Promoting true democracy in the Arab/Muslim world

[Vic]

A difficult issue, but one that needs to be adressed.

When I read statements like this"We are very familiar with the harsh complaints against the Arab press and its professional level," a Jordanian journalist told Ha'aretz. "Some of them are correct and in order. But the complainers, especially official bodies, would do better to first direct the complaints toward themselves. When I can't go to Israel to cover the intifada from the Israeli side, or to interview Israeli politicians, because I am likely to be kicked out of the Jordanian Press Association, how do they expect me to do professional work? When I am not allowed to publish information about Jordan that I have received from my sources, until I have received permission from the government spokesman, how can they complain to me that I am not fulfilling my professional obligation? Someone has to decide whether my job is to be a journalist or to be a spokesman. I read the Israeli press on the Internet and am filled with envy. I could do exactly the same work here in Jordan, if I didn't have an information minister and press laws on top of my head."

source http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=177763&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
I keep asking what (if anything) is being undertaken to support the positive tendencies among Israel's neighbors. For a historical comparison, the Western support of the dissident movents in the former Soviet bloc states has played no small role in bringing down the dictatorships even if this took decades. From what I know however, similar efforts directed at the Arab/Muslim countries are few and far between. I can find little explanation for this fact, even if I take the inadequate position of the West towards Israel in account. Why not push such issues not only on governmental level but also through the NGO's and the media?

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Vic
A difficult issue, but one that needs to be adressed.

When I read statements like thisI keep asking what (if anything) is being undertaken to support the positive tendencies among Israel's neighbors. For a historical comparison, the Western support of the dissident movents in the former Soviet bloc states has played no small role in bringing down the dictatorships even if this took decades. From what I know however, similar efforts directed at the Arab/Muslim countries are few and far between. I can find little explanation for this fact, even if I take the inadequate position of the West towards Israel in account. Why not push such issues not only on governmental level but also through the NGO's and the media?

It sounds like a perfect task for Europeans given the current state of the world. Americans would likely be distrusted, given the current situation. Plus, the Saudis are the Bush family's best friends, and the Saudi regime is about the most repressive of any of the Arab states.

For Israelis to agitate for human rights and press freedom in Arab countries would be even more unlikely.

I posted a long time ago that there should be some linkage of human rights progress with aid money in Arab countries, but I don't suppose that will happen. Arab countries would likely view this as paternalistic, but perhaps it would be effective.

From time to time I do read about organizations pressing for equal rights (or at least no overt persecution) of lesbians and gay men in Arab countries. That's one human rights issue, for sure, but there are countless others.

What type of organizations (NGO or otherwise) do you envision that would put pressure on Arab governments to allow more freedoms generally?

(Edit) One other obvious group to pressure Arab governments to reform would be Arab immigrants to Western countries. Perhaps Arab immigrants are active in this arena, but I don't really know.

[Mediocrates]

A trojan horse? Allow the Arab press to even further coopt the west? Yet more outlets with whiteredblack flags to proclaim the zionazi genocide?

I wonder how the Syrians or the Iranians would countenance their own journalists with assistance from the west publishing unpleasant truths about them. I imagine those countries trust their own journalists about as far as it is to push them out of a helicopter.

At any rate, I wonder though what the best approach would be? To pressure the Arab nations to open up their control on the media, or even allow private ownership? To allow more western and western influenced media into their country? Those other contacts would have to be indigenous and fluent in the native languages and could not come from or represent a known resistance, freedom, separatist organization. The obligatory "yellow running dog lackey of the white devil great satan cia mossad zionist nazi" claims would have to be managed. Simultaneously the Western media would have to be kept at arms' length both from right and from the left.

My vote is the Christian Science Monitor as a start - CMS could support and sponsor indigenous media personnel as a disinterested factual source of truthful material. Maybe the Arab world would 'go all street' and the sound of the word Christian so perhaps they could create another suborganization with a more innocuous name (I have no Arabic so someone else can suggest something).

[cerulean]

How much access does the average Arab country have to Western media? What about something analogous to "Voice of America" broadcasts?

[Mediocrates]

VoA, Radio Marti? I think it will take more than that. I think that some clever people can coopt their insatiable thirst for western media, culture, entertainment.

One of the largest exports of the US if not the largest is our culture -our movies, TV, radio, advertising, pop culture, food. They may hate our country, our Gods, our unburkahed women, our strip malls but they all wear GAP and Nike and watch CNN and MTV and Disney movies and action flicks and listen to rap, hip hop R+B. This should be exploited to involve subtle pro Western ideas and ideals. I'm not talking about Brittany Spears in a redwhiteblue bikini but something more subtle than that. Start highlighting HOW GOOD IT COULD BE FOR THEM if they come over to our side. Connect the dots. Most of the world already wants what we have - they just don't want to become us wanting it.

Start with all kinds of arab spun media where the content is basically western - look at ajeeb they do a pretty good job of this in look and feel. Just twist the content. Put up more world news with a focus on Arab countries and people using Arab people to tell the story - but make sure the story is a western story. Put women on the news, put on people who are successful in the west and can speak about banking, (western) national events, local cutural events, entertainment. Let's face it, if you eliminate the 3 or 4 'important stories from the news channels what's left is 95% fluff. There is no reason we can't put an arab face on that.

There is no reason why you can't have segments about how horrible some of those countries are - you know the kind of thing where Iraqis talk about what an a-hole Saddam is how he's killing his own people and about how there's this Iraq community over here in El Segundo (or wherever) that's sending food and money to people back 'home'. Or perhaps some material on Saudi women in the US or wherever being fully integrated into western norms where they can work, drive, go to college, wear short sleeves, not get honor slaughtered, that kind of thing.

Advertise family services agencies that help families from wherever-istan get settled in Canada or Rome or Christchurch, NZ showing them how much help is available for people who want to enjoy and contribute to our way of life.

And then beam it over there 24-7. But do it nicely, seduce don't threaten. Overtime you will see people clamoring for that lifestyle, those rights, those freedoms, that kind of egalitarian society, over there. Of course they will never become us but it is enough that they don't want to remain them.

[L@mplighterM]

You’re beginning to scare me Mediocrates.

Trying to westernize Islamic Fundamentalists.

Arafat just finished ripping off 5 mil from a Palestinian aid fund.

All their leaders live high on the hog and throw a few crumbs to the lower caste.

What about the Koran advocating the destruction off Jews/Infidels? That isn't going to go away!

[Mediocrates]

No it won't neither will my born again neighbor think that Jews don't have horns or murdered Jesus either.

What I want is to start revolutions from the inside. The more middle class (egad!! could it be a rationale for the bourgeoisie??) that cultures become the more they start to look and think and act like one another. I don't for moment think that hatred can be wiped out with DVD players but I'd rather have them screaming at their own rulers demanding something resembling middle class desires and virtues than I would have them screaming at me that it's my fault they have 12 to a room and no plumbing and the one TV channel is Ba'ath party news of the day.

It's not a panacea but....somebody smarter than me, maybe it was Tallyrand said "Every country is 3 meals from its next revolution".

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

What I want is to start revolutions from the inside. The more middle class (egad!! could it be a rationale for the bourgeoisie??) that cultures become the more they start to look and think and act like one another.

This has been the guiding principle for decades now, but are you sure this principle applies in Islamic societies? In general, Arab countries have significantly less freedom and egalitarianism than they did 35 years ago.

Although there have been conflicting reports, it would seem that many suicide attackers are indeed middle-class.

From
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020624&s=krueger062402:

For this reason, the stereotype of suicide bombers being drawn from the ranks of those who are so impoverished that they have nothing to live for may be wildly incorrect. This interpretation is also consistent with another of Hassan's observations about suicide bombers: "None of them were uneducated, desperately poor, simple-minded, or depressed. Many were middle class and, unless they were fugitives, held paying jobs. More than half of them were refugees from what is now Israel. Two were the sons of millionaires."

When I was going to school, no Muslim girls wore hijab to school, although I lived in an area where there was a significant influx of wealthy Muslim immigrants. In my children's schools, this is no longer true. Maybe this is a victory for increased religious comfort, but I don't think so. I would find it very hard to believe that my fellow students had any desire to wear hijab. (Just another anecdote, but this fits with the general concept that fundamentalism is increasing regardless of middle-class status.)

[cerulean]

Among all the other so-called reasons, one reason Arab governments hate Israel is precisely because Israel provides an example of a state in which egalitarianism (maybe not perfect, but definitely striving towards it), initiative, secularism, and free religious practice all flourish.

[Mediocrates]

Maybe you're right I'll have to think on it - at any rate there is zero chance of effecting change in their governments directly w/o the use of force which has already been discussed.

[cerulean]

Here's an article on MEMRI (often quoted on this forum), which translates all those Arabic articles.

http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20020620-11862264.htm

Note that they do have a Reform in the Arab World project:

http://www.memri.org/reform.html

[elke]

Democracy in the Arab world would be great! Historically, Democracies tend to be more concerned with economic issues and not get overly excited by "causes".

However, the whole concept of Democracy pre-supposes the ability of an average Joe Voter to be able to tell right from wrong without much outside interference. In Ancient Greece, where this form of government was born, only certain people had the rights. In modern Western countries, there was a gradual progression to fully Democratic government that spanned about 800 years, the French Revolution notwithstanding.

I am not saying that it would take 800 years for the Muslim world to get to that point, but I don't know that a sudden change is in the offing, and moreover if it does happen that it would stick. The masses don't seem to be prepared to fend for themselves yet, on individual level.

[Vic]

Sharansky: Palestinian democracy is possible
By HERB KEINON

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1023716558256
"There are those who say that democracy is foreign to Islam," Sharansky said yesterday. "But I can bring you quotes from American experts who said Japan would never be democratic, because it is a different world, that Russia would never be democratic, that Spain would never be democratic, that Latin America would never be democratic."

...

Of all the Arabs, Sharansky said, the Palestinians are the closest to democracy. The problem is that until now the West has chosen to prop up a dictator Arafat.

When reminded that the polls show the Palestinians are overwhelmingly still supportive of Arafat, Sharansky asked, "What does it mean that the Palestinians love only Arafat, the Russians when asked loved only Stalin. Did they have a choice. Has anybody made sure that the Palestinians have a choice?"

Sharansky said that Israel needs to free itself of the illusion that the Palestinians chose Arafat's dictatorship. The West chose that, he said, by not providing another option.

