Arab Countries In Toil Today Need Guidance

          For those used to a mainly western way of life, it is difficult to fathom the effects of living in an undemocratic society.  But surprisingly, that is exactly what millions of people in the Arab world do every day, culminating these days in violent protests and diatribe filled with anger.  People are upset throughout much of the Arab world about their standards of living and government, and do not seem ill-at-ease in either showing it blatantly, or in blaming it on others—usually the United States.  It is almost shameful how little economic opportunity there is in much of the Arab world, and what effects this is having on its residents.  It is as if leading Arabs have reached a point where forward roads are difficult to see, sideways is not an option when progress is wanted, and going backwards is simply out of the question.

So much of the protesters today in the Arab world want democracy like no other.  They want freedom and they want sovereignty.  They want a government that is fair and that is responsive to the needs of the people.  It is not that these things are impossible for the Arab world to handle; instead, this author believes it is a matter of the governments not serving the needs of the people.  There is little way for Arabs to get ahead in many countries and they are blaming this on the government when they are at their very best, in a variety of unorganized and ineffective attempts at democracy.

Part of the problem in finding hegemony in many unrestive Arab countries is in the vast panoply of interpretations of Islam found there.  Rarely does a country subscribe to only one school of Islam.  And since before the Arab Spring, it seems, the world has been met with new emerging groups and parties trying to wrest control of their countries from others there.  It is civil war after civil war.  And while some of the more successful factions seem “saner” than others, and may have at least some idea on how to run their countries, many citizens do not believe these groups because their interpretation of Islam may be different.  This makes agreement on a leader virtually impossible in the highly religious countries because the position is too sensationalized and prejudiced, and does not take into consideration the actual sociological makeup of the country.  And this is causing problems.

For things to run smoothly in so many Arab countries and decrease factionalism within the nations themselves, leadership needs to implement more social programs to be used by the citizens of the countries they represent.  Programs like welfare, jobs programs, government royalty programs/tax rebates, educational programs—all these are programs which have shown time and time again to make people more agreeable to what their government has to offer.  These are programs which highlight democracy in these countries, and which give people a chance to succeed they might not have without the gentle hand of government.  And I believe if Arabs could rightfully trust their governments to have their interests instead of just those of a small religious group, they may have much better luck in finding rulers that are productive for their countries, and not just rhetoric-filled figureheads, as many of them are.

People need faith in their government.  In what is now the time that so many Arab governments are attaining new levels of leadership and diplomacy, there need to be ways now more than ever to remember the good that government does and can do.  Arabs need to have more reasons to be proud of their respective countries for what they offer them.  They need to feel they are included, and not to feel the need to find outlets in other places to vent their frustrations.  They need a friend in government, and freedoms; not tyranny, money-hording, and repression.  For many Arab countries the option should be a sociological one.  And for the violence to stop, we definitely have to see something different.

The Power Of Sanctions In Iran (2 pp.)

The Power Of Sanctions In Iran

January 26, 2012

The nation of Iran has some decisions to make.  As the world’s fourth largest oil producer, producing well over four million barrels of oil per day, its place in the global economy is well-honed and has been integral in its role of supplying oil to many first world nations.  One would think that with this record of success, Iran would then take steps to secure and strengthen this role, to integrate its desire for growth as a nation with its abilities for providing in demand, high quality oil in large quantities.  Its importers, notably China and much of Europe have for a long time gobbled up Iranian oil, providing much needed financial resources to a country burdened by high rates of inflation and an otherwise scarcity of high-income exportable goods.  But much of Iran’s actions in recent days show a movement away from safety and security in its global markets, and the world has reacted.

The U.S. was the first nation to impose economic sanctions on Iran after it refused to halt its nuclear program.  President Obama has succinctly stated he wants to prohibit Iran from developing any nuclear weapons, prompting Iran to claim they are attempting to develop their nuclear capabilities only for utility power generation purposes.  Obama called his bluff and put in economic sanctions, prohibiting Iran’s central bank from doing any business with American financial systems.  And most in the West agree that this declination to produce nuclear weapons may be only an empty promise from Ahmadinejad, who has long been clear about his severe mistrust of Western militias.  Are we indeed to trust an Iran with nuclear ambitions, when their military interests in general have been so mistrustful towards Western powers?

Obviously, as President Obama has stated, and followed by both the European Union and Australia, the answer is no.  The sanctions, put into effect earlier this week, have already had a severe impact in Iran, which has been forced to raise bank interest rates and restrict trade in foreign currency in response.  And threatening to close by military force the Strait of Hormuz, notably the chief port for the transport of Middle Eastern oil to the rest of the world, is not helping Iran’s cause either.  Europe, once responsible for purchasing 90% of Iran’s oil supply, now dwindles at 10%, purchasing oil instead from neighboring Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Libya in response to lack of deference with Iranian policies.  And the new sanctions amidst the West will only make matters worse for Iran.  With the EU now barring its members from importing Iranian oil, Iran’s only significant trading partner remaining will be China.

The question now stands, just where is Ahmadinejad heading?  Economic policies in Iran have, for the most part, become better since he became President in 2005.  Many say this is in response to his taming the “borrow and spend” policies of previous leaders, and increasing subsidies for food and petrol among Iran’s needy and impoverished near-majority to increase consumer spending.  Unemployment and inflation have been reduced almost significantly under these policies, and before the sanctions were put in place, Iran looked like it was on a solid economic path for itself.  So where does Ahmadinejad want to take the country now?  Certainly not into a more significant recession at his country’s newly found lack of oil customers.  And one may somewhat easily say the West’s disdain for Ahmadinejad developing a stricter weapons program is in fact legitimate.  The leader has spoken out about Israel, saying he wished it wiped off the map, and has blamed 9/11 not on Al-Queda, but on the United States Government, saying it must have wished for an excuse for confrontation with nations.  Mr. Ahmadinejad, I’m sorry, but it seems that finding the excuse for confrontation lies within yourself.

