Authoritarian Regimes: Politics in the Middle East - Assignment Example

HIS 342 Question Set 3 of the Name of the Concerned Professor October 24, 2008 HIS 342 Question Set 3 Authoritarian Regimes Politics in the Middle East always seems to vacillate between two distasteful options i.e. the fear of a ruthless domination by the authoritarian regimes that pathetically lack any vision or the possibility of a violent takeover by the puritanical opposition that is obviously radical or extremist in its moorings (Ghabra, 2003). After the fall of Communism, the masses in the Middle East were left with to inevitable options, either to choose authoritarian regimes that offered highly restrained levels of social and political freedom or to tilt in the favor of theocratic extremists that offered even more constrained freedom in terms of social interaction and the rights of the women. Left with this dilemma, the masses opted for an authoritarian stagnation that seems so tenacious and powerful because of the domination of the terrorist elements over the scope for any revolution or an alternative arrangement. 1956 Suez Crisis The 1956 Suez Crisis was an important event in the Cold War era that revealed the chinks in the allied solidarity. The genesis of this crisis lied in the French and the British dominion over one of the world's most important and lucrative sea route that is the Suez Canal that happened to pass through the Egyptian territory (Trueman, 2008). The nationalization of this canal by Nasser in 1956 immensely innervated the British and the French. The US disapproval of the British and the French invasion of Egypt greatly benefitted the USSR, who got access to the much coveted alternative sea route besides the Bosporus that was closely monitored by the allies' intelligence. The other major gainer in this crisis was Israel who crossed over the Gaza Strip and Sinai Desert and gained access to the Straits of Tiran. Policies After the withdrawal of the Super Power sponsors owing to the end of the Cold War and the dilution of the Arab-Israel conflict, it became imperative for the military regimes in the Middle East to chalk out policies that bolstered the cohesion amongst the various constituent elements of the state. The main crux of such policies lied in securing an alliance between the political and economic centres of power (Glenn, 1998). This included an outright domination over the political power through multiple security apparatuses and over the economic power through securing alliances with the local, elitist vested interests. This gave an opportunity to the other totalitarian regimes in the region like Iran and Saudi Arabia to tighten their grip over power by professing themselves to be the custodians of Islamic values in the region. Effect of Oil The discovery of oil in the Middle East changed many countries from being pauper states relying on the international aid for sustenance to being oil rich regimes (Britannica). This assured the countries lying in this region, an uninterrupted access to immense wealth on a continuous basis. The new found oil wealth unleashed an unprecedented and enormous expansion of health facilities, employment opportunities and government services. The quality of life of the people certainly improved with a better access to housing owing to a boom in the construction projects. At a political level, this enhanced the status and clout of these regimes in the international arena. However, this improvement in the economic standards and quality of life failed to accomplish a commensurate revolution in the social and cultural parameters like the women rights and democratic values. Besides, the oil wealth left the totalitarian and military regimes in the region with more then ample resources to tighten their grip over the political and social aspirations. OPEC The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries was constituted in 1960 to safeguard and preserve the interests of the countries that export oil. In the year 2000, OPEC consisted of 11 member states that produced roughly 40 percent of the entire world's oil supply. The OPEC member states together exercise a control over approximately 77 percent of the world's crude oil reserves (CBS News). The OPEC Conference of Ministers holds regular sessions, twice a year in Vienna to formulate the general policy of the organization. Considering the given facts and data, OPEC definitely wields an immense control over the world's oil supply and the price of the oil. Saudi Arabia sits over one of the biggest oil reserves amongst the OPEC nations and happens to be the largest producer of oil in the world. US Interests The Middle East Forum, a think tank that intends to define and encourage the US interests in the Middle East considers the American interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis--vis Saudi Arabia; and countering the Iranian threat (Middle East Forum). Till date US has definitely succeeded in securing the allegiance of Saudi Arabia as a close and reliable ally. The US is already bearing the burden of waging an amorphously defined and seemingly indecisive battle against Islamic terrorism, with Iraq being the hub of this conflict. In a realistic and pragmatic context, it would be true to say that US has not been conclusively successful in securing most of its pivotal interests in the Middle East. Post Cold War Cold War certainly had some advantages so far as promoting the US interests in the Middle East was concerned. According to Stanley Hoffman, a professor of History in Harvard, during the cold war, "the super powers were able to exert a certain amount of restraint on their own clients (Kaufman, 1990)." Whenever there was a war or conflict in the region, the two super powers usually coordinated and cooperated with each other to prevent the escalation of that strife to a global level. With the end of the Cold War, the regional dictators and the authoritarian regimes like Iran and Iraq were left with greater freedom of maneuver (Kaufman, 1990). Thus, in this context, the politics in the Middle East has become more unpredictable and unmanageable. The end of the Cold War failed to translate into the end of all conflicts and paved the way for the proliferation of lower level conflicts (Kaufman, 1990) Demographics Though demography in a majority of the countries is a neutral concept, in an Israeli context, this innocuous statistical concept assumes a politically charged connotation, so far as the Arafat's prediction that, "the Arab women's womb is our biggest weapon" is concerned (Maital, 2007). There live nearly 5.7 million Jews in Israel. It means that the Jewish