Connect with us

Middle East

The Apocalyptic Islamic Global Jihad Groups and International Community: the 7th Century is Back (A)

Published

on

The history of humanity is, in essence, the history of wars, peace agreements, balances of power, and cycles of wars. Every time any protagonist attempted to achieve hegemony, other protagonists strove to prevent him from reaching that objective by adopting a policy of balancing through retaliation and alliances.

In the course of these struggles over hegemony, unipolar, a bi-polar or multi-polar international system crystallized, and this was determining factor for the shaping of the existing political borders and establishment of the present-day sovereign political entities.

However, Neil Ferguson (Foreign Policy, May-June, 2004) raises an important question: can international relations move towards an era in which there are no hegemonies and there is no balance of power? Does nature acknowledge a phenomenon of imbalance? And if so, what are the operative ramifications of that reality in an era of active transnational protagonists possessing radical world perspectives, and seeking to create a different international reality, as is the case with the Apocalyptic Islamic Global Jihad Groups.

Why is a possibility that an era of non-hegemony liable to develop?

The Weakness of the United States. Three impending crises undermining the United States ability to lead the free world: legitimacy, economic pressures, and isolationism. Our reality is characterized with hatred of the rich and the powerful, and the United States is afflicted with both of those, which manifests itself in profound hostility from both allies and enemies.

The problem with the US is that is seeks to establish a world order based on liberal-democratic regimes and by elimination authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. This has become a belief system, almost a religion. The US deeply believes this approach will facilitate moderation, promote freedom, and prevent wars.

However, the US is faced with external economic dependency; internal pressures for isolationism; and an attrition of its military might. It possesses enormous power but lacks the legitimacy to exercise it around the world. In that respect, Rousseau was right: “The powerful will never be powerful enough to sustain its domination unless he transforms power into a right and obedience into an obligation”. The US lacks both.

Bruce Bauer, in his “To Hate America,” claims that anti-Americanism is a chronic enmity. Studies indicate that it is not significant in Asia and Africa; more significant in South America and Europe and very significant in the Islamic countries. Lee Harris (Policy Review, December, 2002), notes that hatred of America is absolute anti-Americanism. To oppose America means to be on “the right and just side of history”. Hatred of America has become the “opiate of the intellectuals”.

Fareed Zakaria (Foreign Policy, September-October, 2004) stresses that in the post-modernist, which is a post-ideological era, anti-Americanism has become an extremely powerful trend, more powerful than any other country in history and that arouses extreme antagonism against it. However, a world in which the US will not take a global role is a world lacking a unifying adhesive political stability and unable to deal with the new dangers posed by the Apocalyptic Islamic Global Jihad Groups, a world of outlaw nations and pervasive violence.

Fuad Ajami deals with the fallaciousness of anti-Americanism. Everyone seeks to imitate America, but at the same time hate America. The most outstanding example is Saudi Arabia. Its policy expresses harsh anti-Americanism, though it depends on the US security belt and military umbrella. Saudi-Arabia is busy with an intensive active policy to spread its Wahhabi-Hanbali version of Islam around the world, by spending many billions of dollars, and at the same time, it pays other billions of dollars as “protection” money to Islamic organizations and terrorist groups around the world.

Bernard Lewis formulated this attitude regarding to the Arab-Islamic political culture: on the one side, an admiration and the desire to imitate the progressive West, but on the other, hatred and hostility.

The Decline of Europe. Evidence show clearly that Europe is old, multinational and multicultural, and in a fast process of collapse. This is the same old Europe, assuming new dimensions of a common union seeking to achieve economic power and to establish a different cultural system. At the same time, Europe is afflicted by new problems, which are liable to lead to its decline:

a) The severe trauma of two World Wars manifests itself in an unmitigated aspiration to maintain quiet, even if it is imaginary, and reflects a policy of hedonistic pacifism, a phenomenon that symbolizes lack of willingness to fight for basic national values. Europe despises the US, which is perceived as a factor that disturbs international order and interfere with Europe’s ability to hegemony, and expresses hostility towards Israel, as if were it to disappear the Middle East would cease to be a “keg of dynamite.” Pathological hatred for Israel has become the major generator of Europe policy. It believes that the cycle of terrorism and violence in the Middle East is due to Israel, which slaughters Palestinian children at will. For Europe, the problem is not the Islamic religious ideology to occupy the world, and Europe is the forefront, but the “ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Since Europe believes that “Islam and terrorism do not go together,” Israel has become the scapegoat to all European troubles and hardships.

