahara to have greater leeway in managing their own local affairs and this, within the framework of the advanced regionalization.”

The king added, “I do not want regions to be merely formal, bureaucratic entities, but rather representative institutions composed of competent officials who can run their respective regions’ affairs efficiently.” By tying Saharan autonomy to a broader regionalization project, the king acknowledged the logic that connects the two. The current system of top-down control from Rabat, if it remains unreformed, would cast doubt on the viability of the autonomy plan. But if Morocco lets its regions govern themselves within a federal system, choosing their own budgets and goals, suddenly autonomy looks much more credible. If the proposed changes are put into practice, it will be a double win for Morocco, offering a way out of the 35-year-old Saharan impasse, and providing a burst of democratization to Morocco as a whole.

Some Moroccan Views

From “The Moroccan Sahara Autonomy Explained” by Zak Ettamymy:

“For Algeria to think that Morocco will be muscled out of the Sahara is either strange imagination or wishful thinking; Morocco did not occupy a sovereign nation, Morocco did not annex a land belonging to another nation, a Sahara nation was never a reality and not even an idea. For Morocco to accept the injection of a proxy state in the 21st century is pure hallucination from the Algerian generals.”

From “Aminatou Haidar as Seen by Her Own People,” by Mohammed Beni Azza:

“Ms. Aminatou Haidar, who claims to be a human rights activist, is actually working closely with the Western Sahara separatist group, Polisario, and their backer, Algeria’s military regime. In fact, she is currently working closely with Algeria’s ambassador in Washington, Mr. Abdallah Baali, who is coordinating and funding her ‘human rights’ lobbying activities in the US. … Algeria’s current lobbying through proxies such as Ms. Aminatou Haidar and others aims to keep the status quo in the Sahara by advancing the independence as the only option. In the minds of Algeria’s strategists, keeping Morocco mired in the current situation costs it substantial resources and mitigates any resistance that Morocco would pose to Algeria’s ambition to become a regional power in North Africa. Algeria’s long-term objective is to secure access to the Atlantic ocean through a client ’state’ such as a ‘Sahrawi Republic’ in the disputed region.”

Further Reading

This 2007 article, “Western Sahara Between Autonomy and Intifada,” is one of the more balanced I was able to find. It seems to take the rightness of the Polisario cause for granted, nearly ignores the Algerian angle, and probably overstates the popularity of the Polisario among the Sahrawi themselves — but at least it has a decent summary of the conflict, in a clean, analytical style. Despite its bias, it reaches the same conclusion I have, that given the stakes held by the various players in the conflict, Saharan independence is no longer an option. As a result, it behooves Morocco to move quickly to offer Sahrawis something more attractive than the current stalemate.

That’s why I think the autonomy plan is so important. Autonomy becomes even more attractive if it can be seen as part of the movement of Morocco as a whole into an era of vibrant democracy and inter-regional cooperation. Aboubakr Jamaï recently made a similar point, in a letter from an imaginary “Sahraoui friend.” His fictional correspondant says that he wants to remain part of Morocco, but has grown more attracted to independence as democratic reforms in Morocco have seemed to stall. Let’s hope that Mohammed VI’s new “advanced regionalization” plan reignites the old sense of hope.

Do Muslims automatically vote Islamic? … When we examined results from parliamentary elections in all Muslim societies, we found [that]…given the choice, voters tend to go with secular parties, not religious ones. Over the past 40 years, 86 parliamentary elections in 20 countries have included one or more Islamic parties…. Eighty percent of these Islamic parties earned less than 20 percent of the vote, and a majority got less than 10 percent—hardly landslide victories. The same is true even over the last few years, with numbers barely changing since 2001.

True, Islamic parties have won a few well-publicized breakthrough victories, such as in Algeria in 1991 and Palestine in 2006. But far more often, Islamic parties tend to do very poorly. What’s more, the more free and fair an election is, the worse the Islamic parties do. By our calculations, the average percentage of seats won by Islamic parties in relatively free elections is 10 points lower than in less free ones.

Even if they don’t win, Islamic parties often find themselves liberalized by the electoral process. We found that Islamic party platforms are less likely to focus on sharia law or armed jihad in freer elections and more likely to uphold democracy and women’s rights. …

These are still culturally conservative parties, by any standard, but their decision to run for office places them at odds with Islamic revolutionaries. … What enrages Zawahiri and his ilk is that Islamists keep ignoring demands to stay out of parliamentary politics. Despite threats from terrorists and a cold shoulder from voters, more and more Islamic parties are entering the electoral process. A quarter-century ago, many of these movements were trying to overthrow the state and create an Islamic society…. Now, disillusioned with revolution, they are working within the secular system.

I’m a secular progressive, so I doubt I would ever vote for an Islamic party like Morocco’s Justice and Development Party (PJD), even if I could. However, I certainly support their right to be part of the political process, for precisely the reasons outlined above. Islamic parties are rarely the most popular alternative in free and open elections—and whether they win or not, their efforts to appeal to a majority cause them to moderate their views. Meanwhile, they channel the views of the conservative part of society into the political process, which is certainly better than keeping those views on the angry fringe.

Morocco’s 2007 parliamentary elections were a demonstration of this. Many observers expected the PJD to win a decisive victory, but in fact they ended up in distant second place, behind the center-right Istiqlal Party. While this seemed surprising at the time—one survey by an American organization had predicted the PJD might win 47% of the vote—it is in keeping with the long-term trends shown in this study.

