Political Life of the Middle East - Essay Example

The Middle East: A Political Analysis The Middle East is among the most controversial and conflict ridden regions on the planet. It is a source of political instability as well as an indispensable component in the global economy. This is due to the existence of unsettled politico – religious disputes coupled with contentious claims as to nationhood and ancestral domains. Furthermore, it is also the most viable source of oil, the lifeblood of the global economy. This resource is the essential in industrialization, and industrial economies live off on. The richness of culture and historical value of the Middle East in the context of human civilization is only equaled by its political instability. It is a source of threats to global peace and has the propensity for sowing, continuing and propagating conflicts. In fact, conflicts in the region often spill over to other regions. These issues also draw countries that have interests and concerns in the region into these matters. The issues that beset the nations in the Middle East encompass most if not all aspects of social, political and economic life. The cultures of East and West converge and are embroiled in a contest for the consciousness of the region’s people. It is a hotbed of religious disputes and the historical cradle of the three great world religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There is the ongoing clash of culture and wave of democratization sweeping the globe. There is the defiance to international nuclear standards, insurgency and unrest. The Middle East has also been shaped and in turn molded the policies of many nations. Even states that do not directly have interests in the region or are involved in its issues are still affected indirectly. The foremost world powers, in fact, have the Middle East as one of the regions that is at the center of their policies. In assessing the Middle East’s place in geopolitics, there are three striking aspects that would need discussion. First is an exploration of the issues that would be at the forefront of the Middle East today and the immediate future. Second is whether the Middle East will be an important part of U.S. policy and whether Europe would be involved in the Middle East? Lastly is whether a future that incorporates the Middle East is good or bad for the international community? The Middle East as it enters the 21st century is still trying to come to terms with the wave of global democratization. “In particular, questions are raised about whether popular attitudes and beliefs constitute an obstacle to democratization, possibly because the religious traditions that predominate in most Arab countries inhibit the emergence of a democratic political culture” (Tessler 337). This highlight the fact the democracy is not well received in the region and the very culture and prevailing views go against its integration. Moreover, clearly to an extent the precepts of democracy are not compatible to the system of beliefs and views of the people in the region. This becomes a major concern given that the future of the Middle East as an important part of the international community is hinged on how well it can adopt to the majority of states in the family of nations, which adhere to democracy. The political reality is that to an extent democracy has to be integrated to win approval, acceptance and respect from most community of states. In some cases states would even have the policy of not dealing with or not having diplomatic ties with non – democratic states. In status quo democratization is at hand and the Middle East still is beset by the reality which is very contrary to the demand of the times. “Despite a few exceptions, the Arab world has made relatively little progress toward political liberalization in recent years. On the contrary, many of the experiments in democratization that were launched a decade or so ago have been cut back substantially or even abandoned” (Tessler 338). This matter has to be resolved if the future of the Middle East as a player in geopolitics will be secured. Another key issue is that rise of militancy and political ideologies that are hostile to other political views. The main manifestation of this is the rise of Islamism. This is still connected to the Issue on democracy since particularly US policy. The US policy for the region involves democratization often by politically pressuring states to adopt this. Moreover, this is the way of dealing with the second issue of militant ideologies. “In order to counter Islamist influence, some have suggested that the United States, if it is going to promote regional democracy, should aggressively work to strengthen the rule of law, separation of powers, civil society, and alternative, preferably secular, movements. There also continues to be a strong sentiment among some foreign policy experts and Arab government officials that the United States should refrain from pushing for political liberalization and allow market forces and globalization to build gradually an educated middle class, which can push for change indigenously” (Sharp 6). The gives rise to two major implications. First is that the Middle East will continue to be a subject of US policy in the sense that it has problems incorporating democracy. The adoption of such a ideology in whole or in part becomes related to other issues such as human rights, compliance to international law, citizen’s empowerment and conflict resolution. However, unlike the US other liberal democracies insist that democracy has to take root in the region and not be forcibly planted there by others. Furthermore, due to the US persistence that the democratization of the Middle East should be accelerated the only counter balance to this is the involvement of the European States. However, the questions that are raised are the justification of the involvement of European states and will they compete with the US in terms of the latter’s role in this context? As to the first question, the majority of successful, advanced and liberal democracies are members of the European community. Great Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands are examples of said states. They believe in democracy by evolution and not by imposition. Meaning for a genuine and democratic adoption of the same ideology as the basis of government and society a state has to be the one to adopt it or developed it within its own society. Given the US policy of democracy by imposition the European states would rather intervene. However, this intervention would not mean that they would openly contest the US role in the region. After all the United States also mean well, even if they approach the matter in an