I dunno. If the nations in which they live do not discriminate against them and allow them to live in personal freedom, are we sure that they are actually being exploited?
In an ideal world (or, at least, in one ideal world), there would truly be one world government–or one world without government–in which every individual would have unlimited freedom of movement and speech and the limited government that exisited would simply act to ensure that no individual was coerced or defrauded. I strongly suspect that we are far from anything resembling that ideal. In the meantime, we have people with weapons who are ready and willing to use them in order to claim or defend imaginary lines on a map for the advancement of different ideals than the one that began this paragraph. In this real world, I am willing to support some actions that are attempts to prevent a lot of bloodshed that will culminate in a real oppression of a minority involving the suppression of speech and even life, even if it means that for some period one group exists as a minority within a larger group.
I do not believe that the Iraqi border is carved in stone. I also do not believe that telling millions of armed people to go out and determine new lines in the sand is a valid approach to reducing suffering. I particularly do not believe that encouraging (or even allowing) such lines to be determined by the simple expedient of seeing who can buy the most guns is appropriate.
If we permit the Kurds to determine their own borders, what do we then say to the surviving Armenians who want a chunk of the new Kurdistan “returned” to them?
It has taken the Scots, Welsh, and English a few hundred years to approach the issues of self-determination on their island (where they have not had an excessive amount of relocation). The Flemish and Walloons are slowly struggling with their identities (where, again, they have not had any forced migrations). The Francophones and Anglophones of Canada have not reached a completely satisfactory solution in their disputes. These are countries in which there are traditions of democratic principles that go back many years. I suspect that even an arbitrary set of lines inside of which a nation-state can be nurtured will be better prepared to deal with the issues of secession at some point than simply telling the inhabitants of a chaotic region to “work it out” right now.
Well, I was hoping you yourself had some framework in which you were expressing your disregard for the UN on these counts.
Part of the issue is the lack of truly analagous examples for the UN. Contra the rather stupider flights of fancy of the black helicopter crowd, the UN , lacking an army, hasn’t much of a record for occupying and rebuilding a country.
Now depending on how catholic we wish to be in our definitions, I would advance the recent examples in Bosna and East Timor, which come closest to an analagous situation. We could cast the net furhter and simply look to successful UN peacekeeping operations which coincided with UNDP involvement, but this rather dilutes the example.
In any case, all things considered, neither East Timor nor Bosnia can be called failures, one might even qualify them – to date-- to be moderate successes, if one is cautious and not overly optimistic about things.
Now this is something I would like to read more about myself, the entire reconstruction issue, as I am going to be dealing with it professionally (in so far as my porfolio will touch upon it). I rooted about for some further information – as I noted in my prior message, it is easy to be abusive of one party or the other (and nota bene, I indicated my own list could be abusive), but I would hope one could be a trifle analytical.
I offer the above, esp the biblio for reading (my own as well as I note) and hopefully those with better lib access can follow through better.
The short of it is that I see no reason to off-handedly dismiss UN involvement based on pre-supposed lack of competence. UN involvement may be crucial for an absolutely necessary longer presence.
The moral justification, if that ever has any real meaning in international politics, is lesser cost in lives and blood.
It is not so bloody simple as just letting have their own nation, to the extent “them” is an actual unitary entity. “They” – the Kurds will indeed be deprived of a state, for if they try for it, the Turks and the Iranians will crush them like bugs.
Wilsonian self determination. A fine little piece of late 19th century – early 20th century fiction which served a purpose to an extent. It is also a fiction. What decides who is a people? Where is the end? What bases are judgments derived from. This little exercise turned out to be bloody and repressive in Europe, where the ethnic map had already been rather simplified by strong state based assimilationist programs throughout the 19th century. Now carry it to other lands, and you get what you see in Nigeria, in Congo-Kinshasa, in Congo-Brazzaville, in CAR, in Cote d’Ivoire, and yes, in Iraq. Sounds fine, and warm and fuzzy and makes the good little liberal in us all call out “Freedom!”
Except it abstracts away from the harsh realities that “peoples” are political entities that do not exist naturally but are created, and that in places without strong national identities or histories as such, where other, lower level identities (tribal, ethno-religious) exists, it is all too easy for the ‘ethnic entrepreneur’ – a term of art for that brand of politician who sees his route to power through fomenting ethnic division as a bootstrap method to power – to create tension (often off of the back of quite real grievances, but as often not) and a power base.
