Why Arabs suffer

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
This article, an excerpt from an upcoming book by Professor Philip Carl Salzman of McGill University, provides a solid summary of the core issue plaguing Middle Eastern nations.

Simply put, there's no unity - just tribalism leading to the various heads of state primarily looking after their own, and doing only what it takes to stay in power. The people, not being stupid enough to miss this obvious fact, meet the violent coercion of their dictator/monarch/President-for-life with violence of their own. The cycle continues endlessly. The dictator occasionally fools part of his populace through demonization and scapegoating of various convenient outsiders, but really, how much is Israel really to blame in the state of affairs in Saudi Arabia or Egypt? It's a massive shift in social thinking towards inclusiveness that's the answer.

Why Arabs suffer

By modern standards, contemporary Middle Eastern Arab nations are failed societies. On virtually every index of socioeconomic and political development, they compare poorly with other parts of the world.

Under the auspices of the United Nations Development Program and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, an independent group of 20 Arab scholars analyzed the state of Arab human development in a widely-circulated 2002 report. Their findings were stark.

In particular, the Arab Human Development Report 2002 found that the 19 nations under study suffer from a "freedom deficit":

"Out of seven world regions, the Arab countries had the lowest freedom score in the late 1990s. The Arab region also has the lowest [score] of all regions for voice and accountability [based on] a number of indicators measuring various aspects of the political process, civil liberties, political rights and the independence of the media."

"The [total] average [scientific] output of the Arab world per million inhabitants is roughly 2% that of an industrialized country," the authors noted. "In 1981, the Republic of Korea was producing 10% of the output of the Arab world; in 1995, it almost equalled its output."

In the number of frequently cited scientific papers generated per million inhabitants, Switzerland scored 79.90, the United States 42.99, Israel 38.63. Among Arab nations, Kuwait led the pack with 0.53, followed by Saudi Arabia with 0.07, Egypt at 0.02, and Algeria at 0.01.

How can we explain the discouraging state of Middle Eastern Arab societies? Is it the fault of Western imperialism or the existence of Israel, as often claimed?

It is true that there were brief European imperial and colonial disruptions in the Middle East, and that Arab leaders were guided by Western socialist and fascist political models in developing their dictatorial political systems. Yet these system have been largely over-layers added to -- not replacements for -- traditionally tribalized Arab societies, with their legacies of violence left intact from Bedouin days.

It is to the latter that we must look to understand the circumstances and difficulties of the Arab Middle East. The lesson is that, in the Arab world and elsewhere, culture matters.

The Arab Middle East has remained largely a pre-modern society, governed by clan relationships and violent coercion. People in both the countryside and the cities tend to trust only their relatives, and then only relative to their degree of closeness. People define their interests in terms of the interests of their own group, and in opposition to those of other groups. A pervasive cult of honour requires that people support their own groups, violently if necessary, when conflict arises.

What is missing in the Arab Middle East are the cultural tools for building an inclusive and united state. The cultural glue of the West and other successful modern societies --consisting of the rule of law and constitutionalism, which serve to regulate competition among unrelated groups -- is absent in the Arab world. The frame of reference in a tribalized society is always "my group vs. the other group." This system of "balanced opposition" is the structural alternative that stands in stubborn opposition to Western constitutionalism.

Islam, which might have provided an overarching constitution of universalistic rules binding together all members of society, has failed as a political organizing principle, as well -- for it too reflects the region's underlying sociology, having been built up by the Arabs' Bedouin forebears on a foundation of balanced opposition. This is why it has fueled rather than suppressed the Middle East's various bloody feuds, such as those between Sunni vs. Shiite and between Muslim vs. infidel.

As a result, Arab political reform has proven elusive, and will remain thus so long as balanced opposition dominates the region's political culture. Whatever formal unity is imposed by coercive force over a national population -- we need only think of the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, etc. -- remains illegitimate in the eyes of the subjects on the receiving end, and thus constantly open to violent challenge and radical replacement.

