RSS« The benefits of getting poisoned by Chicken Biryani. | Wolf: On Bush »
June 15, 2004
Interim Thoughts, A Local Editorial on the "Greater Middle East Initiative" [edited - comments added
Unfortunately a rebound in the nastiness from the Chicken Biryani has me down again - I am beginning to suspect the old iron stomach is getting delicate in its old age (well not old age yet, but my woman tells me I have a grey hair, first one, so there.).
Nevertheless, a brief comment on this, which I will quote in full as there is no online archive. Emphasis added at the key points, in my opinion of course, with [Key Point Markers] in brackets for ease of reference.
Jordanian Perspective
Reform — need and conviction
Musa Keilani
I have just returned from Qatar, where the Gulf Studies Centre held a conference on Democracy and Reform in the Middle East. The former prime minister of Sudan, Sadeq Al Mahdi, Prof. Sadd Eddin Ibrahim, who was recently released from a Cairo jail for his human rights activism, Dr Hasan Mohammed Al Ansari from Qatar University and nearly 80 Arab intellectuals discussed the chronic question of democracy and reform in their respective countries and wondered why decision makers abide by Washington's recipe for economic reform, through the International Monetary Fund, but refrain from applying a parallel political recipe for reform, and consider it a violation of their territorial imperative and sovereignty.
[Point A]We know that it is not exactly the great desire to see democracy prevail in the Arab world that is behind America's Greater Middle East Initiative. The US wants the Arab governments to eliminate local groups opposed to the American policy in the Middle East and Washington's approach to the Muslim world in general. The only way the US could think of achieving its objective is to insist on “democracy” and “reform” in the Middle East as a pressure point and leverage against the governments.
The equation is quite simple: [Point B]the world knows that if there were to be Western-style elections in the Arab world today, the winners would be those who are described by Washington as anti-US hardliners and extremists — Islamists, the very party that the US is targeting for crackdown. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the American explanation that the root of all troubles in the Middle East is lack of democracy and that is why the US is pushing for it.
The Arab countries expressed their rejection of the American drive to impose reforms on the Arab world. No externally imposed reform is going to work in the Arab world; it would only result in chaos and confusion and that is something we, Arabs, could ill afford. Reforms in the Arab world have to take into consideration many factors, including history, culture, traditions, politics, tribalism and indeed the ground realities.
Several Arab countries, including Jordan, accepted the American invitation to the Group of Eight summit in Georgia, but their attendance does not signal an endorsement of the US plan. [Point C]If anything, they took advantage of the marked absence of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to emphasise the Arab rejection of the US proposals and managed to dilute it. Instead of the Greater Middle East Initiative, it became “Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa”. It is obvious that the changes did take into consideration the Arab reservations over the first draft prepared by Washington, although the amendments did not go far enough.
[Point D]The prevailing feeling in the Arab world over whatever the US does in the region is scepticism. Rightly so, because Washington has done little to convince the Arabs that it is interested in a fair, just and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the contrary, the American track record has nothing but open bias in favour of Israel.
Therefore, the feeling is that Washington is again trying to hoodwink the Arabs into believing that it has a genuine intention to find a just, fair and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not to mention the original American draft of the reform initiative, which reeked of a grand design to reshape the Arab region to suit American and Israeli interests.
The endorsement of the “amended” US plan by the G-8 has given it an international look. Why should other members of the group worry about the impact of the US plan on the Arab world, anyway? They signed on the dotted line and lined up behind the US in this context, while refusing to let the US have the full Iraqi pie. [Point E] Again, we Arabs find ourselves and our future being judged by others. No one is disputing that the Arabs need reform; that the Palestinian problem remains unresolved and the Arabs were unable to respond effectively to the Iraqi crisis are the best indicator of the dire need for reforms in the Arab world. However, the American way is not the answer, since its objective is not reform, but serving American interests.
The need of the day is for the Arabs to look inwards and find out for themselves where they have been going wrong and what should be done to correct things. It needs a sea change in mindset. The Arabs have to be convinced of legitimacy regarding the areas where they need reform and they need to come up with realistic and feasible ideas to usher in the changes. It has to be done gradually and in phases. Those who do not want to share power should be persuaded to understand and accept that changes are inevitable, and it is much better if they come from within rather than being imposed from the outside.
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Coming Soon, my reflections on the above.
[EDITED ADDED ANALYSIS]
A bit late, but here it is:
Comments
Well, an interesting article. It reflects fairly common thinking, some of it dead on in my opinion, some of it rather whinging on.
Now as to my "Point A", as I identified it, it strikes me that the author is correct in writing "The US wants the Arab governments to eliminate local groups opposed to the American policy in the Middle East and Washington's approach to the Muslim world in general." There is no doubt about that, although how one defines "opposed to" (tightly, widely) changes the meaning of this in some respects. The author, I know, means this very broadly. I doubt that is entirely fair (although it is not so off the mark in some respects. Certainly there is a dangerous and clumsy tendancy in certain quarters to identify any opposition to the United States with terrorism - e.g. the accusations of al-Jazeerah spreading jihadi agitprop when al-Jazeerah is really just more or less plain vanilla pandering to inchoate Arab nationalist sentiment. I would grant then the author has a real point here, despite the implicit exageration.
He adds, on this same line, "The only way the US could think of achieving its objective is to insist on “democracy” and “reform” in the Middle East as a pressure point and leverage against the governments." Hard to say how I would characterize this analysis. Certainly on its face (leaving aside the "only" which is mere hyperbole) it is hard to say this is an incorrect analysis. Certainly the insistance on democracy and reform is indeed intended to pressure Arab governments along some path the United States believes best, although I would qualify this by saying it is not at all clear that the current American Administration has anything approaching a clear, analytical view of what that path is, what it should and can entail and what trade offs between near term and long term goals need to be made given limited resources.
Certainly, while the author implies here and later on rather more clearly that the focus on democracy and the like is utterly cynical, I would argue that from what I have seen, I would be happier if it were, for sadly it appears naively sincere. That is to say, the present Bush Administration seems all-too driven in its Middle Eastern policy (as probably other policies, but I don't care very much about anything but my turf), by airy, pie-in-the-sky thinking and cotton candy analysis of what "democracy" can achieve - one can understand this as the sort of childish, amateur bar=room analysis of "democracy good, autocracy bad" and the equally childish and simplistic analysis that if one simply brings "democracy" to a country, why all will just turn fine and dandy.
Which is to say, that frighteningly this current Bush Administration is not cynical enough in the right ways, and deeply off-track in its approach to practical matters - as we have seen in my ... bloody hell over a year of commentary on the CPA-Iraq. The senior officials no doubt really mean it when they say, in their blithe and childish ignorance of the real world over here, that they consider the "European" position that one cannot just drop in democracy into the region (mis-stated in their hazy cotton candy thinking to be that democracy is impossible - full stop - in the Middle East) to be "incredibly condescending" etc. Of course they are blissfully unaware that their naive and childish assumption that the rest of the world thinks, acts, reacts exactly as they do, and I mean that very precisely not merely in a general sense, is itself the actually condescending view. I note again that few of us specialists - I say few as I imagine there are always exceptions - believe democratic, free market states are impossible in the Arab world, rather I would say that "we" (I and people like me) understand there is a hard row to hoe in terms of near term material and cultural conditions before you can create healthy democratic polities in most of the Arab states. The socio-economic stresses are just too high.
Now as to "Point B," the author is largely right in stating: " the world knows that if there were to be Western-style elections in the Arab world today, the winners would be those who are described by Washington as anti-US hardliners and extremists — Islamists, the very party that the US is targeting for crackdown. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the American explanation that the root of all troubles in the Middle East is lack of democracy and that is why the US is pushing for it."
Indeed, he is perfectly correct in pointing out the fundamental contradictions in the new US policy, and the reason why it is viewed so. I think the implication, however, that the new push for reform and democracy is utterly cynical is off-base. Rather, it is not cynical enough, in my opinion, and as I states supra, in my opinion more informed by cotton-candy, wishful thinking than clear-headed analysis. Regardless, in my opinion, the first portion of the statement is perfectly correct. Now, the second half, with the implication that lack of democracy is not at the root of issues, is a bit more problemetic. I certainly would agree that there are issues more important than democratisation in the immediate future, such as economic reform and opening up opportunities for the huge demographic bulge coming up in the Arab region.
I note that "Point C" actually surprised me, but his statement that attending Arab countries "took advantage of the marked absence of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to emphasise the Arab rejection of the US proposals and managed to dilute it" rather clearly reflects hostility towards the Saudi and Egyptian regimes. I am not sure where to place that. Probably both as ineffectual toadies of the Americans, or perhaps panderers. Hard to place, but an interesting comment.
Now, as to "Point D" where the author writes that scepticism towards the US rules, well that is quite clear. His explanation, in terms of local perceptions or rather regional perceptions is spot on: "Rightly so, because Washington has done little to convince the Arabs that it is interested in a fair, just and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the contrary, the American track record has nothing but open bias in favour of Israel." The loss of the pretence, the plausible deniabilty - rather typical of the artless foreign policy of the present Administration - was incredibly damaging. The transparent adoption and discarding of policies for near term domestic political gain, or rather childishly cynical adoption for achieving "next week goals" at the expense of longer (and I speak only of months or years) term goals seems all too typical, and rather indicative of the tedious idiocy of this present American Administration in its clumsy lurching about.
This comment, regarding Israeli designs in particular should not be too quickly dismissed: Therefore, the feeling is that Washington is again trying to hoodwink the Arabs into believing that it has a genuine intention to find a just, fair and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not to mention the original American draft of the reform initiative, which reeked of a grand design to reshape the Arab region to suit American and Israeli interests.
There is much to Iraq planning that suggests to me that certain personnages in the present Administration confused American and Israeli strategic interests in regards to Iraq.
Finally, regarding "Point E" it rather appears to me correct on one level, that the Arabs need to move and generate their own reforms - certainly with outside help as appropriate, but only as far as they wish to go. Islamophobes such as the 'blogger' Tacitus and others with a desire to see the entire world turned into a little America (or a big one as the case may be) are simply going to be disappointed and frustrated with their messianic transformational dreams. Transformation does not happen without massive bloodshed and war, something that I doubt is worth the cost on either side, and frankly trying to 'transform' other cultures was already done - colonialism was its name, and it worked rather poorly as the incetive incompatibilities are too great. This is not to emptily moralize against "change" in the region or maunder on about imperialist imposition, blah blah blah. Rather it is simply to accept the reality of what is actually achievable, and what the reality of social reaction is to outside penetration, above all by people like this Tacitus who are so clueless as to write about the false consciousness of the Xian elite in this region, because their views on Israel match those of their fellow Arabs and not his. That is to say, all this "tranforming" the Muslim/Arab worlds talk is largely driven by deep-seated ignorance and misconceptions regarding what the cotton candy thinking dreamers "understand" of the region. Incremental change on the margins, in key areas, above all economic are the points which are most likely to help, and indeed are least controversial and most likely to succeed. Not a matter of idealizing the culture, but mere practicality, economics is easier.
However, even here there is controversy and the work is hard. An example to ponder: recent conversation with an Ass't GM of a bank here, the AGM opined that there was "too much" competition and that it would be better to restrict the number of authorized companies so as to provide more stability.
This the AGM of a bank, and someone otherwise well versed in economics of some kind.
Posted by The Lounsbury at June 15, 2004 01:11 PM
Filed Under:
Jan-Jul 2004
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.aqoul.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1111
