Je Suis Charlie

Dear Haim,

If...  is where one must stop.

The "if" hypothesis allows for any kind of unprovable different course of events.

ATB from 

Ah, yes. "If" !!

"If" the Romans hadn't come to Britain. "If" the Romans hadn't taken up Christianity. "If"................

So what's the best way forward in dealing with the multitude of problems in the Middle East  and the world at large ?

The way I see it, there are two challenges: 1) defending both Western nations and non-Western indigenous populations from the immediate threat of terrorism, and 2) protecting individuals in Muslim countries from religious dictatorships who use Sharia law as a systematic way of suppressing what should be, IMO, fundamental and global human rights.

In the case of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda, both of whom are sworn to to creating a worldwide caliphate, appeasement will never work. We have no choice but to fight them, but we must do so much more intelligently than we are doing today. Drone strikes are not a strategy. Neither is supporting a brutal, corrupt a dictatorship in Syria. We need better intelligence, and we need to commit special forces (perhaps even under Arab League leadership) to conduct raids in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere (much in the same way French special forces are now fighting Boko Haram in Mali with support from Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Niger, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Togo and Chad). IMO, ignoring the threat will not make us any safer, and isolation is merely a cop-out.

In addition, I believe that Islamic nations who apply strict Sharia law in criminal proceedings should be given a chance to change. If they don't, then they should be declared outlaw nations by the UN and heavily sanctioned. Stoning a person to death in the 21st century for being an adulterer, or for being a homosexual, is simply not acceptable - it is a crime against all of humanity. Flogging a person repeatedly for merely suggesting that religion be a topic of discussion is something that should offend us all.

I am convinced that the populations of these ultra-conservative countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, and so on) would actually vote to change these laws if they thought they could, and still survive. But they are kept well under control by constant brainwashing, and by the knowledge that the secret police could knock on their doors and make them disappear at any time.

Cut off from world trade, and under a constant bombardment of media calling for people to rise against oppression, perhaps there can be a second Arab Spring. Perhaps more Islamic countries might follow the example set by Tunisia. They have ended a dictatorship and held elections. From Wikipedia:

The [Tunisian] Law of Personal Status was inspired by unofficial draft codes of Maliki and Hanafi family law, but it bans polygamy and extrajudicial divorce. Sharia courts were abolished in 1956. Secular inheritance laws are based on Islamic jurisprudence, and accord to women half the share of property due to men.

Please understand that I am not opposed to Sharia when it is applied as a moral code (a guide for good behavior) in traditional Islamic countries, much the same way Confucianism was applied in China. I am only opposed to brutal theocracies applying medieval punishments like stoning, flogging and amputation as a form of maintaining power and control over the faithful masses.

Again, I realize that much of what I've just proposed is extremely idealistic, and I am not trying to imply that any of it would be easy to accomplish. I also realize that many feel that isolation and appeasement is a better strategy.  I disagree.  Yes, thhe obstacles are huge, and the time frames are long. But if we don't at least try, then how can things ever get better?

Lastly, as I suggested in my last post, I think it will be very difficult for the West to be a force for positive change in the Middle East without Russian agreement on overall strategic goals for the region (e.g., the adoption and enforcement of UN 217).

Hook

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. We have no business applying Western style ideals in states that have a completely different culture to our own. In many ways I'd think it is just a little bit arrogant rather than idealistic assuming that Sharia Law for example should not apply in Muslim countries.

After all certain cultures think that eating pig meat is an abomination, but I am happy to carry on doing it all the same. 

ATB from George

Hook,

To a large extent I agree with you views. Even though, as you say, they are rather idealised.

They do hinge on the idea that western society and morals are "better" than the morals and codes of conduct of other societies. Now, I also happen to be of this persuasion, having lived and worked extensively throughout the Middle East, Pakistan and India on the one hand and Europe and North America on the other. Also, from a practical point of view, a lot of progress has been made by the West in persuading the Middle East  countries to modify their laws and brutal middle-aged punishments and bring themselves into line with the West. Based on my experience, you have rightly guessed that the vast majority of Arabs would prefer a Western civilisation to their own and a few have emigrated for that reason.

The UN is an ineffective organisation these days. IMO the West should resign en-mass and tell the remaining club members to shift its HQ to wherever they like. The West should set up a new organisation and only admit new members on strict terms, including pre-adoption and pre-implementation of western ideals. I bet most of the existing UN membership would be queing at the application desk on week one ! idealised, unlikely to happen anytime soon, possibly impractical.

Meanwhile, we should use sanctions and also seek to persaude the UN whenever possible to adopt western standards. If the UN agrees that intervention is required, they can call on NATO (yet again) or some Pan-African organisation etc etc, as is their current arrangement, to perform the intervention on their behalf.

Doing nothing, as suggested by others, is a cop-out.

Don

I am not proposing a cop out. i am proposing the brave decision to let people act according to their own cultures in their own lands. All else is a form cultural imperialism at best and form of fascism at worst.

Each culture believes it is the best one, and so respect for different cultural traditions is what is required. On ALL sides.

And if people move to a different country they should behave according to local cultural values and laws, for what ever territory they move to, without consideration of where ever they originated.

ATB from George

I think you are missing my point George.

Having lived and worked in most of the Middle East countries, I am confident of my view, and Hook's point, that the majority of the people in these countries prefer Western culture and values more than that of their own lands. They also have a different interpretation of religious law than most of the terror groups and some of the governments currently operating in parts of their lands.

Their current culture (generally) is significantly more Western-like than it was 45 years ago when I first returned from the Middle East., and even then, in many states, it was more Western-like than it had been only 5 years earlier. (I continued to live there for another 5 years and kept returning until about 10 years ago). These changes were brought about by Western interventions that were to the likeing of the population at large and usually to the likeing of the then current rulers (and sometimes despite the then current rulers)

More recently, I'm sure the school girls in Ahfganistan (I haven't been to Ahfganistan) and the NW parts of Pakistan, to just pick an example, would disagree with a philisophy that the West should leave them alone and allow them to continue as uneducated second-class citizens in their own country. Your view might well differ from mine on this specific issue.

An interesting variation on ethnocentrism.

Dear Don,

I am of the view that eventually - sometimes after decades or centuries - the people of any given country or territory get the government they deserve.

And I also believe that it is the people in those countries that you say are in need of Westernising to do this for themselves if they really want to.

You cannot graft on democratic liberal tolerance onto a culture that does not actually want it, or if it is completely alien to the culture in question. Look at Russia.It has been a sort of dictatorship since it was an entity. With the collapse of Marxist-Leninist Communism, the toyed with democracy, and elected a new dictatorship. A proper Russian gangster. Good for Russia, and so we must be ready to defend ourselves. But certainly not mess about with regime change and so forth.

A properly held election does not make a democracy. It never did, and only in cultures where the democratic ideal is seen as more important than this or that politician can it possibly work. 

All that interfering in a foreign land's system of government and causing the rulers to be changed without any idea of the outcome will do is bring further misery and chaos, sometimes much worse than before. And the unintended consequences go on for decades.

On the other hand what we as Westerners can do is offer aid and we do. We may offer advice, but equally we must accept that it may not be followed, and that is fair enough.

Where there is a military threat then we are of course free to defend ourselves, and it will be interesting when Chilcot is actually published, though I expect that will will be so massive that it may be hard to find out as much as we should know.

I hope that you see that I entirely comprehend the point about foreign adventurism, even if I may not understand your posts. Perhaps you could say unequivocally what action you think  we [in the UK] should take against China for its Human Rights record, What you think we should do about Saudi for its flogging of someone who allegedly committed a blasphemy? And so on. My view is that we make our point through the normal diplomatic channels, and adjust our trade and diplomatic relations as we see fit. But I think it is time that the UK packed in thinking that she is so superior to every other nations that we should get involved militarily just because we don't care for the government of this country or that. 

I am very much annoyed about this policy, and I would hope that Chilcot may cause more people to be aware of what is done in our name, and the costs and outcomes. I am afraid that the costs are massive and the outcomes miserable. So we ought to stop it.

ATB from George

"They do hinge on the idea that western society and morals are "better" than the morals and codes of conduct of other societies."

Yes, I think that was the word I was looking for.

Dear Don,

You will have to show the history that shows that Western ideals are superior to anyone elses!

I don't think that human nature is all that different between any of the major cultures in the World, and what marks out the best of Western cultures is respect for others, and respect for others right to have a view-point that is different from our own.

Unfortunately there is no evidence that I can see that any progress has really been made in realising these ideals.

So perhaps you can say why you think that the reality of the Western influence in the Global sense is actually any better than any other - if you want to of course?

ATB from George

George,

I think I detect a presumption in your response that by "intervention" I was refering to "military" intervention. I wasn't.

And I wasn't suggesting that we try to "graft" our values onto the people of the Middle East.

I was merely pointing out, that much of the Middle East wants to adopt many Western values and we shouldn't stand idly by whilst a few extremeists prevent that. The UK, as I pointed out for the benefit of AllanB, enjoys good relations with most of the countries of the Middle East and more recently I pointed out the UK has been influential in bringing about significant change (for the better IMO) to the government and lives of people in the Middle East. This has been achieved mainly by diplomacy and trade, plus a bit ofmilitary support when requested.

I have deliberately avoided taking my contribution to this thread outside the Middle East, since that was the main focus of the IP

Are well, you could have cleared that up in the beginning!

If you are talking of the normal diplomatic and aid effort channels to offer help and advice [which may be fairly ignored of course], then I doubt anything very significant separates our effective view-points at least as far as influencing other nations in a friendly way. I cannot share your view that the Western culture is generally any better than any other culture in reality, except when applied by ourselves in the West on ourselves! Much Western influence has been disastrous for the nations on the receiving end!

I was clear from the start that I object to the UK being junior World Policemen with the USA in charge. 

Had you clarified your position earlier, no doubt that you would have saved me quite a bit of typing.

ATB from George

PS: May I ask what you thought of Bush and Blair leading us to war in Iraq? 

Dear George,

You are expanding the subject. The issue in this thread is primarily Western culture and values v those of the Extremeist groups in the Middle East areas.

Some of my posts have been simply to rebut the suggestions of others that intervention never works and shouldn't be contemplated. I have tried to confine my examples to the Middle East and tempered them to a certain extent by my own experiences in that region.

Life is too short to resolve global pestilence, desease and warfare.

If you had made it clear that you believe military intervention has almost never worked and is doomed from the start except in very rare conditions of extreme good fortune, but stated that you believed that diplomatic influence and influence by civil aid is useful then I'd have agreed with you immediately. But is it any of our business that women are [effectively] not allowed to drive in Saudi?

I believe that is a domestic Saudi affair and none of our business.

ATB from George

I made my view on that very clear at the time. But basically......

It was unecessary, and a poor decision, but not illegal.

Hans Blix and the UN, were dragging their heels and Sadam was being unecessarily difficult.

Blix, the UN and Sadam could and should have demonstrated much, much sooner, that Sadam did have WMD, but that he had effectively got rid of them as was required by the UN.

Hope that helps, i'm sure a quick search will provide more clarification. 

Just to clarify, I did not say, or intent to imply "that military intervention has almost never worked and is doomed from the start....". My experience for example, in Oman in 1972/73 suggests otherwise. But I would concede that Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands supports your point of view.

I was aware of the Oman thing, which is why I said almost! Thanks for your reply. It helps not just me but anyone else reading this who may not be aware of what you said at the time, years ago now ... 

I more or less agree with you about the Iraq War. Blix should have been given the time to discover the lack of WMDs, and that jumping of the gun was a folly.

ATB from George

Cultures and "ideals" are complex things. But I'll go out on a limb here and say that one way you can judge the quality of a culture or society by the way it treats its minorities. For me, societies that do more to group individuals and persecute them based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other irrelevant factor groups are inferior to those that do less of this. You are free to contemplate whether that notion would confer a superiority to "western" cultures and ideals. I'd say it does.

You could also look at results of those ideals in terms of education and healthcare, where it seems that "western" ideals might be getting a better outcome (on average).

See also below. A few oil-rich religious countries on the top right, but religiosity and wealth seem inversely correlated (the ludicrously religious and wealthy US being a notable exception, of course). The question perhaps is are people poor because they believe in god, or do they believe in god because they are poor?

but does ebola exist really?

sh***k has been on my ignore list for ages. When I see one of his banal offerings quoted, I am reminded why.

Ages? He joined less than 10 months ago. I'm not disputing your ignore list, but maybe now I can get a glimpse as to why virtual media and all it's hyperbole seem to be passing me by.

OK, "months". Seems like ages to me.

for that matter i had seen footages claiming there's AIDS while there was none.

A few ideas:

Stop thinking in terms of regime change. The last three (Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) were disastrous. The current attempt in Syria is not going any better and the ancient one (Iran of 1953) made you loose completely your credibility in talking to Middle-Easterners about democracy.

Don't intervene and don't take sides in internal moslem conflicts like the Syrian civil war or ISIS. Let them take care of themselves. Just prevent your own citizens from joining the fight.

Apply (despite economic interests) a severe political pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to stop the spread of the radical-militant Islam which translates very easily into terrorism.

Find a better way of defiance than buying three additional millions of the prophet Mohammad cartoons after the killing of Charlie Hebdo and his crew. The best way I know of defying terrorism is to carry on with our lives as usual.