I have a sincere question for you. I'm listening to a Talk Radio program (I know, big surprise). Our morning guy is Micheal Smerconish and he is surprizingly moderate for a.m. radio. ANYWAY, he has this book author on whose name eludes me. But the point it that this author says he winces whenever he hears that the only motivation of the Islamists is that they detest freedom. Then he goes on to say something I've heard frequently from the Left and that is that U.S. foreign policy is partially to blame. Problem is, he never went any further than that.I responded thusly:
Now, you are actually involved in politics and well read in these matters. So, what is it that America does that makes the Arab world hate us? Does the average Arab in the street get roughed up by CIA operatives? Do we build KFCs at gunpoint? I'm being serious. What, in your view, is the "root cause"?
Gordon,
Pardon if what follows is jumbled and incomplete. You given me a huge and complicated question.
But, to begin with, I might direct you to my recent post 'Dinar for the Guy?' in which I tried to explain the level of antipathy America currently receives from the Middle East. But, to recap, our troubles with the Middle East stem from four main interconnecting, overlapping causes:
1. Democracy (or lack thereof)
The Arab world (by which I assume you include Iran) does not 'hate America' in quite the way you think. Certainly we have a very different culture, but cultures across the Middle East tend to be as different as you'd expect to find among 300 million people. Rather, while many people admire the economic and political success of the United States and wish to emulate it, they believe that the US is standing in the way of their own progress. For decades past (and to a certain degree, even to this day) much of the democratic sentiment in the Middle East was tied up with Marxism. Bernard Lewis, author of What Went Wrong? even wrote a series of articles detailing how Arab cultures were all basically collectivist and thus our natural enemies. As a way to safeguard its own interests in the region, America supports a series of ultra-corrupt, undemocratic regimes from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. The common justification for this is that, if democracy were allowed, a gang of theocrats would be swept in. I don't believe it; despite their portrayal in the Western media, most people in the Middle East are extremely skeptical of religion. The appeal of ultra-Islamist groups and parties stems from the fact that they can say and do things other people can't, such as criticize the government and America. They're not supposed to, of course; they were supported by mostly secular dictators to fill the ignorant masses with religious fervor so that they can't pay attention to the injustices of their daily lives. At this point, of course, it's fair to say that such groups have gotten out of control. Yet they fill a void that calls for protest and change, even if ultra-Islamic law doesn't have much popular support. When people don't have good choices, they make bad ones.
2. Imperialism
Many Middle Easterners get outraged by what they see as the incredibly cynical and self-serving way America manipulates Middle Eastern politics with no regard for the well-being of the local populations. This includes the previously mentioned royal families and dictators, but a few of the more recent and vivid examples:
With Iraq, once the CIA helped overthrow the leftist government of Abdul Qassim and pave the way for the Baathists to come to power, and the emergence of Saddam Hussein didn't phase our support for the Baathist regime one bit. We gave him money, weapons, poison gas, just because he was fighting against the Iranians - though we were giving them weapons too, apparently in the hopes that the two countries would devastate each other. When Saddam was going to invade Kuwait, he made sure he had George H. W. Bush's approval before doing so. Unfortunately for him, there was a massive and unexpected international outcry and Bush was forced to reverse himself and help drive Iraq out. In the 12 years that followed at least a half-millions Iraqis have died as a direct result of the sanctions and bombings, while ensuring that Saddam would stay in control despite considerable domestic unrest. Now, after we've gone in and deposed him, we still refuse to let the Iraqis run their own country, and our free-market approach to rebuilding their economy has proved to be a dismal failure.
In Afghanistan, the Marxist government was making great strides in education, secularizing public institutions, and expanding the rights of women. Once this government was overthrown by the Soviet Union, Reagan decided that he'd rather see a gang of crazy religious fundamentalists - including a certain Mr. bin Laden - take control than those godless Commies who happened to be struggling against those other Godless Commies. The invasion of 2001 was easily accomplished, and with good reason - the military arm of the Taliban was mostly the creation of the Pakistani military, and once they allied with us the jig was up. Hamid Karzai was installed from outside by us and was later 'elected' via a process tightly controlled by the warlords who still hold sway over almost all of the country outside Kabul. In fact, in an effort to grant Mr. Karzai some legitimacy, the U.S. has recently made some diplomatic gestures towards - who? - the Taliban, who have emerged from the mountains, shaved their beards, and are now seeking to become part of a pro-US coalition government.