The primary goal of such regimes is to remain in power and maximize their spoils, rather than to enhance the lives of society members. Their dysfunction explains why so many Arabs have suffered so long, and remain without the liberties we in the West take for granted.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: yllus
This article, an excerpt from an upcoming book by Professor Philip Carl Salzman of McGill University, provides a solid summary of the core issue plaguing Middle Eastern nations.

Simply put, there's no unity - just tribalism leading to the various heads of state primarily looking after their own, and doing only what it takes to stay in power. The people, not being stupid enough to miss this obvious fact, meet the violent coercion of their dictator/monarch/President-for-life with violence of their own. The cycle continues endlessly. The dictator occasionally fools part of his populace through demonization and scapegoating of various convenient outsiders, but really, how much is Israel really to blame in the state of affairs in Saudi Arabia or Egypt? It's a massive shift in social thinking towards inclusiveness that's the answer.

I think this is an interesting article, but I want to bring up a few points. First - isn't tribalism unity itself? If anything - being loyal to the head of a tribe/lineage , assisting them when called upon, trying to maximize a tribe's economic output IS unity itself. Where we live - this loyalty to a tribe itself is absolutely non existent and on a social level rather than coming down to a tribe, it comes down to ourselves. We will not help someone just for sharing the last name, or being somehow connected through a blood relative. The only person we really answer to is ourselves on many of these manners (of course understanding that our own opinions are heavily influenced by our surroundings) which would show the breakdown of unity.

I actually think one of the main reasons we maybe more "Free" where we live is due to this absence of a lineage/tribal hierarchy. There are very little social mechanisms to force us to do what we do not want to do because of the break down of the primary institution that really did it well. If we refused to give the loan someone with the last name here it means nothing - but in a tribal system saying no can exert tremendous pressure on a person.

One thing that Saddam did as a person was slowly try to break the power of tribes in Iraq. This wasn't because he wanted "to move the country foreward" - but simply because tribes were a threat to his power because they accumulated their power on the basis of many people. One easy way to do this of the many possible ways is to have the state to come in and act as the "head of the house" - by providing almost all of the necessary services that the tribe once offered, there is less and less reason to participate in such a system and it very carefully breaks it down. However, now the "tribal head" authority has shifted to the government - including the ability to pressure people.

So I while I prefer to live in a system with weak tribal authority simply because it means less obligations on me (Which results in greater freedom of choice, although there are many downsides to no type of family support system) I can't see how it is a display of no unity....perhaps no loyalty towards a state - but a state generally isn't the most benevolent thing.

One thing I will point out though is that I think unless Arab countries begin to seriously thinka bout and move to realistically unite as one (Which no one in the west would want as it create a new entity that has the possibility to wield much power...note: possibility) they'll be in the shitter for a long time.


By modern standards, contemporary Middle Eastern Arab nations are failed societies. On virtually every index of socioeconomic and political development, they compare poorly with other parts of the world.
Ding Ding! Although I would prefer to say they are failed STATES. A lot of this rise of Islamic Nationalism occurred in response to the failed promises of the state. A failed society seems to imply something different - and in many of these virtual police states, the government tries to control everything which results in a piss poor economy and absolutely no political progression (although in the case of Palestine I think it is different because external nations exert immense influence directly on its development in areas such as the economy).
Under the auspices of the United Nations Development Program and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, an independent group of 20 Arab scholars analyzed the state of Arab human development in a widely-circulated 2002 report. Their findings were stark.

In particular, the Arab Human Development Report 2002 found that the 19 nations under study suffer from a "freedom deficit":

"Out of seven world regions, the Arab countries had the lowest freedom score in the late 1990s. The Arab region also has the lowest [score] of all regions for voice and accountability [based on] a number of indicators measuring various aspects of the political process, civil liberties, political rights and the independence of the media."

Of course i'm sure those governments would never want that information to be let free

"The [total] average [scientific] output of the Arab world per million inhabitants is roughly 2% that of an industrialized country," the authors noted. "In 1981, the Republic of Korea was producing 10% of the output of the Arab world; in 1995, it almost equalled its output."

In the number of frequently cited scientific papers generated per million inhabitants, Switzerland scored 79.90, the United States 42.99, Israel 38.63. Among Arab nations, Kuwait led the pack with 0.53, followed by Saudi Arabia with 0.07, Egypt at 0.02, and Algeria at 0.01.

And to think that Arabs once actually were leading the output of scientific publications. Islam existed both then and now, and drove a lot of the development back then. Something is different, and that factor should be identified and discussed and corrective action should be taken.
How can we explain the discouraging state of Middle Eastern Arab societies? Is it the fault of Western imperialism or the existence of Israel, as often claimed?

It is true that there were brief European imperial and colonial disruptions in the Middle East, and that Arab leaders were guided by Western socialist and fascist political models in developing their dictatorial political systems. Yet these system have been largely over-layers added to -- not replacements for -- traditionally tribalized Arab societies, with their legacies of violence left intact from Bedouin days.

It is to the latter that we must look to understand the circumstances and difficulties of the Arab Middle East. The lesson is that, in the Arab world and elsewhere, culture matters.

See this is where I disagree, not because I have some love to lineage based societies, but because I think its a flawed analysis. It would be stupid to argue that these types of organizations would have just sad by idly and watch their power dissapate...but to ignore police states that does NOT answer to its populations and relies on foreign agents for support would be a HUGE blunder.
Saudi Arabia is an easy one to answer. Eygpt is another situation - it is a country which receieves/d billions in US aid...all these billions that goes towards weapons. These weapons are used to actively (well not all ;)) put down demonstrations against its population...and because these billions are not derived from the people themselves, it LESSENS their reliance on its people.

And culture matters everyone my friend...even ourselves.
The Arab Middle East has remained largely a pre-modern society, governed by clan relationships and violent coercion. People in both the countryside and the cities tend to trust only their relatives, and then only relative to their degree of closeness. People define their interests in terms of the interests of their own group, and in opposition to those of other groups. A pervasive cult of honour requires that people support their own groups, violently if necessary, when conflict arises.
IMO this is starting to get laughable. It is stating what we ALL do. As if we don't only really trust our relatives, as well as their degree of closeness! Of course I will trust my wife and parents the most because they know me the most! I would also put my closest friends of many years up there as well! And I would naturally trust my brother FAR more than a second cousin (unless there is something extra ordinary that would warrant otherwise, such as bad character on the part of my brother, etc.). And I would trust people who know me (generally in this society its our immediate family) far greater than a joe schmoe.
This reminded me the other day of me and some friends eating lunch at Chipotle. Two guys came up asking to use my phone because their phone ran out of minutes. I consented, although later I know I shouldn't have because there was something fishy. But afterwards my friends gave me crap all day and the next for just trusting random people telling me that I cannot trust any real person - and who knows what they will really do. At the basic fundamentals there is very little difference - and the author is just barking up the wrong tree. The real difference is that the the government here has the monopoly on power, whereas tribes have that power over there.

What is missing in the Arab Middle East are the cultural tools for building an inclusive and united state. The cultural glue of the West and other successful modern societies --consisting of the rule of law and constitutionalism, which serve to regulate competition among unrelated groups -- is absent in the Arab world. The frame of reference in a tribalized society is always "my group vs. the other group." This system of "balanced opposition" is the structural alternative that stands in stubborn opposition to Western constitutionalism.
Okay these conclusions are just whack. It may have been an interesting discussion at first with good points, but he complains about "my group vs other group" when we have terms like "It is a Dog eat Dog world out there" and "survival of the fittest".
Islam, which might have provided an overarching constitution of universalistic rules binding together all members of society, has failed as a political organizing principle, as well -- for it too reflects the region's underlying sociology, having been built up by the Arabs' Bedouin forebears on a foundation of balanced opposition. This is why it has fueled rather than suppressed the Middle East's various bloody feuds, such as those between Sunni vs. Shiite and between Muslim vs. infidel.
The recent pheonomon of Sunni vs Shiite as we see it manifested is very new and almost ridiculous to the level we have blown it up on (remember: Iraq is Sunni Shi'ite and Kurd. Apparently with this label, either Sunni and Shi'ite are ethnic groups, or Kurd is a separate religion). It existed, and there have been issues with it - but by and large the way the issue is made to be is almost as big as the religion itself.

