Islamophobia

[Slothrop]

Does everyone then agree that the West should cut support for extremist regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and try to encourage democratic reform in the Middle East? Is democratic reform even possible given contemporary Arab culture?

Arguably, though, American interventionism and sabre-rattling is the worst thing possible for democratic reform in the Middle East. Everyone's aware of the idea of a western government using a credible foreign threat to justify cracking down on any form of dissent and shore up their position - "you need us because only we can protect you from the Jihadists / French / Commies / Papists / whatever" - but people often seem to miss Islamist governments doing the same thing. The need to sustain a credible American / Western threat seems to be an obvious undercurrent of the Iranian nuclear programme, for instance. And of course we're only too happy to provide that threat.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Does everyone then agree that the West should cut support for extremist regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and try to encourage democratic reform in the Middle East?

Well I certainly do, as far as this question goes.

Does the US represent the best model of democracy for people to encourage these countries to adopt? Not by a long shot, I think. Some people here seem to think I'm totally letting the US off the hook as regards what's going on in the Middle East, which is not what I'm trying to do - I think the case to be made for harmful meddling is much stronger when discussing, say, American training and arming of the future Taliban than weapon sales to Iraq. I'm just trying to bring some balance to an argument which (in these sorts of cirlces) is often dominated by claims that extremism in the region is a product solely of the actions of Western countries.

 

[vimothy]

Arguably, though, American interventionism and sabre-rattling is the worst thing possible for democratic reform in the Middle East. Everyone's aware of the idea of a western government using a credible foreign threat to justify cracking down on any form of dissent and shore up their position - "you need us because only we can protect you from the Jihadists / French / Commies / Papists / whatever" - but people often seem to miss Islamist governments doing the same thing. The need to sustain a credible American / Western threat seems to be an obvious undercurrent of the Iranian nuclear programme, for instance. And of course we're only too happy to provide that threat.

Iran is a separate case, IMO.

It's interesting though, that you kind of come out with something broadly similar to the arguments made by the current crop of Mid Eastern dictators. "Look at the mess you made in Iraq. Stop throwing your weight around in the region. We're necessary because we (like Saddam) are able to keep a lid on this."

 

[vimothy]

Arguably, though, American interventionism and sabre-rattling is the worst thing possible for democratic reform in the Middle East. Everyone's aware of the idea of a western government using a credible foreign threat to justify cracking down on any form of dissent and shore up their position - "you need us because only we can protect you from the Jihadists / French / Commies / Papists / whatever" - but people often seem to miss Islamist governments doing the same thing.

And it's more complicated.

The Arab dictators get to point the failures of Iraq out to their own subjects and say (as per the famous saying): "Better sixty years of tyranny than a single day of civil strife".

The Arab dictators get to point out the chaos that has erupted from Shia rule of an Arab country. They're Iranians. They're heretics. They're not competent to govern. (The implications for Shia minorities under Sunni rule being obvious).

The Arab dictators thus get to criticise the Americans to their own people and their own people to the Americans.

It's all about power and it has fuck all to do with religion any more than with the freedom of the proletariat.

The need to sustain a credible American / Western threat seems to be an obvious undercurrent of the Iranian nuclear programme, for instance. And of course we're only too happy to provide that threat.

Implicit counterfactual: absent American threat, would Iran really not be pursuing nuclear power? Even though Iran is obviously now the preeminent regional power? And even if they had a democratic, liberal government?

 

[adruu]

OMG, we should have pushed the Saudis to be more democratic. It's such a shame we don't have any influence on them. HOW COME WE DIDNT THINK OF THIS EARLIER!

twit.

 

[vimothy]

OMG, we should have pushed the Saudis to be more democratic. It's such a shame we don't have any influence on them. HOW COME WE DIDNT THINK OF THIS EARLIER!

twit.

I don't know whether you're aiming this at me, but in case you hadn't noticed, I'm an "Islamophobic" radical, anti-authoritarian, "neo-conservative" who would like to make the Middle East more democratic. I have no idea about your position, except that you're rude and semi-coherent.

And I am not claiming that the US has no influence on the Saudis. I am saying that the US should use its influence. Others are warning against it, because we all know what happens when the US gets involved, don't we?

 

[vimothy]

Been reading Fouad Ajami's The Foreigner's Gift recently. It's excellent: the first book about the new Iraq, as it was described at a CFR briefing. Ajami (much like Vali Nasr) documents the side of Iraq that is hidden to us in the West: the Iraqi experience of the new nation.

