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.