As a result, Arab political reform has proven elusive, and will remain thus so long as balanced opposition dominates the region's political culture. Whatever formal unity is imposed by coercive force over a national population -- we need only think of the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, etc. -- remains illegitimate in the eyes of the subjects on the receiving end, and thus constantly open to violent challenge and radical replacement.

The primary goal of such regimes is to remain in power and maximize their spoils, rather than to enhance the lives of society members. Their dysfunction explains why so many Arabs have suffered so long, and remain without the liberties we in the West take for granted.
[/quote]

Agreed.

When we could have thought so much about the real reasons these places simply are not developing....and engage in very interesting critiques of Arab culture (most interestingly enough many of the parts that we would critique [of course this will always come from our POV living in the west...which isn't necessarily the standard] would be easily resolved if perhaps they followed their religion)
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
The Arab (oil) world suffers because we (USA) tolerate, and turn a blind eye to the brutality within their dictatorships, in exchange for a steady supply of high quality crude oil.

I believe half of our country would not oppose making the (not imperialistic) change necessary to increase the average Arabs quality of life, but the other half of our country does not have the balls to allow us to do it. (see Iraq War).

Take note; what is going to happen in the middle east if we are able to leave Iraq with a sustainable democracy? What is going to happen on the Arab street when we leave and leave the oil wealth with the Iraqui people? Why do you think the power structure in the ME is so vested in the failure of our venture into Iraq?
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Well Ozoned there is a huge conflict of interest if we claim to prop up democracy in Iraq, but across the border the Saudi's continue to train in oppression tactics to put down any threat to the "monarchy".

Even if this current government in Iraq does not fail - we still have to deal with the fact that we are supporting every other oppressive regime there.
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,714
9
81
Originally posted by: magomago
And to think that Arabs once actually were leading the output of scientific publications. Islam existed both then and now, and drove a lot of the development back then. Something is different, and that factor should be identified and discussed and corrective action should be taken.
How can we explain the discouraging state of Middle Eastern Arab societies? Is it the fault of Western imperialism or the existence of Israel, as often claimed?

I think it may have been Khan's doing.
 

StormRider

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2000
8,324
2
0
Originally posted by: magomago
Well Ozoned there is a huge conflict of interest if we claim to prop up democracy in Iraq, but across the border the Saudi's continue to train in oppression tactics to put down any threat to the "monarchy".

Even if this current government in Iraq does not fail - we still have to deal with the fact that we are supporting every other oppressive regime there.

To me, it is not really clear cut what it means to be "supporting an oppressive regime". How should we deal with these oppressive countries? Does doing business or having some kind of relationship constitute "support"? In order not to "support" a country does this mean we have to drop all contact and form trade embargoes (which usually hurts the people there even more)?

For example, if we buy gasoline from a gas station whose owner abuses his wife, would it be accurate to say, "We support husbands who abuses wives"? Should the wife be angry at us? If it's the only gas station around -- would you be able to not buy any gas in order to stop "supporting" a man who abuses his wife?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: magomago
Well Ozoned there is a huge conflict of interest if we claim to prop up democracy in Iraq, but across the border the Saudi's continue to train in oppression tactics to put down any threat to the "monarchy".

Even if this current government in Iraq does not fail - we still have to deal with the fact that we are supporting every other oppressive regime there.

Do you agree with the following statements?

1) We currently need oil from Saudi Arabia.
2) We should not take any oil by force.

If you do agree to both of those statements, then the only remaining option is to maintain peaceful relations with Saudi Arabia. We can simultaneously call for their fixing human rights issues, and condemning their acts of brutality; but what more would you have us do?

Until we are free from the oil burden, our options, when it comes to dealing with Saudi Arabia, are VERY limited

Which means that the ONLY real solution is completely eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. Our hypocritical foreign policy in the ME cannot, and will not, change dramatically until that happens. Period.

Unless, of course, you believe we should just go in, destroy their monarchy, and take the oil by force at the same time? :Q
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
They are savage animals with no care for human life. They kill people for every little thing under the sun. This is not even human behavior. They are their own worst enemy.
 

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
They are savage animals with no care for human life. They kill people for every little thing under the sun. This is not even human behavior. They are their own worst enemy.

I'm not sure about that, but there is really nothing new in this study. That region is still feudal in many ways. It will be quite some time for societies there to modernize sufficiently to suppress the brutality.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
They are savage animals with no care for human life. They kill people for every little thing under the sun. This is not even human behavior. They are their own worst enemy.

I suppose on the off chance an arab is reading this, know hope, there's plenty of American's who think piasabird's humanity is questionable as well.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
They are savage animals with no care for human life. They kill people for every little thing under the sun. This is not even human behavior. They are their own worst enemy.

If you kick a dog long enough, he will eventually bite you. But, after he does, he will cower in the corner and ACCEPT his punishment. (?)
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
It all boils down to heavy-duty religious mysticism and religious/tribal collectivism.

Basically, these guys are still living in the Middle Ages but end up benefiting from technology created by Western Civilization. If it weren't for assistance from Western Civilization and the oil beneath the ground--a resource they likely would have never discovered on their own, nor any uses for--they'd still be riding camels, swinging scimitars, and living in the 12th Century.

That's not to say that the Christians and Jews are fundamentally different; they just happened to end up embracing the values of Western Civilization, perhaps via the Renaissance, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas, resulting in increasing secularism over time. Today your average self-proclaimed "Jew" and "Christian" in Western nations lives almost like an atheist (and is, in essence, an atheist). It's ironic because for centuries the philosophical works that gave rise to the Renaissance were in Islamic hands.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: magomago
Well Ozoned there is a huge conflict of interest if we claim to prop up democracy in Iraq, but across the border the Saudi's continue to train in oppression tactics to put down any threat to the "monarchy".

Even if this current government in Iraq does not fail - we still have to deal with the fact that we are supporting every other oppressive regime there.

Do you agree with the following statements?

1) We currently need oil from Saudi Arabia.
2) We should not take any oil by force.

If you do agree to both of those statements, then the only remaining option is to maintain peaceful relations with Saudi Arabia. We can simultaneously call for their fixing human rights issues, and condemning their acts of brutality; but what more would you have us do?

Until we are free from the oil burden, our options, when it comes to dealing with Saudi Arabia, are VERY limited

Which means that the ONLY real solution is completely eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. Our hypocritical foreign policy in the ME cannot, and will not, change dramatically until that happens. Period.

Unless, of course, you believe we should just go in, destroy their monarchy, and take the oil by force at the same time? :Q

I agree it is a quandry, which is why bad choices 30-50 years ago led to today's current situations.

Originally posted by: StormRider
Originally posted by: magomago
Well Ozoned there is a huge conflict of interest if we claim to prop up democracy in Iraq, but across the border the Saudi's continue to train in oppression tactics to put down any threat to the "monarchy".

Even if this current government in Iraq does not fail - we still have to deal with the fact that we are supporting every other oppressive regime there.

To me, it is not really clear cut what it means to be "supporting an oppressive regime". How should we deal with these oppressive countries? Does doing business or having some kind of relationship constitute "support"? In order not to "support" a country does this mean we have to drop all contact and form trade embargoes (which usually hurts the people there even more)?

For example, if we buy gasoline from a gas station whose owner abuses his wife, would it be accurate to say, "We support husbands who abuses wives"? Should the wife be angry at us? If it's the only gas station around -- would you be able to not buy any gas in order to stop "supporting" a man who abuses his wife?

When I mean support I'm talking about active support - taking the example of Saudi Arabia has shown that we have provided ACTIVE assistance in training their elite/secret police forces to brutually crush any threat to the Saudi Regime. This is problematic.
Look at the case of Israel and Eygpt. We appeared to act as an intermediate and help foster peace, but the only thing we really did is simply bribe them both. Is that real peace?

I'm thinking more along the lines of refusing to teach the husband of HOW to beat his wife, or promise to pay money to the husband if he doesn't beat his wife.