If Ahmadinejad is to see any further improvement in economic conditions for his country, he needs to take one thing seriously.  We in the West have reason not to trust his military goals, and he needs to accept that.  Only if he agrees to abandon his nation’s nuclear program can his country again make progress in the global economy.

Achieving Peace In The Arab World (20 pp.)

Achieving Peace In The Arab World

March 2011           

          War and civil unrest in the Arab world today are at extremely high levels.  Social acceptance by and of Muslims to the Western world is one of the biggest hiatuses in world harmony now facing modern culture.  And a deep-seated need among many Muslims only adds fuel to the fire and strengthens this anti-Arab sentiment in the United States and elsewhere .  Innocent Muslims are singled out by the DHS for questioning about anti-American activity, communities shun Muslim places of worship and other Arab congregations, and worldwide many of them themselves produce some of the most hate-filled, violence-prone rhetoric in the modern world.  Why are these problems so rampant?  Why is the sentiment so strong?  And what can be done by our national leaders and citizens alike to remedy such a broad range of problems?  In this paper I intend to look at some of the underlying causes of conflict amongst Arabs and Muslims, analyze some ways of circumventing them, and posit some practical solutions for change that will, in hope, foster a stronger, more positive identity for the faith of Islam, and inculcate a more peaceful understanding of change between nations currently in crisis.
            Unrest in the Arab world is nothing new.  One only has to look at the Israeli-Palestine conflict to see evidence of militarized conflict.  Decades of fighting between the Israelis and Muslim factions of Hamas and Fatah over control of small pieces of land have split apart families, ruined homes people have kept for ages, and marginalized the real reason countries want to keep land in the first place, changing rights to holy and other lands held by Jewish Israel into an Arab-world bloodbath. 

And in light of this holy and ruthless war ruining views of religiosity and sanctity in Arabia, one should look also at the Iran-Iraq War lasting from 1980 when Iraq first attacked Iran until a ceasefire was declared in 1988.  Were the aims of this war in one of the most notably religious areas the world over and the birthplace of human civilization justified as beimg simply the border dispute claimed by the attacking Iraqis?  Iraq was no doubt playing upon the unrest in Iran due to its recent revolution and thought they could succeed.  Was this war due to greed over oil reserves?  Possibly.  Both Iran and Iraq contain immense wealths of oil reserves that could make their leaders very wealthy men.  At the time of his assassination by western forces, Saddam Hussein was worth by estimates between six and eight billion dollars in personal assets.  More than enough to retire on.  But excuses were made at the time of this war that there would be a Shiite insurgency within Sunni-ruled Iraq due to the success of Shiites in the Iran revolution, and this was perhaps another reason for the schism.  Shiites and Sunnis have historically digressed from one another, often militarily so, over just which Muslim leaders have been blessed from Allah with the ability to lead.

One thing that distinctly marks the Iran-Iraq war, aside from the fact that Iraq was unsuccessful in its attempt to take over Iran, is the method with which the war was undertaken.  Contemporary war options, like bombing military installations or targeting leaders were not always the norm.  Instead, warfare similar to that used, and later condemned as unhumanitarian, in World War I was employed—primitive trench warfare; stationary, nonadvancing frontlines; and the widespread use of mustard gas—a lethal gas that causes slow, painful death when inhaled.  These Muslims, in order to advance their political agenda, used archaic methods of warfare deemed ineffective and unsafe for humanity in their quest.  The result was an extremely bloody and death-strewn war that resulted, net-net, in little or no change in global Muslim leadership, contrary to the goal.

Now, I am not here condemning Muslims as the only group of people on Earth fighting unjust, unsuccessful wars.  But recent history shows some particularly fervent examples of Muslim unrest leading to some particularly disastrous consequences.  Al-Queda, in particular, led by Osama bin Laden, is perhaps the most memorable group in recent times to wage a bloody war on its enemy—in this case capitalists not of his personal religious persuasion.  He proceeded to blow up embassies around the world, and learned to hijack airlines leading to the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.  Bin Laden was not always widely accepted in Muslim circles as a leader, however, despite his somewhat magnanimous self-claims.  In fact, he was disowned by his Saudi family and chased from Saudi Arabia for his extremist beliefs.  But his beliefs that the world must abide by his personal interpretations of Sharia (Muslim law), and that the world must be destroyed if they did not adhere to his particular interpretation of Islamic holiness grew, and he is now a wanted war criminal as a terrorist in many countries.

And the list of unjust Muslim leaders goes on.  January 2011’s uprising against the Muslim Tunisian government was due mainly to unrest due to the perpetuation of poverty-like conditions among the Tunisian people.  Hosni Mubarak, in Egypt, faced demands to leave office for similar reasons, despite amassing a personal fortune amounting by same estimates to be over seventy billion U.S. dollars.  And the Civil War in Libya between Colonel Qadhafi’s army and warring rebel fighters wanting better conditions in the oil-rich country reeks of improper allocation of funds by the illustrious leader, despite his public apologies for the airline hijackings in the 1980’s.  The nation of Iraq also invaded Kuwait in 1990, probably for its vast oil reserves, requiring a United States-led coalition of thirty-four nations to defend its freedom.  The United States’ War in Iraq began in 2003 after Saddam Hussein could not convince the West that he did not harbor weapons of mass destruction, and subsequently continued until recent times, largely to keep Sunnis and Shiites within its borders from civil war and infighting for control.