aggressive way. The role of the European states would be to restrain American policy so that it does not go too far as well to help and motivate Middle Eastern nations to adopt democracy gradually. Another prevalent issue of the Middle East is conflict and conflict resolution. This is an apparent concern given the dispute of Israel and Palestine and belligerence of Iran. International efforts are undertaken to deal with these conflicts. “The European Union and its Member States have become increasingly invested in the search for a two-state solution. They have emerged as the largest donor to the Palestinians, advanced an array of bilateral and multilateral links with Israelis and Palestinians, stepped up to third party monitoring, peacekeeping and support tasks, and sought greater diplomatic involvement in the search for peace as a member of the Quartet and through regional diplomacy” (European Union Institute for Security Studies 24). This outlines the future that the region will have. If the family of nations, particularly the politically interested nations like those in Europe and the US do not deal with these conflicts now it could go beyond containment and engulf not only the entire region but the global community as well. The future of the Middle East in this context is either those conflicts will find resolution or at leas the world powers would have found a way of containing and even minimizing the violent and atrocious symptoms. As to the question, whether US policy will continue to dwell on or incorporate the Middle East as part of their mainstream agenda. This seems to be the trend and the future of American policy. So long as the United States espouses actively democracy, conflict resolution and reduction of militant ideologies that are often translated into terrorism the said region will be something that will be their concern. The current state as well as next likely phase of the status quo of the Middle East would contain these distinct issues. They will remain a matter of interest to the US. United States track record in terms of their policy highlights an active involvement and considers policy formulation for hotspots or conflict areas, areas with problems with democracy and the roots of terrorism. These issues have been at the forefront of American foreign policy agenda for at least the past decade and for the Middle East this is not likely to change soon. In fact, these kinds of policy have been constantly manifested in various US efforts. This is the reason why the US had to intervene militarily in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It is why the US criticizes countries for being undemocratic like Myanmar. And this is why the US has forged alliances against terrorism, particularly one of its roots- militant ideologies. However, there are negative aspects to this stance and conduct of the United States, especially when it comes to their involvement in the Middle East. Their efforts are viewed to be biased in favor of its long standing ally Israel. Iran identifies the US by the latter’s policy as anti – Iran. Furthermore, the perspective of Iranian government is that the United States is out to destroy them. In addition, the role of America in this context is seen as an unwarranted unilateral action which is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. The question is how to balance the US with too much zeal and little regard for the states they are dealing with and concerns of the states in the Middle East. This is where the European Union states come into the picture. Their role would be to balance the US involvement. They do these in two ways they can either provide the incentive adoption of democracy, ending conflict or cracking down on militants in exchange for economic grants, infrastructure programs and other benefits. Another way by which they intercede is when they present themselves as a disinterested party who would facilitate any negotiations and dealings. This, however, cannot replace the American role in this context. If the US serves as the “Stick” or forceful element to dealing with these issues the European states serve as the “Carrot” or source of incentive so that countries in the Middle East will settle their issues. The role these states complement that of the former. Lastly does the global community as a whole welcome the Middle East as a viable member in the future or views it as a continuous source of problems. These will rely on the efforts of both the family of nations as well as the states in the region. The ending of disputes, the reduction of militancy and the gradual integration of democracy will bring the Middle East closer to the international community but at the same time there should be recognition that there are elements of these goals that they cannot fully adopt. This has to be considered and understood and not faulted against them. Furthermore, the although the Arab world must be given the reins to their own destiny the international community is burdened with the responsibility to achieve the democratization of their region the dousing of disputes and ending of violent militancy and so efforts must be undertaken. The family of states has reasons to both fear and welcomes a future with the Middle East but as to what kind of future that is up to all concerned. In assessing the prospective future of the Middle East, there was the examination of the key issues of democratization, conflict resolution and containing and if possible ending militant ideologies. The role of the United States in these issues was established in contrast to the role of the European community. The latter is never meant to replace the former but to reinforce, complement and support it, Lastly as to whether the future with the Middle East is desirable or not. This is a matter to be settled by concrete action and not by conceptual assessment. However, if the trend continues in terms of improvements and milestones in the status quo the future with the said region is nothing short of prosperous, peaceful and mutually beneficial. References: Tessler, Mark. “Islam and Democracy in the Middle East: The Impact of Religious Orientations and Attitudes Toward Democracy in Four Arab Countries.” Comparative Politics April 2002. 4 December 2010 < http://polisci.lsa.umich.edu/documents/tesslerCPArticle.pdf>. Sharp, Jeremy M. “U.S. Democracy Promotion Policy in the Middle East: The Islamist Dilemma.” CRS Report for Congress 15 June 2006. 4 Dec. 2010 < http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33486.pdf>. European Union Institute for Security Studies. “The EU and the world in 2009: European Perspectives on the New American Foreign Policy Agenda.” ISS Report January 2009. 4 Dec. 2010 . Read More