This passage is from a WSJ article, but it makes a smiliar point:

One can never reconcile the beneficiaries of illegitimate, abnormal power to the end of their dominion. But this current re-alignment in Iraq carries with it a gift for the possible redemption of modern Islam among the Arabs. Hitherto Sunni Islam had taken its hegemony for granted and extremist strands within it have shown a refusal to accept "the other." Conversely, Shia history has been distorted by weakness and exclusion and by a concomitant abdication of responsibility.

A Shia-led state in Baghdad--with a strong Kurdish presence in it and a big niche for the Sunnis--can go a long way toward changing the region's terrible habits and expectations of authority and command. The Sunnis would still be hegemonic in the Arab councils of power beyond Iraq, but their monopoly would yield to the pluralism and complexity of that region.

"Watch your adjectives" is the admonition given American officers by Gen. Petraeus. In Baghdad, Americans and Iraqis alike know that this big endeavor has entered its final, decisive phase. Iraq has surprised and disappointed us before, but as they and we watch our adjectives there can be discerned the shape of a new country, a rough balance of forces commensurate with the demography of the place and with the outcome of a war that its erstwhile Sunni rulers had launched and lost. We made this history and should now make our peace with it.​

 

[Gavin]

Is democratic reform even possible given contemporary Arab culture?

Is democratic reform possible with the occupiers' tanks on the ground? What makes you think the U.S. even wants democracy in the Middle East? The neocons seemed more interested in having a free trade puppet state ally in the Middle East for purposes of resource extraction, which they termed "democracy" in a confusion (or deliberate lie) quite common in such discussions. Look how easily most of them gave up their noble goals, as soon as the Halliburton contracts were signed!

absent American threat

I don't see how you can make counterfactuals about Iran's current policies and recent history without this! It's like, "imagine the Cold War without the Soviet Union."

 

[vimothy]

Is democratic reform possible with the occupiers' tanks on the ground? What makes you think the U.S. even wants democracy in the Middle East? The neocons seemed more interested in having a free trade puppet state ally in the Middle East for purposes of resource extraction, which they termed "democracy" in a confusion (or deliberate lie) quite common in such discussions. Look how easily most of them gave up their noble goals, as soon as the Halliburton contracts were signed!

If the "neo-cons" didn't want democracy in Iraq, they've fucked up quite badly. Regardless of intent (which I think is quite clear, even though you describe "democracy" as a front for something else), the outcome has been democracy, and it didn't take too long (compared to other American post-war occupations, like Germany or Japan) to impliment.

Let's say that American power wanted a stable state for the puropse of resourse "extraction" (i.e. to buy Iraqi oil from Iraqis -- I don't expect that Iraqis will be too hostile to this new arrangement -- rather than the shady trades some made with Saddam at the expense of Iraq) and that America's interest in Middle Eastern oil is as great as the EU's: if a democratic state is set up, which is happy to sell oil (because (Econ101) trade is an exchange that benefits both sides), what's the problem? Iraqis get to live in a state where they are not subject to the arbitrary brutality of the "Knight of Arabism", and you yanks get to role around in your beloved oil.

Also, this:

Is democratic reform possible with the occupiers' tanks on the ground?

Is democratic reform possible without the occupier's tanks on the ground? What do you think the Sunni insurgents will do? What do you think the Shia would do when the camel's back breaks -- as with the al-Askari Mosque bombing -- once again?

I don't see how you can make counterfactuals about Iran's current policies and recent history without this! It's like, "imagine the Cold War without the Soviet Union."

What I'm really trying to say is that even with a liberal regime in Iran, it is not certain that Iran would give up it attempts at nuclear power. Iran is a regional powerhouse and wants to be treated as such. Indeed, I think it should be treated as such, or certainly, it should be encouraged to come back in from the cold. I don't believe that Iranian nuclear power is reducible to a defense against American attack, although that concievably forms part of it.

 

[vimothy]

@Gavin:

What is your opinion of "Shia" writers like Ajami and Nasr?

 

[vimothy]

Also worth checking out:

Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah, by French scholar Olivier Roy, one of the best writers on the new faces of Islam.

Roy interviewed by Vali Nasr at the CFR.

 

[RobJC]

Not suggesting this thread has been hijak'd along the lines of who has the more oppresive state (visible or hidden) or why there should be guilt over past colonial events, but is the subject not Islamophobia in general, and the perceived perception of its affect.

The question most people seem to be asking themselves, whether it comes from an informed opinion or not, is how Islam can fit into the general social concensus we (and by that I mean Britian) live in.

