I hope none of you get that reference.
Thank you everyone for being patient with this blog, I hope that now that posting will resume, those of you who did follow it before will continue to follow it now. I have had my break from politics, and it was a good time for it, since very little happened in the world of politics outside of 2 major stories, the State of the Union, and the conflicts going on in Egypt now. But now it’s time to start again. I have devoted much time to the study of the Arab world as well as the Islamic world and I could not stay out of the discussions going on about Egypt. These events are too critical a tool for the use of exposing the major problems in US foreign policy. The post below is lengthy, and I debated breaking it up into parts, but I think I'd rather have it all out there and encourage you to take your time reading it.
But first a note on future programming. I am under the impression that the next post will be from our elusive guest author, the Dr. Professor of Economics; I will try to ensure that we remain on schedule for an interesting fleshing out of our economic systems here in the US and issues regarding the deficit. I also have received a request to review the new Zeitgeist Movie and I fully intend to do so when I have 3 hours to devote to taking a critical eye to it. From what I’ve seen so far, it is much less conspiratorial than previous iterations, and is very careful to ground itself better in established wisdom. I fully recommend you check it out yourself when you have the time, or you can wait until I’ve examined its value. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&feature=player_embedded
But back to the issue at hand. In light of the recent political turmoil in Tunisia and Egypt, and many other locations across the Arab world, I wanted to tie together a few things that may be of interest.
Most of you are familiar with what has been going on in Egypt, many of you may not know that the whole thing began in Tunisia where several weeks prior to Egypt, the “Jasmine Revolution” occurred. We didn’t hear so much about the Jasmine Revolution in America, but we are hearing about Egypt- this is for a few reasons. First, Tunisia’s population is 1/8 that of Egypt’s, it is not considered to be a “critical ally” for strategic or trade reasons, and the revolution that occurred there was rapid, virtually bloodless and successful. Egypt didn't play out the same way.
But here’s the background story. Tunisia had been ruled by a short series of dictators for a generation, the most recent of whom was Ben Ali. Like most of the Arab world today, the economic recession has caused a lot of poverty, and food prices in particular are quite inflated. So, the story goes, a young computer scientist, after failing to find a job in his field or any field, was forced, like many Tunisians, to sell food goods-evidently without a permit- on the street to make ends meet. Some officers of the Regime were trying to clear the streets of such vendors and “asked” him to leave. When the man refused, his goods were confiscated and, evidently lost and hopeless, he proceeded to set himself on fire.
This act of protest was the spark for massive demonstrations in support of the man and in support of removing Ben Ali. After a few tense days, Ben Ali fled the country and the Tunisians are now in the process of reforming their government with opposition members for the first time being allowed to involve themselves in the process.
Encouraged by what happened in Tunisia, protests erupted in various Arab countries, but on January 27 they crystallized in Egypt, when demonstrations probably exceeding 70,000 people broke through police lines and occupied Tahrir Square, a central location in the capital of Cairo. Mirror protests occurred in other major cities. This event was preceded by several acts of self immolation in Egypt in front of government buildings- this should give you an idea of how bad things have become there.
The President and dictator of Egypt is Hosni Mubarak; he’s been serving in Egyptian public office for 62 years now and he is in his eighties. The protesters want to happen to him what happened to Ben Ali, for him to leave and take his influence with him.
Last week the protesters were forced to fight off pro-Regime supporters, but after almost 2 days of street fighting, the protesters persevered, and they are still occupying Tahrir Square as of the writing of this post. This is an up-to-date article with good pictures: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/07/egypt.protests/index.html
The primary discussions which have been going on in America regarding the occurrences in Egypt have been over whether or not to support the Mubarak Regime. A lot of military aid goes to Egypt in exchange for Mubarak’s cooperation on matters with Israel, which is the US’s primary and unbreakable ally in the region. But Egypt has also been a close partner regarding the United States’ prosecution of the War on Terror, allowing certain interrogations to take place on Egyptian soil which might be illegal in the US, and passing on useful intelligence data regarding the Arab world.
In general, fears of foreign policy experts are that although Mubarak’s Regime is a Dictatorship, it is better to leave in place a US-friendly government than one that is democratically elected but could be an ally of the “Islamists” or "Terrorists" (these terms sometimes used interchangeably). Critics have claimed that it is hypocrisy to promote democracy as an ideology, but support it in practice only when it suits the needs of US interests. Sadly, the United States government has had a history of supporting moderate dictatorships in order not to risk the formation of fundamentalist Islamist republics. I will debate whether this has been a successful strategy, and flesh out the term "Islamist", later. Given the chance to democratically control their fate, some voters in the Middle East have chosen Islamic Fundamentalist parties that support US definitions of terrorism rather than more secular parties backed by the United States.