[elke]

With all due respect to Scharansky - as he indeed deserves, I am not sure that he is correct. How is it West's responsibility to provide the Palestinians with alternative leadership? More to the point, how can it be done, realistically? Some sort of embryonic opposition from within must be present, before the West can act on internal affairs of a group of people. The people must demonstrate that they are deeply interested in such solution.

There was an article in one of the Russian magazines a few months ago, where an Arabist (as in "a person studying the Arab culture," not the US State Department ;) ) made an interesting point. She said that there is a major difference in the context in which the Arabs view themselves vs. the West. The way she put it was that the Western culture is a culture of "conscience", while Arab culture is a culture of "shame". In other words, if we do something wrong, we KNOW it's wrong within ourselves, regardless of who knows about it or what they think. The Arabs view themselves as part of their community, and any "wrongdoing" is judged by the reaction of that community.

If she is correct in her assessment, this is something important to contemplate viz. possibility of real Democracy in Arab society. Divergent opinions are essential for Democracy, but if the Arab society is indeed a "society of shame", they would be frowned upon, at the very least. What we see in the Arab world today, IMHO, confirms what this lady had to say.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by elke
The way she put it was that the Western culture is a culture of "conscience", while Arab culture is a culture of "shame". In other words, if we do something wrong, we KNOW it's wrong within ourselves, regardless of who knows about it or what they think.


It's too bad Freud did not get a chance to apply his theories of the id and superego to an Arab clientele :)

The Arabs view themselves as part of their community, and any "wrongdoing" is judged by the reaction of that community.

I did mention "borderline personality disorder" on another thread, and this almost sounds like the definition of the term, as I understand it. The borderline has little self-concept, but only sees herself when reflected in others.

You can see the type of difference described in what is perhaps an overworked example by now. To oversimplify: Traditional Muslim culture requires women to cover themselves to prevent men from sinning (in thought or otherwise). Current Western thinking is that it is the man's responsibility to control his thoughts and actions regardless of what women do. (But Western thinking was somewhat different even a few decades ago, so change is possible!)

I think Japan is thought to have a shame-based culture also (obviously much different than Arabs), but democracy seems to be working there. So perhaps there is a way to adapt?

[Vic]

I am very sceptical about generalization and practical conclusions based on studies of "culture" and mentality, perhaps due to my own experience as an immigrant to the West often being confronted with the natives' bright ideas on what "a Russian" and "a Jew" is supposed to be. I am no fan of Edward Said, but I do to a certain degree recognize myself in his "Orientalism".

For practical purposes, an "Arab" hardly equals an "Arab". There are also other factors, like the political situation of the countries they live in, the cultural influence of the former colonial powers, the degree of exposure to the Western world, the economic and security situations, the ethnic and religious (the prevalent varieties of Islam, the presence of non-Muslims) makeup etc. Thus, an "average" Yemeni or Saudi hardly equals an "average" Algerian or Mauretanian, and Iraq is actually governed by a religious minority ( http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/6/smyth-f.html ).

I do not want to start off a discussion on whether the Palestinians are a separate people or not. Maybe they aren't in a historical and cultural sense, but, again, from a practical point of view they surely are what is described in German quite poetically as a "Schicksalsgemeinschaft", in literal translation "a community of destiny", whose common "biographical" component is the confrontation with Israel and in many cases more than a passing exposure to the Israeli society.

Fully admitting my ignorance, my view being that of an outsider (the only Palestinians I ever talked to at any length are immigrants and visitors to Europe, usually for obvious propaganda purposes), I'll attempt a guess. The current situation has to me more than just a passing parallel to the rise of faschism in Europe, which was much less due to the strength of the movement itself and the support for it, but to the weakness and lack of organisation of its adversaries. Under conditions as being described by the media (and through some personal Israeli communications) I'd expect two currents in a society: the more visible one is the more aggressive, primitive and highly organised trend, the one that actually "sells" best - the hate-filled, extremist "Islamism" in this case; and a much more dispersed, weaker, less articulate trend, more of an undercurrent - individuals who would gladly embrace a more liberal, vibrant, open society, given the opportunity, and are quite capable of doing so. Maybe it is not such a bad idea to support their "outings".

As for Western influence - don't forget that Palestinians live off what is basically a charity project, largely financed by the West. There can be no harm in using the resulting leverage for promoting social and political changes - on grassroots level, if this need be. Some of the local resistance against Arafat and the PA in the 90ies has been quite impressive.

A democracy isn't an absolute concept either. It needn't be perfect. To stick with 20th century European history: the US has created a stable political system in Western Germany while it still had segregation laws at home ;) . When I started this thread it was a process that I had in mind, maybe offering more support (finance, publicity, cooperation) to individuals, smaller organisations - and see what comes out of it. The short-term result may not be a full-fledged "Western"-style democracy, but still a much more flexible and transparent society, also very much worth the effort.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Vic
[B]...I am no fan of Edward Said, but I do to a certain degree recognize myself in his "Orientalism".


Yes, actually now I am feeling some guilt, because I see your point. So I will resolve to do better in the future. And Said does have some good points in that book. (I hope Takeo doesn't faint if he reads this!)

...
Thus, an "average" Yemeni or Saudi hardly equals an "average" Algerian or Mauretanian, and "Arab terrorist" Iraq is actually governed by a religious and ethnic minority.

True. Is there any way to speak in terms of generalities without falling into the trap of inaccurate stereotyping? Is there any point?


... Under conditions as being described by the media (and through some personal Israeli communications) I'd expect two currents in a society: the more visible one is the more aggressive, primitive and highly organised trend, the one that actually "sells" best - the hate-filled, extremist "Islamism" in this case; and a much more dispersed, weaker, less articulate trend, more of an undercurrent - individuals who would gladly embrace a more liberal, vibrant, open society, given the opportunity, and are quite capable of doing so. Maybe it is not such a bad idea to support their "outings".

Under the current situation, though, wouldn't any whiff of Western support (let alone Israeli) be very bad news for any Palestinian? Is there a practical way around this?

There can be no harm in using the resulting leverage for promoting social and political changes - on grassroots level, if this need be. Some of the local resistance against Arafat and the PA in the 90ies has been quite impressive.
Being too blatant about a reward and punishment scheme though can backfire psychologically. I don't think that is exactly what you are suggesting, but what would be a practical manifestation of your suggestion?



A democracy isn't an absolute concept either. It needn't be perfect.
And pragmatically, some dictatorships are much better than others.

[elke]

I agree that generalizations are always wrong ;) .

While there is a common denominator in every culture, individuals within that culture vary significantly. As an analogy, humans share over 98% of their DNA with Chimps, and 40% with mice. While it takes a stretch of imagination to see our similarity with mice, with Chimps it's easier; but it's still obvious that we are far from the same.

I think these cultural studies are useful as general guidelines only, and are to be taken with more than one grain of salt. I brought it up because I think that it helps explain some of the difficulties in communication culture to culture.

Japan is supposed to be a "culture of shame" as well; but they have spent the past 50+ years westernizing. I work for a Japanese company now, and we have many Japanese representatives who come here on a rotating basis. The interesting thing is that they don't seem to resent WWII, and all the reps I know of are really into the Classical music and baseball (funny juxtaposition, I know :) ). One interesting tidbit: with the exception of the "Big Cheese", who is probably in his late 50s, all the other reps are in their 30s. There may well be significance in why and how are particular people chosen for the rotating duty in the US operation, and why they are all relatively young. It's abundantly clear that in this company, at least, there is adequate supply of people who don't harbor resentment towards the US - or the West.

My point is that the Westernization process seems to be well on its way there, so their current success with Democracy is not surprising. It may be worthwhile to review and try to understand how this change was achieved. If the Arab culture as a general rule, is a similarly a "culture of shame", then the route to general behavioral change may be through appealing to the collective general good, rather than to the individual conscience.

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
Yes, actually now I am feeling some guilt, because I see your point. So I will resolve to do better in the future. And Said does have some good points in that book. (I hope Takeo doesn't faint if he reads this!)You are forgiven :) . As for Takeo - I'll take the risk (comrade Stalin wouldn't approve, you know...)
True. Is there any way to speak in terms of generalities without falling into the trap of inaccurate stereotyping? Is there any point?Oh, I've corrected this part of my posting, but too late :o .

I'd prefer to concentrate on the present-day situation, the political, economical, social etc. aspects, which are much easier to grasp for an outsider. Besides, in the specific case of the Palestinians, it makes sense to take a close look at some of our own own societies too, which are responsible for creating the public figure of the poor Palestinian suffering under the unbearable brunt of the evil Zionists (who happen to be Jews) and assigning it the status of a political celebrity.
Under the current situation, though, wouldn't any whiff of Western support (let alone Israeli) be very bad news for any Palestinian? Is there a practical way around this?

Being too blatant about a reward and punishment scheme though can backfire psychologically. I don't think that is exactly what you are suggesting, but what would be a practical manifestation of your suggestion?There is considerable cooperation between left-wing Israeli groups and Palestinian human rights organisations, the Palestinians themselves are very present in the West, as are Westerners on the Palestinian territories. On the whole, one can safely say that the Palestinians are accustomed to dealing with outsiders. The trouble that many of the outsiders are the wrong ones.

Of course one should tread softly in such situations. Demanding that the Palestinians (or anyone else) stand up and swear allegiance to "Western values" is absurd. The practical implementation depends on the situation and on whom you are dealing with. In retrospect, the Arafat and the PA were certainly very much susceptible to the most blatant pressure on the more obvious issues, such as the judical system. An explicit threat of stopping finacial support uttered by the EU, the US and Japan could have easily stopped death sentences or prevented the circulation of violence-inciting schoolbooks, for example.

The important point is not to present such support as an imposition from outside. It also means that the outsiders "on the ground" should be very carefully checked for their political sympathies and for their cultural sensitivities. As of today many Westerners do more harm than good with their hysterical support for the "victims of Zionism", one should liberate the Palestinians from their dear friends for a start. One should stress that any change should be homegrown, not an import, and demonstrate due respect for anyone willing to work on it and avoid loud rhetoric. The goal shouldn't be to create "Uncle Toms" running a banana republic. Stability can only come by some degree of popular agreement.

From the practical point of view, I suppose that Israeli organisations and many individuals have accumulated considerable knowledge of the Palestinian society. I daresay they should be able to provide information on whom to approach and support and how to do it.

Of course, political activity is never risk-free, even in the West. But there seems to be no lack of people willing to take the risk. Besides, the fight for the elimination of terrorist structures should certainly go on.