b) The advanced age of the native European population, while the birthrate is negative (1.4 children per 1000 people, as opposed to a required even minimum of 2.1). By the year 2040, one of every three European will be over the age of 65, and at the same time the uncontrolled immigration of Muslims, with a birthrate three and four times that of the Europeans, causes severe social and cultural problems, and arouses fundamental questions of national identity. A reliable forecasts agree that in 2040, there will be a Muslim majority in several Western European countries.

c) Appeasement policy and political correctness as the primary strategy to attain quiet. The fear of arousal of widespread domestic violence, especially in the Muslim neighborhoods, who have no desire to assimilate, creates a “mental paralysis” in European public opinion and policy-makers. The expanding Muslim population poses the greatest threat to pluralistic democracy of the free world.

Samuel Huntington, in his The Clash of Civilizations, claims that the most significant division between the US and Europe is cultural. The United States is a religious country, and old Europe is secular. The Americans are devoted and patriotic to their country and to their religion, and define many issues in terms of good and evil; while Europe has a very low commitment to religion and nationalism. In a series of surveys, the countries were rated according to the level of their religiosity. The US was first with a ranking of 1.7; Ireland: 4.1; Poland: 5.2; Italy: 5.9; Britain: 11.6; Germany: 12.1. For Europe, there is a strong trend that transforms secularism and pacifism into a religion.

Jean Francois Ravel, in his “Europe’s Anti-American Obsession”, Europe believes that Americans are controlled by money, and their foreign policy is characterized by isolationism, and degenerate fascist politics. But it is specifically Europe, which invented the most repulsive ideologies, in which totalitarian regimes flourished, and it was precisely the US which rescued Europe from itself. Possessed by the obsession of their hatred, the anti-American fools forget that the US acts for world peace. It is specifically the security provided by the US that enables Europe to claim, paradoxically, that military might is no longer important as if they are residents of a post-historical world.

Economic Crises in Asia. Asia is seeking to become a significant factor in the International politics, by means of economic growth. In recent decades it was Japan, by employing a policy of competition through imitation. However, in the last decade it has slowed down, and local giants have begun to challenge it. Firstly, it was Korea, which followed the Japanese model, in the shadow of the North Korean military threat. Thereafter, China began its march, with an economic policy, which poses a substantial threat to the old world markets, and India, a nuclear power, which is also threatened by a neighboring enemy – Pakistan, aligns itself, like China, in more specific economic areas. China has the best chance, as within three decades its GNP surpasses that of the United States. At the same time, researchers claim that a severe economic crisis is threatening China, which will have dire ramifications and consequences throughout the world.

The significance of these three trends – the weakening of the legitimacy of the US; the continued decline of Europe; and the possibility of economic collapse in Asia in general and in China in particular – is that the world is not progressing towards a multi-polar world, but rather is liable to be a world without hegemonic power, a world without polarity. The upshot will be an era of declining empires and religious fanaticism, which will initiate processes of multi-dimensional decline: First, severe economic crises, which are liable to lead to a world-wide collapse; second, a dreadful rise of Islamic vicious terrorist groups on a world scale; third, an era of military crises, wars which will unfold over sources and resources. The result is likely to be political anarchy, to the withdrawal of civilization into fortified enclaves where chaos reigns.

To this future reality, a world of anarchy with no stabilizing world powers to enforce order and of continued trends of aggressive, fanatical Islamic terrorism – two scientific approaches have crystallized.

One approach, by Samuel Huntington, in his July 1993 article and his 1995 book, regarding the clash of civilizations. He proves that seven or eight civilizations exist in the world and Islam is at odds and antagonistic conflict with all of them throughout the world. Huntington claim, that “the Arab borders are blood borders” and this has brought The Economist to identify 32 major conflicts conducted in the world in the year 2000. 70% involved Muslims against others. Bernard Lewis in his April 1990 Atlantic Monthly article, determined that this was not a religious cold war between the Third World and the secular world, as Juergensmeyer claimed, but rather a genuine clash of cultures and was the first to coin the phrase “clash of civilizations”.

The second approach, is that of a “clash within Islam”, as expressed by Emanuel Sivan (A Confrontation within Islam), Moshe Maoz (YI, January 13, 2002), and other Israeli orientalists and Political Scientists, who claim that the primary, substantive clash is within Islam, between the moderate branch of Islam, who are the majority, and the extreme branch, who are the minority and will fail.