Sometimes I think think it comes down to doing what is best for our interests as opposed to doing what is probably the right thing.

Palehorse pointed out something important - that we NEED oil from SA. Doing the right thing, which would probably benefit us in the long run will HURT us in the short run. I think that IMO it is worth it, because even fifty years from now I don't see the end of foreign dependence on oil so we may as well take corrective procedures for the benefit of both people

Originally posted by: piasabird
They are savage animals with no care for human life. They kill people for every little thing under the sun. This is not even human behavior. They are their own worst enemy.

Bwahahah...as if people don't kill each other here for frivolous things! You are pretty stupid.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I wtched a show about the Islamic kingdom in Spain after they drove the Christians out. It was interesting it didnt take long before the kingdom fell into civil strife at the hands of Muslims. This crap has been going on for centuries. We wont solve it for them either imo. The only thing we can do is hope to keep it contained to their part of the world.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: magomago
Palehorse pointed out something important - that we NEED oil from SA. Doing the right thing, which would probably benefit us in the long run will HURT us in the short run. I think that IMO it is worth it, because even fifty years from now I don't see the end of foreign dependence on oil so we may as well take corrective procedures for the benefit of both people
OK... so...

What, exactly, are these "corrective procedures" you speak of?

What, exactly, does "doing the right thing" mean?

what, exactly, are you advocating we do right now, that will "hurt us in the short run?"
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Originally posted by: Ozoned
The Arab (oil) world suffers because we (USA) tolerate, and turn a blind eye to the brutality within their dictatorships, in exchange for a steady supply of high quality crude oil.

I believe half of our country would not oppose making the (not imperialistic) change necessary to increase the average Arabs quality of life, but the other half of our country does not have the balls to allow us to do it. (see Iraq War).

Take note; what is going to happen in the middle east if we are able to leave Iraq with a sustainable democracy? What is going to happen on the Arab street when we leave and leave the oil wealth with the Iraqui people? Why do you think the power structure in the ME is so vested in the failure of our venture into Iraq?

it is not the United States fault!
Before we were a country they were having problems and will always do so.
With or without our meddling!
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I have always thought the Middle East was poisoned. There are exceptions, case in point being Dubai. It is motivated by greed, as is our society, but the end result is a very prosperous society with low violence and attractive to intl. business. Granted, without oil, that wouldn't have happened.

Most of the rest of the Middle East wastes its oil revenues and the populous live in a cultural plateau with limited freedoms and education and security. Some mix security and education, but forget freedom.

The whole damned area needs to be honest about itself and realize the rest of the world is leaving it behind. You look at the West or better parts of asia like China and Japan and you see nations really succeeding and getting better. Where is Iran going? Where is Lebanon going?

The Arab (oil) world suffers because we (USA) tolerate, and turn a blind eye to the brutality within their dictatorships, in exchange for a steady supply of high quality crude oil.

That is so shortsighted. These places were sh*tholes before the US was even driving cars and cared any less. US foreign policy is crap right now, don't get me wrong, but to blame these place's failings primarily on anything but themselves is not accurate.

Basically, these guys are still living in the Middle Ages but end up benefiting from technology created by Western Civilization. If it weren't for assistance from Western Civilization and the oil beneath the ground--a resource they likely would have never discovered on their own, nor any uses for--they'd still be riding camels, swinging scimitars, and living in the 12th Century.

You're actually right. Millenia ago the Middle East was able to offer things and inventions to the world, but that was loooong ago. They're a bit like otherwise uneducated, despicably poor african marauders who couldn't write their name to save their life but are in command of machine guns and bombs with which they maim and destroy because somebody gave these to them.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Ozoned
The Arab (oil) world suffers because we (USA) tolerate, and turn a blind eye to the brutality within their dictatorships, in exchange for a steady supply of high quality crude oil.

I believe half of our country would not oppose making the (not imperialistic) change necessary to increase the average Arabs quality of life, but the other half of our country does not have the balls to allow us to do it. (see Iraq War).

