Unveiling The Arab Mideast
Most Westerners possess precious little insight into the Arab world. There is little substantive understanding of the Palestinians. For that matter, few are those outside the Middle East who can discourse knowledgeably on Islam. Even fewer are those who are able to differentiate between Jihadists, Islamists, Moslems, Sunnis and Shiites. How many can even define what an Arab is or explain what makes someone a Palestinian refugee. The confusion is understandable.
That lack of clarity is further aggravated by long-standing disputes that repeatedly replay themselves in the Middle East . For starters, it is well to consider that the status of Gaza remains unstable, that there is a continuing bitter division between Islamist-oriented Hamas and secularist-oriented Fatah, and, most especially, that the sixty (60) year old Palestinian refugee problem still draws rapt media coverage from Britain to Bahrein to Brunei. As such, a crash course into the Palestinian/Arab issue may be illuminating.
Let’s begin with Gaza . The conventional wisdom is that Gaza ’s desperate state of affairs is the product of Israel ’s military incursions and oppressive economic sanctions. That understanding is unusually myopic. It is equally uninformed.
Gaza cannot be addressed in a geopolitical vacuum. Quite the contrary is true. The plight of the Palestinians in Gaza can only be understood as part of the Arab vortex whirling throughout the Mideast .
Permit me to be crystal clear. The problems in Gaza began six decades ago when the Arabs made a calculated decision to reject the U.N.’s partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab (there was no mention of a Palestinian state!). Having taken that position and then lost their ensuing war with Israel , the Arab states fixed upon a most remarkable policy. The Arab world adopted a strategy that has since crippled the Palestinians and emasculated their aspirations.
The Arab approach was bizarre. They manufactured a Palestinian refugee problem. Arab tactics to create this issue were as insidious as they have been effective. The Arab plan for the Palestinians after 1948 was simple. Henceforth, Arab nations would respectively initiate legislation that would preclude any and all Palestinians –and their progeny- from ever becoming citizens in any Arab nation.
By refusing to integrate Palestinians into their respective societies, the Arab nations opined -with unusual perspicacity- that the Palestinians would always remain identifiable to the world as presumably pitiful refugees. By so doing, the Palestinian plight as a stateless people could also be used as a weapon to denounce Israel . The Arabs succeeded in this endeavor.
But more importantly, the Arab plan extended far beyond those Palestinians who actually fled Israel during the 1948 war. In actual practice, the descendants of Palestinian refugees –expressly including an unending line of their progeny- can never become citizens of their adopted Arab states. Saudi Arabia is the prime example of how this policy was –and still does- operate.
Saudi law mandates that no Palestinian refugee may become a Saudi subject. No Palestinian may acquire Saudi citizenship. No Palestinian may carry a Saudi passport. Indeed, the child of a bona fide Palestinian refugee born in Saudi Arabia is also deemed to be a Palestinian refugee. That child’s children and their children’s children remain classified as Palestinian refugees for eternity. As a result, multiple generations of Arabs who were born in Saudi Arabia and who have never seen the sands of Gaza nor trod the hills of the West Bank are still denominated as Palestinian refugees. On the other hand, non-Palestinian immigrants to Saudi Arabia from other Moslem countries may become Saudi citizens. In short, the Saudis –their rationalizations notwithstanding- intentionally discriminate against their 250,000 Palestinian brothers living on sacred Saudi soil.
Sad as this may be, hundreds of thousands of Arabs in the Gaza strip still live in squalid refugee camps. This situation -created, conceived and controlled by Arabs- serves to perpetuate the artfully described plight of the Palestinians. But there is more.
With insidious premeditation, the Arab world has also encouraged Palestinian refugees in Gaza to have a high birth rate (The birth rate in Gaza is 5.9 children per woman versus 2.4 children for Israeli women). This, the Arabs also accurately understand, breeds an abundant pool of Palestinian refugees who can produce a human tsunami designed to flood Israel out of existence. Indeed, it was that notorious, non-Palestinian Yassir Arafat who cynically proclaimed: “The Palestinian woman’s womb is my best weapon!”
One erudite Palestinian woman (who grew up in Gaza and whose fedayeen (self-sacrificing terrorist) father was assassinated by the Israelis) recently articulated the issue much better that I. With abundant bitterness and copious sarcasm dripping from her pen, she wrote: “Arabs claim they love the Palestinian people, but they seem more interested in sacrificing them…The Arab world must end the Palestinians’ refugee status and thereby their desire to harm Israel…It is time for the Arab world to truly help the Palestinians, not use them.”
