James Traub recently wrote an article on FP echoing my sentiments about the Muslim Brotherhood, and why they aren't such a threat.
He is a regular writer for FP, and I even included a link to who he is. I think the article underscores the ideas that I put out in my previous post. Take a look at both (hopefully mine first).
Side Note
It should also be noted that the same goes for Turkey's AKP. They aren't a threat, and the hostility towards them just because they are an Islamic rooted party is illogical. Country before self interest, and if specific people in Congress and the State Department thought the same way, we'd be great friends again with Turkey. Turkey is a friend we're going to need.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
A Government with the Muslim Bortherhood is not the End of the World, and why these protests help the War on Terror
In the turmoil that has erupted in Egypt over the past weeks, there is much speculation of what the government is going to look like post-Mubarak. I, along with many others, think its going to be far more democratic, and a new government will be formed with parties from all aspects of Egyptian society.
What many in the U.S. have picked up on is the "threat" of the Muslim Brotherhood; an opposition political party. Newt Gingrich, a prominent conservative and former House Speaker, certainly thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat and turn America into an Islamic state too. He said the same of Turkey's AKP.
Both are not true. This, yet another wrong and misleading comment coming from someone who most likely will run for president. Even if he doesn't run, a national leader shouldn't make comments where he is so ill-informed in foreign policy.
Let me explain why he is wrong.
There are many mixed perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yes, they have committed acts of violence in the past and is an Islamic rooted party. Fast forward to the present day. Yes, they may still have an extremist wing which is a legitimate security concern. But now I ask, what political party doesn't have an extremist wing? If the Muslim Brotherhood is to lead Egypt, it will have to create a coalition. The party alone cannot with the election; there is just not enough support. If they are to get a figure to the presidency, they will have to negotiate with the secular forces in Egypt. This will moderate the Muslim Brotherhood if they are to stay in power. That is a fact for all politics. I highly doubt that the majority of the Egyptian people, especially the youth, want a state like Iran. Its just not going to happen.
Another reason why so many are 'terrified' of the Muslim Brotherhood is because their stance on Israel and the U.S. Yes, they are no Mubarak. People have to come to terms with the fact they are an Islamic rooted party. That's not always the end of the world. By a recent opinion poll, the majority of the Egyptians don't like us anyway! So we already lost that battle. Also, per the Camp David Accords, a continued peace with Israel means massive funding and aid to the army and the government. If a Muslim Brotherhood figure (lets say they get to the presidency) were to not honor the accords; the army would be up in arms (no pun intended) and I am sure many would be displeased with the lack of funding and possible U.S. trade sanctions. The same goes for the Suez Canal; its not in Egypt's interests to change its Israeli or its U.S. policy. It would undermine their security and clout in the region.
If the Muslim Brotherhood ascends to the presidency, it may actually be good for the U.S. A working relationship with a moderated but still conservative Muslim Brotherhood could show the world that we can work with Islamic rooted parties. Though the relationship with Turkey's AKP is a more complicated story (one for another time), it may boost our points with the Middle East. It also show's the world we're willing to work with others we may not see face-to-face with. Cooperation is the word.
So the Muslim Brotherhood isn't the end of the world. Yes, we won't have an ally like Mubarak, but its no end game by far.
Now on to the second part of this post: the protests are helping the War on Terror.
Why does terrorism happen?
Well that's a big question. One reason, which I saw through my class on the Middle East last semester, is because people's governments do not respond to their needs. In Egypt and Tunisia, there were no economic reforms for the people. There was massive unemployment. This anger and rage translates into support for groups that are radical (or want to overthrow the government) or in some cases, the people join radical organizations to secure a better future.
These protests are making the government listen up and reform. In the Tunisian case, the president straight up left. Reforms to encourage a healthy economy and happy people have the potential to make radical organizations seem, well, radical. People like to do well, and violent change often doesn't appeal with those who like the status quo. If the people of the Middle East succeed in making their governments listen and these reforms give more freedoms, and stimulate the economies; it could be a help to curbing radicalization and thus terrorism. The War on Terrorism is a war on ideas and minds. To make terror unappealing is to make one's people happy. Good government is a responsive and fair government. These protests are just what the region needed to cleanse devastating policies.
