The Middle East - A Region in Ruin?

The Middle East has had ups and downs over the course of, arguably, the past several decades. As uprisings and wars destabilized the region, the United States was forced to continuously adapt and evolve its foreign policy in the region in order to assure the best possible outcome for Americans both at home and overseas. Between the vast natural resources tantamount to continued American economic prosperity and the seemingly transparent but ever-present threat of terrorism and Islamic extremism, there is no doubt that America has important interests in the region. The Arab Awakening that uprooted long-time authoritarian governments throughout the Middle East was seen by some in the United States as a blessing, as the much-needed catalyst for the fostering of democracy in the region and, hopefully, more stability and amicability towards the U.S. I was one of these Americans, optimistic for improved relations, greater accountability for terrorist cells, and gradually improving quality of living for the states in the Middle East. The United States seemed in line with this optimism, and much of President Obama's foreign policy over the last several years was rooted in the support, both militarily and diplomatically, of the opposition coalitions in Libya as well as the rest of the Middle East.

Perhaps we were wrong. There is a changing of the tide in the Middle East, as the rioting and protests prevalent in the region over the last week indicate. While the unrest may not be indicative of the newly-formed governments or even of the overall sentiment of the countries, it is certainly indicative of underlying pressures and difficulties that never disappeared with the old authoritarian regimes in the region. We mourned as a country last week when four of our diplomatic officers were killed in protests in Benghazi, Libya. In a display of tragic irony, the city where U.S.-supported NATO troops helped topple the Gaddafi regime last year became the scene of a symbolic spurning of American presence.

Now it is evident that this was not an isolated incident. Protests have been popping up in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt, as well as Libya and countless other countries. While the mocking of a prophet in a video tied to the United States may have got this unrest in motion, it was merely a vehicle justifying the anti-American violence that appears to have been there the whole time.

The United States needs to quickly re-evaluate its foreign policy in the Middle East, before the situation escalates. Do we want to continue supporting democracy if the outcome may not be what we are expecting? Vicky wrote last week that we should not use these isolated outbursts of extremism as a reason to condemn the nascent government of Libya. But what if, by supporting and encouraging governments created under popular support, we are empowering those very same individuals and groups that are now storming American embassies and wishing harm upon our diplomatic officers in them? The United States may turn around in a decade or two and realize they are unable to stop the monster they created - a Frankenstein of foreign policy. Conversely, fostering democracy in such an otherwise despondent region of the world may improve the quality of life for those living there. Improvements in education, infrastructure, food security and, eventually, affluence, could create an environment in which terrorism and radicalism are no longer able to survive. Forging better economic and diplomatic ties with these countries may establish powerful alliances that the U.S. may rely on in the future.

Regardless of what path is taken, a new decision must be made. The protests may seem bad currently, but things can rapidly and easily worsen. The United States must play the hand it was dealt, and work closely with the governments of these countries to eliminate the threats being posed to Americans abroad, and while doing so, continue to think about a more long-term strategy for reducing the anti-American sentiments obviously widespread in the region today. And it better do all of this fast - the last thing we would want is the Arab Awakening to turn its wrath towards us.

Is The Arab Awakening Going up in Flames?

This week, America watched in shock as three nations that toppled authoritarian leaders during the Arab Awakening protested and rioted, apparently against an Islamophobic “documentary” about the Prophet Mohammed. Though the film came out in July, on the 11^th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 activists reacted to the Arabic-dubbed version of the inflammatory movie. Tragedy struck when Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American consulate employees were murdered in an assault on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Amb. Stevens was a longtime scholar of North Africa, former Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco, and true believer in the hope of the “new Libya.” As protests continue throughout the Middle East and North Africa, Americans are left to wonder if the optimism that embodied the Arab Awakening is about to be replaced with extremism, anti-Western leaders, and more oppression.

Photo of the Consulate entrance, taken by a Benghazi resident.

To the contrary, the extremists who are using this film as a pretext to attack symbols of the U.S. know what Westerners seem ignorant of: the weakness of their position in the Middle East. Salafist groups have fragmented since the Arab Awakening, unable to gain widespread popular support for their extreme movements. They now contain militant, political, and peaceful wings, in a pattern that has played out in many other countries long plagued by Salafist groups intent on jihad. Many Muslim countries may be socially conservative but are unwilling to accept Taliban-esque sharia law. As I have written previously, Libya’s elections offered the only example of post-Arab Awakening elections in which Islamist parties not only lost, but lost in a landslide. Choosing technocrats over ideologues and economic growth and security over religion, Libyans shocked observers by failing to elect a single candidate from the political parties representing Salafi Islam.

