Why Economic Development As a Panacea for Middle East Problems is a Myth
A reader asks:
I agree that democracy and economic development are not panaceas for the Middle East, just as they are not for any other location on the planet. But aren’t they a start? And since it is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time, does it hurt to at least pay lip service to doing things to bring the rest of the Middle East into the 21st century? And what would those things be in your opinion?
Both candidates in the presidential election debates spoke of economic development as a top priority in their Middle East policy. This sounds good to voters but is pretty meaningless.
A typical example of this meme is given by Obama in his June 4, 2009, Cairo speech:
We … know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who’ve been displaced. That’s why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
But almost four years later, none of this massive expenditure has either changed the situation in those countries or even brought much benefit to their people.
A Western viewer might accept Obama’s claim that people just want good jobs, nice housing, and higher living standards for themselves and their children. Yet the appeals of radical ideology overcome material considerations. There are lots of people who would like their children to grow up to be suicide bombers or prefer piety to prosperity. Even though many don’t think that way, they might be persuaded that radicalism is the best route to better lives. Ayatollah Khomeini dismissively referred to this theory shortly after he took power in Iran by remarking that the West seemed to think the Iranian Islamist revolution was “about the price of watermelons” but that wasn’t true at all. And finally, when people and rulers see no real way to achieve prosperity, both the governments and the masses will turn to demagoguery, scapegoating, and foreign adventures.
It does make sense to the Western mind that material conditions will determine the political beliefs and loyalties of Arabs and Iranians. Yet over the span of the last century things have simply not turned out that way in practice. This was partly due to the fact that nobody delivered major increases in living standards except in the Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia, and in those places it was a highly traditional and religious way of life being reinforced.
Elsewhere governments mustered loyalty not by making the pie bigger, but by controlling who got what. So if you had the option, material well-being for the urban middle-class and certain ethnic segments meant supporting the dictatorship and getting some reward. That will also apply if the dictatorship is an Islamist one, which can offer spiritual exaltation as well. And at least for some years many voters — where people have the opportunity to choose — will believe that Islamism is the best chance for a stable, just, and relatively prosperous society.
Countries are not prepared for progress due to ideology, worldview, institutions, political culture, and many other factors. In particular, the presence of such large and powerful radical forces — willing, even eager, to use violence — is a huge problem. Demagoguery is potent. Such factors can override the kind of materialistic orientation and enlightened self-interest that Westerners expect, and that underpin the belief that democracy can provide stable polities and ensure moderation.
It should be stressed that every country is different. In general, though, the problem with economic development is that it does not trump politics. The countries of the region can be divided into those that have oil wealth and those that don’t. The wealthy countries don’t need American programs to engage in economic development. In some cases, radicalism and instability keep getting in the way. In others — think of Iran or Iraq under Saddam — economic development is managed within the framework of an extremist regime and ideology.
It is true that the wealth of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates has made them more cautious and — often in practice but not in rhetoric or domestic policy — more pragmatic. But one must be cautious here. Saudi Arabia’s wealth and the high living standards of many of its citizens have not made the country a paragon of democratic values at home and moderation abroad.
Saudi money has been used to spread Islamism and to back radical Islamists, most notably in contemporary Syria and in Iraq a few years ago. Qatar has aligned itself with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, engaging in mischief as far afield as Libya. Iraq and Algeria need stability but the problem is not economic development as such but merely pumping more oil and doing something about bureaucracy and corruption.
Certainly, though, these countries do not need Western governments to promote economic development.
Radical regimes, like Libya under Muammar al-Qaddafi, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or Islamist Iran, use some of their wealth for development and much of it for projects like building nuclear weapons and subverting their neighbors.
So regarding the wealthy countries, there isn’t much for the West to do in promoting economic development. What about the non-oil states? Let’s look at the specific cases. Lebanon, famous for its merchants, had a self-made multi-millionaire as prime minister who focused on economic development. But he was forced out and assassinated. Internal conflict, ideology, and engagement in foreign adventures wrecked the chance for economic development.
The same applies even more to the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, which is more interested in fighting Israel than in raising living standards. How can the West help when the local impetus is lacking?