For example, in Palestine, when democratic elections were held, the people rejected the ruling moderate Fatah Party in favor of Hamas, a terrorist organization by US standards. In Iran, a popular revolution unseated the moderate and pro-West Shah in favor of a Theocracy ruled by the Ayatollahs. And in Lebanon right now there are struggles over whether or not Hezbollah, another terrorist organization according to the US Government, will dictate policy under their pick for Prime Minister.
Likewise in Egypt there are those who are concerned that were democratic elections to take place, Egypt might stop being so supportive of United States policy, or worse, become ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist and relatively conservative Islamic political movement. Fears of the Muslim Brotherhood have become so great that at least one media personality- and perhaps a few others on one particular network- is using this occasion to warn against the perils of a rising Islamist power bloc in the Middle East. Maybe centered in Ancient Babylon.
But I say, so what if the Muslim Brotherhood ends up on top, as long as the elections were fair? If such an organization can provide for the people and support their needs as Mubarak has failed, why should we be so concerned? It will give the people of Egypt, even the world, a chance to see what positive impacts Islamism is capable of. But more importantly, it’s just not so likely that they will succeed. After all, while there have been examples of Islamism taking hold in some countries , there have been others where popular support falls a different way: look at Tunisia for instance, or the main body of protesters in Egypt. These people are secularists for the most part. And those who are not secularists, well who’s to say they shouldn’t also have a voice, after all, no political leader in Egypt has declared war on us yet! I think if people are allowed to realize their own potential through democracy, they will support moderation and peace, since this is the nature of people who are not pushed to war!
Let me give an example.
There are fears that Islam itself tends to support violence, but I see no basis to this claim. I want to be clear. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam is not a violent religion. People have used interpretations of the Islamic cultural sphere and Islamic texts to use violence on behalf of Islam. But when most public figures will tend to say “Islam is a peaceful religion” what they mean is that the overwhelming majority of those practicing Islam practice it in a way that promotes peace in the local community and often abroad. This is true of every religion, because human nature seeks stability and peace in order to live life in a fulfilling way.
Those who do not use religion for peace usually do so for two primary reasons. This is not to say that the 3rd reason, what I’ll call “Fervent Ideology” (someone passionately believing in a social system that does not promote peace) is not ever a factor, but most of the time it is a result of the 1st or 2nd reason and does not spring up on its own. The 1st reason is that the ruling state incentivizes the violent use of religion. This was true of the Crusades. Or 2nd, the peace, stability, and prosperity of a location is destabilized by poverty, religious or non-religious violence, famine, drought, overpopulation, prejudicial discrimination, and trampling of popularly perceived rights and freedoms, etc, and these destabilizations can be clearly and closely connected to an antagonist force against which religious violence can be turned (like a country, or the "West"). These two factors motivate the use of religion for means outside that of a peaceful society. BUT even given these two factors, the MAJORITY of the populace will always support peace and stability, regardless of poverty and state incentivization, etc.
You could argue that Egypt is destabilized and poor, and if the people representing the Muslim Brotherhood are elected they will sponsor religious violence-- these are all the precursors mentioned above! But I don't think this is likely if Egypt remains truly a democracy. Firstly because the Muslim Brotherhood is not necessarily a violent organization or one promoting violence, at least not openly if so, because it has historically promoted non-violence. And secondly, because the majority of people will seek stability, not violence; they will not tolerate a ruling party that trends too far from the center of the general popular view. This is what is happening in Lebanon. Yes, Hezbollah may gain some power through elections, but they are unlikely to advocate something truly unpopular with more than half the populace, like having Lebanon go to war with Israel, or implementing universal Sharia Law- and it's unlikely they'd have the political power to do so even if they wished. I think this will have to be the result of any ruling party in Egypt: relative peace and stability. There is no real benefit to Egyptians waging holy war when they can’t even put food on their table. Meanwhile, it is better for Egyptians to see the United States as supporting their democratic aims; in that case it is even possible, dare I say, for Egyptians to start liking the United States and truly work towards partnering with us of their own will. The longer it takes for the United States to jump on this bandwagon, the weaker the chance there will be for a true democracy, or partnership, to develop!