All this unrest and unjust ruling in the Muslim world is indeed unnerving.  Peaceful citizens around the world must fear hostilities and slighting by those claiming to be learned scholars of Islam or simply accomplices of Allah’s will.  But what gives so many Muslims this fervor?  What is it in them that allows them to be such messengers of hatred—such arbiters of ill will?  Is there something within Islam itself, or in those operating outside the rules of Islam that will allow a more peaceful co-existence of now warring and hostile factions?  Is there a way for Muslims to find war an unnecessary way to achieve peaceful means?

What I am trying to say here is that most of the war in the Middle East is due to two factors: one is discontent—many Arabs live in near poverty and are not helped much economically by their government.  Economic opportunity in the form of favorable banking practices is difficult in Muslim countries due to prohibitions under Sharia (Islamic law) on charging interest.  And even in countries with what would seem to be by Western standards as favorable conditions—oil, Mediterranean coastline, education, good job opportunities in industries not related to oil, still pale by comparison to other major world economies such as those of the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and in Europe.  The recent revolt in Tunisia was started by a college-educated street vendor who was so disenchanted with future career prospects in his country, despite his college education, that he burned himself to death in protest.  In Egypt and Libya, the uprisings were to a large part due to citizen unrest at economic conditions provided by their government.  Citizens saw their lives as underprivileged, despite the massive amounts of wealth accumulated by their respective governments, and saw the desire to oust their leaders by military means.  This discontent was taken to extremism in the case of bin Laden and the Taliban, where the advantages of American capitalism were seen as evil by the largely peasant-filled al-Queda and Taliban where, I would argue, common jealousy drove these rebels to wage war on well-to-dos.  This action was condemned by most people in the First World.

The second factor I believe is causing war in the Middle East is failed notions of Jihad, or Holy War.  Jihad has many interpretations, greater and lesser, with the most common translations being either “struggle” or “holy war”.  The concept is so important in Islam that some Muslim scholars have named it “The Sixth Pillar of Islam”, up there in importance with things like daily praying, observation of Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca.  Jihad is the passionate pursuit of one’s goals, and in many cases, this action means death to non-Muslims in order to foster the supremacy of the Islamic faith.  Those who are non-Muslim are simply disdained by those who are.  But what can be salvaged from militaristic Jihad?  How can a Muslim embrace this holy concept without feeling the need to wage war on those with whom s/he may disagree?

 Part of this stemming problem is that Islam is largely alone among world religions in condoning violence among nonbelievers.  And many Muslims themselves properly don’t believe war is an option for those that do not believe or are not themselves Muslim.  Many see Jihad, if indeed that word is to be used at all, to mean a striving for perfection in one’s own self or in one’s own community—to building the tenets of strong faith within one’s social circle for the glory of serving God.  This more tacit solution coincides more with Christian teachings, thought by Muslims to be the words of the prophet Jesus Christ, where, although Christ claims to be “the only way to the one true God,” he also more peacefully advocated “treating one’s neighbor as oneself” and preached things like the parable of the Good Samaritan—a story where a stray traveler helps another out of the goodness of his heart, after that person had been beaten by thieves.  The Buddha also, taught compassion and loving kindness to all humanity.  He said in one of his sermons, “Teach this triple truth to all: A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service and compassion are the things which renew humanity.”  This type of pacifistic theorizing is a mark interpreted by many scholars to intimate that negotiations and concessions in order to bring about a peaceful agreement are far superior to waging war to get one’s way.[i]  And the pursuit of peace is often cited as one of the highest goals of Judaism.  The Torah states “When approaching a town to attack it, first offer them peace.”[ii]  Most world religions do not condone violence.

So, this seemingly obvious truth then leads to the question, if indeed some sort of Jihad is to be quintessential to a Muslim’s faith, what form is that Jihad to take?  And what precautions should a Muslim take in attempting to convert another to Islam, with death being assumed to be an immediate end if that person does not convert.  Peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims, according to public perceptions broadcast in the media, Arab and otherwise, and also via the internet, seems to be more the norm than the exception.  The prophet Muhammed appeared on Earth in a time and place where communication among the world’s peoples was not a given as it is today.  There was no radio, no television, no internet, no electricity at all.  It is indeed theoretically possible that Muhammed’s doctrinal Qu’ran is historically and sociologically seated in unrest, rather than universal.  Muhammed was born a desert peasant on the Arabian peninsula at a time when fertile land ownership was a true sign of wealth.  The warring words of the Quran are quite possibly a reaction to this power imbalance—a way for him personally to come to terms with wealth inequality within his own homeland.  It’s possible that his own sense of right and wrong were slurred by a pressing urge to usurp control of wealth-producing areas to take for his own benefit. By this theory, he would have then passed down his feelings of the need for war to make a more fair society for himself to his followers through his notations in writing the Quran.  This paradigm of social interaction has been set down frequently in the twentieth century.[iii]  Much of the rest of the world these days has advanced significantly beyond the supreme arrogance of beliefs assumed by the Qu’ran to be dogma in many fields[iv], including peace studies, human rights, women’s rights, and the rights of prisoners.  Even some Muslim scholars themselves have envisioned a more defensive view of Jihad that does not call to necessity an armed attack against one’s enemies, and claims a view of the Qu’ran that allows Muslims to make peace with their adversaries, if the adversaries should choose to do so, and emphasizes the rights of Muslims to remain neutral in international conflicts.[v][vi]  We are also at a point in world history where a complete military Jihad by Muslims seems impossible because of the military strength of too many non-Muslim countries.  For Muslims to attempt Jihad against the world with things like Star Wars, trillion dollar defense budgets, alliances like NATO, SEATO, and the UN would be suicide—an end to the Islamic faith as we know it.  So, if “Holy War” is not an adequate and realistic interpretation for Jihad today, how can the people of the world accept a working definition for Jihad, and how can war in its essence be prevented in Muslim nations?