Take note; what is going to happen in the middle east if we are able to leave Iraq with a sustainable democracy? What is going to happen on the Arab street when we leave and leave the oil wealth with the Iraqui people? Why do you think the power structure in the ME is so vested in the failure of our venture into Iraq?

it is not the United States fault!
Before we were a country they were having problems and will always do so.
With or without our meddling!

Correct. It is not our fault, but we do have the knowledge and power, (as brutal as it is) to affect change. Just as we did in Germany and Japan.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Correct. It is not our fault, but we do have the knowledge and power, (as brutal as it is) to affect change. Just as we did in Germany and Japan.
The thing with Germany and Japan is they were far more effective societies before WWI and/or II than the vast majority of the ME has been in recent memory.

 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: magomago
I think this is an interesting article, but I want to bring up a few points.

Ah, magomago. :) In a veritable sea of posters who glean the entirety of their knowledge of the culture and people of the Middle East from CNN, it's nice to have someone who knows what they're talking about chime in. (No offense to the rest of you, but it's pretty obvious when someone who's lived their life immersed in the culture speaks up.) I'll reply as I always do, not going particularly point by point but in a general sense.

Professor Salzman has a particular paradigm that he is working from. That paradigm is that the nation-state is a superior model of governance to tribal/feudal provincialism. A lot of your post, to me, is saying that that nation-state system of governance is not necessarily the best system.

Having thought about it, I think I have to disagree with you at the end of the day based on the available evidence: Simply, nation-states today prosper, and tribal-led states are headed backwards. Ideally I too would prefer to live in a system of weak tribal authority - that's a great way to avoid the downfalls of a massive, uncaring central government - but that ideal has never panned out in reality. Like communism, it's only in theory that the model functions. In reality, the tribe only ever acts to consolidate its own power and repress the rest.

There is a difference between Arab/Muslim nations and the West. In Arab nations, you don't care about what's outside your gated home. That's a far cry from the pluralistic republic of the U.S. and elsewhere. We might be suspicious of strangers, but we still pay taxes. We still abide by the laws handed down to us meant to keep us all safe. We give a whit about the conditions of our streets off of our own. Respect for the rule of law and the idea that every man is equal in front of it absolutely is the difference between the Middle East and the West.

Like StormRider said, there are multiple level of engagedness we could try in the Middle East. Most of them mean fiscal links to various dictators or monarchs. The alternative would seem to be Cuba. There's no easy answer there. Ultimately, the problem has to be solved at home.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Actually I don't have my life immersed in Arab Culture ;) I just took a few courses on Chinese History and learned (and read...oooh my gosh read....some of these professor thinks his or her class is the only class we take all quarter) a lot about how tribal societies function, where power is derived, the different types of manifestations they could take, and why these types of lineage group and organizations are useful.
Of course I have to have an inkling of Arab Culture so I could adapt my understanding properly...else I'm talking about something entirely different and irrelevant.

Sometimes when I type with a differing viewpoint I come off more strongly simply because I try to emphasize something else. I hope I didn't come across saying I don't think its the best system. I just think its a system each with its strengths and weaknesses.

Ultimately I think the "Best" system or association is one in which many different types of social and political systems exist together helping to check the other's power...sort of a "balance and checks" on entire systems itself. If one is allowed to be too powerful we will run into issues - of course the question is where is the natural potential state of the power for each system. I think that is up to discussion, and again -there probably isn't a best answer either.

For the Middle East (again, this is going to vary incredibly on where you live in terms of both state performance and social culture of the power of a tribe) - the failure of many nation states to actually provide for the population doesn't do much in terms of weakening tribal authority. I'm not bashing the nation state here but simply pointing out what happened and what resulted.

You know what I think is important and what is needed? Greater types of association between people there. The greater methods people can associate with each other (whether it is kinship, religious, linguistic, economic, local, regional, national, etc.) the better off they will be because it allows for greater association. Of course greater means of association also means people will make exclusive associations perhaps based on their own cities or regions...but these will form anyways so we might as well benefit from the positive of associations as much as possible. It is ALMOST impossible to simply 100% unite people on a national basis because that invariably always draws in the political factor. Even in "good ol USA" we rarely agree on politics and even the scope of government, and the only time in recent memory I can think of is 9/11.

For example - lets look at economic integration in the Middle East.
marketing.byu.edu/htmlpages/ccrs/proceedings01/papers/mehanna2.doc
We can't say this is the end all be all, and I easily found this using google but the point it brings home is that Middle East countries...despite being right next to each other...don't even trade that much. Its easy to go to war with the people whom you have very little connection and association to - especially without economic connections because you have much LESS to lose. It is great that the same language exists as well as even kinship - but these should be serving to help make other forms of linkages and associations even EASIER (of course its easier to trade with someone you can understand and interact with on a personal level) rather than the end all be all of association.

And realy yllus...can we really say we are SUBSTANTIALLY different in the way you try to make it seem we care so much more about the common citizen? We talk about how they don't care what goes outside their gated housing....when we are the ones rushing to build gated communities like crazy! Come down to So Cal and you see a sea of walled off housing and gated complexes (of course imo its all designed to create the image of security but it doesn't...it also helps to reinforce separation) - this is how the sururbs are. Doesn't matter if its 30 houses blocked off with their brick and mortart wall and electric gate, or if its a complex of 800 houses....its a direct manifestation of the idea of not caring what happens outside the gated house.

Furthermore, how many times do we see in the news of when people simply walk by and ignore someone getting mugged and don't even consider helping them? Wasn't this such a huge problem in UK that it was used as one justification for having their elaborate (And scary imo) camera monitoring system across the nation? That where other citizens fail to interfere, the government would step in instead? Interestingly enough I mentioned earlier about those guys who asked to borrow my phone - everyone else just IGNORED them and walked by as if they don't exist. Oh - and on campus MANY people simply ignore people who pass out flyers. I can see this manifested everywhere without much trouble.

Honestly I can't comment about the metaphor that Arab nations never care what happens outside their gated home...which is why I largely avoided that and instead talked about ourselves. I really don't know. What I know about this is simply through my parents and the way I grew up. But I CAN comment about life here in "the West" because it is the culture I have been immersed in; being an American I hesitate to say that we actually "give a whit about the conditions of our streets off of our own".

Life here is totally better but lets not exaggerate about what is real and what isn't.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: magomago
Palehorse pointed out something important - that we NEED oil from SA. Doing the right thing, which would probably benefit us in the long run will HURT us in the short run. I think that IMO it is worth it, because even fifty years from now I don't see the end of foreign dependence on oil so we may as well take corrective procedures for the benefit of both people
OK... so...

What, exactly, are these "corrective procedures" you speak of?

What, exactly, does "doing the right thing" mean?

what, exactly, are you advocating we do right now, that will "hurt us in the short run?"

I'll give you this. I actually asked myself quitely during one of my lectures in class and came with no easy solution. I think one thing that is VERY interesting to point out is that on certain areas...."doing the right thing" means to benefit them where we choose to be hurt. SA is a tough answer because the hole is so deep.

The other reason I had such a problem answering this is we can't look at the region as simply being America only. If we completely pull out - what is to say the Chinese won't go in? And while are at least say we prefer democracy, they clearly make it clear that they don't care if the government is actively purging everyone there.

That said - I'm also thinking a lot about Iraq when I make references to doing the right thing...because it has not gone in that deep and anything is still largely reversbile at this point
However, since I have absolutely no faith in the Administration despite the fine job that the boys are really trying to accomplish, I think the best method is to evacuate and let the government that can't stand on its own to fall.

But assuming we actually wanted to "Fix" things we need to reinvade and remove their government. There is a problem when many key positions go to expats who haven't lived in the country for 30 years. That is a VERY long time and makes one out of tune with what the people want. Cronyism like seeing Ahmed Chalabi, who should be in a jail, appear in key positions. The people should have representatives that actually REPRESENT the Iraqis at large rather than increase their personal bank accounts...what we have now are elections that largely is about who can advertise the most and then a parliament that works less than our current president. Of course this is just one thing ;) Ah well, I read the other day that they will finally allow old "Bathists" (a poorly labelled name since most never cared about the party) to regain their pensions....To think it takes forever to do things right