I have to admit that maybe I am seeing this too much through my personal lenses. But I remeber how the Russian criminal organisations started to spread in Western Europe in the mid-90ies. On one hand, I was always aware of an unpleasant nationalistic undertone in the fight against them, on the other, from a purely pragmatical point of view, I was quite happy that the German authorities did so, because such organisations do tend to put pressure on people originating from their respective countries. Maybe it can be an issue of what is more important, expressing your antipathy towards Israel and thus endangering your children, cheating them and yourself of a good life, or just getting down to business, taking your destiny in your own hands and creating a decent environment, once provided with a proper, repeat proper, opportunity. The latter depends of course on knowing how to do it and reducing external pressures. Don't the Palestinians have a lot to lose if they stop being victims of the Israelis? This is off-topic, but it boils down to the fact that anti-semites is the Palestinians' worst enemies, because they reward their terrorism rather than the persuit of a decent society to live in. Perhaps it would be quite helpful to subdue Palestinian propaganda in the West as well, try to make the self-pitying attitude less popular, deny it respect.
And pragmatically, some dictatorships are much better than others. On the short run, yes. But what if the power falls into the wrong hands one day, or the "good" dictator decides to turn "bad" with no powers inside his country to counteract? I believe this has happened more than one time by now ;)

[Mediocrates]

I too once worked for a Japanese company where the employees generally were assigned to 3 year assignments. They retained their Japanese demeanor attitudes and style but importantly their 'world view' , values for lack of a better word. Interestingly though their wives and families (and in every case there was a wife and family) almost routinely complained about having to return to Japan where they would be 2nd class citizens. Here they could work, go to school be equals in every way they could not be, at home. A few even divorced over it. It was very stressful. Admittedly, the assignments here were to develop and promote Japanese management in their US arms so it's a safe bet that those personnel were chosen specifically for their very very strong Japanese values. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that 'democracy' is like sex or comedy. Everyone knows what it is but has a different opinion of what it is like. There are no immutable laws that limit what democratic institutions are or how they function. From nearly one party state control Singapore (some would call a near benign dictatorship) at one end to the free fire zone that is the Russian Parliament on the other - and - with all of those governments taking a different view of the relationship of economic control to political control - we see that democracy becomes more a set of shared goals and aspirations than it is a commonly agreed upon set of mechanical tasks, structures and rules.

And that's the easy part. Then you have to understand the relationship between what we wish for governance locally as an expression of very hard headed realities vs. our wishes for the rules of governance at a national or international level. Here in NC we routinely elect Democratic mayors and govenors but at a national level, John Edwards notwithstanding, we are a Conservative with a capital C state. When we had two Republican senators, Jesse Helms was considered the Liberal (Lauch Faircloth was the other senator). It's the difference between how we view ourselves on the wider stage and how we want to get things done on a day to day basis.

This is also true of whatever we think of Arab Democracy. On an international level we see one set of shared goals and messages. On a local level we a different reality. Look at Algeria. They have Democracy - they held elections, once. And they chose dictatorial secularism over dictatorial religious fundamentalism.

Look at some of the former English colonies. The UK installed genetic monarchies who then, if it suited them installed 'National Assemblies' or some such squabbling gaggle of do nothing rubber stamping thieves. They get elected to their national assemblies and people feel they have some voice in their destiny. But at a local level things run quite differently, no? Maybe there are some elections but generally the local strongman, rich merchant, warlord or tribal council runs things as they see fit w/o any notion of what the 'people' want.

So the question you have to ask yourself is not what is the shape of democracy but at what level is it relevant to have one? The US or any other country can't have much useful purpose in determining for example whether Napoleanic Justice or American Jutice is better for this -stan or that -stan because that would be a reflection of values not shared among the US and -stan. It's more important to determine though the scope of courts, the span of their control and whether they have a mandate to do something analogous to judicial review. It's not useful to decide whether one party or two party or hundred party Parliamentariansm is better but it is very useful to determine election laws, ballot laws, voter registration laws and make a way to enforce them. It's not entirely important to write all of the laws in lieu of establishing the mechanics of the rule of law first. That's what has to happen because without that we'll see a region full of democratically elected Robert Mugabe's.

[Vic]

Originally posted by elke
My point is that the Westernization process seems to be well on its way there, so their current success with Democracy is not surprising. It may be worthwhile to review and try to understand how this change was achieved. If the Arab culture as a general rule, is a similarly a "culture of shame", then the route to general behavioral change may be through appealing to the collective general good, rather than to the individual conscience. It is very counterproductive to equal democracy with westernization all too openly. But you are right that any message coming from the outside should take cultural sensitivities in account and that on the whole it is much better to get the locals to do it. They will probably be able to convey it more correctly, to design the better lines of approach. The West should pay attention to what this or other activity is likely to lead to.

Off-topic, but I think it is important to distinguish between a democratic state system and democratically-minded individual citizens. Take the dramatic reports of the elections in Zimbabwe several months ago, with people lining up days and nights, fighting for their right to proper elections. Yet Zimbabwe as a state is definitely a dictatorship. On the other hand, what is a typical voter turnout in a Western country? Most people here do not really give a damn about the political system they live in, and some are more than a little uncomfortable with the pluralism it creates ;).

[Vic]

Just noticed a singular absence of Israeli posters in this thread...

[christian]

Originally posted by elke


Japan is supposed to be a "culture of shame" as well; but they have spent the past 50+ years westernizing. I work for a Japanese company now, and we have many Japanese representatives who come here on a rotating basis. The interesting thing is that they don't seem to resent WWII, and all the reps I know of are really into the Classical music and baseball (funny juxtaposition, I know :) ). One interesting tidbit: with the exception of the "Big Cheese", who is probably in his late 50s, all the other reps are in their 30s. There may well be significance in why and how are particular people chosen for the rotating duty in the US operation, and why they are all relatively young. It's abundantly clear that in this company, at least, there is adequate supply of people who don't harbor resentment towards the US - or the West.

My point is that the Westernization process seems to be well on its way there, so their current success with Democracy is not surprising. It may be worthwhile to review and try to understand how this change was achieved. If the Arab culture as a general rule, is a similarly a "culture of shame", then the route to general behavioral change may be through appealing to the collective general good, rather than to the individual conscience.

elke,
Oriental culture is not what you think as "culture of shame".
If your view is correct. Japanese would apologize after the end of the war. They never did. They never will. Japanese is a "samurai culture". In fact, Nixon is afraid of japanese rebuilding, if the US troops withdrawl from Japan.

As the bible said every benefits is a two edge sword. Western secularism restructure japanese economy. You forget one thing. Samurai culture never forgives and forgets. The economic boom in Japan is another way of revenge against atomic bomb.
It is a sweet constructive revenge.


The problem is this.
Will arabs take a constructive revenge??

[Vic]

Originally posted by christian
The problem is this.
Will arabs take a constructive revenge?? Supply them unobtrusively with some good ideas?

[Mediocrates]

You mean other than a quintupling of oil prices since the late 1960's? You mean other than making major inroads into European Banking and real estate, shipping, media and food distribution?

I'm sure you could look up in the CIA factbook some basic numbers on the GDPs of Arab nations. I'm equally sure that the "poor arab" is a statement of internal economics. That the distribution of wealth is less diverse than France before the revolution is their problem.

[elke]

I don't know enough about the Japanese culture to say whether or not it's a "culture of shame". I heard it characterized as such by some experts. However, if it is, it wouldn't necessarily compell them to apologize for WWII - or at least, as I understood the concept of "culture of shame".

There is a limit to what the outside world can do, at least in this day and age, to "enforce" or even "create" a system of government anywhere at all. I think that it's particularly true of the Palestinians. I don't think that suppressing the propaganda is a realistic option, the only option is to counteract it any way we can, using all the means at our disposal. But it is vital to do it and do it right. I still think that the outright lies promulgated by these sites should be litigated, with as much stink as possible.

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke
[B]I don't know enough about the Japanese culture to say whether or not it's a "culture of shame". I heard it characterized as such by some experts. However, if it is, it wouldn't necessarily compell them to apologize for WWII - or at least, as I understood the concept of "culture of shame".

They never did. They never will. The japanese hitler emperor is living well beyond the old age. He died in his 80's. Moreover, the pearl harbour attacks is treated as a liberation for japanese east pacific coast. They never stated they are the aggressor. The atomic bomb in Hiroshima is an act of the agressor(US). When the US troops arrives in Okinawa coast. The many families commited suicide, because this is the warrior spirits. Another reason is to fight US with the last blood of life.

The Numberg trail in the 1945, only prosecutes number of Nazi. They never prosecutes any japanese war crime against humanity. When the japanese signs the peace agreement. The war is over. There is no responsible for the japanese. In fact, the history books of japan never speak of the real version of WWII. In their textbook, they are liberated the country of china, philphines, usa, southeastern coast. The average japanese don't even understand the American history version of WWII.

In japanese textbook, comfort woman( dutch , chinese, korean, british,etc) is willing to serve the japanese sexual pleasure.

Ironically, they do condemn hitler. Which is the collaborator and friend.

[Mediocrates]

They're also considering seriously removing the prohibition in their constitution that limits defense spending and blocs the creation of anything other than a small 'defensive' military.

[christian]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
They're also considering seriously removing the prohibition in their constitution that limits defense spending and blocs the creation of anything other than a small 'defensive' military.

They already did. The war of terrorism is the excuse for removing the prohibition. Although, japan is never been attacked. The US government gives them the silent approval, to place the US -japan strategic interest. Of course, this causes many resentment in the eastern and southern pacific.

The S. Korea resents on US, giving the silent approval. Other countries are complaining, because Japan unlike Germany never compensate for their mistake. Moreover, it is impossible to compel Japan to admit their mistake. Japan is a strong economic power, and a main strategic partner of US.

In early 1990's, Japan has heavily influence on asia economy. They use the economic leverage as a negotiation tool for covering the crimes act. Many under developed country has no choice. In order to modernize, they need the investment of japan. Thus, at this short moment, the country oppress their own civilian. Gradually, the new generation, forgets the pain of the war.
At the end, the japanese win the war.

[Vic]

Re-posting a link to an article of a Pakistani author that Cerulean has found in this thread:

Pakistan Should Be A Nation Of Equal Citizens
By Ishtiaq Ahmed
http://www.southasia-inreview.com/curr_edition/essays/ahmed.htm

Healthy tendencies do exist in the Muslim countries, again, why not support them - quietly, without talking about "Western-style"? If someone can find the rationale for reforms compatible to modern-day democratic standards in the Koran, why not let him/her do so?