Jihad in its essence can also mean striving or struggling—for the piety of oneself and, if possible, for others.  A Muslim must purify him/herself for Allah and work against evil to achieve the ultimate sanctity.  Purification is a recurring theme in Islam, and much of the tenets of practicing the faith center around this activity.  Purification according to the Qu’ran is the act of making oneself pious and in service to Allah-the one God.  Purification does not come automatically, and, although Allah is too glorious to behold or comprehend, his will for the people outlined in the Qu’ran is to follow basic rules of sanctity and reverence to Him.[vii]  Qur’anic Muslims are expected to observe the Five Pillars of Islam in a show of respect and obedience to Allah.  They are expected to accept the message of Mohammed as the voice of the one true God, pray five times a day, observe fasting practice during the holy month of Ramadan, give alms adding up to 2.5% of their income to the poor or needy, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca, the birthplace of the prophet Muhammed, at least once in their lifetime.  These acts are meant to bring the Muslim closer to God and show the individual’s reverence for the religion of Islam.  However, it is striving for these perfections, against transgression, that seems to cause hostility problems in many Muslims.

I must take a moment to pause here, and emphasize that what I am doing, is not making a point that I think Muslims are inherently hostile.  In contrast, I personally believe the tenets of the faith of Islam to make many Muslims better people and strengthen both their place and the place of others they contact in the world.  Sociologically identifying with a faith has been shown by many researchers to be a source of individual and group strength.[viii]  And certainly, the Islamic commandment to give alms to the less fortunate is an edict to be lauded in and of itself.  But the puzzle concerning what can be done to foster interfaith harmony, if that is indeed what it will take, remains aloof. 

What seems to be missing most in Islamic theology, is not a plan for sanctity, but rather is an adequate definition of the term “enemy”.  While much is done within the context of ally, namely self-purification, striving to serve Allah, determination of leaders, propagation of wishes of peace towards others in the community, etc., mainstream Islam is still much like fundamentalist Christianity in thinking that anyone who does not adhere to the specific religious beliefs one holds oneself must be therefore inherently flawed or evil and must be corrected.  Although there are digressers, most practitioners of mainstream Buddhism, Hinduism, and Unitarian Universalism and other religions by and large do not hold such beliefs about outsiders.  Is Islam schizophrenic?  Are Jihadist Muslims so averse to the thoughts of others that they disdain them ab orige, voting instead for their own minority opinions, no matter the dialogue, as supreme?  Certainly there must be a more conducive way to world peace than stepping over anyone who does not fundamentally agree with another; than striving to kill those whose ideology of harmony differs from one’s own.

I believe a significant flaw in Islamic thought to be that it deems itself timeless, and therefore not subject to interpretation or modernization.  Islam was not the first world religion.  It was not even the second, or third, or even fourth.  Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and most Asian religions, among others, all predate it with their own systems of beliefs, theologies, and rules.  Muhammed denounced all these faiths in his incarnation and said all must follow Allah (the one true monotheistic God) in the context of the Muslim faith or be deemed evil.  Is this the message of a peaceful God?  What of the devout practitioner of another faith?  What of the follower of another path to righteousness, purity, authority, enlightenment, and holisticism?  Is anger at one’s enemies the goal—as stated by Muhammed and others?  Is this warring anger true holiness of self?  Is the rugged independence of spirit advocated by the Qu’ran necessarily intolerant of others’ independence?  If peace (Ara. salam) is that which is shared by fellow Muslims, why is peace not extended to others of different faiths?  For the Qur’an states that forgiveness breeds gratitude.[ix]  What gave Mohammed the right to trump millennia of world religion with one book advocating, among other things, war and painful death to those who disagree?

I should digress.  I am not here trying to say that Muslims are evil, or that Islam has no redeeming values.  I believe peaceful Muslims everywhere in the West are discriminated against regularly and that that should change.  As an American, I believe in many things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the like; and I believe Muslims should be as tolerant as that.  Worshipping as one pleases is tantamount to any exercise in freedom, and practicing peace and goodwill to others, I believe, is an excellent value to have.  Wanting others to follow one’s own way of thought, institutionalized or not, I believe is also an acceptable practice; however needing this seems flawed.  We cannot live peacefully ourselves under threats to follow a militaristic creed.  Muslims and others must accept anyone of righteous nature as true; and people everywhere should not discriminate against peaceful, independent Muslims.  There exists a vicious circle of hatred and envy where neither side will cooperate, and those who voice freedom and unity are not always heard.