This brings us to Egypt. The truth is that Egypt has a lot of people but few resources and a terrible structural and cultural situation regarding work. Here’s one example. A leading British supermarket chain opened stores in Egypt. Traditionalists, radicals, and competitors (the owners of small stores) spread rumors that the supermarket company backed Israel and was anti-Muslim. Despite the store’s efforts at denial and appeasement, the pressure became so great that it had to close and leave the country.
In a Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Egypt, with Salafists engaging in anarchic violence, is U.S.-backed economic development going to make any differences? As for the Palestinian Authority, vast amounts of aid money have flowed in and despite some apparent successes — a lot of luxury apartments have been built and people kept employed in the government bureaucracy — no lasting progress has been made. A lot of the money has ended up in the political leaders’ foreign bank accounts. At any time, Hamas could take over or the Fatah-led regime turn back to a war against Israel.
Economic development sounds good, but in practice it is more a way to keep Western citizens happy than to make a real difference in the Middle East.
For example, when discussing his economic development policy in the foreign policy presidential debate, Obama cited his government’s “organizing entrepreneurship conferences.” And in reality a lot of the money is simply a payoff to local regimes or a way to shore them up. It has nothing to do with real development.
The story of the battle of factions and corrupt leaders in the Palestinian Authority over awarding a mobile phone contract; how EU-financed public housing turned into luxury apartments to reward regime supporters; or the sabotage against building an improved sewer system in the Gaza Strip — even though foreign aid was paying for the whole project — are wonderful case studies in how economic development campaigns that look good in the West amount to a joke on the ground.
There are, however, three countries that could benefit from economic development efforts if they were to be focused. Those are Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan. Tunisia, of course, is currently ruled by an Islamist-dominated regime. Whether that government will remain cautious or turn increasingly radical — pressed on by rampaging Salafists — is not clear. Strengthening the moderate forces in Tunisia, which are more proportionately substantial than in any other Arabic-speaking country, is a worthwhile effort but it might not work.
Ironically, Morocco and Jordan are led by moderate regimes threatened by a public opinion that is often radicalized due to poverty. Even there, however, this is not the sole factor. Jordan, for example, has a powerful opposition Brotherhood and a potentially radicalized Palestinian majority. The Palestinians who came there after being expelled from Kuwait in 1991 (because of the PLO’s support for Saddam Hussein’s invasion) brought in a lot of riches and business skills. Amman has become a much wealthier city but Jordanians generally don’t seem to have benefitted much.
But Jordan is relatively small, weak, and doesn’t cause trouble, while Morocco is not a factor in the region’s international affairs. So the places where a real economic development effort could really make a difference get neglected. For a while, the Saudis talked about admitting Jordan to the rich man’s club, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and giving a billion dollars in aid. But nothing came of it in the end.
Remember that the United States gave tens of billions of dollars in aid to Egypt without getting gratitude or popular moderation. Similarly, the United States gave money or helped organize an effort for the Palestinians that constituted the most aid money given per person in history. Yet this didn’t progress on the peace process, a transformation in Palestinian thinking, or gratitude.
At any rate, while “economic development” sounds like a great idea, a fine way of making people happy, getting them to love America, and undermining radicalism, in practice it isn’t so effective.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/04/137_83619.html
This might be of interest
To quote the article you link; “The transformative power of these rights has been clearly demonstrated in Tunisia and in Tahrir Square in Cairo, when disaffected people joined together to defy their illegitimate rulers who for too long had brutally refused them the right to do so.”
This “transformative power” might be better described as “magical thinking”, the thought that your action will control the behavior of others.
No sale.
Netanyahu is a fan of economic development for the Palestinians. Perhaps he should be reading this.
Brad, while Bibi mouths the same inanities, about economics being an incentive to taming the Arab/Islamic beasts, it is merely a band aid approach, and he very well knows it.
In fact, the best test case was under Arafat’s reign of terror. The bloody handed godfather of suicide terror, convinced PA Arabs to wreck the best economy they ever had (the best one at the time in the Arab world, all due to Israel’s assistance, in order to start a murderous intifada against Israel).
Been there, done that.
Now, this is not an anomaly, rather it is the way their culture operates. In other words, if jihad can become a viable option, then they are willing to go for broke. Not only that, but murderous tribal warfare between Arab clans is insatiable, and this CANNOT be quelled by economics.
