The blatant inaction, failure of dialog, and perceived-created fears by the West has not only brought constant fear to the Islāmic people both in America and in their homeland but has aided the corrupt state officials and the terrorist themselves. Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s first female Prime Minister, discusses this in her speech “Three Victims of Terrorism.” She explains in detail that not only does the Muslim nation wholly support and rally around the United States in its War Against Terror, it does so although the West does not consistently commit themselves to promoting stability and democracy in the Middle East.
Although the war on terror has greatly raised the profile of democracy and its undeniable need in the Middle East, the
…show more content…
What the United States has apparently said to the world is that an electoral democracy in the Middle East does not serve the U.S. interests in the war on terrorism or Middle Eastern policies. Therefore, it seems that the West has turned a blind eye to corrupt parliaments and military regimes that are strangling the East’s push towards a …show more content…
policies against terrorism and have been more than willing to do their part in the war on terror and yearn for a new day where they are not strangled by the authoritarian rule. What the West fails to realize is that the dictators and Arabic leaders do not want to give Arabs a voice in their own future; therefore, it is almost impossible for the West to know that not all Arabs hate Americans and that the views of few do not represent those of many. Benazir Bhutto goes on to state that “The Party that I am proud to lead supports the decision of the government of Pakistan to join the U.S. led alliance against the forces of terror. Each Muslim county has joined the war against terror.” (276) Terrorists are in fact not large entities but a small fraction of followers that has repeatedly stated that they are against democracies because they are afraid they will lose their
In this book, Friedman presents a coherent picture of forces in the Middle East that have led to the Israeli- Palestinian confrontation and to bin Laden and his group of terrorists. Friedman’s articles describe meetings, discussions, and arguments he had with people at all levels of society through out the Middle East. From his extensive travels and through dynamic interactions with the people he derived intense insights into how 9/11 came about, why, and what should be done about it.
Likewise, Goodwin illustrates how the use of categorical terrorism can be seem being used by Al-Qaida during the attacks of 9/11. Nonetheless, it is evident that Al-Qaida is unusual in terms of using terrorism to influence the rise of unity rather than trying to overthrow a standing state. For the purpose of instigating a pan-Islamic revolutionary movement, Al-Qaida tries to unite all Islamic people under one state to develop umma, or Muslim community. The logic of Al-Qaida remained that if their “revolutionaries” could illicit a reaction from the powerful US state, resulting in oppression of the middle-eastern region, that Al-Qaida could, as a result, unite all Muslims to counter this suggested oppression. Although the end goal of Al-Qaida clear failed, it does suggest the organization’s attempt at implementing categorical terrorism.
The face of American democracy is deceptive; from missionary trips to military tours, America has established a presence in the Middle East, and has always projected itself to be the perfect image of a democratic and free nation where everyone is equal. While America tries to up hold their motto of being the land of the free, American media has presented Arabs as unintelligent and violent people. Because of the way America presents itself to the rest of the world, one would be surprised if they traveled to America only to find violence and ignorance amongst its government and citizens. While Western civilization believes itself to be on a higher level than Eastern civilization, this orientalist view blinds America from seeing the similarities
Islam has influenced many cultures around the world. For centuries, Islam has had an immense influence on the Afghan culture. According to this religion, women have no rights. The men took advantage of this system by translating only what they wanted from the Koran; to enslave the women in our culture for their own desires. From the beginning, the women on no account had any civil rights or have power over their own lives, and most were uneducated and had accepted what their teachers taught in schools and mosques. My family moved to the US when the Russians invaded Afghanistan. I thank god to be one of the lucky women who did not have to live in Afghanistan and for giving me a better place to live in America. Unfortunately, this was not the case for the majority of the Afghan women. Under the cruel Taliban government the women were banned to work, and were not allowed outside their homes without being escorted by a man. The film Osama, inspired by a true story, is about Osama, a young girl who did lived in Kabul while the Taliban regime. Through Osama's story, I had a chance to see what it was like to live in Afghanistan as a woman. This is a story of a girl whose faith was in the hands of many different people: her family, the Taliban soldiers, and the city judge. Osama and I have different lives on different continents; however, we both could have had more rights and better life if we were born men.
Winter, T. (2011), America as a Jihad State: Middle Eastern Perceptions of Modern American Theopolitics. The Muslim World, pp. 101: 394–411.
The Middle Eastern has developed a lot of economic success with the authoritarianism government they’ve established. To some people, if they are economically stable, they’re willing to endure the hardships of being lead under a dictator. Countries like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are flourishing in the oil business, which keeps them wealthy and involved in international relations. To the citizens of the Middle East, this makes their country look powerful because even with the Western’s opposing ideologies, they’re still working with the Middle East. This is sending the wrong message because even though the western countries have to cooperate and show political support with the Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries. Situations like these give the citizens a positive outlook of how their country is being conducted and support their governme...