Because right now the only image of the US that Egyptians have gotten is the “Made in the USA” engraving on the tear gas canisters fired on them by Mubarak’s police, according to an article I read recently. This picture says it all.
My point, and where the irony lies, is here: it is precisely our insistence on supporting Regimes that trample democracy and help us exploit the natural wealth of others which is actually what is causing the kind of instability, poverty, and prejudice that is a perfect environment for Islamic fundamentalism and notions of religious violence to grow and spread. First and foremost in the mind of US policy makers are the strategic and economic interests of the global business of and people in the United States. Not the wellbeing of all those across the world. The disconnect seems to be that supporting the wellbeing of the world’s citizens seems to also be the thing that best and most efficiently serves the interests of US citizens. Wait. But why are we afraid of supporting the wellbeing of the world’s people then? Instead of explaining myself, I will let images tell the better story...
I strongly strongly encourage you to view this video about the Taliban in Pakistan, and you will catch my meaning. It’s under 20 minutes, but be prepared for some moderately intense images of violence and a little language.
One thing I like about this video is that it hopefully helps people to understand that the Taliban is different than Al-Qaeda. That Islamic fundamentalists, or even supporters of Al-Qaeda, are not themselves Al-Qaeda.
So, if you will, let me finish with a few more clarifications. So, what is all of this stuff about Islamism? It seems that what many of us is afraid of is what has been described as an Islamist ideology that will unite the Islamic world against the “West” in a great violent renunciation of all the freedoms and progress that we enjoy. The word Islamist is thrown around a lot by the media and political figures, but I want to make one last point regarding our use of that word.
Islamist has been taken to mean different things depending on the context. Either it refers to “Islamic fundamentalist”, “Terrorist”, “Jihadist”, “favoring a violent overturn of a secular or pro-west government”, or “favoring the restoration of the historical Caliphate”.
Let me break this down really quickly. Only the last definition is truly correct; Islamists favor the uniting of the Islamic world or parts of the Islamic world under one religious and political rulership (called a Caliphate) that would help to dictate the unified interests of the Islamic world. This could mean one country or several. Historically the Islamic world has been united at various points and to various degrees in this way. One does not have to be, nor is likely to be a terrorist or a jihadist to be an Islamist. Nor does one necessarily favor fundamentalism or violence at all, in fact, some Islamists favor democratic reforms which would bring about such a unification. There are other definitions to Islamism, but this is what most people are trying to mean.
There are Islamists who favor the use of violence and violence against civilians to accomplish such reforms, and some who want the entire world to be united under this Caliphate so that Islam could unquestionably thrive; if it is necessary to articulate an "enemy" for the United States, please let it be these people, so described. Al-Qaeda almost certainly falls in this category.
There are Islamists who favor the use of violence and violence against civilians to accomplish such reforms, and some who want the entire world to be united under this Caliphate so that Islam could unquestionably thrive; if it is necessary to articulate an "enemy" for the United States, please let it be these people, so described. Al-Qaeda almost certainly falls in this category.
Islamists alone, though, are not our “enemy”. Remember, Islamism is an Islamic political and religious movement aimed at protecting the Islamic faith and the interests of those practicing it, and only a tiny portion of those favoring Islamism would likely go out and join something like Al-Qaeda given the opportunity.
Moreover, Islamist is not the same as Islamic, though I’ve seen the mistake before; Islamic simply means one of the Muslim faith. The large majority of Muslims are not Islamist.
And finally, I have used the words “Arab world” in this post. Not all Arabs are Muslims, and Arabs constitute a minority of practicing Muslims. Arabs are an ethnic group and in general they speak a Semitic language related to Hebrew, and this is the language of the Qur’an. It is disappointing when I hear the word “Arab” substituted for “Muslim”. So when I say Arab world in this post, I mean North Africa and the Southwest Middle East. Primarily Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, Jordan, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq. Neither Iran nor Afghanistan nor Pakistan are majority Arab countries.
Glad to get those extra things out of the way. Ask questions if you like. Post comments as you please. Seek more information on this subject if you desire it. And as always, thanks for reading!
::Update 9:15pm, I put the article out before I had made some very important edits, please ensure you are reading the most up-to-date copy of this post. Thanks!::
::Update 9:15pm, I put the article out before I had made some very important edits, please ensure you are reading the most up-to-date copy of this post. Thanks!::