Their connection to blood is what fuels their rampages, plus other cutural/religious/political facets too -
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/13/islam-blood-a-groundbreaking-policy-paper-contained-herein-the-world-stands-on-a-precipice-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki-
109/
And while there are certainly those who do seek a normal life, a life with economic security and basic calmness, they are a small segment. And this is the bare bones truth, a truth most will never come to grips with. It is just too terrifying, as well as hopeless.
It is what it is. And to eventually counter it, it must first be acknowledged.
It would be interesting to see the result if we could separate the potentially salvageable from the inveterate losers and invite them over to our side, even if only economically and politically. Then the West would refuse to do business with the remainder unless and until they reform their twisted ways, (could we wait a century?) all the while short-circuiting as much of their mischief as possible by infiltrating their command and control systems and waging every kind of war against them.
All of that notwithstanding, Churchill was right in 1899 (The River War) and remains right today.
Too bad.
Who cares if they love us or not?
What we need is R.E.S.P.E.C.T and maybe a little fear. (Sorry Aretha)
What is the point of being a super power if you don’t behave…superly.
More to the point…after the basics many are happy to sit around and chat, naval gaze or whatever. Enterprise and work for its own sake is a Jewish, Calvanist, Western idea. Islamic fatalism does not support work beyond subsistence. And even then only by the women.
Islam sucks.
ta
Exactwho caresif they love us! What we want is respect,look the way they respect the Russians or Chinese.These governments know as to deal with then (Look at Grozny for instance) this why they are respected.
Russians aren’t respected. They are feared because they know how to make you sorry you ever messed with them. I’d like to see a lot more of that from the US. I don’t want Stevens’ killers brought to justice. I want their mutilated bodies and those of their immediate families dumped on the HQ of Ansar al Sharia in Libya, just like the Russians did to the “students” that tried to take Russian hostages in 1979. That will speak to them in the only language they understand.
To paraphrase PJ O’Raurke:
“Giving money and power to arabs is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”
” Saudi money has been used to spread Islamism and back radical Islamists, most notably in contemporary Syria and in Iraq”.
It has also been spent on American universities for professors who propagandize their students.The Esposito’s, Walt’s et al have influenced many young Americans to favor Islamists and Palestinian terrorists.
Younger kids, too, in the US. Ever hear of a “junior Arab league”?
More than anything, I want to thank you for this blog. As always, I savour every bit of information you share in your writings, Prof. Rubin. More power to you through HaShem.
My response for today’s article is:
Pacifying terrorist-supporting governments? For whatever purpose it may be, it’s a fatal blunder. Social scientists should have major role on the feasibility studies of such costly moves. Muslim extremists won’t be tamed over their passion for their ideals. They operate through sheer irascible urge. So bad, intelligent leaders squandering lives, time, opportunities and resources, hunting for illusory goals.
such a simplistic dumbo….
Is that Obama you are referring to?
Took the words right out of my keyboard!
and what’s up with the porn advertisement on your ridiculous website? so pathetic.
I don’t see any porn adverts on the site. Did you know that Google Ads loads the adverts based on your browsing history? Oooopsie.
hahaha…LMAO
Every time I read your column I have to stifle my inner Tom Friedman. I’m getting better at it thanks to your relentless realism on what we are dealing with in the Muslim world. I should say the Arab world because I know Indonesia better and it appears to me to be far more complex and accessible to the effects of good economic policy from the West. In any case, I think that Modern Westerners have a terrible time not projecting their own values onto a culture that just does not share them. We are obsessed with the price of Watermelons, they with the triumph of Allah and his people.
It’s the Islam, stupid.
Yup. It’s that simple. The middle east will never prosper or live peaceably in the modern world as long as islam dominates the region.
Economy flows from culture. Can’t give a first world economy to a dark age culture, and if you could, it would be like giving AR-15s, jets, and cell phones to the Mongol horde… oh, wait.
The evidence of that is Saudi. Only a liberal could buy something that antiemperical.