What many in the U.S. have picked up on is the "threat" of the Muslim Brotherhood; an opposition political party. Newt Gingrich, a prominent conservative and former House Speaker, certainly thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat and turn America into an Islamic state too. He said the same of Turkey's AKP.
Both are not true. This, yet another wrong and misleading comment coming from someone who most likely will run for president. Even if he doesn't run, a national leader shouldn't make comments where he is so ill-informed in foreign policy.
Let me explain why he is wrong.
There are many mixed perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yes, they have committed acts of violence in the past and is an Islamic rooted party. Fast forward to the present day. Yes, they may still have an extremist wing which is a legitimate security concern. But now I ask, what political party doesn't have an extremist wing? If the Muslim Brotherhood is to lead Egypt, it will have to create a coalition. The party alone cannot with the election; there is just not enough support. If they are to get a figure to the presidency, they will have to negotiate with the secular forces in Egypt. This will moderate the Muslim Brotherhood if they are to stay in power. That is a fact for all politics. I highly doubt that the majority of the Egyptian people, especially the youth, want a state like Iran. Its just not going to happen.
Another reason why so many are 'terrified' of the Muslim Brotherhood is because their stance on Israel and the U.S. Yes, they are no Mubarak. People have to come to terms with the fact they are an Islamic rooted party. That's not always the end of the world. By a recent opinion poll, the majority of the Egyptians don't like us anyway! So we already lost that battle. Also, per the Camp David Accords, a continued peace with Israel means massive funding and aid to the army and the government. If a Muslim Brotherhood figure (lets say they get to the presidency) were to not honor the accords; the army would be up in arms (no pun intended) and I am sure many would be displeased with the lack of funding and possible U.S. trade sanctions. The same goes for the Suez Canal; its not in Egypt's interests to change its Israeli or its U.S. policy. It would undermine their security and clout in the region.
If the Muslim Brotherhood ascends to the presidency, it may actually be good for the U.S. A working relationship with a moderated but still conservative Muslim Brotherhood could show the world that we can work with Islamic rooted parties. Though the relationship with Turkey's AKP is a more complicated story (one for another time), it may boost our points with the Middle East. It also show's the world we're willing to work with others we may not see face-to-face with. Cooperation is the word.
So the Muslim Brotherhood isn't the end of the world. Yes, we won't have an ally like Mubarak, but its no end game by far.
Now on to the second part of this post: the protests are helping the War on Terror.
Why does terrorism happen?
Well that's a big question. One reason, which I saw through my class on the Middle East last semester, is because people's governments do not respond to their needs. In Egypt and Tunisia, there were no economic reforms for the people. There was massive unemployment. This anger and rage translates into support for groups that are radical (or want to overthrow the government) or in some cases, the people join radical organizations to secure a better future.
These protests are making the government listen up and reform. In the Tunisian case, the president straight up left. Reforms to encourage a healthy economy and happy people have the potential to make radical organizations seem, well, radical. People like to do well, and violent change often doesn't appeal with those who like the status quo. If the people of the Middle East succeed in making their governments listen and these reforms give more freedoms, and stimulate the economies; it could be a help to curbing radicalization and thus terrorism. The War on Terrorism is a war on ideas and minds. To make terror unappealing is to make one's people happy. Good government is a responsive and fair government. These protests are just what the region needed to cleanse devastating policies.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Dominoes in Progress: Egypt and Yemen
In the aftermath of the successful Tunisian protests, Egypt and Yemen have followed suit. Under thirty years of 'president' Mubarak, the Egyptian people faced a reduction in civil liberties and censorship; such as under the emergency laws. There was no freedom of assembly.
Egyptian Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the U.N.'s IAEA, said "the barrier of fear is broken. And it will not come back."
I thought this quote was particularly powerful. Egyptians, and most likely other Arab/North African citizens, have felt fear towards their government. This fear makes for a very unhealthy society. When people fear their governments, unrest and radicalism emerges. I think this is a universal truth.