Libya’s problem is not a current of extremism or Salafism in the general population. Libya has a long history of Sufism that most citizens value as a cultural tradition, yet Salafists condemn as heterodox, earning the ire of the average Libyan. Libya’s problem is that the General National Congress has not been able to bring militias, many of which have an Islamic bent, under the control of the new government. Weapons are easily available thanks to Western suppliers of the revolution, and many militant groups that have been “deputized” are only nominally under the control of the government. These groups have launched many attacks in recent months on Sufist mausoleums and mosques, British World War II graves, and the Tunisian consulate over an art display deemed offensive to Islam. The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was preceded by an IED explosion there on 6 June. The sporadic attacks have earned condemnation by cultural societies, women’s groups, liberal organizations, and moderate Islamists, representing a wide swathe of the Libyan population.

Attacks do not equate with power, popularity, or prestige within Libyan society. As with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the attacks are the last-ditch effort of extremist groups to scare Western powers away while attracting more militants to their cause. The film “Innocence of Muslims” gave them the perfect excuse to do so, a rallying cry that ordinary Muslims without extremist tendencies would respond to. Reports have already surfaced that the militant groups Ansar al-Sharia brigade or Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb’s group Omar Abdul Rahman brigades were the ones truly responsible for the attack, not a group of ordinary citizens who were moved to violence because they were offended by the film. Groups such as these needed an excuse to launch an attack, and the confluence of the film’s Arabic-dubbed release and the anniversary of 9/11 gave them a perfectly timed opportunity to do so.

More than just extremism is at play in Libya. If the Salafist movement does manage to drum up popular support given recent events, it will be because it has managed to attract members of disenfranchised tribes that have been victims of disproportionate aid. Libya is still very much a tribal society, like many other countries in MENA. While some tribes have been generalized as having supported the revolution and received the lion’s share of aid from the government, still others have been labeled “traitors to the revolution” and have thus been excluded and marginalized from the progress the country has made in the last year. They are the most eligible group of recruits should the government fail to evenly distribute resources. Benghazi is also a hotspot for extremism because of perceived regional disenfranchisement, which has led to calls for secession from Libya or federalism of its different regions. Distributing aid for revenge or reward based on the revolution of 2011 will only lead Libya down a path of destruction, not development. The coming months will test the government’s ability to reign in the militias, redesign aid policies, and make sure that every Libyan feels as though their citizenship is valued equally.

A burnt out, looted room in the embassy.

In other countries, protests have continued and U.S. embassies have been attacked. In Cairo and Sana’a protestors managed to scale embassy walls and replace American flags with Islamist ones, although it is unclear whether consulate staff members were still inside at the time or had been moved to another location. Yet other protests have occurred as well: counter-protests calling for a stop to the chaos and pointing out that this is exactly what the extremists want. Hopeful scenes of people in Cairo and Benghazi holding up signs denouncing violence have also been making front-page headlines in the global media. They represent the factions of society that may not agree with U.S. policies, but disagree with the use of violence even more strongly.

Counter-protests in Benghazi.

All parties involved need to weather this storm with cool heads. The film, after all, is laughably poorly produced. Despite claims that it carried a $5 million price tag, it looks as though it was created in a high school film class at best. The most inflammatory comments about the Prophet appear to have been dubbed on after production. In Arabic, many are quite clearly not correct translations of the English version. While this does not supersede the offensive nature of the film and the fact that it is extremely Islamophobic, it does point out that the film is a clear-cut piece of untruthful propaganda. Most Americans would dismiss it as hateful drivel, just as most Muslims would condemn the assassination of a U.S. ambassador. Giving into the impulse of anger against the film directly plays into its creators’ hands. They want Muslims to rise up violently, thus tarnishing their relationships with the West and standing in Western eyes. They want people to shout extremist slogans so that the West turns away from its Muslim allies and gives into anti-Islam rhetoric being spouted from several countries and groups.