However, though all evidence clearly show that Huntington is by all means right, still, one can view these two approaches along the same continuum: In the first stage, the motto is activity within Arab-Islamic society. Fanatic Islam seeks to overthrow the existing Arab and Muslim regimes, which it refers to as the “New Jahiliyah, being the near enemy (al-‘Aduw al-Qarib), and in the second stage, it aspires to challenge the Western infidels, which it refers to as the “New Crusaders” or the far enemy (al-‘Aduw al-Ba’id).

This is the position of the religious exegetes of fanatic Islam, like Abu al-A’la al Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb, Yusuf al-Qaradawi and many others, and this is the essence of the Islamic struggle: the genuine Islam according to the exegesis against both the New Jahiliyah (Arab-Muslim) and the New Crusaderism. In between they play a mix-operative terrorist strategy – against the West and Arab-Islamic countries.

When do empires decline? Quigley’s raises three trends: a) when they begin to squander their internal resources and do not turn to create new ones. b) When the mutual bond between the components of society weakens and the internal gaps increase. c) When ignorance spreads and the masses are drawn towards extreme religious fanaticism.

Huntington in the summary chapter of his Clash of civilizations, characterizes it as “cultural suicide”. The manifestations: a) an increase in the levels of crime, drugs and violence, which create a turbulent society with deep cleavages. b) A sharp decline in the institution of marriage and an increase in the rates of divorce and one-parent households. c) A decrease in interpersonal trust, with a rise in social alienation and anomic society. d) A slackening in the work ethic and in collective giving and enhancement of the trends of personal satisfaction. e) A decrease in the commitment to scientific intellectual activity for the continuation of progress and modernity. f) Absence of a unifying consensus and a decrease in national identification and loyalty. Multi-nationalism and Multiculturalism.

On the basis of understanding these dimensions one can assert that scientific and technological superiority does not override moral decay and political collapse of states. It was Jan Maserik, former Czech Foreign Minister who claimed: for a nation whose back is broken, it will be of no avail that each citizen has a tank in his yard and a warplane on his roof.” Indeed, a National strength can never persist without national honor, patriotism; commitment and determination to defend national interests, and adhesive common grounds. Defeatism, Douglas MacArthur stated, engenders a much more difficult and cruel war. There is not even one case in history in which defeatism has produced peace.

It is frightening to observe that the reactions in the free world today and the absence of a joint vision and common strategy regarding the threats stemming from the challenges posed by Apocalyptic Islamic Global Jihad Groups, reflect, in an astounding way, the international situation on the eve of World War II, and the absence of a uniform policy regarding Nazi Germany.

In May 1939, when it was clear that the clouds over Europe are leading to an all-out war, the influential British newspaper, The Times of London, published a harsh editorial, criticizing Churchill and his “belligerent, war-mongering” government, which was leading Britain into war, while a successful alternative exists, the “Munich Agreement”, which proves that it is possible to bring peace to Europe by means of diplomatic agreements. However, it was Churchill who was remarkably on target, in reacting to Chamberlain’s defeatist policy: “You have chosen shame out of fear of war and you have received both the shame and the war”. Indeed, these words are tantamount to the political situation today regarding Islamic onslaught to occupy the Free World.

The circumstances are that the world witness a violent aggressiveness of Islamic Bolshevism, according to Huntington, which will manifest itself in pressure to bring about changes in regimes and politics, massive immigration, but primarily attempts to gain control, first of the Dar al-Islam lands, from China to Spain, and after succeeding, to expand at the expense of the Dar al-Harb. World terrorism is primarily Islamic. More than 90 percent of world terrorism and more than 70 percent of world violence are Islamic. This religious fanaticism flourishes in societies that do not aspire to modernization and progress, which reject the basic values of democracy, pluralism, freedoms, open criticism, and equal rights.

The dominant idea in Islam, as defined by Islam itself, is absolute submissiveness and devotion to Allah and that humanity must respect the laws of the Islamic religion, while they have neither respect nor appreciation for other religions. Everything is perceived as legitimate self-defense, “the soul, religion, the land and Arabism”.

This phenomenon manifests itself in the syndrome: he hits me and he cried-out, he overtook me and grumbled (Darabni wa-Baka Sabaqni wa-Shtaqa). Aggression is perceived in the Arab-Islamic political culture as a routine and consensual phenomenon, while in contrast, any defensive action taken by its opponents in response to its acts of aggression evokes a severe reaction: “What did I do”? “Why am I being attacked”? “I, the miserable, the exploited one, who has done nothing, am standing against brutal belligerency and aggressiveness” Indeed, this is a deeply rooted cultural phenomenon: “the victimhood Syndrome.” They sincerely wholeheartedly believe that they are the pure victim and that all of their horrific vicious inhumane actions are merely justified acts of retaliation, in order to preserve their honor, their soul and their lands.

