“It’s the Policy, Stupid: Political Islam and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John L. Espositohttp://hir.harvard.edu/articles/print.php?article=1453
This first one is my favorite; Esposito is a very renowned writer and addresses very important issues in this article regarding the foreign policies implemented in the US and their adverse affect.
The distinction he makes between moderate and extremist in Islam is a crucial point!! Many people in the US and the Western world in general, have this misconception that all Muslims are terrorists and conservatives and this is something I have witnessed myself. I party do not blame them, this is what is shown in the media, backed by the Bush administration, yet I think it is an individual’s responsibility to question what is shown and verify it. Islam is just like any other religion; you have your religious, fundamentalists, moderates and non believers. The fact that it is a religion practiced by a vast population of different nationalities and cultures by itself mirrors on that. Therefore, Esposito addresses this issue in a very concise and accurate manner. He also addresses many other problems rooted in the conflict between the two regions, explaining the reason for terrorist attacks, which are not always conducted with Islam in mind, which rather used to justify their actions.
Another highly shamed upon misconception I personally came across is the one presumption that all Arabs are Muslims. For this is not only wrong but highly ignorant, the Middle East is a region of great diversity, not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs, the countries in the Middle East are of diverse cultures, religions and ethnicities.
“Cursed by Oil” by Thomas Friedman http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/opinion/09FRIE.html?ex=1399435200&en=7220aba5860460cb&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
This article is a WAKE UP CALL!!! Friedman here mainly attributes the lack of development in the Middle East to the presence of oil. A point that is somewhat valid I must say. It is interesting to see how he places “Dubai” within the list of countries with exception to this theory.
Friedman does go too harsh with his attitude and even though trying to be objective, does come out very biased. I have looked him up, he is a columnist in the NY times and has worked in the ME for quite long, yet many other scholars have also criticized him for his demeaning tone when talking about the Middle East. I found the two pictures below…very ironic I must say when put together :P 
“Understanding the Roots of Muslim Rage” by Muqtedar Khan http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0110/S00044.htm
“Understanding the Roots of Muslim Rage” by Muqtedar Khan http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0110/S00044.htm
I couldn’t resist…I had to put this picture up!!! Completely coincides with the article :D
I would say this article adds to the points made by Esposito. In my opinion Khan’s argument of systematic repression is strongly linked to Esposito Democratic exceptionalism and the emphasis on the anger by Muslims being driven not from Islam, but rather from their lands being occupied.
Brian this reminded me of the article about US supplying weapons to the Lebanese forces, this is exactly what democratic exceptionalism is…they make sure that the party with their interests in mind is strong enough to fight the opposing parties, particularly Hizbollah,(not that I’m with them taking power), and Iran, so they won’t be a threat to Israel. This is similar to what Esposito says about the US democratic doctrine being undermined in the examples he gives of Algeria, Turkey etc. this only causes more tension between the parties in Lebanon and provokes the opposite one to carry out attacks on the US!
However, Khan’s does a mistake by saying that “Islamic activists try to rebuild civilizations” I’m sorry but the majority of the population in those Arab countries do not want to be held to a government with such regime or be ruled by one, which is exactly why these groups are repressed, and it is not like this group of people wants to get politically involved to advance and develop society, rather to make it an Islamic one.
The second point he says is that “Islam is what people make of it” which is actually the root of all the suicide attacks, only recently a wave of revival has been coming that is aware of the mistakes these clerics are doing. The problem lies in that these Islamic sheiks are with no education, yet educating the younger generation notions of Islam which are completely wrong and within their own interpretations. Today this problem has been addressed by many scholars and policy makers that are urging for an initiative to be taken to change this reoccurring cycle of generations.
I hope you find them as interesting..:p
1 comment:
Regarding the specific situation in the article that I sent you explaining the increase of American support for the Lebanese government, is that still democratic exceptionalism? From my understanding, the "official" Lebanese party, the one we're giving supplies to, is just as valid as the rest of the parliamentary forces in Lebanon, only with a reduced ability to defend their own land and their own interests. In this case, isn't it best that the U.S. works to keep the Lebanese military effective to maintain the balance of power? Wouldn't it be another lost opportunity for the people of the region to have their say if Hizbollah were able to use their more advanced militia as a platform to supplant the Lebanese government? I'm not predicting a coup, that's not what I mean; would you expect any citizen to vote for a party that had lost its effectiveness for self-defense?
But in a broader sense you've made a valid (and thorough, from everything you've shown me :P) point. The U.S. policy makers and executors of power are not the champions of freedom we would like to think we are, and they often use their capacity not for the benefit of the majority of international citizens but to improve conditions for this nation. For the U.S. to act in our own interests isn't necessarily reprehensible; you'd be hard pressed to find a nation in the world that cares as much for the people in other lands as it does for its own. That the U.S. government is so narrowly focused and vitriolic in its goals that it causes itself more trouble in the long run is shameful and ignorant - I think we can agree to that.
Post a Comment