Islamic fundamentalism: The supply-side
I doubt that anyone, at this point, believes that the Bush administration's anti-terrorism response has done much to make the world safer. A they-hate-our-way-of-life attitude can be accepted only in a country where a third of the population has passports, and does dangerous injustice to a serious geo-political problem. This is why the recent London and Egypt bombings have nudged the world into considering actual ways of tackling Islamic terrorism. Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria appeared on the Daily Show last week, and I think he has it wrong on at least one count.
He cites the example of Asian muslim countries, where Islamic political parties fail to get any more than 5% of the votes, as evidence of improvements in the Islamic world. I agree that the populous core of Asian Islam practices a much more benevolent form of the religion than in the Middle East. However, his analysis makes sense only if things are getting better, not if things are as they've always been. Just for his information, Bangladesh has never been a politically muslim country. The Islamic parties, which harbor many that were involved in ignominious treachery during the War of Liberation, have always garnered a small percentage of votes during national elections. I would actually say that the influx of fundamentalist money from Saudi Arabia is actually making the religious atmosphere worse in the country. Global safety has become threatened by this viral ideology, and there is no room for complacency. Even Asian muslim countries should be on their guard against the constant outreach from Saudi Arabian ideologues.
Zakaria also addressed the question of demand or supply. The most tangible target would be the supply side of terrorism, although not in the callous, bumbling, opportunistic way the Bush Administration is lashing out at every country but Saudi Arabia. Even when there is no demand, supply will create some. Advertising is in endless supply, specially with the Palestinian conflict set to continue forever. Western countries could be a little less hypocritical and use their demand-side power in the oil market to induce reform and development in the Middle Eastern countries. It would also really help if they stopped meddling in their internal affairs altogether. Above all, the Western leaders should start showing some respect for muslims as people, and acknowledge that too many of today's global problems are remnants of yesterday's colonial instrusions (see Afghanistan, Palestine, Kashmir). It is too late now to stand by and observe. The Western leaders will have to meddle some more to put some things right. I feel that when the supply of fundamentalist ideology is struck, by helping these countries achieve reform and development themselves, demand will fizzle out on its own. And maybe then the disgruntled muslim youth will deal with not belonging in society, just like the rest of us, by doing drugs and cutting themselves.
He cites the example of Asian muslim countries, where Islamic political parties fail to get any more than 5% of the votes, as evidence of improvements in the Islamic world. I agree that the populous core of Asian Islam practices a much more benevolent form of the religion than in the Middle East. However, his analysis makes sense only if things are getting better, not if things are as they've always been. Just for his information, Bangladesh has never been a politically muslim country. The Islamic parties, which harbor many that were involved in ignominious treachery during the War of Liberation, have always garnered a small percentage of votes during national elections. I would actually say that the influx of fundamentalist money from Saudi Arabia is actually making the religious atmosphere worse in the country. Global safety has become threatened by this viral ideology, and there is no room for complacency. Even Asian muslim countries should be on their guard against the constant outreach from Saudi Arabian ideologues.
Zakaria also addressed the question of demand or supply. The most tangible target would be the supply side of terrorism, although not in the callous, bumbling, opportunistic way the Bush Administration is lashing out at every country but Saudi Arabia. Even when there is no demand, supply will create some. Advertising is in endless supply, specially with the Palestinian conflict set to continue forever. Western countries could be a little less hypocritical and use their demand-side power in the oil market to induce reform and development in the Middle Eastern countries. It would also really help if they stopped meddling in their internal affairs altogether. Above all, the Western leaders should start showing some respect for muslims as people, and acknowledge that too many of today's global problems are remnants of yesterday's colonial instrusions (see Afghanistan, Palestine, Kashmir). It is too late now to stand by and observe. The Western leaders will have to meddle some more to put some things right. I feel that when the supply of fundamentalist ideology is struck, by helping these countries achieve reform and development themselves, demand will fizzle out on its own. And maybe then the disgruntled muslim youth will deal with not belonging in society, just like the rest of us, by doing drugs and cutting themselves.
posted by No You're Not at 9:16 PM
2 Comments:
Just curious, why do you characterize Afghanistan as a post-colonial problem?
Also, I can see the links in Palestine and Kashmir [obvious as they are, and coincidentally both British], but it also seems a bit simplistic. There's so much ideology and history flowing [from World War II, the Cold War, Wahhabism, etc] that colonialism seems only a very small slice of the problems' origins.
-
All in all, I don't agree with a lot of what you said, but very well written post.
I agree about Saudi Arabia, pretty much everyone sees it except for the most die-hard oil executives and Arabists [and yes I think the administration sees it too], but ultimately there is no good option with Saudi Arabia. How do you deal with a country where a majority of the population sympathizes with Bin Laden, and where Mecca and Medina lie? There is no way to reform Saudi Arabia, only to perpetually occupy it.
The only serious solution seems to be to avoid occupying the population centers, and merely seize the oil fields. Not because we necessarily need it, but to stop the money flow that allows their spreading of radical Islam. But for obvious reasons, we can't do that in the current political environment. At least, not yet.
Thanks for your thoughts.
You are exactly right, colonialism is only a small slice of the problem. I should've been more clear about my use of the term: I meant it more as a domination and heavyhanded intrusion in another country. This warrants an edit. Maybe you can see how Afghanistan falls into this category (see training and using one country to bring down the regime in another country).
I don't have information on whether the majority of Saudi Arabians sympathize with Bin Laden. I'm curious, where did you learn this?
"There is no way to reform Saudi Arabia, only to perpetually occupy it."
I didn't talk about the demand side too much because it isn't clear to me why people would choose their religion as the first place to turn to for reactionism. Maybe I've been wrong. Do you see from your final 2 paragraphs why comments like these ensure that the demand problem continues? Let's see if the shoe fits. During the numerous periods when America was financing global tyrants, what if their citizens seriously considered taking over all of Wall Street and "perpetually occupying" America to stop the spread of harmful American policy? Sometimes I wonder how many conservatives actually grasp the concepts of "countries" or "sovereignty".
Post a Comment
<< Home