Part of the problem seems to be what has been termed “extremism.”  Extremism in this case is taking one’s own personal beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, and forcing them on others, often with violent overtones.  What differentiates extremism from other forms of religious practice is that it is intolerant, and claims that one’s own views are so correct that they must be forced on others at all costs.  There are many examples of religious extremism throughout history: the Crusades, World War II, recent activity of al-Queda.  The problem, I believe, is that society and the world at large have outgrown extremism—have outgrown the necessity to expand one’s sphere of influence militarily.  We have turned to an era of understanding—of tolerance—and of multiculturalism—for as Charles Taylor has philosophized, “a crucial feature of human life is its fundamentally dialogic character.”[x]  Many American educational institutions have turned to courses in multiculturalism to promote ideas of peace and understanding—believing that a working knowledge of different facets of world culture will eventually lead to an ethos of tolerance instead of dissension and fighting.  This paradigm has easily become dominant philosophy in Western countries—the ones who provide the most international assistance and support when needed.  It is a platform for respect, which seems to be found in all successful world cultures.  Leadership without respect can lead to disaster.

Many of the problems in the Arab world today, namely Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, although not due per se to religious extremism, seem to be due to something similar.  In all three instances, it is an unrest against the government leadership that led to the dissent—riots, war, etc.  And in all three instances, I believe, the main problem with the leadership being protested was a disrespect for the working classes.  The first recent uprising, in Tunisia, was started by a college-educated street vendor, distressed at the economic opportunities afforded to college graduates.  He burned himself to death in protest of the ignorance he perceived the government to have for national affairs.  Tunisia, despite having the best educational opportunities in North Africa, and moderate economic opportunity, has a substantial percentage of its population living in subsistence-level poverty, unable to afford even a small vacation.

The case of Egypt saw an obviously corrupt leader crumble under popular pressure.  For years during his rule, Mubarak was siphoning money from his government, amassing one of the highest government wealth stores in the history of world government—a fortune of almost seventy billion dollars.  Although Egypt boasts one of the most successful equity-driven economies in the region, almost 50% of Egyptians are quite poor.[xi]  Despite a great deal of investment on behalf of the government to the private sector, subsistence-level poverty continues rampant.  And Qadhafi in Libya seemed to be playing unavailable to his populace.  Despite decades of oil growth beginning around the 1960’s[xii], most of the past twenty years or so has been spent outsourcing Libya’s jobs to college-educated professionals from other countries, with very little investment in domestic infrastructure.  He has been very quiet about advancements in world culture since apologizing for the airline hijackings of the 1980’s; and the poverty and joblessness in his country, coupled with rapidly rising import prices, I would argue, led ultimately to the civil war now taking place.

The problems coming to the surface in the unrest in Arabia now seem to stem from the government paying little attention to the needs of the common people.  Is this fact due to simple oversight?  This is a kind way to put it, but corruption, mismanagement, and extremist elitism lead me to point another, albeit wary, finger.  I would like to pose a question.  Are the revolts against Arab/Muslim leadership happening today due to arrogance and a form of greater Jihad in purifying oneself at the detriment of others?  What role do self-purification and the casting of a blind eye, rather than warfare, at the plight of the poor play in fostering uprisings in a population religiously trained to fight.  There appears to be another type of vicious cycle going on—Jihad versus Jihad; piety versus piety; and an oversight of popular need to the needs of the rulers.  Is this self-independence of financial enterprise the type of rule that Allah intended in the seventh century?  What can be done to quell Arab unrest, and how will this add to reducing general prejudice against Muslims in the West?

I believe the solution to this complex problem is several fold and entails new views on economics.  First, investment in Arab and African business should remain strong.  Much advancement in things like national GDP, equitable companies—whether public or private, and workable exports has been made in the past fifty years and this should be continued.  There is a great deal of modernity in many Arab cities, and a great deal of wealth.  Second, governments should remain strong.  It is strong leadership that has given these countries the foot in the world they need to remain self-sufficient.  In countries where strong government is difficult, such as many nations in sub-Saharan Africa, sound steps should be taken, and international cooperation sought in achieving workable solutions to many of their problems.  And third, given the unrest of the working classes in many of these countries, quite poor by American standards, a better system of government entitlements and assistance must be made to improve standards of living and quell unrest at those born into advantage or other system of benefit.  Despite advancements in education and business, I believe there are still too many difficulties in extending these advancements to the populace.  Government wealth should be shared in some type of mutually beneficial system to the working class.  Discontent, in the vast majority of cases, seems to be due to economics, more than ideology, and concessions should be made that are realistic and profound.  Distributing wealth more evenly, I believe, would satisfy much of the discontent now found throughout warring parts of Arabia.  Again, I believe that, where necessary, advice from First World countries can contribute to this success.

        Peace is never easy to implement, and is always easier to say in theory than to actually put into practice.  In this paper, I have accented the term “respect”, and I believe this needs to be reiterated.  Everyone has their own beliefs and their own systems of understanding, and it must be undertaken that the sane ones, the vast majority of cases I believe, should be granted their autonomy within the modern concept of nation.  Those that are ignored will always be discontent, and in too many nations, this discontent has now led to violence the world does not need.  Arrogance and self-service among leaders should be kept in check, and quality circumspection among those in charge should be valued highly.  I believe these reforms will not necessarily happen overnight, but are goals which should be striven for by all world economies.  The way to safe self-sufficiency is not always easy, but must happen to keep order and promote peace throughout the nations of the world.  The key to easing so much unrest is in being watchful and knowledgeable of the needs of others and in responding to those needs.  Only then, will we be able to be fully human.

---

[i] Ure, James, “Interview with an American Buddhist Soldier Serving in Afghanistan,” internet blog 2/9/11, http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.com.

[ii] Deuteronomy 20:10.