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Chinese Expansionism Amidst Global Slowdown
Earlier this month I spent some time in Shanghai. In due course, I became attuned to an unfortunate attitude currently emerging among some American geopolitical strategists. That position argues that China's growing military expansion poses a growing threat to invade Taiwan. I beg to differ.
While it is true that China's military (especially its navy) is rapidly expanding, the argument that the Chinese military poses a threat to Taiwan is conceptually flawed. Yes, China has long sought reunification with Taiwan. Yes, China bitterly opposes independence for Taiwan. But since Deng Xiaoping famously intoned that “It is glorious to get rich,” China has relentlessly focused upon the notion that economic clout inevitably yields geopolitical clout. As such, China has implicitly rejected foreseeable reunification with Taiwan in favor of astutely pursuing its broader goal of worldwide economic domination (subjugation may be a bit too strong).
Still, is it not time that China pundits cease making the wrong mistake (per Yogi Berra) about China’s intentions and refocus their sights away from China’s alleged military preoccupation with invading Taiwan? An invasion of Taiwan would precipitate a worldwide economic conflagration that would be diametrically contrary to China’s studiously conceived and carefully calculated economic game plan.
Most pointedly, China is, by dint of both geographical and economic predisposition, disinclined to expand territorially. As such, the growth of the Chinese military (especially its blue water navy) is primarily focused not on Taiwan, but rather on protecting China’s ever expanding economic horizons. These horizons have now been dramatically extended into the Indian Ocean and into Africa. Indeed, as early as 1993 an official of the People's Liberation Army proclaimed that: "We can no longer accept the Indian Ocean as an ocean only of the Indians." Shortly thereafter, the Chinese began their economic invasion of Africa. Indeed, it is especially in the Indian Ocean and Africa that China’s economic expansionism is most palpable and -for the fiscally faint- insidious.
It must be pointed out that China has been successfully planting its economic flag throughout Africa. At the same time, the West has -with conspicuous geopolitical myopia- been busy dangling dollars unattractively attached to conditions that amount to interference in African nations' domestic affairs. Meanwhile, China has been flooding these same African nations with copious aid devoid of strings. In payment for its aid, China has astutely exacted the right to procure the precious minerals and natural resources which it needs to fuel its (somewhat stalled, but still chugging) economic engine. In fact, it is China’s economic (not military) expansionism that has made an absolute mockery of International Monetary Fund aid and Western influence not only in Africa, but across an ever-enlarging worldwide geopolitical spectrum.
Premises considered, Taiwan is small potatoes in the broader context of China’s finely-honed economic assault on the West. The real peril posed by China’s military is not an invasion of Taiwan, but its growing -and assuredly legitimate- capacity to protect China’s dramatically expanding economic interests while continually encircling China’s economic adversaries.
When we in the West seek to expand our geopolitical and economic spheres of influence, we applaud such efforts when successful. Yet, when China (America's economic rival/competitor/adversary) acts to pursue these self-same objectives, China's behavior is all-too-often seen as ominous and perilous. Perhaps the Chinese are simply more adept at pursuing their best economic interests than the West is prepared to either acknowledge or confront.
In short, the Chinese dragon has a voracious appetite. Taiwan is –at best- an economic appetizer!
Earlier this month I spent some time in Shanghai. In due course, I became attuned to an unfortunate attitude currently emerging among some American geopolitical strategists. That position argues that China's growing military expansion poses a growing threat to invade Taiwan. I beg to differ.
While it is true that China's military (especially its navy) is rapidly expanding, the argument that the Chinese military poses a threat to Taiwan is conceptually flawed. Yes, China has long sought reunification with Taiwan. Yes, China bitterly opposes independence for Taiwan. But since Deng Xiaoping famously intoned that “It is glorious to get rich,” China has relentlessly focused upon the notion that economic clout inevitably yields geopolitical clout. As such, China has implicitly rejected foreseeable reunification with Taiwan in favor of astutely pursuing its broader goal of worldwide economic domination (subjugation may be a bit too strong).
Still, is it not time that China pundits cease making the wrong mistake (per Yogi Berra) about China’s intentions and refocus their sights away from China’s alleged military preoccupation with invading Taiwan? An invasion of Taiwan would precipitate a worldwide economic conflagration that would be diametrically contrary to China’s studiously conceived and carefully calculated economic game plan.
