Gurdur

Note the complete misrepresentation, evasion and strawmen here.
It's complete nonsense to represent my post as saying they have no partial control over their own fates, and also it is avoiding the point.
Leonarde is simply pretending for the sake of a strawman I am not talking about the effect of international events upon national politics.

Go away, Leonarde.
No-one here claimed "it is still the fault of the West (here the US)"; in fact, I explicitly mentioned endemic corruption in Egypt.

If you want to use such underhanded tactics, I will not indulge you.
I'm not writing a history of the world; I'm concentrating upon the fate of 20th century Arab secularism.

Now be a good boy and wander off; I have no time for such blatant misrepresentation.

leonarde

Partial post:I know. And what does your OP end with?Speaking of "strawmen".


Cheers!

Monkeybot

I'd say the US and UK had something to do with the sanctions that were going on in Iraq...

Celsus

Yes a very good OP, Gurdur. Perhaps I can ask a few annoying questions:

Is it possible for the Arabic world to modernise without westernising or becoming secular?

Could the reaction be simply against the secular strongman regimes, and co-opted by the Islamists, rather than because of a fundamental shift in Arabic preferences?

To what extent does the common enemy of Israel play a unifying role in the Arab world?

What about counter-trends like reform in Iran, and the long battle between all sorts of different factions in Afghanistan? Also, compare the overall Arab world fears of an Islamist state on a par with Sudan's version.

I don't really understand your statement that Libya has become "ridiculous and insignificant." Could you elaborate?

What do you make of the fact that these secular regimes' socialist roots have also been eaten away by the IMF for the last 3 decades?

What will be the effects of future depletion of oil of many of these states?

Don't have to answer them all, they're just the sorts of questions I've been thinking about lately.

Cheers,
Joel

Answerer

If the above ever happens, I think it will give Bush the perfect excuse for invading and liberating the entire Middle East.

Gurdur

I would say "yes", but what do you define as "Westernising" ??
To some people, even technological progress is "Westernization"; therefore my question.
It's both.
The secular regimes because they are failing both for national and international reasons.
Some of those reasons are just plain bad luck, such as the worldwide fall over time in primary produce and commodity prices.

However, my point is that further frustration and protest will become ever more Islamicized.
Bugger all at the moment; while the Arab governments love playing the anti-Israel/Jew agitprop card all the time in their media, the actual thingy plays no role in broad unification at this present time.
Formerly it did; my guess is that it will come to play a much larger role as the various competing fundamentalist Islamic tendencies compete among themselves.
Most likely doomed if the USA threatens Iran further. It will get lost in the nationalist backlash against USA pressure.

Mostly ethnic struggles, which have bugger all to do with Arabs.
The Pashtuns (the main force behind Taliban) are not Arabs; their hated rivals, the ethnicities behind the "Northern Allience", are even more so not-Arabs than the Pashtun.
Religious struggles in Afghanistan have little to do with religion; like Northern Ireland, religion functions as a flag for competing ethnicities and/or clans,

When frustration, anger and humiliation outweigh fear, look out.

Libya was once world-famous as the country which gave the Americans the finger --- and also could tell Russia/the USSR to go take a hike whenever it liked too.
Libya tried intervening in African countries (Uganda, Mali etc.) and even fought a mild small war with one North African country.
Terrorists were specifically invited to Libya and housed, fed and trained (though they did also tend to end up in unmarked graves if the Libyan government felt it opportune).
Egypt long lived in fear of a war with Libya.

Nowadays ?
Please tell me who takes Libya seriously.
Terrorists go elsewhere for equipment and supplies.
No African country, or Egypt, have fear of Libya any more.
The economy is busted, and the once-feared military are mostly seen as a poor joke.

All part and parcel of a huge bundle of different causes, some conscious, mostly unconscious, almost all unpredictable at the time of their inception.

Grim.
The ones that need oil won't be able to afford it; the ones that have it will have less revenue from less volume sold.