3. Oil
The people of oil-rich countries believe (correctly, I think) that the revenue from such a valuable resource is rightfully theirs. Instead, it goes into the pockets of bloated strongmen who continue feeding the West's voracious appetite for petroleum. Countries like Brunei and Saudi Arabia keep the population more or less under control by not collecting taxes and handing out generous welfare payments to everybody. But this is not constructive welfare as a good social democracy would have; this is just bribery to keep people quiet. When any attempt - socialist or capitalist - is made to put more economic power in the hands of the general population, it is instantly suppressed as a threat to state power, and the U.S. gives its full assent.
4. Israel and anti-Semitism
Before the end of WWII, there very little anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, especially when compared to Europe and America. After 1948, when the great nationalist and pan-Arabic movements began, there was an effort to free the Islamic world of 'imperialist influence' from Europe and the US. Once the secular nationalist movements died down and the current system of oil-dictators and their attendant clerics began to take power, they needed an enemy to focus people away from their current miseries and onto something conveniently foreign.
Israel was the natural choice. It was non-Muslim, backed by American power, most of its citizens were interlopers from other parts of the world, and it had made hundreds of thousands (later millions) of Palestinians into stateless refugees. The fact that it explicitly billed itself as 'the Jewish state' put it apart from the rest of the Islamic world, and The situation wasn't helped by a long Israeli PR campaign to equate Israel with the Jewish people, and thus any criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitism. It worked a bit too well; 'Israel is the Jews' was repeated so many times a lot of people started to believe it.
Concern for the Palestinians is, on the official level, mostly for show, but quite genuine among the lower masses of society. Whether you think the occupation is justified or not on the grounds of Israeli security, it still deprives millions of Palestinians of their civil, economic, and political rights. Yasir Arafat was an absurdly corrupt, awful leader, but he didn't create the situation.
Israel may be 'the only democracy in the Middle East' (as is often repeated), but this is simply because the US hasn't seen fit to overthrow it like every other would-be popularly elected government in the region. If we ever feel our interests are threatened by Israel, their democracy will be gone before you can say "Moshe Dayan".
That being said, at this point, no sane person is going to suggest that Israel either simply melt away or accept the millions of refugees back into Israel proper. Once the Palestinian issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the Palestinians (and, of course, the Israelis) the one trump card in the deck of the quislings will be played, and there will be no one left to blame but themselves.
Now, let me be clear on a number of things. There is no excuse for anti-Semitism, for abuse of women, for killing civilians, or for committing terrorism. I am not trying to absolve the culprits of such crimes of their responsibility, I am merely trying to illustrate how American actions have exacerbated and encouraged them. I have sufficient faith in Arabic (and Persian and Kurdish) humanity and desire for freedom to let them choose their own path. As a neo-conservative, you claim to be trying to spread democracy around the world. If this is the case, then you must believe that the Arabs have the capacity to be free also. I think it's time they had the chance.
This far, Mr. Gordon has thanked me for my efforts but not yet posted my response on his own blog. Even so, here it is.
15 comments:
Well, a long and broad-based post like this does deserve analysis, and, of course, criticism. My comments vis-a-vis this topic will be limited to the points that Loyal Achates brought up.
1. and 2. First of all, democracy must go beyond the literal definition of popular rule. It must include a free press, the right to peacably assemble, women's rights, protection of minority groups (both political and ethnic), an active political opposition, and (to varying degrees)free markets - or at least the right to do legitimate business without governmental intervention. All of these conditions must be met for a government to be considered truly democratic.
Now, it is undeniable that all nations, regardless of their political culture, look out for their own political and economic interests. At the time when these pseudo-democratic movements (I use this term because though they were popular movements, they did not incorporate all of the conditions I listed above)in the Arab world were stifled, Soviet influence was a huge threat to American interests. While it is lamentable that America chose to replace the Marxists with religious fundementalists, it is also undeniable that to give support to Marxists at the time would have been anathema to American interests.
But what about now? No one is denying that the autocratic governments in place are oppressing their citizens, giving free reign to terror groups while ostensibly being at war with them, and as a result, going against America's real interests. It angers me (and I would assume most likeminded people) that President Bush strolls through the bluebells with Prince Abdullah and tolerates election abuse in Egypt, but what are our alternatives?
I don't agree with your analysis that most Arabs are skeptical of religion. The poverty and lack of education, as well as frustration with the autocratic governments, leads to an embrace of radical mullahs who distort their religion to spread hate. If these governments, awful as they are, go, they will not be replaced (at this point) by benevolent social democrats, but by the followers of Osama bin Laden and his ilk.