Like I said in my last post; when governments to not respond to their people, reform for their people, and do not give their people necessary freedoms we see the mass protests going on today. Tunisia made the world see that through protest, governments can change.
Now I know that both Egypt and Yemen are different locations with different situations, but I hope that the outcome will be freer and fairer governments.
If the U.S. wants to curb anti-Americanism, now is the time for us to step up and support the values which our nation is founded on. President Obama made a reference to Tunisia and alluded to Egypt in his State of the Union speech, but more interaction and support of the Egyptian public could change minds about the U.S. throughout the Arab world; something that could be a big player. More public diplomacy is needed.
I don't think its just coincidence that Iran in 2009, and Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen in 2011 have the same features. Generations are changing, and the freedom yearned by the current one will have its impact in due time.
Citizens should not have a "barrier of fear" towards their governments
Egypt 2011:
Egyptian Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the U.N.'s IAEA, said "the barrier of fear is broken. And it will not come back."
I thought this quote was particularly powerful. Egyptians, and most likely other Arab/North African citizens, have felt fear towards their government. This fear makes for a very unhealthy society. When people fear their governments, unrest and radicalism emerges. I think this is a universal truth.
Like I said in my last post; when governments to not respond to their people, reform for their people, and do not give their people necessary freedoms we see the mass protests going on today. Tunisia made the world see that through protest, governments can change.
Now I know that both Egypt and Yemen are different locations with different situations, but I hope that the outcome will be freer and fairer governments.
If the U.S. wants to curb anti-Americanism, now is the time for us to step up and support the values which our nation is founded on. President Obama made a reference to Tunisia and alluded to Egypt in his State of the Union speech, but more interaction and support of the Egyptian public could change minds about the U.S. throughout the Arab world; something that could be a big player. More public diplomacy is needed.
I don't think its just coincidence that Iran in 2009, and Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen in 2011 have the same features. Generations are changing, and the freedom yearned by the current one will have its impact in due time.
Citizens should not have a "barrier of fear" towards their governments
Egypt 2011:
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Rock the Casbah: Tunisian Edition
Tunisians certainly rocked their casbah; a new government under former President of the Tunisian Chamber of Deputies Fouad Mebazaa took power after widespread riots rocked the state. Longtime 'president' Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia after the military refused orders to crack down on the protesters, and sacking many officials.
The protests came in light of worsening standards of living, censorship and higher food prices (something to keep a tab on this year, as increasingly mentioned by FP).
What I find very interesting about the riots is, similar to the Iranian election riots in 2009, there were A LOT of younger citizens protesting. Yes, there were opposition leaders and people from all parts of Tunisian society taking part in the protests. However, from looking at quite a few photos of the situation, I saw that the majority of those were younger people. The scene of the youth protesting a strict regime, something that some has argued that would happen for years, has actually turned into realty. The fact the conservative Arab governments- pro-western or not- do not reform in order to promote economic growth seems to be a troubling problem.
The youth are left between a rock and a hard place. Do they leave for work? Do they stay and protest? Do they become radicalized?
What we saw in Tunisia can likely happen to other governments if they do not respond to their people's needs. Though Tunisia is not a rentier state, the process which brought the end to Ben Ali could be a very similar end to other leaders. Protests from ignored citizens were able to bring down a virtual dictator. Leaders should take notes, if they don't care for the needs of their citizens, they might be sent packing.
The Iranians may have not been able to bring change in 2009, but the Tunisians showed the world it was possible in 2011.
Tunisia 2011:
Iran 2009:
The protests came in light of worsening standards of living, censorship and higher food prices (something to keep a tab on this year, as increasingly mentioned by FP).
What I find very interesting about the riots is, similar to the Iranian election riots in 2009, there were A LOT of younger citizens protesting. Yes, there were opposition leaders and people from all parts of Tunisian society taking part in the protests. However, from looking at quite a few photos of the situation, I saw that the majority of those were younger people. The scene of the youth protesting a strict regime, something that some has argued that would happen for years, has actually turned into realty. The fact the conservative Arab governments- pro-western or not- do not reform in order to promote economic growth seems to be a troubling problem.
The youth are left between a rock and a hard place. Do they leave for work? Do they stay and protest? Do they become radicalized?