Most pointedly, China is, by dint of both geographical and economic predisposition, disinclined to expand territorially. As such, the growth of the Chinese military (especially its blue water navy) is primarily focused not on Taiwan, but rather on protecting China’s ever expanding economic horizons. These horizons have now been dramatically extended into the Indian Ocean and into Africa. Indeed, as early as 1993 an official of the People's Liberation Army proclaimed that: "We can no longer accept the Indian Ocean as an ocean only of the Indians." Shortly thereafter, the Chinese began their economic invasion of Africa. Indeed, it is especially in the Indian Ocean and Africa that China’s economic expansionism is most palpable and -for the fiscally faint- insidious.
It must be pointed out that China has been successfully planting its economic flag throughout Africa. At the same time, the West has -with conspicuous geopolitical myopia- been busy dangling dollars unattractively attached to conditions that amount to interference in African nations' domestic affairs. Meanwhile, China has been flooding these same African nations with copious aid devoid of strings. In payment for its aid, China has astutely exacted the right to procure the precious minerals and natural resources which it needs to fuel its (somewhat stalled, but still chugging) economic engine. In fact, it is China’s economic (not military) expansionism that has made an absolute mockery of International Monetary Fund aid and Western influence not only in Africa, but across an ever-enlarging worldwide geopolitical spectrum.
Premises considered, Taiwan is small potatoes in the broader context of China’s finely-honed economic assault on the West. The real peril posed by China’s military is not an invasion of Taiwan, but its growing -and assuredly legitimate- capacity to protect China’s dramatically expanding economic interests while continually encircling China’s economic adversaries.
When we in the West seek to expand our geopolitical and economic spheres of influence, we applaud such efforts when successful. Yet, when China (America's economic rival/competitor/adversary) acts to pursue these self-same objectives, China's behavior is all-too-often seen as ominous and perilous. Perhaps the Chinese are simply more adept at pursuing their best economic interests than the West is prepared to either acknowledge or confront.
In short, the Chinese dragon has a voracious appetite. Taiwan is –at best- an economic appetizer!
Hamas, Iran & Moderate Extremism
Yesterday's (26/3/2009) New York Times ran a not-so-trenchant and less-than-revealing Op Ed piece by Roger Cohen. His column was also conceptually flawed and ideologically misleading. Cohen suggests that the Obama administration would do well to involve “moderate elements of Hamas” in any attempts to resolve the sixty year old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But Cohen fails to reveal just what a “moderate element” of Hamas really is.
That question calls to mind a conversation I had just last week during a delightful lunch with Lord David Trimble. He is a gentleman who knows a bit about the search for peace. Indeed, Lord Trimble was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998 for his part in resolving the troubles in Belfast, Ireland.
In striving to apply the lessons of Northern Ireland to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Lord Trimble spoke of his dealings with “moderate extremists” in Northern Ireland. That term mystified me. So I asked: “Just what is a moderate extremist?” In fact, I then used Hamas as an example. I politely queried Lord Trimble: “If a Hamas extremist is dedicated to expunging Israel’s existence, is a moderate Hamas extremist one who still seeks to expunge Israel, but is willing to do so in a less-than-overt fashion?”
The latter scenario is precisely the approach implicitly advocated in Roger Cohen’s cited Op-Ed piece. The argument suggests that Hamas could join a Palestinian unity government which might then make peace with Israel. In that event, by use of this unity government subterfuge, Hamas could technically deny that it recognized Israel. As such, Hamas’ recognition of Israel would be de facto and not dejure. It sounds so nice. It's almost palatable. But there's a rub.
That approach has multiple flaws. The most critical is the presumption that moderate elements of Hamas either control or form a decisive portion of Hamas. That assumption is certainly egregious, probably fallacious and quite unsupported by certifiable facts. And we haven't yet defined what a moderate extremist is. Still, when dealing with subterfuge, political doublespeak and/or the masking of reality, itis always easier to simply foam at the mouth.
That said, there is a good deal of political foaming currently afloat in Iran, which -not incidentally- is Hamas’ primary banker. In fact, the run-up to Iran’s Presidential elections is a veritable cesspool of political doublespeak and linguistic obfuscation. Indeed, Iran’s presidential contest is plagued by the use of multiple terms whose meanings are confusing, overlapping and mystifying. A few cases may be illuminating. Now pause a minute and take a breath. Here goes.
Mohammed Khatami (Iran’s President from 1997-2005) recently withdrew his presidential candidacy. He had been alternately described as a moderate and/or as a reformist. Of course, what a moderate is and what constitutes a reformist depends on an observer’s subjective view. Still, it was widely thought that Khatami’s moderate reformism was reflected in his liberal (sic) interpretation of Islam. Thus, Khatami’s political posture was portrayed as being contrary to that of thec onservatives and/or hardliners who hate him, i.e. Mr. Ahmadinejad. Indeed, Khatami has asserted (much to Ahmadinejad’s disgust) that “the Holocaust is an historical event and we reformers do not deny it, but more important, the issue has nothing to do with us.” Well and good. So on to another candidate.