In contrast, Western culture acts as if it bears responsibility for being the victim. Everyone continues to declare that it is not a war against Islam in order to underscore his political tolerance. For Western leaders, in ignorance or cowardice, Islam is a religion of peace and there are only few extremist Muslims who hijacked the religion. It is even forbidden to put together “Islamic” and Terrorism.” For them, poverty and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the true cause, but not Islamic aggressiveness, terrorism, supremacism and brutality. No wonder the Free World is in a so deep mired situation, due to this shameless behavior.

However the truth is that the Apocalyptic Islamic Global Jihad groups have declared war against the Free World in the name of Allah. From their vantage point, it is their duty to control and occupy the world; that their religion is the only legitimate religion to impose on the entire humanity; and that it is a religious war and they are pretty sure Allah’s religion will prevail. This is the reason why we must stop apologizing and appeasing, and paying protection money, because we are fighting for our own lives, for our own existence. We fight to defend the Free World and all what have achieved against the epitome of evil and primitiveness. This is the “just war”, ever in history, as much as the Free World waged against Nazism and Communism.

However, the problem lies precisely in the cultural dimension, in the profound differences in cultural values, in the externalization of guilt syndrome. The Middle East is a greenhouse, unprecedented in its intensity, of authoritarianism, despotism, patrimonialism, corruption and incitement of hatred by the ruling political elite, while at the same time of poverty, exploitation and the misery of the masses.

The connection line between these two trends is in externalizing the guilt towards colonialism and imperialism, exploitation and racism against Western culture, which is hostile to Islam and the Arabs. However, Arab-Islamic political culture has no feelings of guilt or remorse; a culture that has no guilt conscience toward the other, and is unwilling to assume responsibility and self-criticism. This is a culture with the deep feeling that it is always right, and for that it externalizes the guilt and blames the “other” for that which transpires. It is essential to appreciate the significance of the phenomenon.

Jews and Christians internalize guilt. Jews turn one cheek in the sense of “we have sinned, we have transgressed, and we have committed crimes”; and the Christians turn the other cheek in the sense of “mea culpa”. In contrast, Arabs externalize guilt: “do I have a problem? You are guilty!” You will not find among them the phenomenon so characteristic to the Judeo-Christian culture: Doubts, guilt feelings and remorse, the agonizing conceptions perhaps we are not right, perhaps we should have acted or reacted differently? And what is our share of the blame? Western culture attempts to understand the other side; to learn his misery, to see the logic behind his actions and understand why he did what he did. All these are contrary to the Arab-Islamic political culture.

The Egyptian intellectual, residing in the US, Nonie Darwish has put it directly:

‘Arab’ means never having to say you are sorry. To expect Arab and Muslim leadership to apologize is a reflection of the West naïve and wrong expectations of Arab culture. In the Arab world to take responsibility and say sorry is taken as unmanly sign of weakness that may get a person into more trouble. Those who admit guilt, even it is accidental are given no mercy and may end up taking all the blame and being brutally punished.

It is a norm for the Arabs to deny a fact and to blame the other rather than admit to the wrongdoing and apologize. Honesty is not rewarded. Any admission of guilt is a sign of weakness. Yet, how can we expect them to apologize, when most of Arabs blame Israel for all the world wrong-doings, even September-Eleven? How can we expect the Arab countries to sincerely cooperate to end terror and its barbaric brutality. American should stop judging other cultures with American value system, and especially stop expecting Arab-Muslim culture to respond rationally according to Western standards.        

Herewith the explanation of the Egyptian ‘Amr Ismail (Ilaf, October 30, 2004):

Why do we not see things the way the rest of the world sees them? Why do we always feel that someone is plotting and conspiring against us, and that they are the cause of our social and economic problems and our cultural backwardness? Why are we not capable of criticizing ourselves and we consider everyone who tries to do so a resolute enemy of our people and their principles? Why do we speak by means of rifles, bombs and car bombs and hurry to accuse all of our critics from within of treason and of being influenced by the West? Why are we the only nations in the world still using Islam as a religion in all aspects of life? Why are we slitting throats and detonating cars in the name of Allah, while at the same time protest when Muslims are described as terrorists? Why our brain is incapable of comprehending that democracy is the best regime and that it brought those who adopted it advancement and comfort?

The Egyptian writer, Sayyid al-Qimi (Roz al-Yusuf, May 5, 2005) blames that the responsibility for terrorism in Egypt lies with those who create a cultural atmosphere conductive to terrorism. The fight against terrorism requires combating extremist trends among Muslim clerics and in the Arab media. For him, a barrier separates the Muslim’s mind from the rest of the world around him, making him loose the capacity to distinguish Good from Evil. He only recognizes the values of Halal and Haram, permissible vs. prohibited. Muslims are burdened with many repressive restrictions. Freedom of thought and expression are fenced in by Islamic restrictions. He brings many day by day examples of Arab behavior and activity to prove his claims, declaring that terrorism had grown when the Arabs allowed Islamist thought to infiltrate Media and Schools. This is the legitimacy to kill and terrorize innocent people.  

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

The question with contradictory US human rights policies towards Saudi Arabia and Iran

Published

on

A cursory look at Saudi Arabia and Iran suggests that emphasizing human rights in US foreign policy may complicate relations but has little impact on regional stability or the willingness of protagonists to reduce tension and manage conflicts when it is in their interest.

A post 9/11 US emphasis on human rights was not what inspired homegrown popular Arab revolts over the past decade that initially toppled leaders in eight Arab countries but were largely rolled back or stymied by counter-revolutionary US allies.

The UAE and Saudi counter-revolutionary efforts put the two Gulf states on the autocratic frontline of President Joe Biden’s democracy versus autocracy dichotomy. They were motivated by a rejection of democracy as an existential challenge to the absolute power of their ruling families.

Subsequent US administrations effectively let the counter-revolutionary moves pass, although, to be fair, the Biden administration has suspended $700 million in aid to Sudan following a military power grab in October. However, it has yet to do the same with an additional $500 million for Tunisia. Democratically elected President Kais Saied disbanded parliament in July and assumed the power to enact laws.

By the same token, Middle Eastern protagonists, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran, opted to reduce tensions and explore ways of managing their differences to focus on reforming and diversifying their economies, fuelling growth, and stimulating trade.

In other words, they would have sought to reduce tensions even if they had not anticipated that the Biden administration would adopt a more human rights and democratic values-driven foreign policy and would want to focus on Asia rather than the Middle East.

If anything, a contentious relationship with the United States could have provided a further incentive for reducing tensions. Yemen, which figured prominently in Iran’s talks with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, may be a case in point.

As a result, the regional moves raise the question of whether a US refusal to stand up for principle produces the kind of short-term results that outweigh the long-term cost of autocracy as well as the price of undermining US credibility.

The short-term results of abandoning principle for pragmatism were evident in this week’s shift in oil politics.

The shift was prompted by US efforts to assure the kingdom and other Gulf states that the United States was no longer in the regime change business. US officials also insisted that the administration would concentrate on maintaining and strengthening regional partnerships. They signaled that the administration’s lip service to human rights and democratic values would not have policy consequences.

The message was well received in Riyadh. In response, Saudi Arabia reversed its rejection of Mr. Biden’s request to increase oil production to reduce soaring prices at US gas stations.

The de facto leader of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the cartel’s largest producer, Saudi Arabia, said the group and its associates, which include Russia, would increase monthly production by 400,000 barrels a day.

The Saudi concession also came in response to the administration’s willingness to sell the kingdom US$650 million worth of missiles. The sale threatened to further call into question the credibility of the United States as it prepared to host this week’s virtual Summit for Democracy, which some 110 countries are expected to attend.

The administration says the sale is in line with its policy of supplying only defensive weapons to the kingdom as US officials push for an end to the devastating, almost seven-year-long Yemen war that has sparked one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

Administration officials assert that the missiles would enable Saudi Arabia to shoot down Houthi drones in the air before they hit targets in the kingdom but cannot be used for attacks against the rebels in Yemen itself.

The Senate vote could set the tone for the democracy summit. Anti-Saudi sentiment runs deep in the US Congress. A vote against the sale would force Mr. Biden to cancel it or override the Senate with a veto.

Saudi violations of human rights, the killing in 2018 of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the kingdom’s crackdown on dissent and freedom of expression, and its conduct of the Yemen war fueled the anti-Saudi sentiment.

With the arms sale on the line, the administration has remained silent about reports that Saudi Arabia and the UAE had used a combination of economic incentives and threats to pressure African and Asian nations to vote for the shutdown of a United Nations investigation into abuses of human rights in the war.

Meanwhile, the administration’s efforts to reassure Middle Eastern nations that its policy emphasis has changed has done little to prevent Iranian negotiators at the Vienna talks on reviving a 2015 international agreement that curbed the country’s nuclear programme from hardening their positions.

Iran believes that the United States and, at least until recently, some of its Gulf allies, aim to encircle the Islamic republic and foment domestic unrest that will lead to the regime’s fall. The US has imposed crippling sanctions in response to its nuclear programme and harshly criticized Iran for its abusive human rights record.

That has not stopped Iran from engaging in separate talks with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which appear to be producing results in Yemen.

As a result of those talks, Saudi and Emirati forces, and their Yemeni allies, were reportedly withdrawing from positions in southern and western parts of the country.

 “These are very likely the opening moves by Saudi Arabia and the UAE as they prepare to fully exit Yemen,” said former member of the United Nations Panel of Experts on Yemen Gregory D. Johnson.

The war has increasingly turned into an albatross around Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s neck, with much of the international community wanting to see an end to the conflict.

It was not immediately clear if and what Iran may have offered in return for the withdrawals that have allowed the Houthis to move into evacuated spaces. “The latest developments seem to suggest that the Houthis seem on the edge of gaining the upper hand,” said NATO Foundation analyst Umberto Profazio.

In line with that assessment, the Houthis have not indicated that they had become more interested in a negotiated end to the war.

“It is clear that the Houthis intend to try to bring down the Yemen government. The Iranians, I believe, would like to see the same,” said US special envoy to Yemen Tim Lenderking.

The Emirati withdrawals, particularly around the strategic port of Hodeida, follow gestures including an effort to return internationally isolated Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Arab fold and an exchange of visits with Iran. Syrian membership in the Arab League was suspended early in the civil war.

Some analysts suggested that the withdrawals in Yemen were part of an effort to build confidence. However, it was not clear why the Saudis and Emiratis would cede strategic territory with no apparent Iranian or Houthi concessions in return unless they were looking for a rush to the exit no matter what.

“The pull-out was unnecessary to open new frontlines, and Hodeida seems to have paid the price for confidence-building with Iran,” said Yemen analyst Ibrahim Jalal.

The withdrawals, including from Mara on the Yemeni border with Oman, help Saudi Arabia put its backyard in order. Saudi operations in Mara irritated Oman that sees the Yemeni region as its sphere of influence.

The withdrawals helped facilitate a visit to Oman by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman this week. Mr. Bin Salman may try to reach an agreement during the visit to construct a pipeline from the kingdom’s oil fields to an export terminal in Oman. The pipeline would allow Saudi Arabia is to circumvent the Strait of Hormuz.

In the final analysis of the pros and cons of a values-driven US foreign policy, hardline realists will argue that backing down on rights produces tangible results.

Yet, the United States’ selective and opportunistic hardline emphasis on rights and values in Iran has not prevented the Islamic republic from engaging with Saudi Arabia and the UAE and possibly helping to end the Yemen war. The pressure may have been one factor that persuaded Iran to engage.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Democracy Summit: Excluding countries and igniting the Cold War in the Middle East

Published

on

A number of American leaks have appeared at the present time for several American think tanks that have reached a dangerous conclusion, which is: (The United States of America must re-use the influence of the extremist Islamic currents and radical political Islam movements in the Middle East and Africa to confront the rise of China in the first place). Hence, the first practical American application of this through the conference to divide the world democratically, according to the American concept, through the following possible scenarios:

   Washington may have practically started using the game of “rapprochement with extremist currents in the face of communist China”, which can be understood through (the United States of America is currently trying to re-use the strategy of rapprochement with extremist currents and political Islam currents in the face of the Chinese and Russian communist enemy as well), and made them raise  Ideological slogans whose purpose is to “ignite the region sectarianly and religiously and cause chaos and turmoil”, and Washington helps in this the ambitions of some nascent national forces in the Middle East, or perhaps some individuals and civil organizations with narrow, limited interests at the expense and in the face of their homelands.

   The American prominent book, which is called (The Devil’s Game: Political Islam and the United States), which was published by “Robert Dreyfuss”, who is an American scholar, specializing in political Islam, is one of the most academic efforts close to understanding the support of the United States and the West in general for the project of so-called political Islam, as well as presenting, highlighting and analyzing of (all American plans aimed at attracting the extremist currents in the Middle East, bringing them closer and using them by the USA to cause unrest in their regions), by fueling their exploitation in achieving sectarian and religious fanaticism in the Arab world.