What we saw in Tunisia can likely happen to other governments if they do not respond to their people's needs. Though Tunisia is not a rentier state, the process which brought the end to Ben Ali could be a very similar end to other leaders. Protests from ignored citizens were able to bring down a virtual dictator. Leaders should take notes, if they don't care for the needs of their citizens, they might be sent packing.
The Iranians may have not been able to bring change in 2009, but the Tunisians showed the world it was possible in 2011.
Tunisia 2011:
Iran 2009:
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Follow-Up: Iraq was not Worth it.
I know we're done here, for this class etc. etc. but I just wanted to share a bit of data with everyone. After going on foreignpolicy.com almost everyday and reading their articles, I decided to subscribe to the magazine (you should do it too).
In their December issue, which is also their annual special issue, they once again comprised a list of the 100 top global thinkers of 2010. I am not going to debate the list, but they include a survey they ask 66 of the thinkers.
One of the questions was....Was the Iraq War worth it?
The answer (on pg 41, the participants listed are on pg 39):
81% No, it wasn't worth it
7% Iraq is better of today
6% History will judge
4% Probably
2% Yes, it was worth it
I think the fact that a majority 66 of the top global thinkers of 2010 say Iraq was not worth it, arguably the brightest people in the world today, communicates something about the policy leading up to and the handling of the Iraq War.
Let's do some more math. 7% of 66 = is 4.62. So about 4 or 5 people, out of 66, said Iraq is better of today because of the worth (not necessarily that it was worth it). About 4 say history will judge. About 2 or 3 said "probably". 2% of 66 is 1.32. So 1 or 2 persons said "Yes, Iraq was worth it". Just 1 or 2 persons of 66. The majority 53.46 people of the top 2010 global thinkers agree that "No, Iraq was not worth it".
I am not trying to "toot my own horn", but c'mon, it says something when my position on the issue is in line with 53 or 54 of the world's top thinkers (which, those surveyed, come from all ideological, ethnic, religious, national, and economic backgrounds).
Not saying that the other side of the argument is wrong, but it certainly goes to show that unilateralism on such a large stage is going obsolete. Multilateralism and cooperation are here.
Happy Holidays.
In their December issue, which is also their annual special issue, they once again comprised a list of the 100 top global thinkers of 2010. I am not going to debate the list, but they include a survey they ask 66 of the thinkers.
One of the questions was....Was the Iraq War worth it?
The answer (on pg 41, the participants listed are on pg 39):
81% No, it wasn't worth it
7% Iraq is better of today
6% History will judge
4% Probably
2% Yes, it was worth it
I think the fact that a majority 66 of the top global thinkers of 2010 say Iraq was not worth it, arguably the brightest people in the world today, communicates something about the policy leading up to and the handling of the Iraq War.
Let's do some more math. 7% of 66 = is 4.62. So about 4 or 5 people, out of 66, said Iraq is better of today because of the worth (not necessarily that it was worth it). About 4 say history will judge. About 2 or 3 said "probably". 2% of 66 is 1.32. So 1 or 2 persons said "Yes, Iraq was worth it". Just 1 or 2 persons of 66. The majority 53.46 people of the top 2010 global thinkers agree that "No, Iraq was not worth it".
I am not trying to "toot my own horn", but c'mon, it says something when my position on the issue is in line with 53 or 54 of the world's top thinkers (which, those surveyed, come from all ideological, ethnic, religious, national, and economic backgrounds).
Not saying that the other side of the argument is wrong, but it certainly goes to show that unilateralism on such a large stage is going obsolete. Multilateralism and cooperation are here.
Happy Holidays.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Conclusions
So yesterday was the final class for International Politics of the Middle East; the reason why I have this blog. This class has honestly been one of the best I've taken so far in my college career. I learned new concepts and certainly have a clearer insight into how the region works than I did beforehand.
The two most important things I drew out of this course, if I had to choose, is the rentier state and the reasons how Islamist groups form in society. These two concepts are interconnected, and largely have to do with the neglect and authoritarianism of the state to its people. With so many rentier states comprised in one region, along with history, resources, and religion, the region is indeed exceptional. In my view the rentier state is a main source of the problem. The global dependency on oil fuels the rentier state. In turn the leaders often don't (or can't) respond to their people's needs; because they don't have to. Islamic grass root organizations fill this gap and win public support.