The Middle East has historically rebuked Western influence during their process of establishing independence. When Britain and France left the Middle East after World War II, the region saw an unprecedented opportunity to establish independent and self-sufficient states free from the Western influence they had felt for hundreds of years. In an attempt to promote nationalistic independence, the states of the region immediately formed the League of Arab States in 1945. The League recognized and promoted the autonomy of its members and collaborated in regional opposition against the West until 1948 when Israel declared independence. Israel represented then and now an intrusive Western presence in the Arab world. The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict typifies this cultural antagonism. The Cold War refocused attention to the Middle East as a site of economic and strategic importance for both sides, yet the two hegemons of the Cold War now needed to recognize the sovereignty of the Middle Eastern states. With their statehood and power cemented, the Middle Easte...
Diamond, L. (2004, January 21). What is Democracy. What is Democracy. Stanford, California, United States of America: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm
Political uprisings in the Middle East, especially in Muslim nation states have placed Arabian politics back on the focus point of international politics. Political events in certain Arab countries had an excessive impact on the political development of other neighboring states. Resistances and anxieties within different Arab countries triggered unpredictable actions, sometimes sorely to observe and believe. The authoritarian governments of Arabian countries led from various dictators have created a precarious situation for their people, especially in providing national security and maintaining peace in the region. Jack Goldstone argues that the degree of a sultan’s weakness has been often only visible in retrospect; due in part to the nature of the military-security complex common across Middle East states (Goldstone 1). In addition, the existence of various statesmen with political affiliation is concerned in faithfulness of its armed forces. Usually, the armed national forces of several states, mainly those in Arab countries are loyal and closely affiliated to their leaders, which have a major role in state regimes. Arab uprisings in their early spreading appeared legally responsible and with concrete demands from representatives’ peoples, calling for a more open democratic system and reasonable governance. Even though, the system in which popular frustration with government imposes alters considerably from one state to another. These public revolts against different authoritative governments didn’t halt just in Arab states, but they sustained also in the Far East and in the Eastern Europe. Can we say that the popular uprisings in Arab countries could be attributed to the term of globalization? In fact, globalization is a multi...
...most distressed by outcome of a war, could exercise only inadequate control on the issue of armed action against Iraq. Most of the regional actors discarded the U.S. policy towards Iraq with varying intensity as they feared insecurity after Iraq’s disintegration (Reuters, 2003) whereas; Jordan decided not to endanger its rewarding ties with Washington. Another key actor at this level is the Baathi party in Iraq which was based on tribal division, domestic oppression and economic enticement. Under Baathi regime military, bureaucracy and security services was divided into several competing institutions which reinforced Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq. In the post war Iraq, the USA in collaboration with the Iraq National Congress and the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution started to make Iraq a democracy that is similar to the American political culture and values.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
The rise of terrorism and extremism in the Middle East during the time this piece was composed prompted Mohi-Ud Din to engage in a passionate argument about how these terrorists have ruined the image of Muslims. He explicitly highlights the main points of his argument by using transitional words such as firstly, secondly, and thirdly. He initiates his argument by proposing that the media’s one-sided focus on Muslim extremists prevent the viewers from recognizing that the majority of Muslims are not violent. Next, he debunks the stereotypes Americans have about Muslims and then he shifts his concern to how America’s political and military actions have exploited Muslim countries. He concludes his argument by explaining why Islam is not a threat to
“Are political Islam and democracy compatible?” This question has been troubling both Muslims and non-Muslims living in East and West for a long time now. Contemporary Islamic political thought has become deeply influenced by attempts at reconciling Islam and democracy. Muslim thinkers who deal with political debates cannot disregard the significance of the democratic system, as it is the prevailing theme of modern western political thought. Hence, it is necessary for any alternative political system, whether it is religious or secular, to explore its position with regards to democratic government. In fact, a large literature and media publications have developed over the last century on this heated discourse of democracy versus Islam. While many argue that Islam has all the ingredients of modern state and democratic society, many other reject the phenomena “modernism” and “democracy” as a whole because of their “foreign nature”—alien to “Islamic values”. For Islamists and modernists, the motivation for such effort to either embrace or reject democracy often is to remove suspicion about the nature and goals of Islamic movements and Islamic revivalism or resurgence. But before diving into this discourse, one needs to understand the definition and origins of “democracy.” Although purely a Western ideology in its origin, there is no consensus on the definition of “democracy” as a political system. The Oxford English Dictionary describes democracy as: “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (“democracy, n.”). In my paper, I will examine whether or not democracy and Sunni political Islam are compatible through the eyes of three revolutionary Sun...