From the article:Fortunately for Muslims, accepting that human beings are equal should not be difficult. Even diehard Islamists affirms that Islam stands for equality. The message of equality and brotherhood is presented in the Qur'an in inimitable words:

Oh mankind!
We created you from a single pair,
of a male and a female,
and made you into
nations and tribes,
that you may know each other,
not that you despise each other.
The most highly regarded of you
in the sight of God
is definitely he who is the most
righteous among you. (Qur'an, ch. 64: 13)

...

However, whereas intellectual skepticism on the individual level is most desirable, on the level of state its cultivation is imperative. It is almost a cliché to say that in Islam there is no priesthood and each individual is responsible for ensuring her/his salvation through a life led in accordance with the will of God. In practical terms it means that Islam did not ordain a priesthood to mediate between man and God. From such a proposition one can infer that since priesthood was eliminated from playing the role of a mediator, there can be no justification for the state to arrogate such a role to itself. If this were not so, then the whole point of emphasizing individual responsibility becomes meaningless and pointless. Also, as a developed and sophisticated religion, Islam must be assumed to recognize free will and voluntarism. As the Qur'an so eloquently states:

Let there be no compulsion in religion.
Truth has been distinguished from error.
Whoever rejects evil
and believes in God
has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold,
that never breaks.
(Ch. 2: 256).

The above verse lays down in the most unambiguous manner that compulsion in matters of religious faith and conviction is not permitted, under no circumstances. Let each individual acquit his moral and worldly duties to the best of his ability and find his own way forward from the various paths laid down by religions and other moral philosophies.

[cerulean]

Healthy tendencies do exist in the Muslim countries, again, why not support them - quietly, without talking about "Western-style"? If someone can find the rationale for reforms compatible to modern-day democratic standards in the Koran, why not let him/her do so?

On the one hand, I agree. If someone can interpret the Koran in a manner that allows Jews and other non-Muslims to live peacefully, and he manages to persuade enough people of this interpretation, that would obviously be positive. (In practice this would mean emphasizing the first part of the Koran, and explaining the second part away in a metaphorical or other fashion.)

On the other hand, I'm afraid of being goodhearted, naive, and stupid to think this might happen.

[elke]

Originally posted by cerulean


On the one hand, I agree. If someone can interpret the Koran in a manner that allows Jews and other non-Muslims to live peacefully, and he manages to persuade enough people of this interpretation, that would obviously be positive. (In practice this would mean emphasizing the first part of the Koran, and explaining the second part away in a metaphorical or other fashion.)

On the other hand, I'm afraid of being goodhearted, naive, and stupid to think this might happen.

But that's exactly what happened to Christianity! In the Middle Ages the most-quoted phrase from the Bible was that Jesus brought sword, not peace. This was the rationale behind the Crusades. At this point, most Christians explain this away as a metaphorical reference to personal development. The only question is whether such general change in Islam will come in time to prevent horrendous terrorism.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by elke
But that's exactly what happened to Christianity! In the Middle Ages the most-quoted phrase from the Bible was that Jesus brought sword, not peace. This was the rationale behind the Crusades. At this point, most Christians explain this away as a metaphorical reference to personal development. The only question is whether such general change in Islam will come in time to prevent horrendous terrorism.

When the focus was on getting people to go to the Crusades, that would be the most-quoted verse. If the emphasis was on getting people to obey their rulers, some other verse would be quoted. If the emphasis was on rooting out witches, some other verse would be quoted... ad infinitum :( On the other hand, I was reading today how the advent of Christianity in northern Europe brought a stop to the customary practice of "exposing" any infant who was unwanted by the father. (A similar claim has been made that Islam, after its creation in the 7th century, helped bring an end to extensive female infanticide, although obviously not to generally anti-female practices.)

I think what usually happens is that a philosophy is developed, and then a justification is found in the scriptures used by the group (so I guess I agree with you more or less! :) ). If the conditions aren't right for that philosophy to be accepted, all the scriptural justification in the world won't make it accepted.

[elke]

I think what usually happens is that a philosophy is developed, and then a justification is found in the scriptures used by the group (so I guess I agree with you more or less! ). If the conditions aren't right for that philosophy to be accepted, all the scriptural justification in the world won't make it accepted.

I agree, Cerulean (what a surprise, huh? :) ) I think, however, that a "natural selection" of a sort is at work, weeding out philosophies not conducive to group survival.

[cerulean]

I agree, Cerulean (what a surprise, huh? :) ) I think, however, that a "natural selection" of a sort is at work, weeding out philosophies not conducive to group survival. [/B]

The unfortunate thing seems to be that a philosophy of totalitarianism and suicide bombing is perfectly consistent with group survival, so long as the birth rate is high enough and there is access to medicine and food.

I don't think I've mentioned this site yet:
Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society
http://www.secularislam.org/

It appears to be a creation of persons born Muslim but now tending to secularism.

From the home page:
Practical Goals

To create a network of secularists and freethinkers in Islamic countries.
To establish a women’s network to provide mutual support and to highlight the plight and the achievements of women in Islamic societies.
To report on recent research findings on the origins of Islam and the Koran.
To provide an alternative source of information and comment for the media on Islamic issues.
To publicise acts of terror and oppression.
To honor the memory and promote the work and thought of those martyred in the cause of freedom of expression.
To attract writers, academics, politicians and activists as members of the Institute and as contributors to the debate.
To establish a database of books, articles and news reports, an annotated bibliography of texts of interest, and a suggested reading list.
To seek funding for Institute activities, including the translation of important texts.
To publish a web-based newsletter: "Secular Islam."

=======

[Mediocrates]

None of this, no matter how moderate, has anything to do with the creation and management of democratic institutions. There cannot be a democratic infrastructure founded on theocratism.

It's not so much about reforms as it is the ethos of reform. It's not about the abuse of power so much as checks and balances againts abuses of power. Why is this? Because those internal frictions are what cause the whole thing to work right. It's the spirit that there is more to government then the cold Benthamite calculus of 50%+1.

Mugabe was elected and the 3CP had a Constitution. Hitler was elected and Robespierre proclaimed a new Europe founded on liberty, fraternity, equality. But I were a European Jew I would have much preferred living under the tyranny of Napolean than the democracy of the 3rd Reich.

As John Marshall the great jurist said "We will remain free as long as we don't deserve to live as slaves". Democracy isn't the words of Lincoln's 2nd innaugural it's the unerring belief that they are true. It's the hope that when bullies rise up the rest of us will rise up to beat them down.

This is what Arab states have to accomplish.

[elke]

The unfortunate thing seems to be that a philosophy of totalitarianism and suicide bombing is perfectly consistent with group survival, so long as the birth rate is high enough and there is access to medicine and food.

I am sorry, but this is too pessimistic for my taste :(

The survival rate has to be supported by that medicine and food. New threats continually appear, as old ones disappear (e.g. Polio is vanquished, and AIDS appears, etc.). In order to keep up, new capabilities must be developed and implemented.

Totalitarianism has continuously proven itself to be suppressive of creativity and innovation, which are essential in this battle for survival. This is our, humans' way to beat the odds. Totalitarianism is impossible without ignoring the truth. While people may believe an untruth if it's repeated long enough, such belief does not change the reality. Therefore totalitarianism, at least as it has been practiced by human societies so far, is not a good survival mechanism.

Suicide bombing is even worse for survival of a group. In order to perpetrate such actions on a large scale, the society from which such atrocities come has to abandon the basic instinct of self-preservation. Today it may be against Israel and the US, tomorrow it will be against the garbage man. This will ultimately result in a total disintegration of society, and lead to chaos. Chaos, in turn, has a detrimental effect on survival of a group.

[cerulean]

Elke, I do have a tendency to be a pessimist. :(
I think maybe over the course of a century or so, it may prove the case that accepting suicide bombing will doom the group, but it might be too late for the world by then. In the meantime, the affected groups will keep up a high birth rate, and continue to rely on Western medical and agricultural innovations, even if the group has none of their own such innovations.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by elke
Suicide bombing is even worse for survival of a group. In order to perpetrate such actions on a large scale, the society from which such atrocities come has to abandon the basic instinct of self-preservation. Today it may be agains Israel and the US, tomorrow it will be against the garbage man. This will ultimately result in a total disintegration of society, and lead to chaos. Chaos, in turn, has a detrimental effect on survival of a group.

Note that there was a demonstration yesterday in Gaza. It started out against Israel, but ended against Arafat.

70% of Palestinians may support terrorism, but 30% do not -- despite tremendous pressure and brainwashing. I suspect 80% of Palestinians really aren't very interested in political issues and conflicts.

The U.S. and/or Israel should completely reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza, and spend about three years re-educating the Palestinians. Teach them about democracy, to be pro-life, and to value tolerance. Then they just might be ready to set up a democratic government.

[Vic]

But do we really need to make big, long-term goals a conditio sine qua non? What's the point of the absolutist "Western-type democracy or nothing" stance? This is what I actually meant with "promoting" in the title of this thread.

What about making small steps, outcome open end?

[Mediocrates]

What are the preconditions? As Che said, every nation is three meals from the revolution.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Vic
But do we really need to make big, long-term goals a conditio sine qua non? What's the point of the absolutist "Western-type democracy or nothing" stance? This is what I actually meant with "promoting" in the title of this thread.

What about making small steps, outcome open end?

Yes, it's time to stop promoting the false notion that you can lead a dictator to true peace.

Nixon took on the Soviet Union and Red China with "detente." All we got for it was a ping-pong game. Reagan took on the Soviet Union with the charge it was an "evil empire." Today, Russia is a struggling democracy.

Many people on this board complain about oil and the U.S.'s apparently cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Isn't it about time we called the Arab world what it is: a sea of totalitarian states, many of which sponsor terror and spout anti-semitism?

By letting Arafat take over, supporters of the phony/naive Oslo "Peace Process" have allowed him to totally remake Palestinian society as a terrorist thugocracy.

As Jeff Jacoby suggests, the thing that needs to be done now is 1) reconquer the West Bank and Gaza, 2) capture and execute all terrorists, and 3) spend the next few years teaching the Palestinian people why terrorism is immoral and the ABCs of democracy and tolerance. Perhaps after all of these steps they will be ready to set up a democratic state of their own.

In the meantime, the U.S. must not back down from any of its demands. Let the Arab dictators and their European appeasers sit around explaining why the world should support Arafat rather than democracy. They will only expose themselves for what they are.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Isn't it about time we called the Arab world what it is: a sea of totalitarian states, many of which sponsor terror and spout anti-semitism?


Would the net result of this "plain speech" be beneficial? Maybe it would. I'm just trying to visualize what would be said and what the results would be.