Amb. Stevens’ murderers cannot be allowed to win, nor can the extremists on the other end that revel in the recent violence. Balanced, objective policy decisions need to guide the way forward from these tragedies should we wish to prevent their reoccurrence. Libya and the rest of MENA made impressive and unprecedented strides towards true democracy and freedom for all people within their borders. Preserving that progress and continuing to push for more is the key to a successful future. Giving into extremists, be they Muslim, Christian or Jewish, is to tarnish the memory of a man who worked for peace and liberty in a region he believed could be better.

“But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.” -Pres. Barack Obama

Ambassador Chris Stevens

Trouble in the China Sea

Everyone would love to own an Island. In Japan’s case, the country is looking to own quite a few in the East China Sea and Sea of Japan, and is having no luck in convincing its East Asian neighbors that it legally can. Recent disputes with South Korea, China, and Taiwan have been dominating Asian headlines as the already island-wealthy nation tries to assert its ownership over the Dokdo/Takeshima islands as well as the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands. The disputes are complex due to the fact that they are not only based on historical significance and regional relationships but also economic concerns. If they are not resolved, or at the very least if the countries involved do not stop inflaming tensions over them, then the East Asian arena could explode in a way the region has not seen since World War II.

Dokdo/Takeshima. Photo by 머찐만두.

The Dokdo (South Korea)/Takeshima (Japan) disagreement has playing out between Japan and South Korea for more than a century. Japan brutally occupied South Korea from 1910-1945, only to be forced out by the loss of World War II. While in control of the country Japanese soldiers raped South Korean women, using them as “comfort women” or prostitutes in military brothels. The comfort women clash tends to be the most frequently cited issue remaining from the occupation today. With Japanese withdrawal from South Korea in 1945 did not come Japanese recognition of South Korea’s sovereign rights to the islands, a fact that South Koreans claim illustrates their continued humiliation of South Korea. While having officially apologized for the occupation on several occasions, Koreans feel Japan is not sincere in their regret of the occupation years. South Koreans have created a national culture around Dokdo: they celebrate Dokdo day, learn about the islands in their schools, take regular trips or pilgrimages to the islands, and even have a textbook written about them.

Japan, for its part, wishes to turn the case over to international arbitration in the International Court of Justice. ICJ rules state that both parties must agree to such arbitration, and South Korea refuses to do this based on the fact that it would undermine their claim that they already own the islands. South Korean presidents historically have used the row to draw upon nationalist sentiments to boost their own popularity. It seems to be working: Pres. Lee Myung-bak visited the islands on 10 August, which resulted in the Japanese envoy in Seoul being temporarily withdrawn but his approval ratings to jump.

South Korean citizens are proud to flout the Japanese claim of ownership as well. Besides making trips to the islands, on the anniversary of the country’s liberation 40 swimmers swam to the islands. Another man rammed his truck into the gates of the Japanese embassy in Seoul in protest. Still others have cut off their fingers and sent them to Japanese officials. At the London Olympics, in a move that particularly raised tensions, a victorious South Korean soccer player held up a sign reading “Dokdo is our land” after the South Korean team beat Japan in the bronze medal match.

The posturing between the two nations has much more to do with historical nationalist issues than commercial gains, but there are valuable fishing areas in the surrounding seas. Gas reserves also may be located nearby, but the amount of gas they contain is unknown. South Korea controls the islands with a small force of National Guard troops stationed there. The dispute threatens relations between the two normally friendly countries, and jeopardizes their roles as bulwarks against an isolated North Korea.

Japan may decide that it is in its interests to drop its claim despite the domestic fallout such a move would entail. It is already involved in a much more acrimonious and potentially dangerous argument with China over the Diaoyu (South Korea)/Senkaku (China) islands that are located in the East China Sea and known to have what may prove to be a vast natural gas reserve nearby. The islands are also close to strategic shipping lanes and fishing areas. Currently a Japanese private citizen owns the islands, but according to Japan a deal has been met for the country to purchase them. China, however, claims that the ownership is illegitimate because the islands have always belonged to the Chinese. Japan officially controls them but China sent patrol ships to the islands today, which infuriated Japanese officials.

Diaoyu/Senkaku islets. Courtesy of National Land Image Information (Color Aerial Photographs), Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

Domestically, the nations are being pushed to continue to fight for the islands. Uncertainty about China’s future makes the country anxious to control as many natural resources as it can. Upcoming changes in top leadership coupled with concerning forecasts that the economy’s growth is beginning to slow have led to high tensions within China. Japan’s current administration is quite weak domestically and as such strong nationalist elements have been able to gain a place in the forefront of politics. History also plays a role, as Japan occupied China in the 1930s and 1940s in the same brutal fashion it did South Korea. Taiwan further complicates the issue by asserting that it owns the islands.