3. America's dependence on oil is partially the cause of our support of dictators in the region, but developing alternative energy (which I believe wholeheartedly must be done) will take some time. Until then, the U.S. must unfortunately choose between the lesser of two evils.
4. First of all, there was anti-Semitism in the Arab world before 1948 (Read about the Hebron riots of 1929, which were nothing more than pogroms). It was the subtle anti-Semitism that tolerated the Jews as long as they had no political power. Israel was the manifestation of that political power, and thus, the cause of so much hate. I am also a bit baffled at the pairing of "Europe and America" - the anti-Semitism that existed in America surely can't be compared to that of Europe or even the Arab world at the time (feel free to dispute that if you like).
Secondly, not every anti-imperialist movement should be praised. Western influences were good for the Arab world, and if applied correctly, would continue to do good. Anti-imperialism is only good if it offers the people a better alternative - I don't believe in the righteousness of replacing foreign oppressors with homegrown oppressors, especially if as a direct or indirect result of foreign rule, progress is made (i.e. India and Japan).
I will agree with you on the point that Israel has been used by these leaders to create resentment and maintain their power. But it was not Israel that created the refugee problem - it was the Arab states and the Arab Palestinians who made war on the state of Israel. Of course the people in Arab countries don't see it that way, but it if you are analyzing the situation objectively, it is important to point out where Arab perceptions are incorrect.
You cannot blame the state of Israel for garnering Jewish support by emphasizing its importance to the Jewish people. It is one thing to associate Israel and 'the Jews' positively; it is another thing enitrely to do so negatively. And mainstream supporter of Israel would equate mere criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism. It is singling out the state of Israel or even denying its right to exist that can fall under that category.
As for the occupation, Yasir Arafat did help create the situation. The PLO was formed in 1964, and one does not have to be a math whiz to realize that that was three years before 1967. Its only purpose then, and I believe its more subtly stated purpose even now, is the destruction of Israel. After Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza as a result of the Arab states trying to destroy it yet again, the correct path for the Palestinians to take would be to negotiate. They chose the path of terror, and that is why they do not have a state. They are not being deprived of any rights, because Israel is doing what any democracy would do in the same situation. Their security must come first. To say that the Palestinian situation should be resolved to their satisfaction (even when all indications show that they will be satisfied only with the destruction of Israel) is nothing more than appeasement.
And the U.S. would not overthrow any Israeli government, because from the very beginning, it has been democratic in the sense that I described at the beginning of this point. True democracies, while they may vary in economic systems or general culture, do NOT go against each other's interests and do not pose a threat to one another. The Israeli people (from the very beginning) were also highly educated and capable of forming a true democracy. The event of forcible American intervention is simply not realistic.
Finally, I know Loyal Achates would never justify violence or hatred against any innocent person. However, he has a knee-jerk reaction that blames America for all of the problems in the Arab world without holding the local populations accountable (for their hatred of America, if not their tactics). A population must be blamed if they embrace religious fundementalists and terrorists. One cannot use the same old excuses that because they are poor, they cannot be criticized for their decision. I would say Loyal Achates also does himself a disservice by looking at the U.S. and Israel critically while refusing to criticize the mentality (while criticizing the tactics) of the Arab world. All of their accusations are taken as fact, which is a tragic mistake.
That should be...
And no mainstream supporter of Israel would equate mere criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism
L.A. I am most definitely going to make a post of our conversation.
However, I intend to give it the time it deserves. And time, unfortunately is in short supply these days.
p.s. The person on the talk show was the author of Imperial Hubris.
Reading it over, I seem to have gotten careless as to what was my opinion and what were the causes of Arabic discontent with America. I think that the U.S. ought to adress those grievances insofar as it is responsible for them, but ultimately we have oursleves to look out for, and everyone must do the best they can in an imperfect world.
That being said:
1 & 2. I think there's a rather pernicious idea floating out there that genuine democracies burst out fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. Not at all; it took our democracy almost 90 years to outlaw slavery and more than 140 years to give women the right to vote while not outlawing segregation for almost 200 years. Yet even a little democracy and popular will is better than none, because at least it leaves open the avenue for change.
I find it more than slightly ironic that, when America crowned itself the head of 'the free world'
we should be so opposed to letting people choose their own political and economic systems. I think ideology is given far too much weight, honestly. You can't have any hard-and-fast rules about what system is best in all situations for all people, and I don't see what's so outrageous about letting Marxist government which make efforts towards popular participation and legitimacy to fail and succeed in the political process like all democratic governments.