Mir Hossein Mousavi (Iran’s Prime Minister during its ten year war with Iraq) is a moderate reformist on social and economic issues. But he is also known to be a radical revolutionary Islamic ideologue and a radical on international issues such as Iran’s enrichment of uranium and on his antagonism toIsrael. If those descriptions are not sufficiently disconcerting, then consider that Mousavi prefers to describe himself as a principalist. Just what that is will be examined when we discuss the current IranianPresident.
Medhi Karroubi is a reformist oriented cleric who is also an ex-speaker of the Iranian parliament. He is also critical of Ahmadinejad. His presidential campaign slogan is “Change.” Regardless of where Karroubi found the inspiration for his sly slogan, he has yet to articulate the precise direction of the change he favors. So, Karroubi is the reformist candidate for change in an unspecified direction. Seems clear enough does it not?
Then there’s the unannounced, but aspiring, presidential candidate Abdullah Nuri. He was once Iran’s Vice President during Khatami’s administration. Nuri is viewed as a liberal, but only because he favors opening links to dealing with America. Mr.Nuri spent five years in jail for insulting Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Commander-In Chief, and holder of the unilateral power to declare war. Virtually nothing of import happens in Iran without his imprimatur. So, Abdullah Nuri can kiss his presidential aspirations good-bye.
And, finally, there’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He now describes himself not as a conservative, but as a "principalist" (the Farsi term is: osul-gara). Those in the know say that the Farsi term is most meaningfully translated as fundamentalist. Indeed, Ahmadinejad is a member of the Hajjatieh. That group is a secret society known for its virulent anti-West and fanatically anti-Sunni attitudes. It believes, as does Ahmadinejad, that the return of the Islamic Messiah (The Mahdi) can only result from the creation of chaos on earth. (Do you catch my drift?) That said, Ahmadinajad has a leg up -but not a lock- on being re-elected. He has Khamenei’s imprimatur.
The long and short of the Iranian presidential campaign is really not so complex. The Iranian media has described reformers, moderate reformers, conservatives and moderate conservatives, radicals and even one alleged liberal (who defiantly rejects that label). But everyone running for president wants to be called a principalist (don't forget, that's Farsi for fundamentalist!).
In actuality, it is absolutely foolish to label any Iranian presidential candidate as either reformist, conservative or any not-so-subtle variation thereof. Any close inspection suggests that -to a great extent- they all represent little more than varying flavors of the same political pie. Clearly, a reformist candidate may not be a reformer at all. In some cases, the reformist candidate is simply a conservative seeking to attract reformist votes to his principalist candidacy, whatever that means.
So back to where we began this foray into disconcerting political terminology. Maybe the mentality behind all the double-speak and verbal subterfuge is not all that confusing. Maybe a moderate extremist– be he in Iran, in Hamas or in Northern Ireland– is still someone who seeks to do harm, only in moderation or not right away. It only remains to be asked: "How moderate and when?”
Yesterday's (26/3/2009) New York Times ran a not-so-trenchant and less-than-revealing Op Ed piece by Roger Cohen. His column was also conceptually flawed and ideologically misleading. Cohen suggests that the Obama administration would do well to involve “moderate elements of Hamas” in any attempts to resolve the sixty year old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But Cohen fails to reveal just what a “moderate element” of Hamas really is.
That question calls to mind a conversation I had just last week during a delightful lunch with Lord David Trimble. He is a gentleman who knows a bit about the search for peace. Indeed, Lord Trimble was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998 for his part in resolving the troubles in Belfast, Ireland.
In striving to apply the lessons of Northern Ireland to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Lord Trimble spoke of his dealings with “moderate extremists” in Northern Ireland. That term mystified me. So I asked: “Just what is a moderate extremist?” In fact, I then used Hamas as an example. I politely queried Lord Trimble: “If a Hamas extremist is dedicated to expunging Israel’s existence, is a moderate Hamas extremist one who still seeks to expunge Israel, but is willing to do so in a less-than-overt fashion?”
The latter scenario is precisely the approach implicitly advocated in Roger Cohen’s cited Op-Ed piece. The argument suggests that Hamas could join a Palestinian unity government which might then make peace with Israel. In that event, by use of this unity government subterfuge, Hamas could technically deny that it recognized Israel. As such, Hamas’ recognition of Israel would be de facto and not dejure. It sounds so nice. It's almost palatable. But there's a rub.
