|
| I N S I G H T -------- Ideology of Pakistan Tufail Ahmad Iraq's Formation Justin Pirzadeh Michael Winterbottom Hania Mourtada America's Morality Elan Journo Walk on Water Antonio Fabrizio India in the West Tufail Ahmad Parliament of Man Molly Nixon Locke's Letter Antonio Fabrizio |
Are we at the high watermark of freedom in the Middle East?
By Edward Turner
Posted: August 27, 2007
A 30 July Op-Ed in the New York Times read “Stability in Iraq: A War We Just Might Win?” If this is true,
summer 2007 could well be the highest extent of American presence in the Middle East. The troops surge
into Baghdad and Al Anbar province in Iraq may also be the high watermark for freedom in the Middle East if
the tidal force of European interests that is building up eventually floods in. What chance freedom then?
History does not promise much. For a start European colonialists in the first half of the 20th Century did not
lay the foundations for whatever freedom that exists in the Middle East today.
The Ottoman Empire and Islamic Caliphate were indeed replaced but only with the creation of a new map of
dictatorships. Unlike visionaries like Paul Wolfowitz and the neoconservatives who later argued democracy
was in America’s interest, the colonialists had no intention to promote freedom through democracy, and they
did not get any. In Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Arabia and the Gulf, autocratic and brutal rule by family dynasties, from
Al-Tikritis to the House of Saud, has been the norm.
The European contribution to freedom in the Middle East was nil. That American power has by contrast
assisted freedom in the Middle East is a reality no more tangible than with the Iraqi constitution - America’s
finest triumph in the engine room of “Old Europe.”
Yet the neutral observer must first blink to check the American-inspired reforms are not a mirage over the
desert. Nepotism, corruption, the power conflicts between large extended-families and the continued rule
of Islamic law still blight Middle East politics, not least in Iraq.
The region from the Nile in Egypt to the Eastern Iranian border has not historically been known for freedom. It
is known for warring tribes and Islamic sharia law that today both hold freedom back (a situation which
evolved because peoples living in a raider’s playground could not experience less long maintain individual
liberties).
We just need to look at the miracle of all-too embattled Israel to understand real liberal democracy in the
Middle East is an historical achievement equal to irrigating the desert.
Any success then has to be measured against a low baseline and while you cannot get blacker than the
Burqas of Saudi Arabia and Iran, there has been more success under America’s watch than Iraq. In Turkey,
Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen – in 2007 all ranked “partly-free” by Freedom House – there are at least
five different shades of grey. Not quite free, not completely unfree; states where almost-elections, partly-free
media and limited rights of association come as standard.
It is no coincidence the glamorous face of the Arab world popularised by al-Jazeera, Dubai golf tournaments
and high-rise buildings has had a two-decade old American Naval shield against Persia in the waters to
its north and for only slightly less time the buffer of American Army bases against Iraq to the west and Saudi
Arabia to the south.
The experience of American power in the Middle East shows as clearly as the Iraqi surge with the security of
the world’s most expensive army, even the world’s most troubled spots can be put on the right track to
freedom, however slow and limited the incremental gains.
Therefore one must ask, if American presence won’t last forever, what would an increase in European (much
less Russian) presence do for freedom in the Middle East - would it be that much better than the default
setting of Islamic and tribal rule?
Europe’s famous historical constant is that every hundred years or so a Trajan, Clovis, Charlemagne,
Napoleon or Hitler moulds the people into a massive Empire through war. The noble goal of the Brussels
technocrats is to stop that happening again through war; not to stop the most powerful Empire of them all, the
European Union, coming into existence.
The (unelected) President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso may call the political
integration of the “Reform Treaty” the world’s “first non-imperial Empire,” but for peoples of the Middle East it
will simply mean the re-winding of history: Europe again an imperial power strong enough to police its own
backyard.
Indeed, after terrorism, Europe’s two biggest problems involve the Middle East, so it will have great interests
there. The region has both vast energy resources and a growing population while Europe has few resources
and a declining population. The statistics are revealing. Within 20 years 90% of European oil will have to be
imported. 45% of European oil currently originates from the Middle East (in comparison to 25% American
reliance on oil imports from the region).
Already the mixing of populations, goods and ideas is happening with 20 million Muslims moved to fill job
vacancies in Europe and more to come.
While this subject requires its own article, within two decades the first generation born into the world’s “first
non-imperial Empire” will likely be post-Christian, have strong relations with the old country, thirsting for oil,
and determined to avoid political and economic blackmail from Russia (the authoritarian Duracell Bear of
international politics).
There is no better illustration that all roads lead to what Bat Ye’or has coined a “Eurabia” than The Strange
Case of the Academic and the General. Swiss national Tariq Ramadam (grandson of the radical Muslim
Brotherhood’s Hassan Al-Banna) sits in an Oxford University office theorising “European Islam” while in Iraq
American General David Petraeus sits in an office in the Green Zone on the edge of Baghdad theorising the
security of the world’s first “Islamic democracy.” They’re doing the same thing, yet only one is denied an entry
visa into the United States.
Across the Eurabian world democracy is flattening into a closely networked realm of partly-free states, full of
partly-liberal citizens responsible to the power of partly-elected autocrats. Such is a recipe for a mediocratic,
not democratic Empire. When the Iraqi surge ends do not be surprised if liberal reforms begin to ebb from the
Middle East agenda. In the Eurabian world, Empire is the new black.
