Before I begin, let me point out - because apparently you didn't "get it" - that my post was an inflammatory parallel parody of Foxfyre' post.
Nevertheless:
McGentrix wrote:Ok, so who is "we"?
In some cases I was referring to the Western world, which is how Arabs percieve the issue. In other cases I was referring to America alone.
In the Western world, people generally see nations as being the primary unit of division in the world. Muslims, however, tend to see a religion subdivided into nations, rather than a nation subdivided into religions.
Before you point out that I should draw a distinction between the two, let me point out that a) Arabs draw no signifigant distinction, and I was speaking from their perspective, b) whether you - in the nationlistic haze that informs so much of your thought - like it or not, the Western world is a meaningful concept. And, yes, France is a part of it.... *gasp*
Quote:When did "we" "invad(ing) the Middle East"?
World War One.
Quote:When did "we" try "carving it up arbitrarily into a jigsaw puzzle"?
The period of Anglo-French domination that followed World War One.
Quote:How did "we" "exploit(ing) it for oil"?
Don't get me wrong - oil is a legitimate pursuit because it is neccessary to keep our economy intact.
But let's not kid ourselves - our pursuit of oil has led to some signifigant and detrimental effects on the Middle East.
The United States is less likely to make enemies of oil rich countries and more willing to appease them, ignore their abusive actions, and support their governments.
For years, America supported Iraqi leader Saddam Hussien even though he engaged in severe human rights abuses and started a war with Iran. This unconditional support can be chalked up primarliy to the fact that Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the Middle East.
When Iraq invaded the oil-rich and pro-western country of Kuwait, the Americans finally acted. The Gulf War was motivated, at least in part, by oil concerns. Americans were not seeking access to Kuwaiti oil, as is often contended, rather they were seeking to prevent Saddam Hussien from gaining a disproportionate chunk of the regions oil supplies.
Oil was also one of the main reasons that America propped up the pro-western and unpopular government of the Shah in Iran.
I could go on....
Th point is that pursuing the stability of the Middle Eastern oil market has led the Americans into wars, has caused them to prop up unpopular dictatorships, and has allowed them to turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses in oil rich countries.
Few American actions in the Middle East are not hypocritical.
In my opinion - and I have voiced this before - much of this hypocrisy is rooted in American universalism. I'll elucidate, for your benifit.
Universalism and practical interest represent the two opposing poles of our foreign policy. On one hand America desires to elevate its core values of democracy, free markets, limited government, human rights, individualism, and the rule of law into universal values. On the other hand they strive to take actions that are in the best practical interests of America.
The paradox of American power is that these two opposing objectives - universalism and American interests - are in direct conflict with each other. This conflict at the heart of American foreign policy is the reason that the United sates has found itself forced into increasingly awkward, contradictory and blatantly hypocritical positions.
See democracy:
Back in Bush's early days, Richard Haas, the Director of Policy Planning at the US State Department, released a report outlining the government's new strategy in the Middle East. In that report Haas affirms that "US policy will be more actively engaged in supporting democratic trends in the Muslim world than ever before." The Bush administration's enthusiasm for promoting democracy is strange considering that past efforts have met little success and have often ended with Americans going against their democratic ideals to protect American interests.
In 1992 America supported Algeria's attempt to hold its first democratic election. It soon became clear that the FIS, an Islamic Fundamentalist party, were going to win. America quickly reversed its position and supported the current Algerian government in its move to cancel the election, which renewed a bloody civil war that continues to this day. This is a perfect example of how the desire to spread its values is in direct conflict with America's practical interests.
Also, remember July 2001, when president Bush warned Palestinians that voting for Yassir Arafat would jeopardize chances for a future Palestinian state. Once again America ran into conflict between its ideals of democracy and its desire to control politics in the middle east.
In Egypt, the American government has helped president Hosni Mubarak in his attempts to prevent rival political parties, like the Muslim Brotherhood, from running in democratic elections. Despite that this is an obvious violation of democracy the United States is supportive because we want to eliminate the chances of the Muslim Brotherhood getting into power.
All of these actions send the message that America supports democracy in the Middle East, but only if it results in leadership friendly to the US. That is not democracy, though.
And, of course, we are all aware of the situation in Iraq. Once of the central reasons cited for war with Iraq was the need to "liberate" Iraqi's from oppression and give them "democracy." However, it has since become clear that a democratic Iraq will be a non-secular Iraq with strong fundamentalist element. I doubt that a true democracy will materialize.
In Afghanistan, on the other hand, we also wanted to "liberate them from oppression." However, we have not even attempted to give them democracy. Instead, we have opted to let the nation remain in lightly supervised warlordism.
So, clearly thier is overwhelming hypocrisy in our approach to democracy in the Middle East. And that is only one example. I could write a book on the subject of American hypocrisy in the Middle East.