Does this “help” the ostensible “people” – defined I suppose on that nice 19th century mythology that a “race” or “people” (volk, peuple) is defined by some concordance of common language and ostensible culture and physical type? Perhaps if it addresses the real problems, but from what I have seen, rarely does it. Comforting mythologies that our own will take care of our own, a sort of tribalism writ large.
Besides being the recipe for micro-states of increasingly particularistic and xenophobic nations, e.g. Yugoslavia to take an European example, it rather ignores the fact that many such ‘peoples’ are the works of art of the ethnic entrepreneurs. Let me address briefly Yugoslavia as an idea: at one time it had real legitimacy, the Union of the South Slavs, who speak essentially one language, overcoming religious tensions to form a state. Brings a nice warm, fuzzy Wilsonian glow. It blew up, under the auspices of folks such as Tudjman and Slobovich (spelling not checked here), but I think it need not have. Regretfully, the grievances of the different groups, Catholic Yugoslav, Orthodox Yugoslav, Muslim Yugoslav were suppressed under false unanimity in the Communist state, although Tito tried to make a real union of it. Are they better off now, having their micro states? I seriously doubt it, the real grievances in re opportunity now are displaced.
In regards to the Kurds, if you bother to inform yourself, to get beyond the superficial journalistic declarations regarding our dear ‘Mountain Turks’ (I use the term ironically and lovingly, I like my Kurdish amigos, although their appetite for Raki seems boundless) as ‘democratic’ and a ‘oppressed people’ you get down to a rather seedier reality.
First, the Kurds, spread between Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran have never been “one people” and indeed the Kurds, in keeping with most of their neighbors, have more tribal identities than not, an exception of course being in urbanized communities. The dialects of the Kurdish language are described as quite divergent between the regions. Further the Kurds are divided themselves between Sunni and Shiite, although the Iraqi Kurds are presently largely Sunni as the Shiites largely were expelled or fled to Iran during Sadaam’s period. I expect they may return. Even within this Kurdish “nation” the reality in the North has not been democracy or unity (the recent election being something cobbled together with highly suspicious timing in my opinion to make a nice impression on the gullible American neo-Cons and public) but fighting between the two main Kurdish ‘parties’ and the tribal factions in what was more or less warlordism.
You can look to equally unenlightening history in the Turkish zone with the PPK and its cousins, in their fight against Turkish oppression (rather nastier in many ways than Iraqi oppression) of what the Turks call the “Mountain Turks” – an expression best used ironically and in jest with Kurds. After a few rounds of Raki.
None of this ipso facto denies a legitimacy to the Kurdish cause. However it highlights the fact that behind those glowing Wilsonian ideals lies a far uglier reality.
Now, we can turn to what are the easily anticipatable results of a Kurdish state: Iranian and Turkish intervention, with the Turkish Army taking the lead. The Turkish army is not the Iraqi army, by all accounts they’re pretty good on par with low end NATO standards (they are the low end as I am told) and they are mean. The war with the PPK was not nice, their intervention would certainly be accompanied by extreme repression, not only in the new ‘Kurdistan’ but also in the Turkish regions were a political solution is just emerging. This would be clear set back all around. We can also anticipate severe tensions between Sunni and Shiite Kurds, perhaps even proxy wars via the Iranian. Let’s also add the Iraqi Arab reaction, likely to be unpleasant and violent.
Finally, to cap things off, none of the countries in the region, ex-Egypt, have borders of great legitimacy, and the opening of the border question is not likely to lead to better lives for any of the peoples involved, but a long series of bloody wars.
In short, only if one is hopelessly idealistic and utterly abstracts away from the subsequent rounds of violence can one see a good result. I have not much patience for this kind of idealism. At least in the context of a unitary state, one can work to see legit minority rights are protected, with minimal bloodshed and w/o the impoverishment of war.
I dealt with your naive understanding of the Kurdish question in the message prior but let me note that the Turkish Kurdish regions are not particularly rich, it is quite simply the Turks will not compromise their national borders. Period.
I would write something further on the Cyprus issue, but I need to get to doing productive things. Suffice it to say that the Turks are hardly the only villians there, if one looks into the issue.