 

[vimothy]

The question most people seem to be asking themselves, whether it comes from an informed opinion or not, is how Islam can fit into the general social concensus we (and by that I mean Britian) live in.

Check out the Olivier Roy interview I just linked to!

 

[Gavin]

You refer to the Iraqi constitution that the Sunni didn't want? And why didn't they want it? Because the constitution makes it incredibly easy to parcel up the nation along "regional" (i.e. ethnic) lines. Why would the U.S. possibly allow their client regime to put this incredibly important and controversial clause in the constitution? Not simple federalism! This is the pretext for partitioning the country, which many members of the ruling class are explicity (but more often, in hushed tones) urging. Otherwise known as "divide and conquer." The Kurds have already taken this up and are making plenty of money off it -- quite mutually beneficial, except to the Sunni, whose territories are oil-poor. Turkey also has some problems with this set up.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr168.pdf

Perhaps you're referring to the Iraqi Oil Law, which lets U.S. companies assume control over oil AND funds generated from it while selling oil lower than the market rate! Do you have a better term than "resource extraction" for this deal?

Several key features of the law would:

* Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.
* Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;
* Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.

Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves.

http://www.iraqoillaw.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

Here's a test of democracy: most Iraqi citizens oppose the law, and the trade unions are striking because of it. The U.S. maintains that this law is crucial for further political progress. Hmmm..

Really, it's amazing how otherwise intelligent people believe that countries invade other countries to help them.

What is your opinion of "Shia" writers like Ajami and Nasr?

I have no opinion of them since I haven't read anything by them, but I will check out the links when I have the chance.

 

[Gavin]

The question most people seem to be asking themselves, whether it comes from an informed opinion or not, is how Islam can fit into the general social concensus we (and by that I mean Britian) live in.

Current neoliberal class war amps up ethnic tensions as a way of displacing legitimate class tensions. Instead of being angry at the government for selling out your future to the rich, you come begging to them for protection, which they happily do by funding prisons and surveillance equipment. Why "reform" Islam so it can fit into this set up (assuming that it can't fit) -- why not instead change the "general social consensus" (not sure what you mean by that term though).

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Current neoliberal class war

WTF? please explain what you mean by this....

 

[Mr BoShambles]

why not instead change the "general social consensus" (not sure what you mean by that term though).

My reading is that "social consensus" is based on shared norms, values, beliefs etc (i.e. the institutional framework of society). Changing this is very difficult since it is historically contingent i.e. it accumulates through long-run historical processes. So top-down alteration is not really an option.

Even if someone/some group of people wanted to change "the general social consensus" to make it more accomodating of Islam, how would they go about doing it? How do you go about engineering the alteration of british norms, values, beliefs etc to make them more agreeable to Islam? And for that matter why should this be desirable? One British value is tolerance which most people adhere to. Muslims are widely welcomed in the UK, as are people of all religions, ethnic groups etc. But extremism - of any variety - is not something that British people generally look favourably on, a good thing IMHO.

[Note: by British society i am not seeking to present all British people as a homogenous block. Variation in norms, values and beliefs clearly exist within British society. BUT there exists a shared framework of interaction which most people accept. This helps society be more orderly and predictable than it otherwise would be.]

 

[droid]

Total US arms sold to Iraq, 1973-1990, $200 million (in 1990 dollars) or 0.5% of total conventional arms sales to Iraq in that period.

An uncharacteristic lapse on my part! But hands up, I was wrong. Serves me right for not double checking. Pride comes before a fall and all that.

There are a couple of fairly major qualifications there though.

As a comment on these statistics, SIPRI's data are founded on open sources (newspapers, journals, declassified documents etc) '"The type of open information used by SIPRI cannot provide a comprehensive picture of world arms transfers. Published reports often provide only partial information, and substantial disagreement among reports is common. Order and delivery dates, exact numbers, types of weapon and the identity of suppliers or recipients may not always be clear."

According to his 1995 affidavit and other interviews with former Regan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and high-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other Private military companies to do the same:

"The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."

The full extent of these hidden transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified.

In 1996 the Scott Report in the UK investigated arms sales to Iraq in the 1980s by Matrix Churchill in what became known as the Arms-to-Iraq scandal.

What is accurate, based on those figures is that US support for Iraq peaked during the times in which he committed his worst human rights abuses.

Also, the original point I was making: that there was support for dictatorship in Iraq from foreign powers still stands, regardless from whom that support came.

 

[droid]

I think this is a good place to find an overview of negative press coverage of Islam.

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_Watch

 

[crackerjack]

I think this is a good place to find an overview of negative press coverage of Islam.

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_Watch

You are effing joking.