Whoever ends up owning either set of islands will both win and lose. Domestically, whichever government comes out on top will see a temporary boost in popularity. Regionally and internationally, however, it is clear that the disputes are harming the nations’ ability to work together to weather the storm of economic downturn and avoid future conflicts that could turn violent. In this sea of disputes, it becomes impossible to identify the clear solution. Yet recalling the events of the early 20^th century, the results of overzealous nationalism, and the human lives such a stance ended up costing is ample reason to find a compromise.

Mentally Disabled, Fourteen, and Framed

In a story that is reading increasingly like a soap opera, the Pakistani Christian girl who has been jailed for three weeks on blasphemy charges was finally released on bail today.  Fourteen-year-old Rimsha Masih was arrested after she was found allegedly carrying burnt pages of the Qur’an on 16 August. She has been held in a maximum-security facility as fears for her safety run high and her family has been taken into protective custody. In a dramatic twist, Imam Khalid Chishti was arrested shortly before Rimsha was bailed. He allegedly was given burned pages of the Qur’an by a witness, then added more to the pile and planted them on Rimsha to incite violence against Christians and force them from the neighborhood and, more broadly, the country. His own deputy Maulvi Zubair and two others came forward to testify that he, not Rimsha, had desecrated the holy book.

Christian protestors march in Faisalabad in 2011 following the desecration of a Christian cemetery and gang rape of a Christian woman.

It is unclear whether or not Rimsha is mentally disabled and thus easier to manipulate. Doctors who examined her described her mental faculties as being below the level of her “chronological age.” Regardless, hers is only the latest in a long line of blasphemy cases in Pakistan being used to exact revenge on Christians and other minorities. Pakistani blasphemy law is constantly under fire from human rights agencies for legalizing discrimination against Christians, who number at least 2.8 million and form a significant minority bloc. Under the law, a person can be jailed for life or even executed for various forms of blasphemy, such as insulting the Prophet Muhammed or damaging the Qur’an.

Although Rimsha’s case has garnered sympathy from many Pakistanis due to her age, mental capacity, and apparent innocence, she will still have to live in hiding in Pakistan for the rest of her life. Violent reprisals for criticism of the law alone have reached the highest levels of society. In March 2011 the minister of minority affairs Shahbaz Bhatti, a Catholic, was murdered for speaking out against the blasphemy laws. A few months earlier in January, the Governor of Punjab Province Salmaan Taseer was assassinated by his own security guard for his opposition to the law. The guard has been hailed as a hero by many in Pakistan and celebrated by extremist groups. The Governor’s son Shahbaz Taseer was kidnapped the same year and has yet to be found and no ransom has been demanded. Most assume he is dead.

Those who allegedly break the blasphemy laws also face harsh punishments. In the most high profile case, Christian Asia Bibi was arrested in 2009 for insulting the Prophet and sentenced to death by hanging a year later. The mother of five was engaged in a dispute over water with coworkers as well as an argument with a neighbor over property damage when she made the illegal remarks. Many suspect that she was framed as retaliation for the disagreements. Despite worldwide condemnation of her sentence including a call for clemency by Pope Benedict XVI, Asia remains in prison and legal limbo.

St. Patrick's Cathedral in Karachi.

Unfortunately for the millions of Christians in Pakistan, the blasphemy laws are publicly very popular and repealing them is often labeled as blasphemous itself. Many Christians and observers report that the misuse of the laws to punish Christian neighbors for unrelated arguments is widespread. In Rimsha’s case, it is fairly clear that an innocent girl was manipulated as a pawn by an overzealous cleric hoping to incite violence and chaos. His tactics appear to have worked. Hundreds of Christian families have fled the area in fear of reprisals, forced to leave all they own behind.

Until Pakistan fully repeals the laws, no minority can be totally secure knowing that at any time their neighbors and enemies could bring charges of blasphemy against them. It is a human rights travesty that such a significant portion of Pakistan’s population is forced to live in fear and doubt. The mere existence of a case in a neighborhood can spell out displacement for the entire Christian community simply for believing in a different creed than most Pakistanis. For Pakistani Christians, a repeal cannot come soon enough. Given the political and religious climate of Pakistan, however, such a positive change is very unlikely to happen for this generation, which leaves fourteen-year-old girls vulnerable to be preyed upon by extremists, peaceful activists to be murdered by those who are supposed to protect them, and millions of Pakistanis to be legally discriminated against and marginalized.

