Posted on 06/14/2005 7:04:06 AM PDT by SJackson
What do Arab states think about US Middle East policy and what should they think about it?
It is truly remarkable that misperceptions can remain so enormous in this modern age of rapid travel, Internet and satellite television. Still, whatever the extent of Western misperceptions of the region, regional ones running in the opposite direction are far more extensive.
Of course, the official, public view that almost universally prevails in the Arab world and Iran – except for scattered articles by Arab liberals – is that the United States is an imperialist state which oppresses Muslims and commits all sorts of atrocities. This theme of America as the source of evil or error is repeated in schools, sermons, government statements, television, radio, the media and the declarations of intellectuals. The radicals want to attack America; the moderates to persuade it to stop sinning.
All of this goes triple for current US policy and the presidency of George W. Bush. It is hated, reviled and misrepresented; blamed for the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and, of course, for the war in Iraq. No lie or epithet is too extreme to smear the United States.
This apparent unanimity even persuades many in the West that either these claims are accurate or at least they represent the sincere beliefs of Arabs.
Such a conclusion neglects the fact that these arguments are the result of pervasive misinformation, sponsored by dictators seeking to blame their own defects on others, or revolutionaries trying to ride hatred into power, and a pretty systematic suppression of contrary views.
Yet even those factors are not the end of the story. For behind the public barrage is another level of debate which has two versions. One of these is the discussion among relatively small numbers of reform-minded Arabs and the majority of Iranians who oppose that country's Islamist
regime. They cheer the Bush administration and its shift to advocating democracy, whatever reservations they make, in part for self-preservation. Its policy is seen as being in their interest because it is combating the dictatorships that so oppress them.
A majority in Iraq holds similar views, seeing US policy as having liberated them and now defending their lives against terrorist attacks. They may want American forces to leave as soon as possible but these people are very glad that they are there.
EVEN MORE fascinating, though, is what might be called the private lives of the ruling elites: what they say in secret behind the scenes and in their own government meetings. There, they need no rhetoric and demagoguery. If they are going to survive, it is necessary to calculate what Washington is really doing and how they should respond.
This assessment seems to be a mixture of fear and cynicism. Many Arab states doubt the United States is really going to push hard for real change. But they are also afraid as they wonder whether the Americans really mean it. Will Washington try to change more regimes or punish them for acting as they have done for decades?
As a result, they have developed a rather sophisticated strategy which includes the following elements:
Continue to propagandize against America to ensure their own people don't start thinking that real democracy, freedom and moderation would be good. This tactic also maintains an ability to blame all the regimes' own mistakes, failures and incompetence on others. Additionally, it lets the Arab nationalist rulers pretend to also be representing the complaints of Islamists.
Insist that they are already democratic, or at least correspond to their own societies values and traditions.
Assert that they are in the midst of making all sorts of reforms, including minor changes in terms of rights and elections. Therefore, American criticism or advice is simply not needed.
Effectively repress any real domestic dissent and threats through cooptation, arrests and other measures. This strategy's apex is wonderfully elegant: first, crack down domestically using the not entirely fictional rationale of radical Islamist threats, then blame their own repression on the United States for its advocating a war against terrorism.
Wait out the situation. Bush will leave office in January 2009 and perhaps his successor will have different priorities or policies. Middle Easterners are patient; Americans are not. Such an approach is likely to work pretty well, or at least from the rulers' viewpoint, better than any alternative. Even Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi has understood this and Syria's late ruler, Hafez Assad, pioneered this kind of policy under somewhat different circumstances in the 1990s. His son, Bashar, however, doesn't get it. He is trying to play on a purely pan-Arab nationalist line from a generation ago. Under the circumstances, that's a pretty dangerous mistake.
To some extent, though, thinking in Washington seems to be shifting due to post-war problems in Iraq, disappointment with the new Palestinian leadership, Islamists' good showing in elections, and other factors. There is a new appreciation for the need to blend realpolitik – which means getting along with existing Arab regimes like Saudi Arabia – and support for long-term democratization. Overextended in Iraq, in terms of both public opinion and logistics, the United States is not eager for new confrontations.
If nobody makes a big miscalculation – Bashar is the one most likely to do so – the existing system might well make it through the coming years, with its stagnation, dictatorships, useless ideologies, Palestinian intransigence, et al.
What is happening now, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, is not so much the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning. Still, it is a start.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs.
Someone posted an excellent read from Arab News that went a bit further and in more detail. In summary, the Middle East leaders are the ones to blame for their problems. However, it's easier to blame America and Israel.
The following GNI data confirms the story:
United States: $37,610
Japan: $34,510
Singapore: $21,230
Taiwan: $13,320
China: $1,100
Israel-Palestine: $16,020 (without oil)
Saudi Arabia: $8,530 (mostly from oil)
Syria: $1,130
Jordan: $1,850
Iran: $2,000
Egypt: $1,390
Algeria: $1,890
Sudan $460
Ethiopia $90
Uganda $240
Source of data:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1069166.stm
Thesis:"Overextended in Iraq, in terms of both public opinion and logistics, the United States is not eager for new confrontations."
Niether premise is true. Options abound and Arab states see the wrting on the wall.
Add: So do all the other players.
Thanks for outing this "folklore".
Typical Islamic-Extremist bravado.
This article totally misses the roots of their hatred. It is true that with the advanced technololy of news coverage it's hard to understand why this is such a hard concept, unless you address the spiritual forces at work here. Israel is rooted upon a God who promissed to give the land to Jacob (Israel) and to bless them the bless you and curse them that curse you. America is rooted upon the same God who sent His Son Jesus Christ by who we all are redeemed. Granted that in this post modern, secular humanist world in which most of the residents in Israel and America do not fully believe in this God but the facts concerning our roots are undeniable. When those "fundamentalist" who believe that the only clear way to paradise is to die in Jihad (because that is a fundamental teaching of Islam) and believe that the time has come to convert the infidel at the threat of beheading, they is no reasoning with them, living together is peace and harmony, sharing the wealth, etc... Like the hijackers of the 9-11 planes, the only way to stop was to subdue them, not convince them the meant them no harm, that they were just misunderstood, needed money, etc...
How about the roots of American anti-Arabism for a change.
We support Israel.
For all the problems in the War on Terrorism, Syria and Iran are the key to ending the hatred that stalks non-Islamic followers world-wide. The peace between Israel and Palistine is contingence upon Hamas, whose spirital leader from Iran is the uncle of the Iraqi Bin Sdar who gives us trouble in Bagdad. The end of the current Iranian government will free the people to pursue a more equal society free of terrorism exported, and the threat of nukes to Jews and America. The toppeling of Syria will be the final chapter in making peace in the Mid East.
Islam, under the sword, will always have those who think they can wait out their enemy with peace and strick as a time of their choosing. It is that kind of intolerance and failure to embrace peace that may some day lead to amaragadon.
That's real easy. Thirty five years of Arab airline hijacking, histage taking and terrorism. How's that, "effendi"?
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.