[iii] Berger, Peter L., and Luckmann, Thomas, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, (Garden City, New York, Anchor Books, 1966)

[iv]beginning with Kant, Imanuel, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, in Kants Gesammelte Schriften vol. IV, (Berlin, Preßischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1785, 1902)

[v] Mustansir Mir, Some Logical Fallacies Dealt with In the Qur’an, (Stratford, CT, Renaissance, April 1995)

[vi] Mustansir Mir, “Jihad in Islam” in Hadia Dajami-Shakeel and Ronald A. Messier, eds., The Jihad and Its Times (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies, 1991).

[vii] Qur’an 33:33.

[viii] Beit-Hallahmi, B., Prolegomena to the Psychological Study of Religion, (Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell University Press, 1989)

[ix] Qur’an 2:52

[x] Taylor, Charles, “The Politics of Recognition” in Multiculturalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 32

[xi] Nawar, Abdel-Hameed, From Marina to Kom-Ombo: A Note on Poverty in Egypt, (Cairo, Egypt, Cairo University, manuscript, 2007)

[xii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Libya

Winning The Peace Process In Arabia (5 pp.)

Winning The Peace Process In Arabia

April 2011

The civil unrest in the Middle East is enough to make even the most hardened of freedom activists queasy.  Civil War in Libya.  Protests in Cairo.  Revolts in Tunisia.  It's enough to ask a few questions.  For what price is human equality?  What cost justice?  Do we see justice for what it is?  Are our fights for what is right honestly reflected on and seen as proper in themselves--without condoning violence?  Do we as people (and Muslims in particular, I am a Buddhist and Christian) somehow find justice too easy to strive for and too hard to control?  What do we as citizens have to learn from this unrest in the Middle East, and where do we have to go in uncertain times?


One thing remains certain in the midst of all this chaos.  Arabs are upset.  Many don’t know their leader and many don’t know their national pride, let alone their economic rights.  Independent armies and groups of protestors are attacking established governments, throwing rocks and grenades at themselves, and mobilizing against perceived injustice, all while suffering economic deprivation no matter their solution.  These actions are leading sympathizers everywhere to ironically ask themselves, “Whose side am I really on?” and “How can I best help?”

Unrest at one’s government is certainly not new.  Look at the continuing conflict in Israel and Palestine–Arab tribal conflict and the U.S. military in Iraq–border disputes in Korea and formerly in Vietnam.  Even the American Civil War and Revolution.  All were created by conflict between the ruling power and an independent militia for “better” conditions.  What do we truly need?  Are our world’s rulers so crass they must be attacked?  And are our rebel forces, strong as they may be, so virulently hostile they see no means to success other than viciousness?  But perhaps the most bitter question in this chaos is not, “Is Revolution or Holy War inevitable?” but “Why are Revolution and Holy War as tools ineffective at remedying present world safety and economic problems?”

The list could go on: the CIA reports there are currently no less than fifteen civil wars taking place right now in Africa and lingering questions the world over on how to best quell civil war in Iraq.  There is major unrest in Israel and Arab North Africa.  And in most of these cases, it is more a case of “Who is militarily stronger?” than “Who is idealistically right?” that will determine the actual victor and inheritor of governmental control.  What does rightfully using the strong arm of government properly mean?  And why does negotiation and concession-making so often find itself subservient to war and poverty, holy or otherwise?

Perhaps we should reflect on an overview.  Just what is war?  Why do we need it?  Who benefits economically from war in the long run?  And why do Africans and Middle Easterners (Israel included) fall victim to civil war and interracial hatred so many times with so little advancement into the world culture?

Most of the civil wars taking place in the world now are because people think their own independent entities will do a better job in leading local government than what is already in power.  This is what is happening in Libya now, with rebels fighting Qadhafi’s own Libyan army, which in his case is fighting back.  And in Israel it is for the most part two different warring factions wrestling for control of Palestine, and the right to give its residents its own sense of identity—Arab, Israeli, Jew, Christian, Muslim or otherwise.  Most African nations in civil war also experience this will for the “right to give identity” in its citizens, with forces fighting generally over who has the right to give voice to the nation in question; and we all know that in Egypt and Tunisia it was citizen revolts against what was termed the “tyranny” and “inefficiency”, among other things, of their national governments in demanding major radical changes.  But why the unrest?  What is in these struggling ideologies that will make them superior to the status quo?  It is rarely stated.  War is just assumed to be the answer.  What’s wrong with the nation as it is when citizen demands on what to do to reform it are so very weak and for the most part unstated peacefully in the government?

Financial corruption is one major setback to a more economically fair philosophy.  Many had claimed Egypt’s Mubarak to be siphoning billions of dollars from Egypt into his own pocket.  This also may be true in the case of Qadhafi in Libya.  And in Tunisia the revolts were for better rights for the poor in what is in actuality the best college-educated nation in North Africa.  But it is hard to use Arab and African languages to formulate a modern government to begin with, and that may be the most major problem.  The languages leave a lot of intricacies in economic leadership we take for granted in America and elsewhere for granted, making corruption almost inevitable.  Successful negotiations are just seldom done.  Iran may be, perhaps, by example the greatest success in terms of sound national economics and efficient social hierarchy in the Arab world, as well as some of its less wealthy nation neighbors, who also enjoy a degree of sound self-rule in an Arab system, despite the Israeli crisis.  And Iraq and other countries certainly have a lot of their own money.  But I think what this whole thing boils down to is too many countries’ inefficient use of what they have, and fighting for over-dominant religious control as step one—with actual economic considerations and civil rights taking a backseat to religious ideological control.