   Here, the author of the aforementioned book, “Robert Dreyfuss”, presented many of the mysteries and unknown reasons about those (secret and mysterious alliances that the United States of America made with Muslim Brotherhood groups and the other political Islam movements in Egypt and the other countries in the region), over a period of several decades to sponsor and encourage the Islamic currents and radicalism, whether by US secret agreements with them or perhaps by manipulating them as well, so that (the United States of America will use them later in its cold war against China ideologically).

  Perhaps the visit of Chinese Foreign Minister “Wang Yi” to the Middle East in March 2021, who summarized his trip in several words, concerning the Chinese response in the Middle East to the policy of American alliances and polarization, by asserting that:

 “China and the countries agreed on the need to respect sovereign independence and national dignity for all countries, and to promote independent and diversified avenues of development”

   The official Chinese media also supported the speech of its Chinese Foreign Minister, “Wang Yi” and his assurances to all countries in the Middle East region, by confirming that:

 “It was agreed to oppose interference in the internal affairs of the other countries and slander others under the guise of human rights and the protection of the international system, so that the United Nations “UN” would be the core of the international order based on international law, pluralism, fairness and international justice”

   The analyses and the main visions of the Chinese think tanks, which are considered that: the failure of the United States of America to invite the countries of the region to the conference of democracies in the world is (the beginning of the “Joe Biden’s administration” leaving the Middle East for China).

  So, the logic results for the American provocation to the Middle East region, according to the Chinese way of thinking, represents in: (deepening China’s relations with the Middle East countries outside the scope of trade should worry the United States of America), especially since the administration of US President “Joe Biden” has recently taken steps to reduce interest in the region, thus opening the door to Chinese hegemony in accordance with the American vision.

   And perhaps in my viewpoint that (the Conference of American Democracies is the beginning of the American vacuum in favor of China and Russia), which is the same as what was confirmed by a former senior official in American national security, and a close advisor to President “Joe Biden” in a report published in the “American Politico Newspaper”, confirming it frankly by saying:

  “If you were to rank the regions that “Biden” considers a priority, the Middle East is not among the top three. Because, the main top priorities are: the Asia-Pacific region, then Europe, and the Western Hemisphere, and this reflects a bipartisan consensus that the issues of our interest has changed with the return of the great-power competition with China and Russia”

   Hence, we conclude, that with China competing for more international (militarily, economically, technologically and politically) influence, to become the largest power in the world by 2049, according to its stated strategy. So, here we find that (the Middle East is likely to become decisive, whether the United States of America prioritizes it or not).

Continue Reading

Middle East

Middle Eastern autocrats sigh relief: the US signals Democracy Summit will not change policy

Published

on

The United States has signalled in advance of next week’s Summit for Democracy that it is unlikely to translate lip service to adherence to human rights and democratic values in the Middle East into a policy that demonstrates seriousness and commitment.

In a statement, the State Department said the December 9-10 summit would “set forth an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal and to tackle the greatest threats faced by democracies today through collective action.” e State Department said that in advance of the summit, it had consulted with government experts, multilateral organisations, and civil society “to solicit bold, practicable ideas” on “defending against authoritarianism,” “promoting respect for human rights,” and fighting corruption.

Of the more than 100 countries alongside civil society and private sector representatives expected to participate in the summit, only Israel is Middle Eastern, and a mere eight are Muslim-majority states. They are Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Albania, Iraq, Kosovo, Niger, and the Maldives.

US President Joe Biden has made the competition between democracy and autocracy a pillar of his administration policy and put it at the core of the United States’ rivalry with China.

We’re in a contest…with autocrats, autocratic governments around the world, as to whether or not democracies can compete with them in a rapidly changing 21st century,” Mr. Biden said.

Yet, recent statements by the Pentagon and a White House official suggested that, despite the lofty words, US Middle East policy is likely to maintain long-standing support for the region’s autocratic rule in the belief that it will ensure stability.

Popular revolts in the past decade that toppled leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, and Lebanon suggest that putting a lid on the pot was not a solution. That is true even if the achievements of the uprisings were either rolled back by Gulf-supported counter-revolutionary forces or failed to achieve real change.

To be sure, Gulf states have recognized that keeping the pot covered is no longer sufficient. As a result, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have developed plans and policies that cater to youth aspirations with economic and social reforms while repressing political freedoms.

The US appears to be banking on the success of those reforms and regional efforts to manage conflicts so that they don’t spin out of control.

On that basis, the United States maintains a policy that is a far cry from standing up for human rights and democracy. It is a policy that, in practice, does not differ from Chinese and Russian backing of Middle Eastern autocracy. Continuous US public and private references to human rights and democratic values and occasional baby steps like limiting arms sales do not fundamentally alter things.

Neither does the United States’ choice of partners when it comes to responding to popular uprisings and facilitating political transition. In dealing with the revolt in Sudan that in 2019 toppled President Omar al-Bashir and a military coup in October, both the Trump and Biden administration turned to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Israel. While Israel is a democracy, none of the US partners favour democratic solutions to crises of governance.

White House Middle East coordinator Brett McGurk signalled this in an interview with The National, the UAE’s flagship English-language newspaper, immediately after a security summit in Bahrain that brought together officials from across the globe. US officials led by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin sought to use the conference to reassure America’s allies that the United States was not turning its back on ensuring regional security.

Mr. McGurk said that the United States had drawn conclusions from “hard lessons learnt” and was going “back to basics.” Basics, Mr. McGurk said, in a nod primarily to Iran but potentially also to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, entailed dumping “regime change policies.” He said the US would focus on “the basics of building, maintaining, and strengthening our partnerships and alliances” in the Middle East.

Mr. McGurk’s articulation of a back-to-basics policy was reinforced this week with the publication of a summary of the Pentagon’s Global Posture review, suggesting that there would be no significant withdrawal of US forces from the region in Mr. Biden’s initial years in office.

The notion of back to basics resonates with liberals in Washington’s foreign policy elite. Democracy in the Middle East is no longer part of their agenda.

“Instead of using US power to remake the region…policymakers need to embrace the more realistic and realisable goal of establishing and preserving stability,” said Council of Foreign Relations Middle East expert Steven A. Cook even before Mr. Biden took office.” What Washington needs is not a ‘war on terror’ built on visions of regime change, democracy promotion, and ‘winning hearts and minds’ but a realistic approach focused on intelligence gathering, police work, multilateral cooperation and the judicious application of violence when required,” he added.

Mr. Cook went on to say that a realistic US Middle East policy would involve “containing Iran, retooling the fight against terrorism, to reduce its counterproductive side effects, reorganizing military deployments to emphasize the protection of sea-lanes, and downscaling the US-Israeli relationship to reflect Israel’s relative strength.”

The United States is in good company in its failure to put its money where its mouth is regarding human rights and democratic values.

The same can be said for European nations and Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority state and democracy. Indonesia projects itself directly and indirectly through Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim civil society movement, as the only major supporter of a moderate interpretation of Islam that embraces human rights without reservations and pluralism and religious tolerance.

That has not stopped Indonesia from allegedly caving into a Saudi threat not to recognize the Indonesian Covid-19 vaccination certificates of pilgrims to the holy cities of Mecca and Media if the Asian state voted for an extension of a United Nations investigation into human rights violations in the almost seven-year-old war in Yemen.

Similarly, Indonesian President Joko Widodo has signed agreements with the United Arab Emirates on cooperation on religious affairs even though the UAE’s version of a moderate but autocratic Islam stands for values that reject freedoms and democracy.

The agreements were part of a much larger package of economic, technological, and public health cooperation fuelled by US$32.7 billion in projected Emirati investments in Indonesia.

The Biden administration’s reluctance, in line with a long list of past US presidents, to do substantially more than pay lip service to the promotion of human rights and democratic values brings to mind Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

President George W. Bush and his then-national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, acknowledged two decades ago that jihadist violence and the 9/11 attacks were partly the results of the United States’ failure to stand up for its values. They bungled, however, their effort to do something about it, as did Barak Obama.

It is not only the Middle East and other regions’ autocracies that pay the price. So do the United States and Europe. Their refusal to integrate their lofty ideals and values into effective policies is increasingly reflected at home in domestic racial, social, and economic fault lines and anti-migrant sentiment that threatens to tear apart the fabric of democracy in its heartland.

The backlash of failing to heed Mr. Einstein’s maxim and recognizing the cost associated with saying one thing and doing another is not just a loss of credibility. The backlash is also the rise of isolationist, authoritarian, xenophobic, racist, and conspiratorial forces that challenge the values in which human rights and democracy are rooted.

That raises the question of whether the time, energy, and money invested in the Summit of Democracy could not have been better invested in fixing problems at home. Financial Times columnist Janan Ganesh nailed it by noting that “shoring up democracy is almost entirely domestic work.”

It’s a message that has not been lost on democracy’s adversaries. In what should have been a warning that hollow declaratory events like the Summit of Democracy are not the answer, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi told last September’s United Nations General Assembly: “The United States’ hegemonic system has no credibility, inside or outside the country.”

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending