RSS

Thu, Mar 1st 2012, 16:01

Gökhan Tekir, Bilkent University, Gold Contributor (101)

The authoritarian administrative structure in Arab countries was created after First World War by European countries themselves. The principles of Wilson's 14 points mainly drew the post-war settlement did not cover newly independent Arab countries. These countries were given into mandatory regimes administered by their 'benevolent ' European rulers. The pseudo-colonial regimes collapsed after Second World War but the democracy did not come to the region. Dictatorships, established after Europeans had gone, maintained their reigns mainly because of the Western support.
It is, therefore, understandable that the low level of trust between Arab people and European countries. However, Arab spring presents an opportunity for European countries to repair the damage done for eight decades. The chance of survival of new democracies in Arab countries depends on the support they receive from other countries. The fragile ethnic and religious composition of these countries might easily turn into civil wars and chaos.
The stable, democratic and prosperous Arab world will be the partner of the regimes like themselves. Otherwise, the influence of China and Iran will increase over Mediterranean. The vital ssue is to respect local and religious differences of Arab world while establishing universal values in the region. Distaste of European imperialism in North Africa and Middle East still preserves its importance in the minds of people.

Fri, Mar 23rd 2012, 08:50

Amarjyoti Acharya

A very nice outline. The comments by Gokhan Tekir helps remind one of the few realities that can not be wished away including collective memories. Now for any strategic success in global governance (and it is not real politik), the issue of collective memories is as important and pertinent as the issue of covert or overt suppression. Now would the EU - in tail-nibbling of the USA end up in the strategic dark dungeons that encourages the USA?
EU should forge its own independent vision and policies and discourage itself from falling in to US viewpoints that usually are fantastic at times. They even like their media (the CNN for example that harbours former editors of the Foreign Affairs journal as part of it intellectual workforce) coming with news articles with headlines like: "Who owns the USA? Hint: It is not China" speaks volumes about strategic mistakes fed by paranoia and medieval foundations (the Dark Ages of Europe as its foundations and not the period of Enlightenment mark US outlooks).
First, global governance would mean a legitimacy at the mass level that deal with collective memories and thus trust-building. Legitimacy comes from the recognitions of both covert and overt repressions or direct and indirect violence. You can not and you DO NOT think that you can continue putting in replacement puppet regimes one after the another and expect legitimacy and trust just because very few survivors are left from your last experiments with the Arab people or that region! You DO NOT do such things. Second, it would need institutional structures in place that encourages democratic values and Human Rights and is geared to its demands. Thirdly, why does the Middle East region so attract attentions over democracy, etc. and not Africa that as a continent continues evoking images of re-affirmations of its label of being the world's dark continent? Of course the people in the Arab world and the Islamic world are not very convinced that it is not religion and oil (with a control over the latter) that encourages such sustained benevolence from the NATO states as both Libya and Iraq represent. It does not help either that Africa being so close escapes that sustained benevolence and attention and might be drawing gasps of consternations since Africa is largely a Christian continent with largely Christian leaderships. For people self-admittedly religious in orientation and who do see religion as the guiding hand behind much of their history - in their differences over religious faith as the formative conditions of conflict in that region - it is natural that the Middle East may find it difficult to trust the USA or the NATO states (of which the EU is a major force) in being so selective in their anyway religious benevolence!!! The foundations of the NATO states via much of US leadership seems of the Dark Ages of Europe and not its Enlightenment period and thus the issue of legitimacy is a crucial chasm wider than all the oceans combined - as far as NATO attention to that region is concerned. Can't blame the poor populace with Africa being so near and the stories of Africa and its Human Rights, etc. would make even the hardest supporter of the erstwhile BAATH party of the late Saddam Hussein shudder a little! So would the "west" and the "Christian West" to be more precise be surprised at such comments and observations of mine.
The issue of global governance - where Human Rights & Democratic values matter - is not real-politik and the issue of legitimacy is crucial and vital and can never be over-emphasized. Now how does one bridge this chasm is what needs to be seen in EU policies and its tail-nibbling habits of US policies (frankly Dark European and not Enlightened European in its basic foundations). Covert & overt suppression? You can't afford to support any if looking for strategic success over the issue of winning over populaces, and not turn the entire world into a hell-hole just because you inhabit those dungeons even if sporting better technological gadgets and perfumes! Africa and its example shall remain a sore point of comparison for anyone looking at the issue of Human Rights & Democratic values in the rhetorics of the US establishment as well as the EU ones. It is here where the EU does need to strike its own direction and decide if it seeks a path back to Enlightened Europe or a path back to the Dark Ages - and try and drag the rest there. Why the Middle-East and not Africa? That is one question that shall remain salient and food for serious introspections for many around the world.
Love the Middle East? Great - it would still be far CHEAPER to fund educational institutions, better health care, poverty-eradication, etc. amongst other developmental work , THAN the costs of war for helping the "populace" of the Middle East. Again Africa comes in as the first and better and more deserving case and not the Middle East for such benevolences.
Guess it is already tough to be modern in the USA. Wonder how tough it is to be so in Europe of today?