population in Israel has increased almost ten times its size then what it was in the year 1948 (Maital, 2007). On the contrary, the number of Israeli Arabs amounts to 1,425,000, while the Arab population in Gaza and the West Bank stands at 5.4 million, which is almost equal to that of Jews living in Israel. Thus demographical data gives way to a precarious situation, considering the fact that the female fertility rate in the West Bank and Gaza is nearly twice as that of Jewish women. Six-Day War Since the culmination of the Six-Day War in 1967, the basics of the Israeli foreign policy towards its neighbors, turned out to be amorphous and decidedly reactive. The Six-Day War left Israel in a situation of "diplomatic deadlock and immobilism (Shlaim and Yaniv, 1980)." The Israeli capacity for boldness and risk taking, amply exhibited during the war, failed to find an expression in the consequent peace initiatives. The Israeli stance towards its Arab neighbors was clearly reflected in the decision of the then Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, to blatantly refuse to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories, unless its belligerent neighbors agreed to direct peace talks with Israel and a subsequent recognition of the Jewish state. The post Six-Day War Israeli foreign policy towards its neighbors was unambiguously reactionary and militarist. However, time and again Israel found it difficult to carry out this policy because of the mounting external diplomatic pressure and international constraints. PLO The Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded by the joint efforts of the Arab League and Egypt in 1964, to coordinate the activities of the Palestinian organizations. It comprised of multiple political factions and guerrilla groups. However, the faction that dominated the PLO was Al Fatah, whose leader Yasir Arafat served as its chairman from 1969 to 2004 (infoplease). The PLO was constituted with the single objective of the dissolution of Israel through the use of violence. Consequently it lead several guerrilla attacks on the civil and military targets within Israel. The PLO was formally recognized by the UN in 1974. The year 1988 witnessed a turning point in the ideology of PLO, when it proclaimed the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Simultaneously, it decided to recognize Israel's right to exist and relinquished terrorism that constituted the crux of its earlier ideology till now. In 1993, PLO reached a peace agreement with Israel based on mutual recognition and allowing for a degree of Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and the West Bank. The Future The peaceful resolution of Palestinian-Zionist conflict has wider ramifications for the future of democracy in the Middle East. This calls for a pragmatic initiative on the part of both the parties to recognize and promptly deal with the core issues that lie at the heart of this problem. Most of the Arabs believe that a peaceful solution to this problem is feasible if Israel renounces its occupation and settlement activities (Info-Prod Research, 2008). Basically what the two sides aspire to do is to get hold of the maximum of water resources and the arable land. Thus, its makes it imperative for both the sides to tow a realistic and practical approach towards the basic issue of allocation of arable land and water resources and to understand the security issues bothering both the sides. Muhammad Mossadegh Over the years, the iconic character of Muhammad Mossadegh has emerged as a symbol of Iranian self-sufficiency and resilience. Despite the contrary intentions of the monarchy and the British government, Mossadegh was highly popular amongst the masses and was elected to be the Prime Minister of Iran in 1951. However, he choose to resign after the Shah refused to abdicate to him the control over the Iranian armed forces. Mossadegh aspired for unprecedented and large scale reforms in the Iranian socio-economic framework that brought him in direct conflict with the monarchy and the governments of Britain and America (Biography). He vociferously opposed the domination of the Iranian oil industry by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and succeeded in nationalizing the Iranian oil industry in 1951. Eventually he was overthrown in a coup engineered by Britain and the CIA. In plain words, Mossadegh's intentions of depriving the West of any exploitative control over the Iranian oil reserves, brought him in direct conflict with the Shah and the British government and eventually led to his fall. Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Muhammad Reza Shah's rule began under the shadow of social and political upheavals and dire economic constraints. Despite being a constitutional monarch, Reza Shah blatantly interfered into the affairs of the parliamentary government and was averse to strong and popular prime ministers like Mossadegh (Iran Chamber Society, 2008). He led a lavish life style and relied more on manipulations and suppression to solicit political gains. Reza Shah tried hard to balance his perceived increase in power with a range of socio-economic reforms aimed at modernization. He was perceived as more of a stooge of the US by the Iranian masses, which stroked discontent amongst various sections of the society. His panache for political supremacy disturbed the established theocratic leaders and aggravated their fears of loosing power in the Iranian society. Students and intellectuals who aspired for democracy also saw Reza Shah as a potential threat. Reza Shah believed in unscrupulously suppressing his opponents by the abusive usage of intelligence and power. The increasing gap between the masses and the elites and his unresponsiveness to the public opinion ultimately led to his fall. 1979 A lot of factors were responsible for the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Muhammad Reza Shah was trying hard to modernize Iran around secular norms. This blatantly challenged the supremacy of the established clerics who favored a puritanical society. Besides, Shah's insistence on protecting and safeguarding the interests of the Western oil consortium and his closeness to the US annoyed many. His ruthless and bloody suppression of the students and the intellectuals vying for democracy made him immensely unpopular. This precarious situation was exponentially aggravated by the soaring inflation and the increasing gap between the rich and the poor. Under such dire circumstances, the Iranian masses and the intelligentsia started seeing Ayatollah Khomeini as a viable substitute for Shah (Macrohistory, 2008). A mix of these