That approach has multiple flaws. The most critical is the presumption that moderate elements of Hamas either control or form a decisive portion of Hamas. That assumption is certainly egregious, probably fallacious and quite unsupported by certifiable facts. And we haven't yet defined what a moderate extremist is. Still, when dealing with subterfuge, political doublespeak and/or the masking of reality, itis always easier to simply foam at the mouth.
That said, there is a good deal of political foaming currently afloat in Iran, which -not incidentally- is Hamas’ primary banker. In fact, the run-up to Iran’s Presidential elections is a veritable cesspool of political doublespeak and linguistic obfuscation. Indeed, Iran’s presidential contest is plagued by the use of multiple terms whose meanings are confusing, overlapping and mystifying. A few cases may be illuminating. Now pause a minute and take a breath. Here goes.
Mohammed Khatami (Iran’s President from 1997-2005) recently withdrew his presidential candidacy. He had been alternately described as a moderate and/or as a reformist. Of course, what a moderate is and what constitutes a reformist depends on an observer’s subjective view. Still, it was widely thought that Khatami’s moderate reformism was reflected in his liberal (sic) interpretation of Islam. Thus, Khatami’s political posture was portrayed as being contrary to that of thec onservatives and/or hardliners who hate him, i.e. Mr. Ahmadinejad. Indeed, Khatami has asserted (much to Ahmadinejad’s disgust) that “the Holocaust is an historical event and we reformers do not deny it, but more important, the issue has nothing to do with us.” Well and good. So on to another candidate.
Mir Hossein Mousavi (Iran’s Prime Minister during its ten year war with Iraq) is a moderate reformist on social and economic issues. But he is also known to be a radical revolutionary Islamic ideologue and a radical on international issues such as Iran’s enrichment of uranium and on his antagonism toIsrael. If those descriptions are not sufficiently disconcerting, then consider that Mousavi prefers to describe himself as a principalist. Just what that is will be examined when we discuss the current IranianPresident.
Medhi Karroubi is a reformist oriented cleric who is also an ex-speaker of the Iranian parliament. He is also critical of Ahmadinejad. His presidential campaign slogan is “Change.” Regardless of where Karroubi found the inspiration for his sly slogan, he has yet to articulate the precise direction of the change he favors. So, Karroubi is the reformist candidate for change in an unspecified direction. Seems clear enough does it not?
Then there’s the unannounced, but aspiring, presidential candidate Abdullah Nuri. He was once Iran’s Vice President during Khatami’s administration. Nuri is viewed as a liberal, but only because he favors opening links to dealing with America. Mr.Nuri spent five years in jail for insulting Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Commander-In Chief, and holder of the unilateral power to declare war. Virtually nothing of import happens in Iran without his imprimatur. So, Abdullah Nuri can kiss his presidential aspirations good-bye.
And, finally, there’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He now describes himself not as a conservative, but as a "principalist" (the Farsi term is: osul-gara). Those in the know say that the Farsi term is most meaningfully translated as fundamentalist. Indeed, Ahmadinejad is a member of the Hajjatieh. That group is a secret society known for its virulent anti-West and fanatically anti-Sunni attitudes. It believes, as does Ahmadinejad, that the return of the Islamic Messiah (The Mahdi) can only result from the creation of chaos on earth. (Do you catch my drift?) That said, Ahmadinajad has a leg up -but not a lock- on being re-elected. He has Khamenei’s imprimatur.
The long and short of the Iranian presidential campaign is really not so complex. The Iranian media has described reformers, moderate reformers, conservatives and moderate conservatives, radicals and even one alleged liberal (who defiantly rejects that label). But everyone running for president wants to be called a principalist (don't forget, that's Farsi for fundamentalist!).
In actuality, it is absolutely foolish to label any Iranian presidential candidate as either reformist, conservative or any not-so-subtle variation thereof. Any close inspection suggests that -to a great extent- they all represent little more than varying flavors of the same political pie. Clearly, a reformist candidate may not be a reformer at all. In some cases, the reformist candidate is simply a conservative seeking to attract reformist votes to his principalist candidacy, whatever that means.
So back to where we began this foray into disconcerting political terminology. Maybe the mentality behind all the double-speak and verbal subterfuge is not all that confusing. Maybe a moderate extremist– be he in Iran, in Hamas or in Northern Ireland– is still someone who seeks to do harm, only in moderation or not right away. It only remains to be asked: "How moderate and when?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