Can Libya now solve its own economics and social system, or do they need a succeeding rebel party to violently wrest control before this can be done.  They certainly have the oil/energy reserves; they have one of the highest per capita GDP’s in all of Africa.  But neither faction has any economic answers.  What looks like a violent and bloody war may be indeed be prevented by properly allocating funds to unsettled peasants, farmers, and the working class so they are not so discontent.  Governments simply must more equally divide their own wealth to their citizens and prevent the formation of another uncaring multibillionaire like Mubarak or Hussein.  And the same paradigm is true throughout the rest of the developing world.  Violence is truly not necessary to balance a budget.  In many cases of civil war around the world, vague objections over the flow of money and economic opportunity within the country are the main objection for warring factions.  If efficient controls can be instated in these countries so that money reinforces the government and simultaneously reaches the people, with proper lending options available to assist those with good credit, including the nation itself, I believe many of our world’s civil wars would be a thing of the past.

And no essay on peace in the Arab world would be complete without touching on ideology.  Time has shown that if a tribe already considers itself militant and thinks it is superior to the national government in a developing or Arab world, an armed enemy too often emerges.  And then it may only be a matter of time before violence strikes.  Armed, militarized tribes wanting ideological control are responsible for war dread throughout Africa and the Middle East.  And war for religious control between Islamic, Christian, and Jewish factions remains stern in Israel and Palestine.  But why do the philosophical differences between those of similar geographic location contrast so starkly?  And why does finding a sustaining paradigm for government so often seem to go so very wrong?  To quote a hippy, why can’t we all just get along?

We are confronted with a number of problems in these world affairs, but I believe there are a few more practical answers we may find.  In Africa, I believe the problem is mainly due to continuing third world problems of disadvantage amidst an otherwise first world Earth.  I hate to use such a simplistic metaphor, but when little kids are angry, they sometimes fight for the supremacy of their opinion without looking at the cause.  And that’s what we also have throughout much of the rest of the globe.  In the Arab and Muslim world, this problem is due in large part to interpretations of Jihad.  Jihad, according to the Koran, is generally defined as the utmost goal for humankind – a striving for perfection of one’s passionate nature.  And even the loosest of translations into English come up with the term “holy war” as being one of the closest literal translations.  This warring philosophy reflects too into control fighting in Israel and Palestine.  Military force, in theory, must be taken by those who believe they are religiously right, whether the holy war is Islamic or otherwise; whether the believers are in the minority or not; whether they have a workable plan for the populace or not.  War seems simply due to irresponsibility in delegating religious control among those of differing ideological opinions.  This, my friends, is what seems to be the problem.

For Arabs and Israelis to agree war should be wrong, instead of holy, may be difficult, but it is indeed necessary for peace in the Middle East.  In reality too many differences are found within individual interpretations of God to say for sure that just one individual philosophy is correct.  Shiites, Sunnis, other Muslim factions; Jews; Christians; everyone alike must find it to agree—not necessarily in their interpretation of God or Allah, but that whatever interpretation they personally hold is wise to keep dear and unwise to fight over.  One cannot make a world of believers over a small factioned religious philosophy amidst such a global audience.  Instead of fighting here, humans should negotiate instead on just what, exactly, the role of government and of citizens should diplomatically be, regardless of personal religious creed or interpretation of God.  Negotiation, choice, and freedom should be paramount in delegating these concerns, not force-feeding of ideology.  We cannot fight on behalf of a loving and forgiving God – Allah, or otherwise.  We must condone opportunity and efficient government that works for its people everywhere.  I believe that’s what the Buddha would do, and what Christ, God, Allah, or other-named mythology would also do.  We must uphold the rights of peaceful citizens.  And when someone cannot have peace, it is up to the rest of the world to show them how.

So I am not calling for the end of war as we know it, but I am coming pretty darn close.  There are other things like genocide and madmen and women to deal with, dictators, violent prone leaders, corruption, and the like.  But when it comes to ruling a country with factions dotting the horizon, some sort of treaty must be made, and people’s economic security must be taken into consideration.  Countries with oil money should dole it out to the populace under an entitlement program.  And countries without already established methods of achieving financial independence and security for its citizens should find ways for their governments to support their people’s strivings.  Everyone must be accounted for.  In the U.S. we have free elections and a course toward a balanced budget. Not that we are perfect, but at least we support, for the most part, through our lending system and through our entitlement program, individual opportunity and people’s chances for achievement, security, peace of mind, and self-betterment.  And some sort of peace and economic opportunity must be found throughout the rest of the world.  With this, I firmly call on the nations and warring factions of the world to listen to one other, to negotiate, and to work together to formulate sound, fair, functioning governments and economies that work to the best of their capacity in helping the citizens found within its borders.  This, I believe, is the call, and what must be done to quell war here on the Earth we call home.  This is what we as individuals have to do, and this is what we should expect our leaders to do – right now.

A Lesson From Tunisia (3 pp.)

A Lesson From Tunisia

Is Knowledge The Wrong Kind Of Power

February 2011

In many ways, Tunisia is the most westernized country in North Africa.  Boasting a large middle class, a relatively well-educated populace, liberal social and gender equality, and warm Mediterranean beaches, the country seems to have it all for a nation of its standing.  However, things came to a halt this month for the government and its leader of 23 years, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, who fled the country on January 14 after a wave of protests against him brought the highest degree of anti-government sentiment the country has seen since Mr. Ben Ali and his ruling party came to power.

Mr. Ben Ali and his government were quite wealthy.  Living lavish lifestyles and attending well-decked parties with friends, Mr. Ben Ali was a man not afraid to live the good life in this largely economically sustainable country.  Poverty rates here, however, are still quite high, as they are in much of north Africa; and the man who started the anti-government demonstrations a few weeks ago, himself a college educated street vendor, simply declared himself too abhorred by his own dismal future prospects with Tunisia’s poverty-stricken, and burned himself to death in protest.  What soon followed was a rash of violent street protests against the Tunisian government that finally led Mr. Ben Ali to flee the country on January 14, thus toppling the nation’s government.  In response, an interim government of unity was quickly set up, led by prime minister Mohamed Ghannouchi, promising to restore order and bring free elections as soon as possible.  Mr. Ghannouchi quickly freed 1,800 long-term political prisoners and promised that many others would soon be freed as well under the new regime.

But in this short time frame the new unity government has quickly proven to be unpopular, attracting complaints from many protesters that it is too exclusionary, and that although it allows members from many parties, it specifically exempts members of the Tunisian Communist Party and many once-powerful Islamist groups from participating in it.  The new government even jailed the owner of Tunisia’s largest and most popular private television station, stopping its broadcast, saying the owner’s affiliations were too “Communist.”

But what of sociological fairness here?  Tunisia is certainly not alone in having a political leader who is among the well-to-do.  Many countries hold affluent leaders, and Tunisia, in many ways, was fortunate to have a leader who, although rich, was not afraid to lead a country with one of the highest educational and social welfare policies in all of Africa.  Tunisia is also markedly different from many other countries in the region that suffer a period of major civil unrest, in that the discontent in Tunisia was not expressed under Islamic customs, but instead with a secular tone.  The Tunisian revolt was not purported by political, religious extremists, but by working members of its government-benefited working class.

One theory we may pursue for determining the cause of the revolt in Tunisia is to argue that, far from being the cry of religiosos, the uprising was actually due exactly to the type of educational perks and opportunity the country has engendered since the rule of the country’s first post-independence president, Habib Bourguiba,  Is it ironic that a college-educated person is the one who started the protests saying that in stark contrast to what his country provided, he in fact actually had no opportunity at all?  Is it circular and fatalistic that the protests were carried out in the somewhat socioeconomically successful capital of Tunis, calling for even better wealth distribution and educational opportunities?  What is the satisfaction level of people in a country whose economy is albeit not as thriving as those in nearby Europe, but is nonetheless a successfully post-burgeoning one that decides it must oust the president and topple the government to believe they themselves as citizens will even be heard?  Is what is in many ways one of the most successful governments in the region actually one of the most unfortunate and misaligned for its people?

Since the 1960’s and even before, it has been a widely held maxim in this country and elsewhere that knowledge is power, and understanding society is one of the keys to a successful working economy.  Obviously a person requires education to succeed in society, and one of the goals of successful societies has been to make education available to more and more citizens to give them that chance to succeed in society themselves.  Knowledge was seen as critical to advancement in society and unconditional to making one’s way peaceably in life as a whole.  But here in Tunisia we are faced with the very offspring of a success-driven economy bringing it in facie ipse to its own ruin.  The very people the government intended to, and played a critical role in helping, get on their feet turned violently against them.

It’s easy to say that, given the current global recession, that frustrations among the poor have been higher worldwide, and that fuel for resentment has been present in rising rates of unemployment and inflation.  But if these factors are indeed the case, why didn’t Tunisia’s uprising begin in rural outlays, where poverty rates and the number of uneducated are highest?  Why did it start in a city with more opportunity and less religious extremism than virtually any of its neighbors?  The answer has to be resentment.  It is resentment of what was known to be a political system operating virtually to the letter within the confines of how one would realistically expect a bourgeoisie government to act.  It doesn’t make sense that educated masses were jealous of their own opportunities at climbing the rungs of society; they were jealous because they were smart enough and educated enough to know that the government simply had more.  It wasn’t like the American Revolution, where revolt was to gain certain personal freedoms, it wasn’t like other regional revolts in Africa and the Middle East where specific Islamic dogma was desired in the government.  It was simply a case of the haves versus the have-mores.

An interesting point should be raised here.  Can a society indeed get too smart for itself?  Is education in itself something that will teach us that someone will almost always be wealthier, and that we would have been better off born under a specifically different star?  Is societal Enlightenment the very thing that will turn society against itself?  Is it too much to know that an independently wealthy ruler is someone who is just that—independently wealthy—and, although they may be guilty of some level of corruption, at least they give us the opportunity to make something of ourselves in life?  Tunisia was, and still is, by and large a successful African nation, but something here pulled the plug.  In America and Europe, reforms are generally brought by discontent at personal conditions and people wanting relief from that.  But here in Tunisia, it almost seems like it was a degree of asking the government to do the impossible—to make opportunity where opportunity already existed and to reform, in an impossible way, that which did not largely need to be reformed.

So at the end of the day we can take our coats, and we can take our hats, and we can bring the lunch Tupperware home to fill again for the next day.  But the question remains.  Do we want our streets to be safe?  Do we want our government to have the ability to actually rule us and take the administrative roles in managing our society they normally do for our betterment?  Or do we want to resentfully learn that this is too great a feat for them and that we must, in our civilian way, be their equals, toppling them for being basically, too “big”.  We as industrialists in our quest for excellence have learned that governments rule us, and we have learned that they are indeed elite; and the ironic thing is that the dangerous part seems to be that fact exactly.  If we are to succeed in a global economy, we need to be glad for what we have and know when it is time just to butt out, and live and let live.  If Tunisia had known these simple facts beforehand, I think they would have saved themselves, and the world, a heck of a lot of grief.