### ### ###
Edward Turner is a Staff Writer, The Atlantic Affairs, London
By Edward Turner
Posted: August 27, 2007
A 30 July Op-Ed in the New York Times read “Stability in Iraq: A War We Just Might Win?” If this is true,
summer 2007 could well be the highest extent of American presence in the Middle East. The troops surge
into Baghdad and Al Anbar province in Iraq may also be the high watermark for freedom in the Middle East if
the tidal force of European interests that is building up eventually floods in. What chance freedom then?
History does not promise much. For a start European colonialists in the first half of the 20th Century did not
lay the foundations for whatever freedom that exists in the Middle East today.
The Ottoman Empire and Islamic Caliphate were indeed replaced but only with the creation of a new map of
dictatorships. Unlike visionaries like Paul Wolfowitz and the neoconservatives who later argued democracy
was in America’s interest, the colonialists had no intention to promote freedom through democracy, and they
did not get any. In Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Arabia and the Gulf, autocratic and brutal rule by family dynasties, from
Al-Tikritis to the House of Saud, has been the norm.
The European contribution to freedom in the Middle East was nil. That American power has by contrast
assisted freedom in the Middle East is a reality no more tangible than with the Iraqi constitution - America’s
finest triumph in the engine room of “Old Europe.”
Yet the neutral observer must first blink to check the American-inspired reforms are not a mirage over the
desert. Nepotism, corruption, the power conflicts between large extended-families and the continued rule
of Islamic law still blight Middle East politics, not least in Iraq.
The region from the Nile in Egypt to the Eastern Iranian border has not historically been known for freedom. It
is known for warring tribes and Islamic sharia law that today both hold freedom back (a situation which
evolved because peoples living in a raider’s playground could not experience less long maintain individual
liberties).
We just need to look at the miracle of all-too embattled Israel to understand real liberal democracy in the
Middle East is an historical achievement equal to irrigating the desert.
Any success then has to be measured against a low baseline and while you cannot get blacker than the
Burqas of Saudi Arabia and Iran, there has been more success under America’s watch than Iraq. In Turkey,
Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen – in 2007 all ranked “partly-free” by Freedom House – there are at least
five different shades of grey. Not quite free, not completely unfree; states where almost-elections, partly-free
media and limited rights of association come as standard.
It is no coincidence the glamorous face of the Arab world popularised by al-Jazeera, Dubai golf tournaments
and high-rise buildings has had a two-decade old American Naval shield against Persia in the waters to
its north and for only slightly less time the buffer of American Army bases against Iraq to the west and Saudi
Arabia to the south.
The experience of American power in the Middle East shows as clearly as the Iraqi surge with the security of
the world’s most expensive army, even the world’s most troubled spots can be put on the right track to
freedom, however slow and limited the incremental gains.
Therefore one must ask, if American presence won’t last forever, what would an increase in European (much
less Russian) presence do for freedom in the Middle East - would it be that much better than the default
setting of Islamic and tribal rule?
Europe’s famous historical constant is that every hundred years or so a Trajan, Clovis, Charlemagne,
Napoleon or Hitler moulds the people into a massive Empire through war. The noble goal of the Brussels
technocrats is to stop that happening again through war; not to stop the most powerful Empire of them all, the
European Union, coming into existence.
The (unelected) President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso may call the political
integration of the “Reform Treaty” the world’s “first non-imperial Empire,” but for peoples of the Middle East it
will simply mean the re-winding of history: Europe again an imperial power strong enough to police its own
backyard.
Indeed, after terrorism, Europe’s two biggest problems involve the Middle East, so it will have great interests
there. The region has both vast energy resources and a growing population while Europe has few resources
and a declining population. The statistics are revealing. Within 20 years 90% of European oil will have to be
imported. 45% of European oil currently originates from the Middle East (in comparison to 25% American
reliance on oil imports from the region).
Already the mixing of populations, goods and ideas is happening with 20 million Muslims moved to fill job
vacancies in Europe and more to come.
While this subject requires its own article, within two decades the first generation born into the world’s “first
non-imperial Empire” will likely be post-Christian, have strong relations with the old country, thirsting for oil,
and determined to avoid political and economic blackmail from Russia (the authoritarian Duracell Bear of
international politics).
There is no better illustration that all roads lead to what Bat Ye’or has coined a “Eurabia” than The Strange
Case of the Academic and the General. Swiss national Tariq Ramadam (grandson of the radical Muslim
Brotherhood’s Hassan Al-Banna) sits in an Oxford University office theorising “European Islam” while in Iraq
American General David Petraeus sits in an office in the Green Zone on the edge of Baghdad theorising the
security of the world’s first “Islamic democracy.” They’re doing the same thing, yet only one is denied an entry
visa into the United States.
Across the Eurabian world democracy is flattening into a closely networked realm of partly-free states, full of
partly-liberal citizens responsible to the power of partly-elected autocrats. Such is a recipe for a mediocratic,
not democratic Empire. When the Iraqi surge ends do not be surprised if liberal reforms begin to ebb from the
Middle East agenda. In the Eurabian world, Empire is the new black.
### ### ###
Edward Turner is a Staff Writer, The Atlantic Affairs, London
| (c) 2005-09 New Criterion Foundation, London |
| security. ideologies. multiculturalism. |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |