The Arab World Takes a Hard Look at Itself

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
Clearly it is high time we supported true democracy in the region. The move against Arafat is a massive step in the right direction.

Time and again you amaze me!

The Western world has hardly ever supported democratic reform in the Muslim world. On the contrary, most disagreeable Muslim elites are propped up by continuous Western support. Movements for democratic reform have been betrayed on several occasions.

Just one example: Saddam Husayn

"It appeared to Husayn that the Iranian government was endeavoring to destabilize his regime by aiding the Kurdish rebellion, encouraging a Shi‘a uprising, and denouncing the legitimacy of Ba‘thist rule. He resolved to topple Khomeini's government before it could fully consolidate its power. In this decision Husayn had the support of the oil-rich monarchs of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Gulf states for whom Khomeini's brand of populist, revolutionary Islam was anathema; he also had the support of the United States.

Throughout the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the Soviet Union was Iraq's major arms supplier. But Western powers also came to Baghdad's aid. France, which was deeply involved in several large development projects in Iraq, provided Husayn's forces with Mirage jets and Super-Etendard war planes equipped with Exocet missiles. In 1984 diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad, severed in 1967, were restored, and the United States started to provide Iraq with military intelligence. The United States also pressured its allies not to sell weapons to Iran and, in the final year of the war, campaigned for an embargo against Iranian oil. When Iran stepped up its attacks on Kuwaiti shipping in 1987, the United States allowed Kuwait's vessels to fly the U.S. flag, thus making an attack on them equivalent to an attack on a U.S. ship. Washington also reinforced its naval presence in the Gulf, and on several occasions in 1987 and 1988, U.S. gunboats engaged in direct military actions against Iran.

Although the U.S. government and media directed nearly hysterical criticism toward Saddam Husayn and his regime during the 1990-1991 crisis, we should recall how crucial U.S. assistance to Iraq was during the earlier war. For the United States in the 1980s, the demon of the Middle East was Ayatollah Khomeini, not Saddam Husayn, and Washington was willing to ignore the brutality of Husayn's regime in order to prevent the spread of the kind of Islamic radicalism and anti-U.S. sentiment represented by Khomeini. What was at stake for the United States in this war, as perhaps in that of 1991, was not human rights but oil reserves."
(source: W.L.Cleveland : "A History of the Modern Middle East",1994)

During the '80s I was constantly disappointed by the lack of media attention for this conflict, one of the longest and most bloody wars of the century.

I am not against democratic reform in the Muslim world, but would like to point out that the result would be rather undesirable: most Muslim countries would probably install some fundamentalist anti-Western regime!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am not against democratic reform in the Muslim world, but would like to point out that the result would be rather undesirable: most Muslim countries would probably install some fundamentalist anti-Western regime!

Um... we are talking about the ARAB world. I'd refer you to another post in this thread

Plus Malasia, Sigapore, Indonesia, & Mongolia are at least populist states with democratic pretensions which is more then I can say for any Arab state.

Malaysia and Indonesia are BOTH Muslim states.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I am not against democratic reform in the Muslim world, but would like to point out that the result would be rather undesirable: most Muslim countries would probably install some fundamentalist anti-Western regime!

Um... we are talking about the ARAB world. I'd refer you to another post in this thread

My most sincere apologies for saying something about non-Arab Muslim countries. I am dreadfully sorry!

Nevertheless, I am still not opposed to democratic reform in Muslim countries, whether Arab or non-Arab.
I hope you agree that even in some non-Arab Muslim countries the quality of democracy could be improved somewhat?

By the way, did you know that Dutch colonial rule made the Islam the dominant religion of Indonesia by crushing Hinduism?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I hope you agree that even in some non-Arab Muslim countries the quality of democracy could be improved somewhat?

Well true... but they aren't all dreadful, as some Muslim countries do have fledging Democracies.

And no, I didn't know that about Indonesia. Why did that happen?

[Ned]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


Time and again you amaze me!

The Western world has hardly ever supported democratic reform in the Muslim world. On the contrary, most disagreeable Muslim elites are propped up by continuous Western support. Movements for democratic reform have been betrayed on several occasions.