=========
Israeli Muslims launch opposition to Islamists
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1023716579181

Ten Muslims from villages in the Galilee have launched the first Orthodox Muslim movement in the region to oppose Muslim militancy and extremism.

Calling themselves The Prophetic Tradition Helpers Association (PTHA), their goals include providing a platform for moderation and nonviolence and educating the Muslim public about how extremists are misinterpreting Orthodox Islam.

"We have watched the situation deteriorate at the hands of extremists," said Khalid Abu Ras of Ilut, near Nazareth, an Arabic teacher and founding member. "We are unhappy that they talk in the name of Islam, and we think their stands are wrong. They are hurting Islam and our people."
...
======

[cerulean]

I wonder if any undercover efforts are being done to fund subversive, tolerant interpretations of Islam?

[Vic]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Nixon took on the Soviet Union and Red China with "detente." All we got for it was a ping-pong game. Reagan took on the Soviet Union with the charge it was an "evil empire." Today, Russia is a struggling democracy.True. The West also supported the dissident movements. The choices were nat always based on good judgement, but in the whole this support has been a great help in eroding the totalitarian systems.Many people on this board complain about oil and the U.S.'s apparently cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Isn't it about time we called the Arab world what it is: a sea of totalitarian states, many of which sponsor terror and spout anti-semitism?It is. But this should never imply condemning every last Arab/Muslim just for the fact of his/her existence.

Would you also propose to drop or suspend the economic connections to countries like Saudi Arabia, no matter how painful the consequences?
By letting Arafat take over, supporters of the phony/naive Oslo "Peace Process" have allowed him to totally remake Palestinian society as a terrorist thugocracy.

As Jeff Jacoby suggests, the thing that needs to be done now is 1) reconquer the West Bank and Gaza, 2) capture and execute all terrorists, and 3) spend the next few years teaching the Palestinian people why terrorism is immoral and the ABCs of democracy and tolerance. Perhaps after all of these steps they will be ready to set up a democratic state of their own.This is the gist of the "Sharansky plan", the main difference is the tone. Sharansky is friendlier, more respectful, one might say. How about explaining to the Palestinians (and all the others) that "democracy and tolerance" is good for them, not just the Big White Man's latest folly?In the meantime, the U.S. must not back down from any of its demands. Let the Arab dictators and their European appeasers sit around explaining why the world should support Arafat rather than democracy. They will only expose themselves for what they are. Umm... How about the US "appeasers" from the oil business? I suppose there are some other serious economic interests as well ;) As for Arafat support (I have read that China of all places is supporting him too :rolleyes: ) - I stand by Cerulean "teacher's pet" theory: political decisions are rarely guided by competence *sigh*

----------------------------------------------------------



More on the thread topic - an interesting short article from a somewhat obscure source:

A Remedy for Radical Islam
April 29, 2002
COMMENTARY
By RALPH PETERS[...]When well-meaning officials, academics or pop singers assure us that Islam is not the problem, they are utterly wrong. Islam, as promoted by Saudi Arabia and practiced by fanatics elsewhere in the Arab world, is precisely the problem. The Saudi variant attempts to buy off the forces of history at home, while exporting the Middle Ages to countries as diverse as Indonesia, Afghanistan and Turkey. The purpose of Saudi proselytizing seems to be to re-create in every Muslim culture the limited prospects of the Arab world.

At present, there is a mighty struggle underway on Islam's frontiers for that religion's soul. Those frontiers should be the focus of our efforts to encourage Islam's humane tendencies. As useful as military engagement may be in places such as Georgia and the Philippines -- along Islam's geographic frontiers -- constructive engagement on Islam's social, economic and spiritual frontiers would be even more helpful in the long term. The military addresses today's problems; tomorrow's challenges are already fermenting.

Plenty of hope remains for non-Arab, Muslim-majority states to reward their citizens with progress and tolerance. Instead of wasting further efforts on the Middle East, where the military remains our optimal tool, we should work vigorously on the borders of the Islamic world, in those cultures where the fundamentalists have not yet been able to destroy all hope of a better future, and where Islam is still a developing faith, not merely a tomb for the living.

Thus far, we haven't even gotten the numbers right. Arab populations are a minority within Islam, but their regressive form of religion has been poisoning one non-Arab state after another with an infusion of petrodollars, dogma and anti-Western vitriol.[...]

http://www.sftt.org/article05032002b.html
The only problem is that Israel doesn't border on Indonesia....

[cerulean]

Were the attacks against the Chinese in Indonesia in the past year or two because of Arab influence? Did the events in East Timor occur because of Arab influence?

Pakistan seems to have some intertwined strands of tolerance and extreme intolerance. But is it fair to attribute the extreme intolerance that there is to Arabs?

Maybe the strategy in this article can be undertaken, but it would be wrong to see this problem as an Arab interpretation of Islam, I think.

[elke]

Originally posted by cerulean


Would the net result of this "plain speech" be beneficial? Maybe it would. I'm just trying to visualize what would be said and what the results would be.

=========
Israeli Muslims launch opposition to Islamists
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1023716579181

Ten Muslims from villages in the Galilee have launched the first Orthodox Muslim movement in the region to oppose Muslim militancy and extremism.

Calling themselves The Prophetic Tradition Helpers Association (PTHA), their goals include providing a platform for moderation and nonviolence and educating the Muslim public about how extremists are misinterpreting Orthodox Islam.

"We have watched the situation deteriorate at the hands of extremists," said Khalid Abu Ras of Ilut, near Nazareth, an Arabic teacher and founding member. "We are unhappy that they talk in the name of Islam, and we think their stands are wrong. They are hurting Islam and our people."
...
======

About time! Significant that these are Israelis.

[cerulean]

This author is a professor writing from the relative safety of Stockholm. Based on recent Pakistani blasphemy trials, I'm not sure how well he would do writing the same in Pakistan.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-7-2002_pg3_2
...
Consequently, while one has a right to believe in a personal version of religious truth, one should be willing to concede that there is no way of proving that others are wrong. Intellectual scepticism should thus allow for the acceptance of a range of dissenting and non-conformist beliefs since these are concerned with metaphysical matters whose ultimate truth can never be demonstrated but can only be accepted as an article of faith. This means that the particularistic sphere of the religion will have to be separated from the universalistic sphere of citizenship. In particular, the state must be completely neutral on matters of religious truths and allow science freely to flourish.
...
This strategy should be extended to seeking cooperation with the rest of the world too. The archaic division of the world into Muslims and non-Muslims would not be very helpful. Indeed the Muslim world would find its own ways of cooperating with one another, but it need not mean hostility towards non-Muslims. In short, universal humanism would have to be recognized as superior to all outlooks which divide humanity into exclusive groups.

[elke]

Originally posted by cerulean
Were the attacks against the Chinese in Indonesia in the past year or two because of Arab influence? Did the events in East Timor occur because of Arab influence?

Pakistan seems to have some intertwined strands of tolerance and extreme intolerance. But is it fair to attribute the extreme intolerance that there is to Arabs?

Maybe the strategy in this article can be undertaken, but it would be wrong to see this problem as an Arab interpretation of Islam, I think.

Actually, looked at in a certain light - yes, many of these struggles have to do with "Arabs". However, it's not the Arabs per se, it's really the Saudi form of Islam. Their oil money+taking care of the Holy Sites of Mecca and Medina give the Saudis enormous clout in the Muslim world. As is reported widely, this clout is used throughout the Muslim world (including its enclaves in the West), to promote this theology as the "purest" form of Islam.

[cerulean]

It's true the Saudi form of Islam has been responsible for a lot of disasters, but I'm not sure that it's responsible for everything that has gone on in Indonesia, which has been cast in terms of Muslim versus Chinese Christian in the case of Indonesia itself, and Indonesian versus East Timorese Christian in the case of East Timor.

====
U.S. seeks democratic role model for Arab states
http://216.26.163.62/2002/ss_mideast_07_03.html
...
"The great majority of the world's Muslims would like to be part of successful, free, democratic, prosperous societies, those that embody what might be called Western values but that are, in fact, universal values," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said. "I think success in moderate countries like Turkey or Indonesia can contribute to a larger dynamic. But we need to work on the positive side of this as well as the more negative side of fighting terrorists."
...
(Sounds like he might be copying Vic here.)

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
(Sounds like he might be copying Vic here.) Didn't you know he reads this forum? :D

[Vic]

Originally posted by christian (post #23 http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=13937#post13937 )


elke,
Oriental culture is not what you think as "culture of shame".
If your view is correct. Japanese would apologize after the end of the war. They never did. They never will. Japanese is a "samurai culture". In fact, Nixon is afraid of japanese rebuilding, if the US troops withdrawl from Japan.

As the bible said every benefits is a two edge sword. Western secularism restructure japanese economy. You forget one thing. Samurai culture never forgives and forgets. The economic boom in Japan is another way of revenge against atomic bomb.
It is a sweet constructive revenge.

The problem is this.
Will arabs take a constructive revenge?? I have been reading the review linked below in a totally different context - and had to think of this discussion. It gives an idea of where both the Japanese and the Chinese "come from" - and what a long way they have still to go:

The Horror
by David M. Kennedy
(The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II
by Iris Chang.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/horror.htm

[Mediocrates]

I think its just Wahhabism's turn. 20 years ago we trembled at the spectre of Sunnism - all those stonefaced ayotollahs. And then we trembled at Libya's synthetic Marxist cult of personality. And then we trembled at Ba'ath party power politics in Iraq. Then it was Taleban flavored Lord-of-the-Flies-o-Rama.

Saudi Arabia's internal economics are not in great shape. Their trade balances are in poor shape and oil price sags are sapping the Kingly treasury. It could be possible that in a few years the al-Aziz princes have to choose jihad or fending off internal revolution or at least economic collapse. Then it might be some other Islamic variation's turn at bat.

[cerulean]

http://about.reuters.com/dynamic/countrypages/malaysia/1027074885nKLR219815.ASP

Mahathir says Islam at lowest ebb, worse to come
19 Jul 2002 10:34

KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 (Reuters) - Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad questioned fellow Muslims' religious priorities on Friday, saying their focus on form over fundamentals had brought Islam to its lowest point in history. ...

===
Malaysia, like many other Muslim-majority countries, is undergoing intense internal pressure to bring in some form of sharia law.