Once the rentier state problem is fixed/eliminated (look at my rentier state blog post) I think things will change in the region. However with the generation gap we are starting to see in many Middle Eastern states, that change may come sooner than expected.
I've had a great time learning in this class and I thank everyone for taking the time to read my blog. At first I didn't like blogging, but now I just need to find time to keep it up. Hopefully, I will continue posting on this blog on many different topics. Some may be partisan, some may not. I will probably stick to foreign affairs/domestic politics, but I am sure there will a few different posts too. Thanks again for reading!
The two most important things I drew out of this course, if I had to choose, is the rentier state and the reasons how Islamist groups form in society. These two concepts are interconnected, and largely have to do with the neglect and authoritarianism of the state to its people. With so many rentier states comprised in one region, along with history, resources, and religion, the region is indeed exceptional. In my view the rentier state is a main source of the problem. The global dependency on oil fuels the rentier state. In turn the leaders often don't (or can't) respond to their people's needs; because they don't have to. Islamic grass root organizations fill this gap and win public support.
Once the rentier state problem is fixed/eliminated (look at my rentier state blog post) I think things will change in the region. However with the generation gap we are starting to see in many Middle Eastern states, that change may come sooner than expected.
I've had a great time learning in this class and I thank everyone for taking the time to read my blog. At first I didn't like blogging, but now I just need to find time to keep it up. Hopefully, I will continue posting on this blog on many different topics. Some may be partisan, some may not. I will probably stick to foreign affairs/domestic politics, but I am sure there will a few different posts too. Thanks again for reading!
Monday, December 6, 2010
Was the Invasion of Iraq it worth it? No, it was not.
In our discussion in class today, the final question Professor Webb presented us was "was it worth it?" The class parted more toward yes, it was worth it. Myself and a few other students thought the invasion was not worth it. I tried to justify why I didn't think it was worth it, but had too many reason spinning around in my head to give a good, coherent answer. Let me preface my whole post, I support the troops, I support their safety, and I thank them for keeping us safe and giving their time for our protection. I am not going to write a super long blog post here, but I am going to try my best to explain my reasons for why the invasion of Iraq was not worth it.
First, the invasion of Iraq was not worth it because of the way it was done. The Bush Administration had flimsy evidence that Iraq had WMDs and acted upon that evidence like it couldn't have been wrong. Colin Powell went to the U.N. and (essentially) lied. People can twist it any way they like, but the information given to him was not entirely true. One of his aides considered it the lowest point in his life. Even then, the U.N. Security Council did not approve of a resolution to invade Iraq. Some could say that the U.N. was corrupt (and still is), but the U.N. is viewed as a legitimate source for action by a majority of the world; and that is what really counts. The Bush Administration took a handful of allies, basically said "screw you" to the U.N. and went into Iraq anyway. Now I know there are more details, facts, and other things that I am looking over, and I don't mean them to be less important. However, I am communicating that the Bush Administration use the massive amount of political power they received after 9/11 and basically shattered a careful international order past Presidents Clinton and his father created (see my previous blog post on the Gulf War, I go into this further). These flimsy claims decreased American legitimacy throughout the world. Our potential to do unilateral action when needed, with the international community accepting of it, has been almost shattered. The U.S. has begun to restore our image, but the damage has been done. I firmly believe, that in the modern world, multilateral-ism is key. Technology and the rise of the BRIC countries make the world a uni-multi polarity; the U.S. as the hedgemon, and strong regional actors. If one cannot see multilateral-ism is the function of the world as of now, they are going to have a hard time getting around. So no, Iraq was not worth it.