The western culture, based on Judeo-Christian values, has produced consensual governance, individual freedom, great creative accomplishments in the arts and the sciences, technology, industry, advanced medecine, and prosperity. The Islamic cultures have not contributed such advances. Instead, they tend to produce tyrannical societies where individuals are mere subjects, not citizens. In return, their culture can often achieve a good degree of social order, at the cost of deprivation of privileges for those who are traditionally kept in various levels of inferior stations.
We may wish to bring the benefits of modernity to them, but we often only elicit strong rejections on their part, somewhat comparable to the immune responses surgeons have to struggle with in the difficult practice of organ transplants. They welcome telephones, cars, etc…, but not the methods that led to their creation. In a curious sort of symmetrical way, their response is to reciprocate by trying to extend the dominance of sharia law in our lands.
In practice, our need to protect ourselves from the intrusion of sharia into our values of individual freedom may be more urgent than trying to bring modernity to them. In theory, the situation would be more tractable if they became Christians, but that may be an other story for another time, on another planet?
Islam is the problem. When millions of people are raised believing that all others are unbelievers, devils and fit for nothing but slavery or butchering what does one expect. Our prosperity and even our very existence is an intolerable affront to them.
It took nearly a thousand years to transform western civilization from Christianity backed tyranny (apologies to modern Christians who are a far cry from the papal tyrants of the prior two millenia) to a group of related cultures that value individuals and varying measures of self rule. Most of that journey was plagued with the cruelest forms of violence and war.
It would take some similar timeframe for Islam, which is currently stuck in a mode similar to western civilization about 500 AD. But where are Islam’s Martin Luthors, Henry the VIII’s, Renaissance and Enlightenment men? Where are Islam’s scientists and philosophers? Where are Islam’s women who for every other culture have been the civilizing catalyst?
and then there is the nuclear weapon thing.
I’m sorry, I think it’s hopeless. There just aren’t any hints of the slightest will of Muslims to break away from barbarism and their 8th century religion.
Within 100 years, the Islamic world will be wiped off the face of the earth. It’s inevitable. But at least the environmental kooks will be happy. Humanity will shrink in numbers to below a billion people, people will be living in caves again, and continents will be uninhabitable for millions of years. If we’re lucky.
weo asks, “where are Islam’s Martin Luthors, Henry the VIII’s, Renaissance and Enlightenment men? Where are Islam’s scientists and philosophers? Where are Islam’s women who for every other culture have been the civilizing catalyst?”
Dead.
Islam cannot reform, it’s theologically impossible. To reform Islam, Muslim’s would have to reject Islam’s most fundamental tenet; that the Qur’an is Allah’s direct words, that Allah dictated the Qur’an to Muhammad through the archangel Gabriel. Which means not one comma can be changed because the ultimate blasphemy would be for men to change God’s words. Change the Qur’an and you are implicitly stating that Muhammad was either deluded or lying about the Qur’an’s authorship. Either way, acceptance of reform collapses Islam’s theological foundations.
Islam’s survival requires the death of any who might want to reform it.
You’re quite right that reform is hopeless. You’re also correct that 100 years of quarantine would destroy Islam because it cannot survive another century of modern cultural exposure to the west.
I have to disagree. Christianity is unique in that it had a very early permanent schism (Orthodox / Catholic). In Judaism, all schisms were eventually resolved in favor of one party. There are no Hellenists or Saducees, and very few Samaritans and Karaites. As far as the current denominations are concenred – well, 200 years is not a long time in our history.
The beliefs of traditional Judaism are no different than above – more so, as the Torah was not given through an angel – but there is a wide range of opinion on practical issues. Similary, the Catholics changed their views radically (on Jews, for example) without changing their doctrine.
Islam can “reform” simply by favoring certain interpretations above others. That’s how we do it, and that’s how the Church did it.
Weo, great questions and observation. And I have one thing to add to Geoffrey Britain’s excellent answer.
Weo, for your information, Islam is a 7th century blight, not 8th century. I don’t want anyone to be able to tell you you don’t know what you are talking about. Muhammed began his questionable claim as the illiterate Prophet of Islam in 610 B.C., ending with the Hijr in 632 B.C. This is the beginning of the Muslim calendar.
We, as Westerners, cannot change the 7th century ideology that has a stranglehold on the Region. And as Geoffrey stated, any who try to reform it, are dead.