[elke]

Another editorial by Nathan Scharanski:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=188429&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Quote:
"From the beginning, I believed that the notion that strong dictators can make a strong peace was a dangerous illusion. In 1993, soon after the Oslo Accords were signed, I argued that by giving PA Chairman Yasser Arafat absolute control over Palestinian lives, we were endangering Israel's security. My concerns did not hinge on my assessment of whether Arafat himself remained an unreformed terrorist, but rather were based on experiences in the Soviet Union that had taught me that there is an inextricable connection between internal repression and external aggression. I believed then that a Palestinian dictatorship, regardless of who was at the helm, would inevitably endanger Israel's security."

It sounds like a grand idea, and the surest way to succeed, but I am still unsure exactly how he proposes to help build the democratic institutions for the Palestinians. I can't seem to find any details.

[Vic]

Originally posted by elke
Another editorial by Nathan Scharanski:[...]
It sounds like a grand idea, and the surest way to succeed, but I am still unsure exactly how he proposes to help build the democratic institutions for the Palestinians. I can't seem to find any details. There is an earlier, unfinished discussion on it in this forum: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?threadid=606

[Mediocrates]

In your earlier post you listed the 7 point plan which is a list of 7 goals. But point 1 is the lynchpin. It implies wholesale replacement of the PA governing structure and probably the people in it. And that goal is to be met by an oversight body made up of Arab states and the US. I would think that Israel's veto is more ceremonial than effective - for if all those neighboring states helped build up the PLO as a proxy army why would they not do the same thing again?

Sharansky has a bold thesis but read carefully. He is not saying build a republic. He is saying create an environment where a representative (democratic) vote would mean something. That is, create an environment where individual wishes would be represented in the political structure. This is the predicate upon which everything else is built. If average Palistinians can have their voices heard then that is the first step. Without this the mad rush for elections and 'democratization' is largely meaningless. Anyone can hold an election (even Zimbabwe or Florida :confused: ) - but the results have to mean something.

There must be some Europeans out there who can analyse how Poland & Czechoslovakia avoided reelecting their communist aparatchiks. Is there anything to be learned there?

[christian]

Originally posted by Vic
I have been reading the review linked below in a totally different context - and had to think of this discussion. It gives an idea of where both the Japanese and the Chinese "come from" - and what a long way they have still to go:

The Horror
by David M. Kennedy
(The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II
by Iris Chang.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/horror.htm

The author describes the events of WWII. It doesn't describe the oriental culture. Besides, the author doesn't know the word playing game in dioplomacy.

Apology and sorry are different meanings. It is not only in the chinese view. It is in the international dioplomacy.

Sorry means regrets without any responsibility. Like a guy makes a girl pregnant. He says I am sorry. It doesn't mean he takes responsiblity.

Apology means regrets with responsibility. The Germans apologies for the war crime atrocities. The government does pay money to the jewish descendants.

Samurai cultures are derived from the book Art of War by Sun Tzu.
Oriental culture is a culture of one entity. To us, philosphy, martial arts, medicine, art of war, religion, education, law, money, economy are in one entity.

Yes. Religion is also viewed as a war tool, because religion creates division. Division creates chaos. Chaos creates political tool. It is demonstrated throughtout the history, religion is a powerful tool for personal gain.

[elke]

Christian, do you believe that this analysis of the events of WWII is accurate?

[Vic]

Originally posted by christian
The author describes the events of WWII. It doesn't describe the oriental culture. Besides, the author doesn't know the word playing game in dioplomacy.

Apology and sorry are different meanings. It is not only in the chinese view. It is in the international dioplomacy.

Sorry means regrets without any responsibility. Like a guy makes a girl pregnant. He says I am sorry. It doesn't mean he takes responsiblity.

Apology means regrets with responsibility. The Germans apologies for the war crime atrocities. The government does pay money to the jewish descendants. In Germany, and maybe Europe in general, it's the other way round with apologizing and feeling (genuinely) sorry. Apologies mean written and spoken official statements, maybe some payments, but no real concern. Sorrow (grief), introduced as a major concept in the discussion on ways and means of facing the Shoah in the German/European discourse in the late 60ies, has an entirely different depth of meaning - and is much the more difficult thing to achieve.

Thus, sorrow implies more responsibility than an apology. An apology is pronounced and done with. Sorrow, grief have to be dealt with perpetually, in all new situations that can arise.

Even the ethymology. "Apology" is Entschuldigung in German . Schuld, the root of this word, means both "fault" and "debt". The praefix ent- corresponds to the English "de-". Thus, anyone performing an Entschuldigung can be seen as relieving himself of further commitments. Trauer (= both "sorrow" and "grief") is much more abstract, there are no easy bureaucratic recipes, diplomatic protocols for it.

Maybe this explains in part the European ineptitude in Israeli/Jewish matters.

In your analogy with the guy who makes a girl pregnant, both saying sorry and paying money are gestures of limited scope. Assuming responsibility would be a marrying the girl, or at least assuming full responsibility for the child for the rest of the guy's life. Europe can't just pay the Jews, Israeli or not, out. We are within European sight, as if your guy was forced to share one room with the girl and the kid forever. And neither Europe nor Israel (and few European Jews as well) have come up with a decent proposal for the marriage contract so far.Samurai cultures are derived from the book Art of War by Sun Tzu.

Oriental culture is a culture of one entity. To us, philosphy, martial arts, medicine, art of war, religion, education, law, money, economy are in one entity.

Yes. Religion is also viewed as a war tool, because religion creates division. Division creates chaos. Chaos creates political tool. It is demonstrated throughtout the history, religion is a powerful tool for personal gain.Interesting :)

Does this apply to a certain religious direction or to all religions that might be practised in the given region/country?

[christian]

Originally posted by elke
Christian, do you believe that this analysis of the events of WWII is accurate?

It is accurate in some parts. Other parts are really misinterprets the oriental minds.

To conclude the article, the author simply describes the west overlook the atrocities in pacific ocean, because of alliance in the cold war era.

Unfortunately, Mr. bush still never learn the lesson.

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vic
[B]In Germany, and maybe Europe in general, it's the other way round with apologizing and feeling (genuinely) sorry. Apologies mean written and spoken official statements, maybe some payments, but no real concern. Sorrow (grief), introduced as a major concept in the discussion on ways and means of facing the Shoah in the German/European discourse in the late 60ies, has an entirely different depth of meaning - and is much the more difficult thing to achieve.


There are huge difference between German's apology and Japan's "regrets".

Germany never rewrites their textbook.
For example, Germans condemns the Nazi.

Japan completely rewrites their textbook.
Japanese never condemns the japan's emperor.

At least, German government pays the jewish community some compensation.

Japan never pays the chinese community compensation. They never do it officially by the government. Just two months ago, the chinese man win a case on WWII slave labour. He is never been paid officially by the government. He is paid by the private company.


Thus, sorrow implies more responsibility than an apology. An apology is pronounced and done with. Sorrow, grief have to be dealt with perpetually, in all new situations that can arise.


Even the ethymology. "Apology" is Entschuldigung in German . Schuld, the root of this word, means both "fault" and "debt". The praefix ent- corresponds to the English "de-". Thus, anyone performing an Entschuldigung can be seen as relieving himself of further commitments. Trauer (= both "sorrow" and "grief") is much more abstract, there are no easy bureaucratic recipes, diplomatic protocols for it.

Maybe this explains in part the European ineptitude in Israeli/Jewish matters.

In your analogy with the guy who makes a girl pregnant, both saying sorry and paying money are gestures of limited scope. Assuming responsibility would be a marrying the girl, or at least assuming full responsibility for the child for the rest of the guy's life. Europe can't just pay the Jews, Israeli or not, out. We are within European sight, as if your guy was forced to share one room with the girl and the kid forever. And neither Europe nor Israel (and few European Jews as well) have come up with a decent proposal for the marriage contract so far.Interesting

This is not the point. The Government who responsible for the crimes in WWII. They should show some kind of sympathy and responsibility. Regardless, the germans is racists or not. They do officially apologize and pay to the family of the jewish community. The German government builds Holocaust museum, teaching their future germans about the war of atrocities. The japan government never build a holocaust musuem for the chinese.

Of course, it is impossible to compensate every survivor in WWII. Nevertheless, the german government do pay some of the member of jewish community. It is never happened in Pacific ocean.

Does this apply to a certain religious direction or to all religions that might be practised in the given region/country?

Certainly, China is especially very concern about christianty and Muslim population. Without middle class income, the religious diversion will only creates chaos. Unlike the west, the society diversion is much stable, because the middle class is leading the society with secularism. Or else, we will have a situation like East timor.(christian vs muslim)

The PRC is very concern about christian sector, because the revolution begins in Christian countries, such as french revolution, etc. MOreover, we have two christian revolution. One is called the heaven kingdom revolution. It is unsuccessful. The other christian revolution overthrown the last emperor of china.

Muslim is also a problem. In the 80's, the muslim revolution in Iran could spread to the Xinjing province of china. Which it is happening few years ago. (al qada)

[elke]

Christian, the main reason that the German government paid compensation to the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust was that when Hitler came to power, he nationalized the Jewish property. As part of that process, he also made all the insurance companies pay the proceeds of the insurance policies on the Jews' lives to his government. The large majority of the moneys paid to the Jews after WWII by the German government was direct compensation for these properties, rather than purely a goodwill gesture.

That's not to say that goodwill was non-existent, nor to say that their apologies were not sincere. It's just that it was not quite as altruistic, should I say, of them as you seem to think.

I don't know enough about what the Japanese have done to the Chinese, - to my shame - but was there a similar nationalization of Chinese property?

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
In your earlier post you listed the 7 point plan [...]

There must be some Europeans out there who can analyse how Poland & Czechoslovakia avoided reelecting their communist aparatchiks. Is there anything to be learned there? I have replied here: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=17111#post17111

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke
Christian, the main reason that the German government paid compensation to the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust was that when Hitler came to power, he nationalized the Jewish property. As part of that process, he also made all the insurance companies pay the proceeds of the insurance policies on the Jews' lives to his government. The large majority of the moneys paid to the Jews after WWII by the German government was direct compensation for these properties, rather than purely a goodwill gesture.

That's not to say that goodwill was non-existent, nor to say that their apologies were not sincere. It's just that it was not quite as altruistic, should I say, of them as you seem to think.


Of course, it is naive to say they are selflessness. In other words, they will not sacrifice their entire nations for compensation in order to survive. No country in the world can do that. The maximum payment is compensate the jewish community in a certain extent. German people learns their dark history in WWII. A majority of germans does apologize for the holocaust. Another hitler in Germany is impossible, since majority of german do have shame in their historical guilt. There are few neo-nazi's in the eastern germany. However, the counter demonstration is much stronger than the few neo-nazi.

