Arrogant American Universalism and the Middle East

How's the weather in Baghdad these days?

Rationally and fairly debated Asherman!

Though I acknowledge the title of the thread is somewhat inflammatory, and assumes the outcome of the debate in its premise, - nonetheless, these ideas seem to me worthy of debate.

Im not Middle Eastern though i do know many.

Are you trying to avoid constructive debate??? :wink:

Re: Arrogant American Universalism and the Middle East


How are these an "American style economic system"??? The people in the Middle-East were practicing free trade and market based pricing long before the USA was ever even comtemplated. Wander the bazars of Cairo or Riyadh and you'll see true free trade and market based pricing. The price on every item up for sale is negotiable...

Free trade has been practiced across the Mediterranean between the Europeans and those in the Middle-East for centuries. The Nile River hasn't been one of the most significant waterways in the world for centuries for no reason.

Sorry about that ... I thought this was an Abuzz moment. Ironlionzion, interesting cognomon, its obvious you don't want an open discussion here by your inflammatory anti-american stance.

According to your premise the United States and Western Civilization are to blame for everything. We should abandon efforts to advance individual rights outside our own borders. The idea that people have a right to expect fair and equal justice should never be pursued in the Middle-east, because that is cultural colonialism. Israel, as an outpost of Western Civilization, should be abolished as an affront to the Islamic World that surrounds it. Torture and mass murder are alright, so long as they are committed by the local dictator.

But, you are right about one thing. The United States in pursuing its ultimate goal of extending our humanistic values to embrace all the downtrodden of the world, must often compromise those values in the short run because of practical necessity. We support the military dictator of Pakistan, because he is preferable to the ISI and their radical Islamic terrorist clients. We supported the radical Islamic forces in their efforts to dislodge the USSR from Afghanistan, and then turned their Talibanic heirs out of office for their part in 9-11. Politics, whether local, national, or international, is always dirty and ammoral. None of that is new, nor confined to any one politician or country.

Where are you from Iron Lion of Zion?

No, I do want an open discussion/debate, thats why i came here. First of all, I am not anti-American i am actually pro-American in many ways. But not to the point where I am blind to the mistakes America has made. Secondly, even if i was the evil of all evils: anti-american, how would that neccessarily mean that I do not want an open discussion. Perhaps you are one of those people who simply dismiss opposing viewpoints. Or perhaps you are deluded enough to believe that America can do no wrong.

This is a criticism of American foreign policy, but that does not necessarily mean that it is anti-American. On the contrary, the United States has proven to be the most restrained, most benevolent, and least imperialistic superpower ever. Even though there are problems in America's foreign policy the conflict between the Middle East and the West goes much deeper than resentment of American policies. As Bernard Lewis said "it is an issue that transcends the level of governments and the policies they pursue." The United States, like every other nation, must make a foreign policy that is in accord with its interests. As the worlds sole remaining superpower America is the only nation that interacts with and influences every corner of the world. When America pursues its foreign policy the effects are felt on a global scale, so naturally, America is often the focus of criticism. The diversity of American interests coupled with the power of the American government makes it inevitable that some nations will have grievances.



I did not say this explicitly or anything that would imply this.



Yes, America should abandon efforts to "advance individual rights" outside thier own borders if that concept of morality is not shared by the people of the other nation. They should abandon such efforts all together as a part of thier official foriegn policy. Individual issues of human rights violations should be treated on a case by case basis; America should not continue to hypocritically portray itself as a crusader for human rights.



Do you not understand that your idea of "fair and equal justice" is not shared by other civilizations/cultures/religions. Only arrogance can lead Americans to assume that thier concept of justice is universal.



Israel is an outpost of western civilization, and no I do not think it should be "abolished." I never said that.



Torture and mass murder are never right. When I talked about human rights I meant human rights in respect to things like, the role of women in society, rights of the individual vs rights of the collective, secularism, polygamy, etc.



I agree with much of this. But do you honestly believe that the "ultimate goal" of the United States is "estending our humanistic values to embrace all the downtrodden of the world"? I understand that the advancing of American values must often take a backseat to America's practical interests. That was the point of my post; that American practical interests are inescapably in conflict with America's desire to spread its values and this will ultimatly lead to a flawed and unachiveable set of foriegn policy objectives.

one of the issues I have is that America likes to portray itself to the world and its own citizens as a crusader for (fill in the blank - human rights, justice, democracy etc) when in the real world America will abandon its crusade for practical interests over and over again. The idea that America is crusading for humanistic values is pure propaganda and Americans should be ashamed for swollowing it up so readily.



I have lived in America and currently reside in Toronto, Canada. I live in an area and attend a school that is full of people of Middle Eastern descent, and many of them are persoanl friends, so I have constant exposure to both sides of this argument.

How do you "explicitly imply" something?

How do you "explicitly imply" something?

I mean, isn't something 'implicit' or 'explicit'?

Re: Arrogant American Universalism and the Middle East


This is true to an extent. American efforts to promote free trade and market based pricing are most prevalent in other parts of the world like Sub-Saharan Africa. However, the core American economic values of capital market liberalization and privitization are often promoted in the Middle East to the detriment of Middle Easterners. Often, this is done through the World Bank and the IMF although there are other avenues.

Your right, in my haste to type a reply I made a grammatical error. What i meant to say was "I did not say explicitly or imply...".