Another reason why Iraq was not worth it was the chaos it caused to the region. The balance of power in the region was no more balance. On one side, you have Iran gaining influence due to an Iraq no longer keeping it in check. Iraq may have not liked the west, but it certainly liked the west more than Iran. On the other hand, you have Turkey and Syria, who feared for their security due to a large American force so near. Wonder why Turkey did not let pass through in 2003? Because they were scared for their security (see pg 167, under "3."). Friends shouldn't scare other friends. The Kurds are clamoring for a new state, but no one in the region wants to give them one. Saudi Arabia has now stepped into Iraq's places as a rival to Iran, but isn't doing such a good job. The vacuum Iraq left its causing major change in the region. Aren't there enough problems already? So no, Iraq was not worth it.
In the aftermath of the invasion, there was massive amounts of blood shed. Iraq was on the brink of a religious civil war. Our troops were giving their lives for a war which was not necessary, nor was right to execute. 4,429 Americans gave their lives. Those brave soldiers shouldn't have died in Iraq, as the war was not a necessary war. It was a choice. A choice that ballooned the deficit and cost us billions. I firmly believe that. Deterrence and containment is a powerful thing. We did the same with the Soviets, why couldn't we with Iraq? So many brave Americans shouldn't have died. So no, Iraq was not worth it.
Some may argue that invading Iraq had benefits. It free an oppressed people, it gave more freedom of the press and other parts of civil society, and it produced a democracy. These are all true and valid points. The costs to get these benefits, however, were too high in my opinion. Too high in every aspect. It destroyed world opinion of us, made the region more unstable, and cost us lives and money. As of now, this is the situation. It could change in years to come, but the costs are facts, and those are written in history. So no, Iraq was not worth it.
First, the invasion of Iraq was not worth it because of the way it was done. The Bush Administration had flimsy evidence that Iraq had WMDs and acted upon that evidence like it couldn't have been wrong. Colin Powell went to the U.N. and (essentially) lied. People can twist it any way they like, but the information given to him was not entirely true. One of his aides considered it the lowest point in his life. Even then, the U.N. Security Council did not approve of a resolution to invade Iraq. Some could say that the U.N. was corrupt (and still is), but the U.N. is viewed as a legitimate source for action by a majority of the world; and that is what really counts. The Bush Administration took a handful of allies, basically said "screw you" to the U.N. and went into Iraq anyway. Now I know there are more details, facts, and other things that I am looking over, and I don't mean them to be less important. However, I am communicating that the Bush Administration use the massive amount of political power they received after 9/11 and basically shattered a careful international order past Presidents Clinton and his father created (see my previous blog post on the Gulf War, I go into this further). These flimsy claims decreased American legitimacy throughout the world. Our potential to do unilateral action when needed, with the international community accepting of it, has been almost shattered. The U.S. has begun to restore our image, but the damage has been done. I firmly believe, that in the modern world, multilateral-ism is key. Technology and the rise of the BRIC countries make the world a uni-multi polarity; the U.S. as the hedgemon, and strong regional actors. If one cannot see multilateral-ism is the function of the world as of now, they are going to have a hard time getting around. So no, Iraq was not worth it.
Another reason why Iraq was not worth it was the chaos it caused to the region. The balance of power in the region was no more balance. On one side, you have Iran gaining influence due to an Iraq no longer keeping it in check. Iraq may have not liked the west, but it certainly liked the west more than Iran. On the other hand, you have Turkey and Syria, who feared for their security due to a large American force so near. Wonder why Turkey did not let pass through in 2003? Because they were scared for their security (see pg 167, under "3."). Friends shouldn't scare other friends. The Kurds are clamoring for a new state, but no one in the region wants to give them one. Saudi Arabia has now stepped into Iraq's places as a rival to Iran, but isn't doing such a good job. The vacuum Iraq left its causing major change in the region. Aren't there enough problems already? So no, Iraq was not worth it.
In the aftermath of the invasion, there was massive amounts of blood shed. Iraq was on the brink of a religious civil war. Our troops were giving their lives for a war which was not necessary, nor was right to execute. 4,429 Americans gave their lives. Those brave soldiers shouldn't have died in Iraq, as the war was not a necessary war. It was a choice. A choice that ballooned the deficit and cost us billions. I firmly believe that. Deterrence and containment is a powerful thing. We did the same with the Soviets, why couldn't we with Iraq? So many brave Americans shouldn't have died. So no, Iraq was not worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)