The Forgotten Foreign Affairs During the Presidential Elections

In America during an election year, reality almost feels a bit warped. Recent bombardment of party conventions and radio and TV ads designed to grab voter attention have kept most Americans in an almost constant state of party euphoria. Campaign promises--both big and small--add to this intoxication. It is hoped that, while swept up it in all, likely voters will amass the polls and cast their vote for the future leadership of the United States of America, with party leaders hoping for the best outcomes for their candidates. Topping the list of concerns Americans have, according to a recent poll, are the economy, health care, government ethics and taxes. At the bottom are the War on Terror and Afghanistan. Domestic issues almost always dominate public dialogue around election time, but are foreign affairs unfairly sidelined? After all, the U.S. is one of few countries able to shape the world around it, and our presidential candidates have wildly different approaches to American foreign policy. So while Obama and Romney bicker over how they're going to 'fix' the recovering economy, since that issue appeals to most voters, huge foreign policy stances are being deliberately overlooked and marginalized in a time of greater globalization, the rise of Chinese and Indian economies, climate change and revolution across the Arab world. Voters, pay attention.

Caricature by Magnus Manske

Syria

Although Obama has rejected arming the Syrian rebels, reports confirm that in fact the CIA has been steering weapons to the Syrian opposition, and UN proposals for intervention have proved futile with Chinese and Russian vetoes. For now, it seems Obama's policy regarding Syria is to favor multilateral intervention and to unwillingly allow the conflict play out, even as the International Committee of the Red Cross has reported a deteriorating humanitarian situation there. Unable to pursue an intervention like the one in Libya, Obama has been blocked from a similar feat in Syria and by default has allowed diplomacy to fail for far too long. Romney, on the other hand, advocates isolating Syria economically and diplomatically as well as partnering with Turkey and Saudi Arabia to persuade Syrian forces to protect civilians, not attack them. If that sounds unfeasible to anyone, it's because it probably is. Brownie points for wanting to work with the neighbors, though.

Israel

Two-state solution or unconditional support? President Obama has a cold stance toward our greatest ally in the Middle East. His infamous mistrust enlightens Obama's attitude toward the leader and his policies. President Obama is definitely worried about getting entangled in foreign messes that might fall on the U.S. to clean up, especially since the recent deterioration of relations between Israel and Iran. Obama has been careful to assert his support for Israel within the context of limited American engagement in any issue that arises. Obama has pledged his support of a preemptive Israeli military strike only if Iran builds a bomb. Romney, representing the general Republican consensus, advocates unconditional support for Israel, even in the event that Prime Minister Netanyahu decides to preemptively attack Iranian nuclear enrichment sites under the suspicion of nuclear capability. The prevailing and implicit understanding of Israel's importance to the Republicans is that Israel must stay strong as the beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, especially since American military presence there is proving less and less effective. But is this beacon really shining the light of democracy over the Middle East or is the Middle East and North Africa fighting for the change that will suit them best? Is democracy one size fits all? How come undemocratic monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Morocco remain stable? Is Israel really setting an example or are they seen as an unwelcome proxy of the United States? The implications of the U.S. presidential election could prove monumental for the Middle East, especially if Israel strikes Iran before election day. Or perhaps the race will decide whether or not Israel will take preemptive military action, with a Romney election raising the chances of an Israeli strike and an American back-up. 

Russia

Throughout his presidency and hopefully continued in a second term, Obama has refrained from the outdated Cold War mentality. He's pushed for mutual nuclear weapons reductions and negotiations on the removal of strategic missile sites aimed at Russia. On the other hand, Romney has strongly opposed negotiating a reduction in nuclear stockpiles and in fact sees Russia as a major threat to U.S. interests abroad. He proposes increasing missile defense as an act of deterring Russia from interfering with American geopolitical and economic interests. So the choice is pretty clear. While Obama favors a warming of relations (at least on the security front) with Russia by reducing nuclear stockpiles, Romney sees Russia as a caged animal that could wreak havoc on the world America helped create. The threat of Russia with less nuclear weapons is far less than an America with more missile defenses. 

Americans have a tough decision to make this election season. And their decision may very well dictate the immediate evolution of world politics.