(I am not a Muslim, but a Christian gaining a real understanding of this blight on my land.)
“But almost four years later, none of this massive expenditure has either changed the situation in those countries or even brought much benefit to their people.”
I have often thought developing an Oasis of Sanity might have been a better strategy. A small defensible enclave of freedom and enterprise at a strategic position that could influence the country the way Hong Kong and Taiwan affected China. Then again, I know I’m not “The One” smart enough to heal the World, so I’m probably wrong, and it looks to be too late now.
The only Oasis close to what you would like is Israel and look how they are treated by their neighbors.
You got that right. Although Israel might get the job done if they could ever finish the first step. Step one: prove beyond doubt that you have the military means and will to stay. It is not easy proving anything to the insane.
It should have been a Israel and a fully colonized Iraq, with
a nominally American regime (Rania) in Jordan
Prove it to me first. We thought we were invulnerable in 1973 and it became a close thing, although eventually we beat Egypt’s pants off, even though they won’t admit it. And much of that was because the US, our notoriously unreliable “ally”, held up resupply.
The way I see the history here, four times Islam (often led by rather secular socialist leaders) tried to exterminate us, men, women and children, and we were saved through divine intervention. Afterwards, people tried to give natural explanations. Nor do I think we have a guarantee for next time (heaven forbid).
I believe that was the idea in Iraq.
What brain dead politicians NEVER learn is that you have to change the people before you try to change the nation. Every penny spent in the Middle East is wasted because of this. Just throw our money at ‘em. What a bunch of fools! We are just supplying the crooks w/ money as they rip us off.
First, kill all of the bad guys. Secondly, ONLY allow a US administration in the nation to run it for at least 5 years. Third, if there is any graft, they get no more bucks.
Naturally, the idiots in DC would never do this as i makes sense. They’d much rather fill the airwaves w/ empty words of BS, meaningless platitudes & just waste more of our money.
Stupid is as stupid does…
“It does make sense to the Western mind that material conditions will determine the political beliefs and loyalties of Arabs and Iranians.” In the West, we’ve been raised to think that poverty creates a fertile ground for radical ideology, violence, and other antisocial behaviour. Actually, it is the other way around. The radical ideology, violence, and antimodernization create the poverty. Giving them money does not correct the root problem, which is that this mentality is antithetical to progress.
Spot on!
You shouldn’t try to teach a pig to sing. It just annoys the pig and wastes your time.
I agree with Camo. Poverty is not the root cause. And we must also understand that this is not “radical” Islam. This is Islam in it’s purest form, dating back to Mohammed.
Some say bin Laden hijacked Islam. He did not hijack anything. All he did was call the followers to do what their illiterate prophet said to do. Islam is waiting for their Caliphate. “Radicals” aren’t waiting and are enforcing and spreading Sharia.
You can’t fix a 1400 year old problem diplomatically or with monetary support. Only fools believe this. We are under attack by a seventh century ideology that is, indeed, anti-progress.
Someone should get the Brain from Bain to read this article. In the third debate, rather than mention the Benghazi debacle, Romney laid out his grand Mid East plan: economic aid and educational development.
I guess the logic is this: it hasn’t worked before, so let’s do it again. That’s heady stuff!
Take Palestine for example. Quoting from the UK Guardian: “Foreign aid [...] is propping up an unsustainable situation. [...] Palestine appears to be an example of aid as long-term life support, with no endgame in sight.”
Why do so-called geniuses like Obama, the Clintons, and now the Brain from Bain keep wanting to throw our money away? To paraphrase Victor Davis Hanson, aid is an elite person’s investment in allowing themselves to enjoy a guilt-free affluence.
“Economic development” is a great idea, a fine way of making people happy, as long as the goal is to make happy the elites who toss away our money.
Oil is the key word
USA and others will sell kids and women to keep oil prices low ,whatever the consequences….
Violence is the mainstay of muslim creed and nobody is willing to aknowledge it .
Too simplistic – especially with the discovery that we are the new Saudi Arabia and sitting on around 300 years worth of energy. No – with the libs trying to shut us down and letting the barbarians into the country you have to dig further. Perhaps no deeper than their hatred of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization. And people – they seem to really hate people and would love some event to happen to drastically cut our numbers.
You are both right. Remember the Left wtill doesn’t want the US to defend itself, and has fought missle defense for decades.
The problems in the Middle East can only be solved by first stamping radical Islamism into a mudhole. So long as that snake rears its ugly head everything else is just naive politically correct BS.
Great piece Barry.
Economic development without moral principle is simply pointless. Stop throwing all this money away and pay off the deficit at home. This is just more government buffoonery, especially when you consider how the UN blows the horn of Middle East progress, when travelling there as a foreign tourist would still be a straight on death wish. The elephant in the room is that large numbers of them are still not civilized, no matter what superficial developments occur on a material level.
There won’t ever be economic development in the Middle East because most of the male population spends its days stoned on hash, kat, or whatever the local poison is.
A very cursory look at history demonstrates that economics or wealth have nothing to do with the urge of one group/nation to invade/kill another group or nation.
The 30 years just prior to WWI were economically fantastic for Germany, the UK, France, USA etc. All of this was irrelevant when these same nations decided to go to war (basically WWI was a forgone conclusion as a result of the Franco Prussian War)
In fact, a best selling book, just prior to the war argued that war in Europe was impossible because the nations were so economically interconnected and because no nation would risk the economic destruction of a war. (It also argues that no general would ever send troops up against machine guns).
Yea right.
Nations go to war because they really really believe they will prevail after a very short conflict in which they, the aggressor, believes they will suffer not at all. Nations never go to war because they expect a long drawn out bloody messy destructive affair.
The fact that history has REPEATEDLY shown that you will never get that short, painless victory (OK, very rarely) matters not one iota.
The decision to go to war is ALWAYS an emotional decision, because, if you really give it a lot of thought, you would never opt to go to war (that is, as the aggressor), because you simply cannot predict what will happen.
The American Colonies, on average, were the wealthiest regions not only in the entire British realm, but even when compared to the UK proper!! But the colonists (enough of them anyway) opted to risk a war of revolution.
History also demonstrates that enemies quickly become allies and vice verse. The UK and German were allies for two hundred years until just before WWI. (In fact, the UK had GERMAN SOLDIERS stationed IN ENGLAND until about 1840 or 1850 or so; they were placed there as a result of the Napoleonic Wars). The UK and France were deadly enemies for 500 years until just before WWI.
On another note, you will note that “radicals” generally come from upper middle class to wealthy families and usually are very well educated. So much for economic “class” as a determinant of ones political ideology.
Hitler and Stalin – supposedly mortal enemies – were convenient “allies” from August 1939 to about June 1941 (recall the Hitler Stalin Pact).
Do NOT be surprised if you see some Arab Sunni nations ally themselves with Iran, despite the historical enmity betwixt Sunni vs Shia and Arab vs Persian.
Also, if say, Egypt would align with Iran (not out of the question; the Muslim brotherhood would love to get some nukes too !!), Turkey would not just watch all of this with their thumbs up their ass. The Turks are not about to sit tight while Persia becomes ever more dominant in the region; you may even see Turkey and Israel !!! become erstwhile allies against Iran, etc.
You’re wrong about Turkey. They have been slowly and steadily leaning toward Tehran for the last 10-15 years. In the 1980s, the somewhat secular government kicked out radical Imams from Iran (and elsewhere) but the current ruling party is very “fundamental” and has allowed the Iranian Imams the freedom to roam.
Had the secular government continued, you might have been correct. Alas, strong nationalistic, secular-type power brokers (especially ex-military) have mostly been arrested for “treason” or have conveniently disappeared off the face of the planet.
While I will not disagree with you entirely I think that Turkey is getting very nervous about Iran’s impending nuclear capability.
Turkey was the big boy on the block for about 500 years and I do not think they have ever forgotten this. It’s one thing for the Turks to see a bunch of Arab nations doing their “thing” (however incompetently), it’s another for Turkey to watch Shia Iran (Persia) obtain greater and greater influence in the region along with a nuclear capability.
Yep, as I mentioned before, alliances/mortal enemies will appear/disappear faster than white on snow, so it is quite possible that Turkey and Iran could decide on an “agreement” by which each nation is “assigned” its sphere of influence (not unlike the Hiter/Stalin Pact) in the ME.
But why would Turkey do this?
Well, my guess is that the Turks fear a nuclear Iran run by a bunch of crazy lunatics, wheras several years ago, a non-nuke Iran could barely defend itself against the 10th rate Iraqi Army of Saddam. Turkey had nothing to fear some years ago, but now they do; a nuclear armed nation run by total fanatics.
Turkey is leaning quickly that what happens adjacent to its borders can drag them perilously close to war. If they get involved in Syria, well, they will be fighting an ally of Iran.
What will Iran do?? Who knows? But the crazies running Iran are capable of anything and EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.
Turkey and Iran – historically, culturally and religiously – have much not to like about each other.
Turkey may get closer to Iran to protect its own ass (stay close to your friends, get even closer to your enemies) FROM Iran, but any alliance they pursue will not be long for the world.
After all, Iran wants to dominate first the ME, and then the WORLD, with the Shia ideology, and frankly, I do not think the Turks will are to keen on this idea.
Erdogan is taking Turkey to a more fundamentalist Sunni direction; no doubt about that and maybe Turkey and Iran can become great pals.
Who knows?
But their respective world views are totally contrary to each other and in the end they will “break-up;” one way or the other.
Good points. Thanks.
I disagree with your analysis, because I consider your understanding of ‘economic development’ to be superficial. You ignore several vital variables: economic infrastructure, political infrastructure, and population size. In addition, you provide no suggestions for actually dealing with the economic, political and ideological problems in the MENA.
First, just flinging money at a situation is, as you certainly point out, utterly useless. What you fail to point out, is that this flinging of money is NOT economic development. Why not? Because it retains the same economic infrastructure!!!
Economic development is focused around developing the means of wealth production. Economic development isn’t about giving people more money to CONSUME goods. Economic development is strictly focused on enabling a population to produce..not consume..but produce wealth.
The problem in the MENA is that wealth production rests on a statist rather than private wealth producing infrastructure AND that the means of this wealth production is singular rather than diverse. That is, the production of wealth in these nations rests on raw resource state owned production: oil, or, in the case of Egypt, Suez tolls and tourism. This statist monopoly on the production of wealth, and the fact that it is a single wealth production capacity rather than multiple wealth capacity is the basic first problem in the MENA.
This infrastructure is two class: the wealth producing government Rulers..and the rest of the population. There is no middle class. By middle class, I mean a sector of the population who are engaged in PRIVATE means of wealth production. They own and develop diverse and multiple small and medium PRIVATE sector businesses. The MENA economic infrastructure lacks this vital component of a robust economy.
At the moment, wealth is produced by the statist government owned facilities (oil, tolls, etc)..and redistributed to the population for their consumption needs. It maintains a passive, powerless population, for the people have no means of getting money to start their own private businesses.
The problem with this – is that the size of the population, a vital, really vital variable which you totally ignore, has exponentially increased in the last few decades far, far beyond the carrying capacity of such a redistributionist statist economy. It can’t support this size of a population. That’s a vital factor that you ignore.
Statist, or redistribution economic modes CAN, and have, supported populations very well in the past; but, they have their economic limits…and the MENA populations, which have moved from rural sustenance agriculture to urban, have grown far, far beyond the capacity of that economic mode.
To repress the population, the Rulers have used radical Islamism, to both repress individual dissent and desires for individual freedom (eg, recall the demonstrations in Iran?) and diverted anger to the West. It’s the internal economic and political infrastructure that should be fought against!
Then, you also ignore the political infrastructure. The economic and political infrastructure are directly linked. A statist economy, where the means of producing wealth are both LIMITED to a single industry, which is in the control of an elite class….rejects individualism, rejects private business, rejects any private means of wealth production among its citizens. AND, it refuses to give political power to any citizen. So, the people both have no control over their economy, and also don’t have the political power to change it. You ignore this. Democracy is a political mode that empowers the wealth producing class, the middle class. But the MENA refuses to enable such a class to emerge!
As for the ideology, the Rulers, to retain their own grip on power, in the face of this increasing population and inability of a statist economy to support that population ….have moved into and enabled fundamentalism.
It won’t work; it didn’t work in the West, when the Church, to retain its grip on political and economic power, also moved into fundamentalism.
Why won’t it work? Because the size of the population demands an economic mode that can produce more wealth…and a statist economy, rejecting private wealth production…can’t produce the means to sustain the population.
You see the trees quite well but miss the forest. The ‘forest’ is Islam. Fanatical ideology trumps every other consideration. When that fanatical ideology is religious and supported by the vast majority, economic considerations fade to insignificance. 84% of Egyptians support the death penalty for apostasy. The ONLY freedom in Islam is the freedom of perfect submission, just as it was for Hitler and Stalin.
There is no middle class in Iran? or Iraq? I would be quite surprised.
The comments I offered here, https://guidoromero.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/even-more-proof-the-secular-inflationary-cycle-has-ended/ were in a context that has overlap with this piece.
I still stand by them, and when they are too weak, or missing, we wind up with failed economies.
You guys don’t get it. The leaders want to control access to wealth, and use economic projects for big rewards, and small to keep things as they are.
I love Egypt on this being caught in a moral hazard. They take money grow their population like flies and keep whining, but do nothing much.
As their population increases they become more vulnerable until the point they could easily be starved out.
Perhaps it is you that doesn’t get it.
Yes, many leaders are motivated by personal greed. But not the fanatical Imams and Mullahs whose power is derived from the adulation and support of the poor who are most definitely not benefited by those greedy leaders.
Currently and for at least the next decade, the historical momentum is with the ‘radical’ jihadists, who ideologically and theologically occupy the Islamic high ground. Through their allegiance to Muhammad’s directives, they have Islamic ‘principle’ on their side. They can and do claim to be the legitimate leaders of the Middle East and there is no theological/ideological argument the greedy leaders can make to dispute that claim.
This appears to be one of the reasons there are “Palestinians” in the first place; wealthy landowners objected to Jewish economic and agricultural development (and movement toward a state at some time in the future) and instigated massacres against the Jews, forcing the Jews to fight the appeasement-minded British colonialists and demand a state.
Barry, thanks, for this great article. You have given great analysis of how the differing countries in the region either respond or react (mostly react) to Western aid.
The only point of clarification I can suggest is, (as I study more about it) in regards to Islam; there is no ‘radical’ Islam, but rather Islam in it’s purest form as taught by Muhammed.
Muslims, as long as they honor the external mechanisms of their ‘faith’, need not have a deep understanding of their book. So, the ‘teaching’ is left to Imams. The difference between ‘radicals’ and the Muslim street boil down to whether the caliphate exists to proclaim jihad. Shia and ‘radicals’ are not waiting for the proclamation. Instead, they are listening to their Imams, who prey on their mass ignorance.
This seventh century malaise is what cannot be changed. This is why no political, diplomatic nor economic aid ever has long lasting effects toward modernizing the ideology of it’s people or particular nation.
Once a Caliphate is established, the ALL of Islam will act as the ‘radical’ does. Then, no amount of monetary assistance will have any effect at all.
Panacea for Middle east that
should be tried is cluster bombs
of thermonuclear bombs
Until those filthy muslims are all fried
What might be the difference between a Western POV or a western secularist POV towards the world? I believe it is the latter that has prevailed in formulating our foreign policy. Western Secularist seem befuddled that the lure of economic betterment has not resulted in cultural or governmental realignment. Yet, they only had to look to the scism between themselves and their Western Christianist to begin to understand that people motivators are not homogenous. The world has plainly told us they will take our money but not our values. Yet we continue along he same paths of non-influential policies. They know that our object is not their betterment, per se but our enrichment. Even if they’re absolutely wrong, nothing we’ve done so far has convinced them otherwise. They continue to play us for fools while undermining our values, our culture.
That leaves us with only two macro-choices; take the gloves off or leave the ring. If we choose the latter they will pursue as a dog chases a running object. That leaves us with taking the gloves off. But first we must convince ourselves that we are not going to do this to liberate them. We need to do this only to keep our own liberty from falling under them.
We will not forget. They tried to take our? peace of mind but we held on. No one can ever take someones sanity. Thoe who died will be remembered and those who helped but didn’t come out will be praised for their heroism. We will not forget. Never.