It is not the case in Japan. The japanese view of the WWII is completely different than Germans. The japanese is proud of WWII, because japanese seen as a liberator, not a aggressor.
The majority of the japnese never heard of the atrocities in WWII. The government of japan forbids any texts written about the WWII, except Hiroshima. Their texts describes rape in Nanjing says that the chinese woman is willing to have sex with japanese soldiers. The hitler emperor lives well til 1989.

Not even one single japanese is being prosecuted in the international court.



I don't know enough about what the Japanese have done to the Chinese, - to my shame - but was there a similar nationalization of Chinese property?


The japanese not only seize the assets. They massively turn the chinese wealth into the japanese wealth. They never give back a penny. At least, the german will show some good will by giving a dollar.

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vic

Even the ethymology. "Apology" is Entschuldigung in German . Schuld, the root of this word, means both "fault" and "debt". The praefix ent- corresponds to the English "de-". Thus, anyone performing an Entschuldigung can be seen as relieving himself of further commitments. Trauer (= both "sorrow" and "grief") is much more abstract, there are no easy bureaucratic recipes, diplomatic protocols for it.

In international dioplomacy, wording game is excessively use. However, the word apology and sorry do have a different meaning.
For example, in a court battle

After one night stand, the girl is pregnant. A guy will says I am sorry. Sorry means regrets. It doesnt mean that guy will responsible for the child upbringing.

1Feeling or expressing sympathy, pity, or regret: I'm sorry I'mlate.
2Worthless or inferior; paltry: a sorry excuse.
3Causing sorrow, grief, or misfortune; grievous: a sorry development
[COLOR=blue]
If in this case, a guy will says i will apologize. This mean he will take responsibility for the child upbringing. He will marries the girl.

a¡Ppol¡Po¡Pgize Pronunciation Key (-pl-jz)intr.v. a¡Ppol¡Po¡Pgized, a¡Ppol¡Po¡Pgiz¡Ping, a¡Ppol¡Po¡Pgiz¡Pes
! To make an apology or excuse; to make acknowledgment of some fault or offense, with expression of regret for it, by way of amends; -- with for; as, my correspondent apologized for not answering my letter.


If you are in court. A person offers apology rather than sorry. The court will will act differently. It is very obvious difference in the case above.

Apology means to make amendment for the expression of regrets.


Maybe this explains in part the European ineptitude in Israeli/Jewish matters.

In your analogy with the guy who makes a girl pregnant, both saying sorry and paying money are gestures of limited scope. Assuming responsibility would be a marrying the girl, or at least assuming full responsibility for the child for the rest of the guy's life. Europe can't just pay the Jews, Israeli or not, out. We are within European sight, as if your guy was forced to share one room with the girl and the kid forever. And neither Europe nor Israel (and few European Jews as well) have come up with a decent proposal for the marriage contract so far.Interesting :)

[elke]

Christian, thank you for the clarification regarding the Japanese-Chinese angle of the WWII. I will simply have to learn more about the subject!

I just want you to know that there is at least one Japanese lady out there who is sincerely sorry about what happened, and does blame the Emperor: I had a friend at the company I work for, who has told me this. That's one of the reasons I was somewhat confused by what you told me, but of course, one person does not reflect the views of a whole nation.

I also want to point out, however, that only one of my family members is receiving any sort of monetary compensation from Germany, while quite a few of them were involved in the Holocaust. Like I said, by and large, the compensation was purely for material property nationalized by the German government under the Nazis.

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke
Christian, thank you for the clarification regarding the Japanese-Chinese angle of the WWII. I will simply have to learn more about the subject!

I just want you to know that there is at least one Japanese lady out there who is sincerely sorry about what happened, and does blame the Emperor: I had a friend at the company I work for, who has told me this. That's one of the reasons I was somewhat confused by what you told me, but of course, one person does not reflect the views of a whole nation.

Your japanese friend probably lives in US for a long time. The information in Japan is closely monitored by the government. By the way, average japanese doesn't speak any foreign language. This is one of the reason, japanese doesn't understand the atrocities in WWII.

By the way, the japanese government collaborate with the nazi, putting the jews in china(kaifeng) into concentration camp. The us government never condamn the jewish imprisonment in japanese camps. Some of the news report in the west is so ridicules. The media glorify the japanese concentration camp is a summer camp, comparing to the nazi concentration camp.

http://huc.edu/aja/herrman.htm

If you read the history of china. During the War period, china accepts unquotable jews from Europe. The european refuse to accept the jewish refugees. Many of them is forced to turn back into their homeland. Finally, they are end up in the holocaust. However, there are massive jewish refugees, entering China. Since , china doesn't set any quotas on refugees.




I also want to point out, however, that only one of my family members is receiving any sort of monetary compensation from Germany, while quite a few of them were involved in the Holocaust. Like I said, by and large, the compensation was purely for material property nationalized by the German government under the Nazis.

Well. At least, you have a dollar. We have nothing.

[christian]

elke,

This is the jewish imprisonment article in the pacific coast. The japnese collobaration with the nazi government. Nevertheless, the jews in east pacific coast is very fortunate. They are putting into ghettos or concentration camp. They are never systemically exterminated.


http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0606/jpn0606n.htm

Prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the refugees were deported to Japanese-occupied Shanghai, eventually being confined to a "designated area" for stateless refugees in the Hongkew section. They remained in this so-called "ghetto" until Japan's surrender in August 1945. An established Jewish community of 4,000 Russian Jews and more than 17,000 German and Austrian Jews who had fled Nazi persecution, also assisted them in Shanghai. Like the Polish-Jewish refugees German and Austrian Jews were considered "stateless" and confined to the ghetto. Russian Jews went unmolested as Japan wished to avoid diplomatic confrontations and war with the Soviet Union. Although ghetto life was difficult-residents were subject to numerous Japanese decrees and shortages of food and medicine-they were spared the terrors of deportation and death that most ghettoized European Jews faced. Only when they emerged from the ghetto did they realize the magnitude of the destruction wreaked on their communities and loved ones in Europe.

[elke]

She has been here a couple of years. Her degree from Japan was in Japanese-Chinese relations, which she has taught for a while as well. I don't know where she learned this information, I just thought that it may make you feel a little better to know about this.

If you read the history of china. During the War period, china accepts unquotable jews from Europe. The european refuse to accept the jewish refugees. Many of them is forced to turn back into their homeland. Finally, they are end up in the holocaust. However, there are massive jewish refugees, entering China. Since , china doesn't set any quotas on refugees.

I have heard of this before. I have also heard how friendly the Chinese people have been to the Jewish refugees lucky enough to have made it to China. I actually knew one such person myself. He couldn't say enough good things about his Chinese hosts! Thank you! :)

Well. At least, you have a dollar. We have nothing.

OK, agreed. I just wanted to clarify the situation, not deny the differences.

[cerulean]

I remember there was a huge controversy about Japan refusing to apologize to Korea for the treatment of Korean women during World War II. Hundreds of thousands of women were taken as slaves, but the Japanese version was that they were "comfort women." According to this site, sex slavery was a constant feature of Japanese occupation, wherever they went: http://www.cmht.com/casewatch/cases/cwcomfort2.htm

[cerulean]

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/202/nation/Egyptian_militants_express_regretP.shtml

Egyptian militants express regret
'Islam never condones evil,' say plotters against Sadat

By Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff, 7/21/2002

CAIRO - From the cells of a notorious prison nicknamed ''The Scorpion,'' the men who plotted Anwar Sadat's assassination in 1981 and served as godfathers of Islamic militancy in Egypt have declared the violence that they once endorsed a historic mistake.
...
''In our time, many Muslim youth challenged Muslim states and their institutions and fought against them in the name of jihad. The result was that the youth harvested great evil and weakened the nation,'' said Ali al-Sharif, one of the imprisoned leaders. In hindsight, he said, that confrontation ''is prohibited by Islamic law because Islam never condones evil.'' ...
=======

It would be wonderful if indeed they have had a change of heart and if they can persuade the rest of the Arab world of what they are saying. I'm always suspicious of a hidden agenda, but on the surface this looks like a start.

[cerulean]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3093044.html
Kuwait University separates the sexes, to vocal dismay from some
Diana Elias
Associated Press

Published Jul 21, 2002 KUWA22

KUWAIT - In the 1970s, women at Kuwait University wore miniskirts, mixed easily with the male students, and joined them for picnics in the desert.

No longer. These days, on the six campuses of Kuwait's only university, hundreds of young women are covered in black head-to-toe cloaks. Even those who wear Western dress tend to avoid speaking to men unless necessary. ...
====
Why would a country want to destroy itself? But that is what Kuwait is doing. Many Arab countries were significantly more liberal 30 or 40 years ago than they are today.

[Mediocrates]

Why would a country want to destroy itself? But that is what Kuwait is doing. Many Arab countries were significantly more liberal 30 or 40 years ago than they are today.

I dunno why would our administration do its damndest to overturn Roe v. Wade? Why would be ban cloning and stem cell research? Why would we take a sharp right turn? Some would say that we are doing the same damage in chasing almost all genetic and reproductive medical research out of the country.

We seem think that witch-burning is done only by other people.

[christian]

Originally posted by cerulean
I remember there was a huge controversy about Japan refusing to apologize to Korea for the treatment of Korean women during World War II. Hundreds of thousands of women were taken as slaves, but the Japanese version was that they were "comfort women." According to this site, sex slavery was a constant feature of Japanese occupation, wherever they went: http://www.cmht.com/casewatch/cases/cwcomfort2.htm

This article is very true. Whenever they occupies a territory. The japanese soldiers are raping woman. In some cases, they rape the pregnant woman, and kill the baby.

There are numerous evidence about this. I am not exaggerating the level of evil, comparing to the nazi.

[cerulean]

An article from last year, but interesting nonetheless:

http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,564700,00.html
Fighting Islam's Ku Klux Klan
The Muslim world cannot forever attribute all its ills to the Great Satan, America, writes the Iraqi dissident, Kanan Makiya
...
Attribution of all of the ills of one's own world to either the great Satan, America, or the little Satan, Israel, has been the driving force of Arab politics since 1967. As a powerful undercurrent of Arab culture and politics, it has been around much longer than that. After 1967, however, it became the legitimising cement upon which such murderous regimes as Saddam Hussein's Iraq were built.

