Ahhh. The parallel had not occured to me. Very insightful generalization. Some folks in The Ivory Coast have been feeling the same way lately:
Leave it to the frogs to resort to force, and then use it to impose appeasement.
Posted on 02/22/2003 5:43:06 PM PST by Stultis
by Amir Taheri
Jerusalem Post
February 7, 2003
Amr Moussa is a clearly worried man. Drawing deep puffs from his hefty Havana, this last of the Nasserite dinosaurs believes the Arabs are facing "their greatest crisis since the First World War."
Moussa, an Egyptian, should know. He is secretary-general of the Arab League at a time when everyone is talking about its imminent demise.
In a conversation at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Moussa said league members had agreed to hold their next summit in Manama, Bahrain, but had not agreed on a date. Clearly, some members wanted the summit to be held before the war against Saddam Hussein, expected anytime after the Haj pilgrimage on February 10. They pressed for a date in the hope of finding a formula to allow the Iraqi dictator to step aside and thus prevent the conflict.
Now, however, even the venue of the projected summit is a matter of dispute. Some Arab leaders do not want to meet a few miles from the headquarters of the United States navy in the Persian Gulf.
Bahrain, a tiny archipelago that recently promoted itself from emirate to kingdom, has made no secret of its firm resolve to be on the side of the US when, and no longer if, there is a move to topple Saddam.
Quarrelling over the date and venue of the next summit, however, isn't the only problem that Arab leaders face these days. There is a growing sentiment that they have reached an historic cul de sac, with no idea of how to pierce through.
THE ARAB predicament over the looming war in Iraq is only the last episode in a story of economic decline, political disorientation and cultural crisis that dates back several decades.
Last year a United Nations study, conducted by Arab scholars, showed that the Arab states were the only ones in the world to have seen their living standards actually decline in the past two decades. Even oil-rich states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are today poorer than in 1983.
At the same time, World Bank estimates show that more than $2 trillion of Arab money has flowed into Asia, Europe and the Americas since the 1970s.
"Associating with the Arabs has brought us nothing but trouble," says Colonel Mu'ammar Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator who recently decided to boycott the Arab League and emphasize his so-called "African identity."
Gaddafi is not the only one to seek an alternative to Arabism. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former UN secretary-general, is also urging an "African destiny" for his native homeland of Egypt. In a recent article that triggered much debate, he called on Egypt to look south toward black Africa and north toward the Mediterranean rather than east toward the Arabs.
Other Arab statesmen and politicians are looking in other directions.
Yussuf Shirawi, Bahrain's elder statesman, wants the Persian Gulf states to forge special links with the Indian subcontinent to counterbalance both the threat of Iran and "all the troubles caused by being associated with the Arabs."
At the other end of the arc of crisis, Morocco's Foreign Minister Muhammad Benaissa recently shocked the pan-Arabists by urging his nation to look toward the American continent as the key partner in shaping the future.
Algeria's President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, for his part, has began to distance himself from the Ba'athists and pan-Arabists, and is developing a "Mediterranean doctrine" combined with closer military cooperation with the US.
Iraq's opposition leaders men and women likely to form the post-Saddam government in Baghdad have gone further by discussing withdrawal from the Arab League and the forging of links with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
"The Arabs have caused us little but grief," says Iraqi academic Kenan Makiyah, a member of the Transition Council. "Even now most Arab states prefer Saddam Hussein to the democratic regime that we wish to build."
Disenchantment with pan-Arabia is also felt in Saudi Arabia.
"If someone asks what have the Arabs been doing for two decades, the answer is: They have been blackmailing one another over the issue of Palestine," says a member of Saudi Arabia's appointed "parliament."
CAN THE Arab League be saved? Moussa believes so. But even he realizes that the old rules must be broken. The next summit, when and if it convenes, will have to consider four different plans for reform, coming from Libya, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The Qatari plan is focused on administrative reform and ultimately aimed at breaking the Egyptian hold on the league by transferring its headquarters from Cairo to another Arab capital and making the post of secretary-general, always held by an Egyptian, open to candidates from other Arab states.
The Libyan plan seeks to link the Arab League to the newly created African Union, thus rendering it irrelevant in the long run.
The Sudanese plan is essentially aimed at forcing the oil-rich Arab states to share their fortunes with the poor members of the league.
Paradoxically, the most revolutionary among these plans comes from ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia.
This envisages committing member states to sweeping political and economic reforms.
The Saudi leaders seem to be seeking a pan-Arab cover for introducing reforms they know hard-line religious forces in the kingdom would resist. The Saudi plan calls for all Arab states to establish "accountable governments" and develop "participatory politics," which, translated into plain language, means holding elections.