Just one example: Saddam Husayn

S. Kroeze, I am quite aware that our past policies have promoted pro-US monarchies maintained seemingly pro-US dictators in the interest of stability. We, AFAIK, have not actively promoted democracy and human rights in the region. I beleive Bush's call for true democracy from the Palestinians is a first. I also think democracy is the only long term solution for the area - not only for Arab prosperity and liberty, but also for stability.

[Lord Merciless]

Transitions from a well established medieval civilization to a modern society takes a lot of pain. Just look at what mess and upheavals England, France, Russia, China, India, Germany, Japan, and Turkey had gone through. The Arab world has YET to go through a major revolution, one not only in changing the form of government, but also people's mindset.

[chequita guevara]

Bush isn't calling for true democracy from the Palestinians. He's telling them they can't have their leader of choice and won't get peace until they pick someone more to the US's likings.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Bush isn't calling for true democracy from the Palestinians. He's telling them they can't have their leader of choice and won't get peace until they pick someone more to the US's likings.

He's doing that as well. However, the reason he is doing it is that Arafat is the problem, not its solution. The PAL people will never have good government so long as this modern reincarnation of Tamerlane continues his tryanny.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Malaysia and Indonesia are BOTH Muslim states.

Are Malaysia and INdosnesia considered to be apart of the Arab world?

[Arrian]

I think it's unlikely that the Palestinians will have a real democracy while under occupation, Ned. Even after it ends, democracy requires... let's call it the "infrastructure of civil society." That's lacking in Palestine now, either because it's never been there, or because it's been blown up or bulldozed.

Bush's call for democracy in Palestine before ending the conflict is, IMO, silly. The conflict empowers the militants - who certainly don't want democracy.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Silly? There are many very well educated Palestinians. They are fully capable of self government. The problem is not with the Palestinian people, it is with the thugs and criminals who control their government. These folks have to go.

[Arrian]

Yes, of course they do. But I don't think they're going anywhere so long as the Israelis and Palestinians are essentially at war. The conflict is what sustains those "folks."

-Arrian

[Ned]

Perhaps, but even the Germans had a revolution right in a middle of a war. It can happen.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, are you referring to the attempted assassination?

I think the example you are looking for is 1917 Russia.

[GeneralTacticus]

Ned, are you referring to the attempted assassination?

I think the example you are looking for is 1917 Russia.

The Germans did have a socialist revolution right at the end of the war, I think it was one of the reasons they signed the armistice.

[CyberGnu]

I think I missed that part... What was that all bout?

But I don't think it strengtens Neds point, since the war was pretty much lost. The russian revolution is much closer to the current situation.

I still don't belive there will be a revolution in palestine, though...

[GeneralTacticus]

I think I missed that part... What was that all bout?

The whole country was going to hell, with winter coming on and food and fuel shortages from the blockade.

[DanS]

I think Ned's point is very important. A lot can happen in politics in 5 months time. The tide could turn against Arafat now that the fix isn't in, there could be a revolution in Tehran leading to less monetary support for the radical groups, or Saddam Hussein's corpse could be rotting in his bunker after he has blown his own brains out. On these things, I can't help but think that the delta can pretty much only accrue to the wider Arab world's (and our) benefit.

But the other non-political changes don't go so quickly, and that's some of the toughest stuff. Literacy, democratic institutions, open societies, and economics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are Malaysia and INdosnesia considered to be apart of the Arab world?

They aren't... that was the point I was making. Pay attention, there will be a test .

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
I wonder what the literacy rates were for the US 200 years ago.

3/4, probably; that was around what the British had.

The literacy in England was unbelievable to outsiders (especially a bit earlier, in middle of 17th century). They marvelled at common working men reading the newspapers (unsustainable without high literacy rates)...

[Verto]

First America is blamed for throwing its weight around.

Then the US is blamed for NOT throwing its weight around.

You want us to improve human rights and literacy rates, but you ALSO want to be able to complain that we're expanding our trashy culture of sex and McDonalds in places it isn't wanted.

You can't have both.