factors ultimately led to the Revolution in 1979. Being closely associated with the US, Shah became a living symbol of anti-Americanism. His arrival in the New York City led to the hostage crisis during the Carter administration. Revolution In the 21st century, revolutions are believed to be associated with the advent of democratic values, respect for human rights and free economies in a closed system. It is sad to say that though the Iranian Revolution succeeded in replacing the tyrannical and confused rule of Shah, it pathetically failed to cater to the modern aspirations and expectations. The ordeals of the Iranian politics further aggravated in a post-revolutionary scenario, which visibly allowed for a democratic framework, though subservient to the dictates of the theocratic clerics. The clerics almost run a parallel government within Iran that does not shy away from using the theoretically legitimized violence against its opponents. The judiciary within Iran is governed by the Islamic law. Men and women are publically segregated (Macroeconomics, 2008). The media and the press are required to pander to the dictates of the clerics. In that context, the Iranian Revolution turned out to be a big flop show. Islamism Islam and Islamism differ in the sense that Islam is a monotheistic religion which preaches its followers to humbly accept the will of God, whereas Islamism is an ideology that advocates a violent and radical struggle against the Western values of capitalism, liberalism and individualism. Islam believes in peaceful coexistence whereas Islamism believes in the domination of their religious values over other value systems and civilizations. Followers of Islam do not find it problematic to live in peace with the people affiliated to other religions and social moorings, whereas Islamists are hostile to numerous countries and consider it their sacred duty to wage a war against the Western values and governments. Islamists consider themselves to be the victims of the Western domination and have no scruples in adopting terrorism as an ideology. Islamism vs. Nationalism It often gets difficult for the students of history to understand the complicated relationship that exists between Islamism and secular Nationalism. The bifurcation of Islamism and Arab Nationalism is a quite recent phenomenon. Earlier these two ideas were closely intertwined and one seldom thought of a possibility of conflict existing between these two concepts (Nafi, 2008). The early 50s witnessed a series of military led coups, with young men affiliated to Arab Nationalism coming to power in a number of Arab countries like Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Syria and Yemen (Nafi, 2008). It was primarily due to the disaffection of the masses with the sweeping socio-economic reforms and the centralization of power unleashed by these despotic rulers, which brought the Islamic political forces to the forefront. The Future After the 9/11 mayhem, the politics in the Middle East has once again come to the centre of attention and concern in the International forums and diplomatic circles. People often say that the US led war against terrorism in Iraq has worsened the situation. The fact is that the dethronement of totalitarian regimes by the allied forces has brought the parochial concerns festering at the grass roots level in the Middle East to the forefront and the absence of suppressive despots has given them a chance to thrive and flourish. International isolation is one major factor that is responsible for the disinterest of the common man in the Middle East towards cosmopolitan values and norms. Modern technology could play a vital role in the dissemination of the message of democracy and restraint in the region. However the disheartening factor is that the same technology is being astutely used by the Jihadi elements to perpetrate their terroristic aspirations. The only way out seems to be to sensitize the common man in the Middle East to modern values and norms and to make him an active participant in the overall decision making process. This calls for the commitment of immense resources and efforts on the part of the International community on a long term basis. It will definitely take time but such a holistic approach will strike at the root of the trouble in this strategically important region. Total Words: 2,836 References American Interests in the Middle East. (2008). Middle East Forum. Retrieved October22, 2008, from http://www.meforum.org/ Ghabra, S.N. (2003). It's Time to tear down the 'Arab Wall'. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2 : 309992.html Glenn, R.E. (1998). Elite cohesion, regime succession and political instability in Syria. BNET. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p /articles/mi_qa5400/is_/ai_n21418445 Kaufman, J. (1990). Mideast Harbinger of Post-Cold War Era. The Boston Globe. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-818563 4.html Maital, S. (2007). 7,197,994 and Counting. The Jerusalem Report. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-10033872.html Mohammad Mossadegh Biography. Mohammad Mossadegh.com. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/ Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Iran Chamber Society. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mohammad_rezashah/ mohammad_rezashah.php Nafi, B. (2008). Nationalism vs. Islam. Aljazeera. Retrieved October 24, 2008. ,from http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/arabunity/2008/02/20085251942019 7834.html Palestine Liberation Organization. Infoplease. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0837351.html Shlaim, A and Yaniv, A. (1980). Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy in Israel. JSTOR. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://www.jstor.org/pss/2615407 Solution to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict could be reached in One Day. (2008). Info-Prod Research (Middle East). Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http:// www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-16476273.html The Discovery of Oil in Libya. Britannica. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.britannica.com The Iranian Revolution. (2008). Macrohistory and World Report. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch29ir.html Trueman, C. (2008). The Suez Crisis of 1956. History Learning Site. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/2095.htm What is OPEC. (2008). CBS News. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http:// www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/17/world/main264972.shtml Read More