In recent weeks both Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah Ibn Abdel-Aziz and his half-brother, Defense Minister Prince Sultan Ibn Abdel-Aziz have spoken of holding elections for at least part of the membership of the currently appointed parliament.
"The pressure for participatory government is coming from all segments of society and is irresistible," says Prince Turki al-Faisal, the new Saudi Ambassador to London.
"No Arab regime can now resist change. Those that are intelligent would know how best to manage what cannot be avoided."
This talk of reform is echoed in other Arab states, including the still hermetic Syria. The Syrian Ba'ath party is planning to hold a conference supposedly to transform itself into a "social democratic" party.
And President Bashar Assad is reportedly working hard to impose free elections that could break the old guard and give him a genuine constituency of his own for reform.
At least eight other Arab states from Oman to Jordan and including Yemen and Kuwait are now formally committed to the Western model of political pluralism and a market economy.
All this talk of reform and pluralism may, of course, be due to fears that a forcible change of regime in Iraq is a prelude for action against other despotic Arab regimes. The rulers may be simply trying to buy time and confuse the outside world, especially the US.
Many Arabs believe that the despotic regimes, even if they shed their spots, cannot alter their essential nature, and that any reforms will remain largely cosmetic.
One thing is sure, however: The presence of a huge US army in the region has, much like the proverbial hangman's noose, helped concentrate many minds among the Arabs on the causes of what many now refer to as "our great historic failure."
Many other articles by Taheri are available from his profile page at Benador Associates. Check out the other speakers Benador represents (Woolsey, Perle, Ledeen, Kabbani, Hamza, Krauthammer, Ijaz, et al). Don't miss this recent article in which Taheri hammers the "peace" rally in London for silencing Iraqis:
Reverend Jackson, let me speak!--'Could I tell the people about my life?', Iraqi grandmother
also (re)posted here:
"Associating with the Arabs has brought us nothing but trouble," says Colonel Mu'ammar Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator who recently decided to boycott the Arab League and emphasize his so-called "African identity."
If this article represents the real state of Arab feelings, then it confirms the belief of those of us who think that decisively defeating the terrorists, far from encouraging more martyrs to appear, will encourage the Arabs to repudiate bin Ladin and move in a new direction. It won't be easy to accomplish this, but it is at least conceivable. If we do nothing, however, the terrorism is certain to get worse.
Forming up a ping list here for War_List.
Anyone want on or off send me a Freep mail.
I can see the volume getting high.
I want on anyones bump list for articles going on the War_List
Nice. Nothing like a little humility and self-examination in the face of a vastly superior force imminently poised to kick your @ss.
To heck with sending the troops back to Germany. Lets setup & keep the bases right where they are.
RIGHT. I found the article very encouraging, especially the positive moves Syria and Saudi Arabia may make. they will be hastened by a democratic post-Saddam Iraq. Our own policies since 1979 have been mostly ineffective at stopping terrorism. Removing the ones who hate us from power will certainly be a better policy that what we've been doing in the past.
Ahhh. The parallel had not occured to me. Very insightful generalization. Some folks in The Ivory Coast have been feeling the same way lately:
Leave it to the frogs to resort to force, and then use it to impose appeasement.
Thank God for each and every enlightened islamic modernist. I suspect, and hope, there is a greater hunger for their leadership within the islamic world than is usually guessed. We shall see.
I'm fully with Taheri's instincts on this matter. The myth of pan-Arabism and the Arab/Islamic nation has been an unmitigated disaster, second (if so) only to Judenhas in its destructive and nihilistic fruits. Only when this myth has been utterly discredited is there any reasonable hope for genuine and energetic reform in the Arab World.
I havent read the book you wrote about [The Haj by Leon Uris]. But I do know "human" nature. By and large regardless of idiology, race, forms of government etc, etc. the usual flow is 10% extreme one direction 10% extreme in the opposite direction and 80% floating in between, back and forth as particular dogmas gain/lose sway.
Yes all Arabs are tainted with racism towards Jews but only 10-15% of Arabs will not be disuaded from their radical positions concerning them. The rest can be exploited/enticed/leaned on to seriously consider other avenues in dealing with Jews.
It would take time no doubt [look how long it has taken white southerners to get their acts together corporately]. But it is possible. Like I said....first the Arab Leaders involved need to remove a sizable portion of that radical 10-15% as well as acclimate the rest as to the changes coming before they begin.
If they do these things, IMHO they have a legitimate chance of success.
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.