From the hands of secular Arab nationalists, anti-Americanism was passed on to religious zealots. In 1979, it fused with anti-Shah sentiments to become the animating force of the Iranian revolution and, with that seminal event, major sections of the Islamic movement. Today, it has become a murderous brew of passions fuelled by paranoia and frustration.
...
To argue, as many Arabs and Muslims are doing today (and not a few liberal Western voices), that 'Americans should ask themselves why they are so hated in the world' is to make such a concession; it is to provide a justification, however unwittingly, for this kind of warped mindset. The thinking is the same as the 'linkage' dreamed up by Saddam Hussein when he tried to get the Arab world to believe that he had occupied Kuwait in 1990 in order to liberate Palestine. The difference being that if the argument was intellectually vacuous then, it is a thousand times more so now.

Worse than being wrong, however, it is morally bankrupt, to say nothing of being counterproductive. For every attempt to 'rationalise' or 'explain' the new anti-Americanism rampant in so much of the Muslim and Arab worlds bolsters the project of the perpetrators of the heinous act of 11 September, which is to blur the lines that separate their sect of a few hundred people from hundreds of millions of peace-loving Muslims and Arabs.
...

[elke]

The trouble is that none of these nice people offer practical steps to be taken to fight this "KKK of Islamic world". Here and there there seem to be voices of reason raised, but mostly "there" (i.e. in the West), and mostly in generalities. Yet again, the devil is in the details: the hows, the wheres, and the whens.

[Vic]

OK, Elke, next week you and me will be appointed the acting President and Prime Minister (feel free to make your choice) of the Republic of Saudi Arabia. What do we do to accomplish our main task - making the country a place that serves the interests of its citizens?

Here are some proposals:

1) Make it self-reliant. Educate the population in professions required for everyday life, not Islamic Sciences or whatever such subjects are called. The country's inhabitants should be capable of building their houses and doing their laundry by themselves where needed.
2) Maximize the oil revenues, i.e. raise the prices.
3) The oil reserves are limited, think of the future and invest the income in a productive way: build local industries, etc.
4) Don't waste the oil revenues on Western imports (luxury cars, consumer goods etc.) the country doesn't really need.

Further proposals are welcome :)

And now guess who will be hurt, should something of the kind become reality one day.

[elke]

Sounds good... ironic to have two Russian Jews in charge of Saudi Arabia, isn't it? ;)

Yes, it's easy to be an arm-chair politician - even easier than an arm chair general. :D

I can feel a lenghthy response coming on, I will have to wait until after work for that one... ;)

[Mediocrates]

SA is run as the personal property of the Saud al Aziz family. There are 7000 people who own and operate the nation. Because they rarely trust each other, one of the few key jobs not held by a genetic prince is the Minister of Finance slot.

Even with all the money (70% of the GDP comes from oil) and power there are few qualified 'worthies' who are able to run the infrastructure of the country, its army or industries. Most of the hands on work is performed by foreigners. Literacy in practical terms hovers around 10-15%. In technical ability it's a mere fraction of that. Fewer than 350 nontechnical books were published or translated into Arabic last year. Any education beyond basic religious instruction is performed for a tiny elite and outside of the country. SA industry and the armed forces would last about 60 days of steady state non 'active' operations w/o Western expertise, maintenance and spare parts.

SA does not make or build anything on their own. They claim to be able to feed their own people but the rest of the world sees no direct evidence of this. There is virtually no R+D in SA.

Women cannot drive, work, go to school or be unescorted. illiteracy for women is over 95%. An alarming percentage of the population is children.

I give it 20 years, tops before it collapses. It probably won't turn into a civil war it will probably just stop functioning altogether like the FSU. Once the welfare system grinds to a halt and there is no water food medicine or way to get oil money the princes will get in their Gulfstream jets and head for Europe.

This is the middle eastern Arab muslim's last stand and they know it.

[Vic]

originally posted by Elke
Sounds good... ironic to have two Russian Jews in charge of Saudi Arabia, isn't it?Why not a European-American cooperation model? A pilot project? (Which would prove that the world could never do without Russian Jews, of course) :DYes, it's easy to be an arm-chair politician - even easier than an arm chair general.I must admit that my aim was much more modest: the perfectly Marxist cui bono :o . Who needs SA the way it is now, except the 7000+ princes? Whose interests would be hurt by positive reforms? Same goes for other countries in the region, of course.



-----------------------------------------


First, a correction:originally posted by Mediocrates
I give it 20 years, tops before it collapses. It probably won't turn into a civil war it will probably just stop functioning altogether like the FSU.In case "FSU" stands for fmr. USSR, it - or at least a larger part of it - never "stopped functioning altogether", precisely because of a professionally well-educated population capable of absorbing economic and political shocks. It paid a high price so far, but the place is partially functioning: houses are being built and repaired, children attend schools, etc. , even if a leading Russian opposition politician recently warned of the "Saudi Arabization" of Russia (i.e. a high income from the export of natural resources not balanced by internal development). This scenario is unlikely to repeat itself in SA, the results of a collapse would be predictably much worse.

As for the rest:Even with all the money (70% of the GDP comes from oil) and power there are few qualified 'worthies' who are able to run the infrastructure of the country, its army or industries. Most of the hands on work is performed by foreigners. Literacy in practical terms hovers around 10-15%. In technical ability it's a mere fraction of that. Fewer than 350 nontechnical books were published or translated into Arabic last year. Any education beyond basic religious instruction is performed for a tiny elite and outside of the country. SA industry and the armed forces would last about 60 days of steady state non 'active' operations w/o Western expertise, maintenance and spare parts.Which makes me wonder yet again why the West, US included, pays so much attention to what is called the SA'an government. Pressurizing them on political issues would cost little effort, it seems, so why pretend they are a serious factor in politics (the joke called "Saudi peace plan" etc.)?This is the middle eastern Arab muslim's last stand and they know it.Huh? There are plenty other Arab Muslim countries around, all of Northern Africa, for one, then the small rich ones. I don't see how they will be affected, other than through proliferation of terror groups.

"Guardian", a leading newspaper of the Saudis' former colonial masters, runs an excellent, if depressive special section on them, btw.:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/0,11599,641778,00.html

[elke]

I don't think that other than the 7000 princes, anyone is benefitting from the SA as it is now. Fancy having a whole country named after a family, in the 21st century! It's pathetic!

Although I am certainly not communist, taking a partial page out of that book :p , I think that the first thing that should be done is deposing those jokers and installing a temporary government comprised of Arabian intellectuals. I know they don't seem to be anything much to look at, but there's got to be some normal people there! Confiscate much of the royal wealth, after a good trial for extortion and bribe-taking, close down all those Madrassas the world over, and that should be able to provide seed money for the education reform.

Not being an economist, I don't know if the world oil prices are at their equilibrium or could stand increase/decrease in a truly free market. Incidentally, OPEC would be illegal under the US anti-trust laws, from what I understand, and with good reason - so those prices may actually be too high to begin with. As the case may be, foreign investment in things other than oil should be encouraged as much as possible: tourism is obvious, certain types of manufacturing may be plausible with cheap labor, institute an "on-the-job" training incentives for semi-professional work, and other such things.

OK, I'll have to think some more on this to continue... ;)

[Mediocrates]

In case "FSU" stands for fmr. USSR, it - or at least a larger part of it - never "stopped functioning altogether", precisely because of a professionally well-educated population capable of absorbing economic and political shocks.

True enough but it concerns me when we see a resurgence of typhoid, typhus, cholera, infant mortality, aids, std, a reversal of the life expectancy...public health & nutrition seem to be in free fall. High tech engineers and scientists are begging for food, selling their expertise to the highest bidder. The banking system coming apart at every nail, the standard currency is now the american dollar. Military controls are becoming increasingly fragile...maybe I paint too bleak a picture. At any rate the FSU will eventually in all likelihood pull themselves out. I remember reading George Kenan write that the 3CP had the potential of being a very well run third world country. I think their own oil wealth will help them with this.

Huh? There are plenty other Arab Muslim countries around, all of Northern Africa, for one,
then the small rich ones. I don't see how they will be affected, other than through proliferation of terror groups.

SA is the leader - the hub of its own empire like the 3CP was for its satellite states. It has the ability to set price, quotas and generally serves as the spiritual core of Islam and of how the musilm world wishes to be viewed by the west.

[cerulean]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1027328443706
Jul. 22, 2002
'Cherchez la femme'
By MARTIN SHERMAN

In a highly controversial article, "Clash of Civilizations?" published in 1993, Harvard professor Samuel Huntington predicted that the future lines of global conflict will be drawn not between nation states, as they have been during most of modern history, but between "civilizations" or "supra-national cultures."
[...]
There is, however, at least one course of action that can facilitate an uncompromising, long-term engagement against radical Islam, without contravening the moral tenets of liberal democracy.
This is a course of action capable of strategically undermining the foundations of the Islamic world in its present form, and certainly of the fundamentalist components therein.

The centerpiece of this stratagem is the Muslim woman, and her rights to civil liberties. It would be difficult to imagine any other measure which would cut the ground more effectively from under the pillars of Muslim society than a radical upgrading of the status of women in Islamic countries. Indeed, experience shows that advancement of women produces effects that run strongly counter to the factors which nourish fundamentalist extremism.
[...]
=======

The article suggests women in Muslim countries may need to be armed as they take steps to bring about their freedom. (Maybe this is a good idea, but not terribly practical for a young mother of several small children.) The article also mentions the general cause and effect relationship between women's education and a lower birth rate, but this relationship has not worked in Gaza.

Among other things, the article suggests: imposing punitive measures against countries which flagrantly violate women's rights such as curtailing diplomatic privileges of the representatives of such nations.

This is a good idea, but very idealistic. Women's rights in other countries are occasionally used as a supporting justification for particular actions, but not as a reason for a trade boycott.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
True enough but it concerns me when we see a resurgence of typhoid, typhus, cholera, infant mortality, aids, std, a reversal of the life expectancy...public health & nutrition seem to be in free fall. High tech engineers and scientists are begging for food, selling their expertise to the highest bidder. The banking system coming apart at every nail, the standard currency is now the american dollar. Military controls are becoming increasingly fragile...maybe I paint too bleak a picture. At any rate the FSU will eventually in all likelihood pull themselves out. I remember reading George Kenan write that the 3CP had the potential of being a very well run third world country. I think their own oil wealth will help them with this.There are more than enough causes for concern there. What I was trying to say is that SA would be much worse off. I don't know whether the overall impact would be less serious b/c it is much smaller and has less arms at its disposal.SA is the leader - the hub of its own empire like the 3CP was for its satellite states. It has the ability to set price, quotas and generally serves as the spiritual core of Islam and of how the musilm world wishes to be viewed by the west. Are you sure about that? I am not. It is true that Mecca lies there, but I doubt that this fact alone grants any special status to the Saudi government.