I am not sure that American idealism contradicts her pragmatic interests. IMHO, it is much easier to deal with governments sharing the same values the U.S. people and authorities do, than with medieval theocracies and Arab socialist tyrannies. In short term, attempts to promote Western values may cause difficulties; but success of such a mission may bring lots of advantages in long term.

IronLionZion

Welcome to A2K.
Very interesting questions you pose.
Will follow the responses with interest.

IronLionZion - you have, indeed, come in like a lion!

I find your outlining of dilemmas faced by the west - and currently, most critically, by the USA, as both the contemporary superpower, and possibly the most aggressive proponent, in recent years, of "western values" - (a glance at the literature of former western empires, like the British, delineates a very similar, but, to the modern ear, far more aggressively and crudely and arrogantly expressed view that it was the duty of the west to bring civilization and decency to the other peoples of the world - not to mention the difference that formerly it was thought reasonable casually to conquer whole continents!) - very interesting and very reflective of my own thoughts in relation to these issues - both in the macro and micro.

I would like to comment at this point on some thoughts I have in reference to cultural relativism and the promulgation of values like democracy and human rights.

Living in Australia, this is an issue that is confronted daily in domestic and foreign policy, as well as in the minds of thinking citizens.

We are a weird anomaly to Asia - a predominantly white, western relic of colonialism stuck uneasily to its bottom - rather, I suspect for the leaders of some Asian countries, like a big, loud, annoying but (in some parts of the region) relatively powerful barnacle!

We have steered a rather drunken course, alternately almost completely rejecting and seeking to ignore the realities of our geography, and attempting to embrace Asia like a rather desperate and dateless bloke at a bush bash.

In the process, we have also attempted to promote values like democracy and human rights, where possible, in the region - often a little more subtly than the US has (we "recognized" (!!!!!!) China and established good relations with her way before the USA did, and generally criticize her human rights record with a softer voice - similarly we maintain diplomatic relations with North Korea) - and similarly with the US we are swayed and cozened by our economic and strategic interests.

Nonetheless, we have been regaled loudly with the comments you refer to about the inappropriateness of western values and western-style democracy to Asia, and the superiority of Asian values. Our media have been targeted with frequent accusations, when reporting repression and corruption in countries like Indonesia, with accusations of racism, colonial values, arrogance and failure to understand the societies they are reporting on.

Interestingly, along with these voices from governments and other opinion leaders, have been dissident voices from Asia - voices which say that the arguments about "Asian values" are arguments from oppressive governments and corrupt beneficiaries of anti-democratic forces, that to say that human rights as set out by the UN contradict "Asian" values is to dehumanize Asian peoples, and that we have been far too timid and venal in our promotion of human rights in Asia.

Domestically, as recently and well-discussed here in A2k, a court decision acquitting an Aboriginal man of rape in a traditional relationship, using a hard-won (by Aboriginal people) recognition of Aboriginal tribal law and custom as a justification, raised howls of protest, not only from white Australia, but from representatives of Aboriginal women, who said that justifying brutality by a call to tradition was denying human rights to traditionally living Aboriginal women.

As a feminist, I find many traditional cultural practices in some regions now predominantly Islamic as they relate to women absolutely repellent. Appreciation of cultural relativism tells me that such criticisms are ignorant and prejudiced. I am awre of the many voices of Islamic women that say the west's treatment of women is far worse, and that good Islamic women embrace these practices. Nonetheless, I want to say that they are WRONG, dammit! I am also aware of other voices of Islamic women that say these practices are NOT Islamic - but cultural practices endemic to the region in which they occur, and agreeing that they ar ewrong.

In the case of Islam, I find myself wondering if certain oppressive practices have been recently newly embraced, not because they ar epart of Islam, but because they are wrongly identified as such in a political reaction to western colonial practices and assumptions of superiority. That is, that the bath water is NOT being thrown out, but embraced with the baby...


I have blathered on long enough.

I guess I could have shortened this post by simply saying that the whole area is complex and difficult, and that I do not think there is a clear right/wrong any way we turn!

Dlowan, Islamic sources are often controversial, and you can find in the same Koran the things directly opposing each other. In one verse it calls, for example, to kill Jews and Christians, in another -- they are considered being monotheists (well, this is true), hence they are to be protected and patronized by the Muslim rulers. Besides Koran, there are Hadith and lots of works on Islamic theology, both ancient and modern. Therefore, it looks like an ideologic supermarket: anyone finds there things he or she wants to. People following the tribal traditions of the certain areas in the Middle East easily find in Koran justification of submissive role of women; but it is possible to find verses that praise women as well.
The same refers to jihad: some may interpret this as a holy war against infidels, and some consider this being a way of moral self-improvement and approaching God by means of charity, prayer and decency.
Well, in any religion you often may find justification for the things having opposite meaning. From one side, Jesus says "Beati pacifici", from the other -- he claims that brought a sword, and not peace, into this world...

I see that MacDonalds is alive and well in many Islamic countries.

Should have also added to the list, Pepsi and PEP products.

steissd:

Islamic feminists have their own methods of interpreting the Qur'an.

Read for example : Women and Gender in Islam

That is exactly what I say: any religion can be used for justifying any ideology from socialist (liberation theology, for example) to ultra-reactionary (Islam in version of bin-Laden and other terrorists, or actions of the medieval Spanish inquisition).