Once again, let me say that it distresses me to see Muslims portrayed in the American media as extremist by nature. Taking a few highly visible exceptions and projecting them onto society as a whole makes no more sense than imagining that everyone in America is as rich as Warren Buffett. In Morocco at least, Muslims are no more extremist in their views than most Americans, and I’m convinced that the majority favor a secular approach to public policy. What Moroccans want is good governance and economic opportunity, and these are secular, not religious concerns.

Fortunately we now have a study to show what common sense should have told us already—that democracy in the Muslim world, far from being a path to religious extremism, is in fact a useful tool in helping to ensure its decline.

[President Obama said:] “We must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death…while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress. … That’s the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists.”

But why it is so hard for Muslims to “get” that message? Why can’t they end their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Gaza long enough to reflect on how we are only trying to save them from terrorists while simultaneously demonstrating our commitment to “justice and progress”? …

People in the Middle East already know how Palestinians have been mistreated for decades; how Washington has propped up Arab dictatorships; how Muslims have been locked away at Guantanamo without charges; how the U.S. military has killed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere; how U.S. mercenaries have escaped punishment for slaughtering innocents.

The purpose of U.S. “public diplomacy” appears more designed to shield Americans from this unpleasant reality….

McGovern’s point is that poor “communication” with the Muslim world isn’t the problem. The problem is America’s own policies and actions. If we want to have better relations with Muslims, we need to examine our actions, such as “propping up Arab dictatorships,” “killing civilians,” and our one-sided support for Israel in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Unfortunately, this is a conversation most Americans aren’t willing to have. Most of us take the lazy way out, contenting ourselves with viewing the Muslim world as irrational. They hate us “for our freedoms” or “because of who we are.” Their religon drives them to do it, or it is all a misunderstanding that can be cleared up with better public relations.

As an American who has lived for three of the last six years in Morocco, I can say that the Muslims I know don’t hate the U.S. “for our freedoms.” Indeed, they tend to admire our freedoms, and wish they could share them. They do disagree strongly with our actions, such as our military adventures in the Muslim world, or our arming of Israel for its attacks on Lebanon and Gaza. There is anger at that, sure, but it isn’t anger at the U.S.—it is anger at U.S. actions.

What is remarkable is that this anger kept in balance. There is no need to tell the Muslims I know that Al Qaeda offers “a bankrupt vision of misery and death,” as Obama put it. They already know that. Young men like Abdulmutallab are the very, very rare exception. Most Muslims, like people anywhere, are far more concerned with the needs of their families, or getting good grades, or advancing their careers.

Americans seem to think that Muslims are obsessed with hate for the U.S., but it just isn’t so. We like to imagine that others give us the same importance in their own lives that we give ourselves. But the fact is, Muslims live in a multipolar world at the intersection of Africa, Europe and Asia. They do think about the U.S., but not obsessively. And I think it’s safe to say that they view us not with hate, but with regret. They see a nation that has much to offer, but is getting in its own way through misguided policies.

If the U.S. wants to be safe from the Abdulmutallabs of the future, the first step would be to stop overreacting. One man, Osama Bin Laden, has managed to goad us into intervening in five different countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. His assassins killed 3000 Americans in one day, but more Americans have died in our eight-year-long counterattack, along with hundreds of thousands in the nations we’ve invaded, most of them civilians.

If America “stands for justice and progress,” as Obama said, this isn’t the way to show it. America needs to understand that the Muslim world isn’t judging us by our words, but our actions. A nice first step would be to acknowledge the Goldstone Report and put real pressure on Israel. Another would be to open a debate on why we maintain 700 military bases in 130 countries. In any case, the way for the U.S. to earn trust in the Muslim world is to change our behavior.

The tactics for prosecuting this war are deeply immoral. Increasingly, robot aircraft and assassination squads are used in place of the regular army. Much of this activity is put in the hands of private contractors working with the CIA, or equally secretive groups within the Defense Department. Decision-making is compartmentalized, with no oversight from Congress. Civilians are routinely killed in much higher numbers than the intended target, or the target is missed completely. A tip comes in from some informer, and the order is given to take out the enemy. Who makes these decisions? What controls are there? No one really knows. The results are largely hidden from public view by a complacent media, but they aren’t hidden from the victims on the ground. Still, those places are far away and of little concern to the American public, except that we’re told they breed terrorists. There is no moral outrage, none, at our death squads and robot planes. No one questions the right of America to behave in this way, defending its interests against the entire world.

History teaches that this is how empires fail. “What can’t go on forever, won’t.” Eventually, other nations or groups will claim the same privileges, and America’s dominator impulse will prove self-defeating. “The widening gyre…the center cannot hold” —that is where we are now. For America, it may be too late to turn back, because the mentality of assumed privilege is deeply rooted. What sickens me is that Obama was elected in large part because he promised a more humane and moderated view of global affairs. He still claims to be guided by the limits of American power, an awareness of what America can’t do. But he is using his logical gifts to defend American exceptionalism. This is an inherently irrational concept, which can’t be squared with the interests of humanity as a whole. Attempting to use reason to defend unreason leads to moral bankruptcy. America is no longer the force for good it perhaps once was, it is a military dynamo and spreader of chaos. Subtle reasoning won’t change that. Only repentance can change that, and America shows no signs of repenting anytime soon.