3. We may indeed have no choice but to keep using oil, Smiling Neocon, but that doesn't touch the issue of why they resent us.
4. Again, what I described is how Israel is seen in the Arab world, and a partial perceptions are often more important than reality in understanding a situation. Obviously, viewing it as a colonial state which creates refugees and then puts them under occupation isn't nearly the whole story; an honest discussion of the issue would have to include any Arabic culpability in making those people refugees, the indifference of wealthy Middle Eastern states to the material deprivations of the Palestinians, and the faults of Palestinian society itself in supporting various groups that committ violence.
And when I said that Arafat isn't responsible for 'the situation', I meant the refugee problem, which stems from 1948 and he didn't cause (but certainly worsened).
Once more, pardon any misunderstandings my lazy writing style may have caused, but the issue at hand is not what America ought to be doing, but what America is doing (or is thought to be doing) that causes so much trouble.
Perhaps unwittingly, I believe smiling neocon hit upon the fundamental issue when he stated that "free markets" are an essential aspect of a democracy.In my world view (and to many on the left)so called "free markets" stand in direct oppositional tension to the concept of democracy and I believe it is this, rather than cultural or religious values,which is the root of not only the conflicts in the middle East but all instability throughout the world. This is not to say culture,religion,pathologies,and a whole host of other factors don't have a part in the overall matrix of cause in these conflicts but that it is critical to identify structure.
A bourgeois democracy installed at gunpoint will do nothing to feed the growing numbers of starving and dispossed of the planet nor to curb the growth of violence,and yes,terrorism, bred in these conditions.
She. Smiling Neocon is a she.
"free markets" are another aspect of human social interaction.
There is nothing more "democratic" than leaving people alone to go about their business.
If what are generally reffered to as 'free markets' were anything like that, it'd be one thing, but that's an argument for another day.
Also, it's not often that I agree with President Bush, but, when questioned about fears of Hamas taking over after Disengagement, he said: "I can understand why people think this decision is one that will create a vacuum into which terrorism will flow. I happen to disagree. I think this will create an opportunity for democracy to emerge."
Although our ideas of democracy are very different, I happen to think he's right, and I doubt many people (especially not Smiling Neoocn) would say that the Palestinians are particularly moderate or pacifist.
Sorry again, smiling neocon,SHE, I think Ive got it. Sorry as well for overgeneralizing about the narrowness of your concerns, you make a reasoned argument here about "democratization" though I stand by my point about the contradiction between capitalism and democracy. It's true the capitalist and the wage earner are each enfranchised with one vote, but we all know the "vote" of money,and it's attendant power, plays out on a different stage than the vote of the ballot box.A worker cannot vote to change the wage system which keeps him oppressed, and therefore is not truly "free".This is a very simplified explanation of course.
I seem to have an amazing ability to kill these threads, oh well.I wanted to add that, having discussed economic freedom, or lack thereof in participating in decisions concerning allocation and production of resources and commodities,there is another aspect to freedom, political freedom and this too is subverted by capitalism.(anyone at the FTAA protests in Miami realizes the extent to which dissent is allowed and the presidential elections should shatter any idealistic notions concerning democracy and the ballot) Finally there is the cultural aspect stated well by priest and activist Ivan Illich,"In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves, the prisoners of envy and the prisoners of addiction".
I know this is unrelated to this particular thread, but I'd like to ask troutsky:
You include the quote,"In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves, the prisoners of envy and the prisoners of addiction".
How would you respond to the view that envy (of another's possessions) and addiction (I will take that to be consumption of a particular material object) do more good than harm through creating competition among individuals and businesses?
I would reply,smiling neocon, that on the physical level the tension caused by these states (envy and addiction) is antithetical to compassion for others which is the basis for happiness. There can be no joy when you are envious or addicted or greedy, all unfortunate aspects of a competitive ,consumer society.Short form,but I hate to clog up Loyals space.
David Brooks sees the orders for durable goods increase and believes democracy is on the rise throughout the region.
"The spectacle is the stage at which the commodity has succeeded in TOTALLY colonizing social life"
Debord
"Not only aspecific form of government or party rule makes for totalitarianism, but also a specific system of productionand distribution which may well be COMPATIBLE witha 'pluralism of parties, newspapers, countervailing powers etc.."
"social controls exact the overwhelming need for maintaining such deceptive liberties as free competition at administered prices, a free press which censors itself, free choice between brands and gadgets.."
Marcuse
Post a Comment