Westernization vs Modernization
PoliGazette’s Jonathan Wilson wonders what went wrong in the Middle East and what US policy should be.
What Went Wrong? Westernization vs. Modernization
The question of ‘What Went Wrong?’ is an age-old Middle Eastern question that many wonder, even Westerners because of the stereotype that many problems in the world seem to relate to the Middle East and all the wars seem to be there. However, there is also a Western, or rather American question that is similar to ‘What Went Wrong?’ in the consistent struggle between Republicans and Democrats to figure out why they are not as respected and loved as decades earlier and why terrorism seems to affect America.
Most Democrats seem to believe that the problems of America and the reason for its reputation around the world as a hated superpower is the actions and consequences of the Bush administration. In the attempt to find the source of this hatred they scientifically look toward their enemy to see what they are saying. They watch the news to see the problem and to develop their own solution for it. They look at the solutions of the current administration and find it inadequate because the news continues to report terrorism and hatred.
As a result, Democrats, look for something new, a different solution, a change. Barack Obama through great political planning identified this method of Democrats and applied it to his campaign.
Republicans believe that terrorism was created by the lack of action of the Bill Clinton administration and that coincidentally the lagged consequences of his administration fell upon Bush. Some Republicans feel sorry for Bush, especially after Katrina, as one of the unluckiest presidents ever. Other Republicans distance themselves from Bush in order to keep the Republican party’s name clean, though this hasn’t worked very well because of the media. Barack Obama’s campaign caught on and labeled McCain as the next Bush even if many of his policies are different from Bush’s policies; but of course, how much more different can it be since they are both Republicans? Republicans as well have a scientific method, but they believe that the solutions applied may not achieve results immediately and that they may take years.
Of course, the reality of the situation is not a remedy that Republicans or Democrats can cook up, even if it helps a little bit. I will not definitely conclude for anyone that the Republican solution or the Democratic solution can ultimately solve the problems. Science tells us that the probability of a solution through a combination of both Democratic and Republican policies may be the best solution.
Changes in policies may be a good thing but they can also make the situation worse, Democrats need to understand that they should consider change without immediately concluding that changes in policies are the best solution. For example, Barack Obama wanting to talk with the leaders of the enemy is an interesting proposal. The policy that you should never meet with your enemies is a very bad policy. However, this doesn’t mean that Republicans are wrong when it comes to urging Barack Obama that meeting with enemies without preconditions is wrong.
Without preconditions, it would be like rewarding them, giving them the attention they desire. A psychologist will tell you that most dictators, especially the “president” of Iran and of North Korea, seem to like creating publicity stunts because of their desire for world attention and to impress the folks at home, much like senators sometimes do ill-advised things to please the folks in their home state while sacrificing the people of the world.
What Democrats lack which the Republicans seem to have an advantage in, is the study of history. Barack Obama’s lack of historical knowledge, maybe rooted from his lack of interest in history (as evident by his claim that uncle liberated Auschwitz, which shows he doesn’t pay attention to his relatives’ very interesting stories), is usually displayed by either his or his party’s idea that Ronald Reagan met with the Soviet Union and therefore it is acceptable for Barack Obama to meet with the leader of Iran. There is a difference, the Soviet Union was a superpower that was serious in its threat to destroy America. Iran is serious in its threat to hurt Americans and hurt Israel, but there is no chance for them to destroy America. Their government is not even a legitimate government. In addition, Ronald Reagan met with his enemies after preconditions were settled.
Barack Obama announcing that he would meet without preconditions with the United States’ enemies outraged many Middle Easterners who are not opposed to Westernization. Obama made the Middle Easterners who are opposed to Westernization very happy. The thought of Iran becoming a nuclear power that grabs the attention of the United States greatly improves Iran’s reputation amongst Anti-Western thinkers. For example, Barack Obama’s ideas on foreign policy outraged Iranian-Americans who wrote an open letter to Barack Obama telling him that meeting the Iranian regime would be legitimizing their oppressive government.
Bernard Lewis’s book, What Went Wrong? talks about Islamic society and how it became the way it is today. A great portion discusses how the Islamic world was once a world power and then devolved into a society that is in a war with itself. Bernard Lewis clearly identifies that the problem of the Middle East is that there is a fight amongst themselves to settle the war between Westernization versus Modernization.
This book would open the minds of Democrats and Republicans alike to get a glimpse of why the problems of the Middle East are the way they are. Democrats and Republicans are so intelligent that instead of blaming the enemy, they try to blame themselves, looking for problems in either American society or American foreign policy. They blame past presidents for the problems that have been there all along since the 1700s.
The people of the Middle East have been through this war for centuries, but the lack of education and economy which is a consequence of this war has caused the war to continue and become a self-repeating cycle. However, the problem has been getting better and better, each time the war is fought, between the Reformists and the Religious, the Reformists have gained power. The Reformists believe in Westernization and the Religious believe in Modernization but reject Westernization.
Bernard Lewis identifies the Islamic tendency to be overconfident in themselves and blame the infidel for their problems. It took centuries to establish certain vital technologies that the West adopted, because they believed for centuries that they were still the superpower. They believed that adopting the West’s technologies would be like taking lessons from a child.
The book is a great educational source of information, that will make everyone think more critically of themselves and of fundamentalist society, which rejects Westernization. Islamic society can prosper but they need to embrace Westernization. Embracing Westernization has met objections since the 1700s. For example, Bernard Lewis talks about the Islamic society’s lack of interest in clocks and accurate measurement tools and standards.
So how do we solve this problem of foreign policy? Do we continue to declare war taking out these wretched dictators that are oppressing the people and continuing the rejection of Westernization? Do we stop everything as Barack Obama suggests, pull out of Iraq and discuss politics with our enemies in hopes that magical arguments will convince them to stop what they have been doing for centuries?
I would say the engineer’s solution is to show the Islamic world why Westernization is important. Not really the Islamic world but the Fundamentalist world. How will this be possible? The use of the internet will eventually conquer the fundamentalist as exchanges of ideas will become stronger. The reason fundamentalists have flourished in recent years is a result of the rejection of internet and TV by some governments in the Middle East. Censorship is the ultimate fundamentalist weapon, and the exchanges of ideas and free debate is the weapon of Westernization. The more efficient way, would be to force all these governments including ones that are for some reason our allies to fix their education system, their economy, and promote Westernization, but it is also the most costly way.
Eventually the problem of Iran and other dictatorships will fail, as people have already begun to see better ways of living. What is keeping these dictatorships alive is their version of education and censorship. In places like Saudi Arabia, the internet is heavily censored and I am sure Iran is as well.
The only thing we Americans should stop doing is fighting with each other with such might like as if each election may mean the end of the world. We Americans need to stop comparing current candidates to past presidents. We need to stop blaming the Republican party for the actions of one president or the Democratic party for the actions of their presidents. Voters must analyze each candidate regardless of their party through their speeches and policy suggestions.
Barack Obama has partially identified this as well, he has begun spouting thousands of rhetorical phrases that deal with “unity”. He says things like “We Americans can unite, we are one nation” etc, in order to make himself look like a president before he has even become one. However, the American people are smart; they know the games politicians like Barack Obama play, they know the same old rhetoric that Barack Obama is saying has been repeated thousands of times in the past.
What we Americans forget is history. If they had known they would notice that Barack Obama’s campaign is playing the same game as Franklin D. Roosevelt did to win his election against Hoover. Guess what FDR’s strategy was? That’s right, blaming the previous president.
One of the most common tactics of politicians who are fighting to win an election against a president is to single out one or two problems of the country. One of them is usually war, and the other usually the economy. Barack Obama is playing the same old political game by trying to equate his new competitor John McCain and president George W. Bush as war-monger who drag us to wasteful wars and blaming the current president for the economy. The economy is suppose to go up and down, recessions are a normal part of an economy, it doesn’t mean that Bush’s policies caused problems for the economy. Compared to wars in the past, the war in Iraq shouldn’t even be considered a war, just simply a place where crime is higher than usual. We must stand against politicians who criticize others without a proper voting record of their own. Meanwhile, the Democratic party has focused on spreading the question of “What Went Wrong?” but applying it to the United States like as if something has gone terribly wrong.
If we study history we know that it repeats itself, and we’d notice that the world is not getting worse, it’s getting better, but because of better communications, we are more aware of the cup being half empty.
The President of Iran is not a "dictator" The dictator was the fellow that our governments imposed on Iran until the people overthrew him. The other dictator was Saddam, whom we armed and supported in his war against Iran. We’re in bed with a few more dictators. In fact, most of the world’s dictators happen to be close US and UK allies.
What went wrong in the Middle East? Many things, but imho the most important problem is that things cannot be openly discussed there.
hass,
Look at how the president of Iran is "elected". A non-elected religious body preselects candidates that fit their ideas. This means that the people of Iran don’t have any free choice.
Is it really "overconfidence" that is a problem in Islamic states?
I’ve often wondered if there is something in Islam itself that’s led to this situation in the Middle East. While I admire Islam for its strong moral vision (something that seems to be lacking in today’s Christianity) I wonder if they emphasis on military conquest of unbelievers creates instability and a tendency to turn to violence.
hass, the president of Iran is a dictator, just because like Saddam the guy calls himself a "president" doesn’t make him a president. Hence, both Saddam and Ahmadinejad are dictators. You’re welcome to talk to Iranians who don’t live in Iran, they’ll tell you how angry they are with Obama for even hinting at talking with Ahmadinejad and possibly legitimizing is illegal regime.
Sure the Iranian Revolution is what brought the Iranian regime power, but that doesn’t mean that it is a righteous revolution. People have created revolutions like the American revolution, but in the end they established a democracy and did not suppress the rights of the minority.
Connor, the Islamic states are not the problem, it is the fundamentalist ideologies that have captured such governments that become a problem. Fundamentalist people do not think like everyone else, sure they know about how great and powerful the West is, but they believe that it is their divine right to be more powerful. They believe that the reason why Iran or other "Islamic Republics" are not a world-power is because they have somewhat strayed away from Mohammad’s way-of-life.
In other words, these Islamic dictators and fundamentalists, have created an image of Mohammad in their eyes, which they believe will eventually lead them to victory. They believe they can overcome their enemy not with education and technology but with belief and determination. The reality is they have strayed farther away from Mohammad than ever and have become a cult of their own called fundamentalism.
For example, Mohammad did not want himself ever to be worshiped he stressed the fact that only God may be worshiped. Yet these fundamentalists are worshiping Mohammad by trying to mimic his lifestyle (or what they think his lifestyle was).
In essence, these fundamentalists are hijacking Islam to control the masses through fear and oppression. They have created their own rules in which they teach their own people through religious education, but in reality they are teaching what they believe will enable them to better control the people.
Jonathan, I understand your points and I am with you all along as a Muslim and a Turk (I could not agree with you more on the part about Hz. Muhammed) , but what you are not putting here is US is always late in interfering in non-oil regions than oil regions (ie. Bosnia) to spread democracy and the guns are provided to these dictators and terrorist radical groups by west in the first place.
Therefore US’ world policy, as a foreigner when I look at it, seems to be more focused on being number in the world then spreading democracy, if my humble opinion is important for you is another story of course.
Of course, there usually needs to be compelling motive for the US to enter nations. Compelling reasons include 1) Countries that immediately threaten us 2) Countries that threaten US citizens 3) Countries that may hurt our economy severely.
We will never know the real reasons for such actions. However, I would hope eventually we can influence all the nations and perhaps forcefully rebuild nations like Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Armenia, Syria, Yemen, and Omen to the standards of democracy and educational standards that match Europe. It would seriously weaken terrorism.
At first nations may hate the US but eventually they’ll see that the US is the only imperialist nation that actually had a positive effect on the world.
Jonathan;
A good discussion. One question: Why must we have such an Amero-centric view of the Muslim world? Certainly as it pertains to US foreign policy we must consider American interests and therefore at least partially take on an Amero-centric view. That however, ignores not only different perspectives but also the reality that the US is held in very low esteem throughout the Muslim world. Therefore, any Amero-centric action will start out at a disadvantage since the very people it will "benefit" (the Muslim world) see it negatively (as an American intervention)
The Muslim world will see it negatively regardless of what you do. If genocide was taking place in Saudi Arabia and you invade to stop it, there will be people who view it as a quest for oil or a quest to take over holy lands.
You know that Americans like conspiracy theories but in the Middle East conspiracy theories have often come true and hence conspiracies are so elaborate and absurd in the Middle East.
I once had a chat with a taxi driver in the Middle East once, he said that the problems with the government was that the leaders were "funded by the Jewish lobby!"
Often Middle Easterners will blame specifically the wrong people for the problems that are obviously the fault of certain people.
The difference is, the conspiracy theories are so widespread that they enable organizations to recruit much easier through the use of propaganda, lies, and conspiracies (such as AQ).
In this world, there’s always a system, and there will always be people who fall through the cracks, those people who fall through cracks are then used as the proof of conspiracies. In the Middle East, too many fall through the cracks because of terrible leadership of terrible leaders, as a result conspiracies are more common and sometimes they target the people at the top of the food chain (America).
One thing Democrats and Republicans do not realize is, America was already hated way before 2001. That these hatreds have existed for centuries. With America it is a hate-love relationship. Everyone uses American technologies, watches American movies, and uses things from the American culture or industries. However, those same people also blame America for their problems because it is a super-power. Kind of like blaming the CEO of a company for the problems on the workforce level (even though the CEO may not have been the cause).
Another analogy would be blaming microsoft for the world’s computer problems.
The only reason Americans feel the hatred has increased since 2000s, is because they have been paying attention more to the outside world. America tends to become isolated in itself, because we’re busy messing with our own politics and problems, meanwhile Europe and the rest of the world has been dealing with the same problems forever. Of course now that on 9/11 those problems outside the US have reached the US, Americans have begun to wake up.
Imagine a child who closes his eyes thinking that if he cannot see you then you cannot see him, the fact is the problems are there, now the child has opened his eyes.
Jonathan, prejudices are always there and obviously not right, but those prejudices are also formed by past observations. When you look at a record of country with wars all along its history, then eventually you start to think that this country is having a secret agenda or something and it is not just for US I am talking about here. The hate against Turks in some part of the world stems from Ottoman Empire’s back then mismanagements and spread policy. Even if the intentions today may be good, it is hard to make people believe in that and it is not only because people are paranoid or so.
Just because certain American politicians followed certain policies doesn’t mean that all American politicians feel the same way. Those observations of both Turks and Americans are false.