There will be a further effect; as oil becomes more and more valuble as an export, less and less people inside some Middle-Eastern countries will be able to afford it --- giving rise to the paradoxical situation of a country doing ever better in exports, but its people becoming ever more impoverished at the same time.
No doubt, but I have anyway.

Celsus

Thanks for your answers. Let me see if I can explain. Modernisation without westernisation is where the country develops its industrial infrastructure, but its social and cultural values remain largely intact (it may evolve, as all norms do, but would not significantly take on Western ideals). If anyone defines technological progress as "Westernisation," they won't last very long. Japan, of course, is the best example of this modernisation without westernisation. In this sense the Islamist reaction can be seen in terms of either a failure of secularisation (through a disjointed cause-and-effect understanding), and with plenty of other models for development that do not take on the Western model wholesale.

• However, my point is that further frustration and protest will become ever more Islamicized.

I completely concur, and have been saying so for a while now. The thing about Islamist movements is that ultimately, they do not fundamentally change the power structure in the state--they are heavily top-down, they get their authority from divine right (as per the Saudi, Jordanian, and Moroccan monarchies). Thus it is easily translated into the Arab model rather than the democratic one. Turkey needs the military to enforce its secular constitution. Bosnia has witnessed an enormous, rapid Islamisation due to its position in conflict with Serbs and Croats. The external enemy "meme," if you like, can be very powerful in the face of a real or perceived threat.

Anyway, I don't think we really disagree on anything.

Joel

leonarde

Posted by Monkeybot:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But:

1) in my opinion the primary failure of the Baathist regime was one of values: the "secularist" ones they had were of an awful type. (Syria's aren't the greatest either: secularism isn't a panacea).

2) Back in 2001 UK advanced at the UN a program for "smart sanctions" (ie something which would put MORE of a squeeze on the Iraqi regime but give relief to the Iraqi people); it was opposed by Russia (who alternated with the French in opposing worthwhile measures directed at Iraq at the UN. In this respect Russia was doing exactly what Saddam Hussein wanted. A pattern that endured right up to the US/UK invasion (and beyond!).

Cheers!

Jat

Remember what Ann Cultier said after 9/11. "We should go overthere and kill all of their leaders and make them all Christians..."

I guess that Bush is taking her advice.

Vorkosigan

Is it possible for the Arabic world to modernise without westernising or becoming secular?

No. I have decided after much lonely night thinking on this that it is simply impossible for a state to modernize without picking up a whole slew of western ways of thinking. Modernity is a state of mind, not a technological toolkit. How "modern" is China? Tough question.

Could the reaction be simply against the secular strongman regimes, and co-opted by the Islamists, rather than because of a fundamental shift in Arabic preferences?

I don't think Gurdur is explicitly arguing that Arabs are shifting preference. The way I read his post, while that might be going on, Gurdur is saying that if you kill secularism, by default you leave the field open to the fundies. You send a message that secularism cannot create a strong and united state acceptable to the international community.

To what extent does the common enemy of Israel play a unifying role in the Arab world?

Nil. Are the Arabs united?

What about counter-trends like reform in Iran, and the long battle between all sorts of different factions in Afghanistan? Also, compare the overall Arab world fears of an Islamist state on a par with Sudan's version.

Is it really the overall Arab world, or just Arab pro-western establishment elites that fears this? Is reform possible in Iran -- 700 cnadidates were eliminated in the last election for being too pro-reform. And is "reform" the answer to militant islam? I rather think extinction is the only real answer for that mode of thought.

What do you make of the fact that these secular regimes' socialist roots have also been eaten away by the IMF for the last 3 decades?

Is there any regime not eaten away by the IMF in the last 3 decades? There is hardly a more destructive organization on earth.

What will be the effects of future depletion of oil of many of these states?

...and water, and soils. It is all going to happen at once. <shudder>

Don't have to answer them all, they're just the sorts of questions I've been thinking about lately.

Sounds like you need to get laid.