You shouldn’t be, fascist is a deeply inapprop. label. Perhaps dictatorial or authoritarian (not synonyms for fascism), often not democratic but pehraps sometimes.
That’s not a definition of fascism, that is an excuse to use the word in a senseless, meaningless manner. Just say dictatorial.
However, Post-Khomieni Iran does not meet the bill, and Afghanistan never did. Mullah Omar was part of a council of Mullahs.
An ugly theocracy by half-educated back-woods preachers, yes. Fascist state or even Dictatorship, no. Certainly they were both authoritarian though.
Other than among the rather badly educated Taleban & Afghani mullahs, I do not know of anyone who thought particularly well of the Taleban Mullahs. Pretty much everyone looked down on them (and the Afghans sadly enough) as uneducated bumpkins.
In re the Islamic state issue, well there is nothing that says it has to be a one party state, and indeed in our only real example it is not. Iran is … well a queer creature neither fish nor fowl.
Even within the conservative factions there are more than one hizb, and in theory and within bounds the Iranian religious hierarchy accepts some degree of give and take.
How far that will go, and if it will evolve (rather than being aborted) is an open question.
There is a plethora of thought on this. Certainly the Shiite thinking on this seems to differ from Sunni thinking, on the radical end of the spectrum, as the Sunni radicals (I use the word radical advisely, not just for ‘Islamists’ on the moderate end of the spectrum but for the true radicals) seem to be inclined to hte idea of the Caliphate and the Rightly Guided Caliphe.
Not a real governmental project in the end, but a dream. The more practical sorts seem to like the Caliph idea but admit there’s no Caliph around.
The entire idea is of course of divine guidance.
I would not agree with your characterization of either Xian nor Muslim here, and find the entire concept of Islam being ‘fascistic’ to be ludicrous on its face, ever bit as much as that of Xians being fascistic by nature because Xian countries/cultures generated the world’s most totalitarian states to date. Simple coincidences.
Sorry, but these examples are non-issues that share next to nothing with Iraq. They aren’t applicable both because the premises in the country in question are about as different as they could possibly be, and because the premise in the US is an entirely different one.
Hardly. The US was key ín making Rwanda the disaster that it was, and it had nothing, nothing at all to do with setting a nation on a more democratic grounds. The UN did so, for example, in Cambodia -by helping the locals do so. The US has a post-WWII record of such endeavors that is pretty much abysmal, having routinely toppled democratic governments.
There is no such thing as a better US track record at building democracies. To claim so is a serious testimony of lack of knowledge on UN operations, and suggests being an apologist for the role of the US in Chile and similar locations.
A bit more humility would be the best first step in leading to success in Iraq and elsewhere.
Well that pretty much rules out the realistic possibility that the Kurdish folks would ever vote en masse for the same options - given that so many variables exist amongst them. Still, it would be a good thing to let them have a referendum just so that the Kurdish people themselves knew where they stood. As it stands, I get the distinct impression a few of them are tempted to push the envelope at the moment to see how much they can get away with. Rather bothersome really… all things considered.
Heh Heh… so the Kurds like a drink do they?
The Turks might be mean, but they honour bravery. In a few days, the annual ANZAC Cove ceremonies will be held, and as always, we Aussies and New Zealanders, once former foes with the Turks in World War One, will be welcomed with warmth and great hospitality.
A lot of people use that fact to kinda justify a position of being inherently condescending towards the MENA countries - but it seems to me that the end of the Ottoman Empire in WW1 left an enormous power vacuum - and 90 years later we’re still seeing reverberations it would appear. With hindsight, it’s not really fair to blame the MENA countries for the borders they’ve got - most of those geographic decisions were made out of expediency and a fair degree of self interest on the part of the winning powers upon recognising the surprising end to both the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire et al in 1918. That bloody one pistol shot in Sarajevo 1914 huh? And most remarkably, who would have thought that T.E.Lawrence would have played such a large role, with hindsight? His efforts in bring a ragtag bunch of Arab Tribesman together and forcing the Turks out of Arabia, Palestine, and Syria just caused so many astounding resonances.
God you people can be such a pompous clique here on SDMB.
Daniel pipes, although a conservative writer, is a middle east expert with a Ph.D and decades of experience. Collounsbury is a bank teller who lives in Egypt. I tend to take pipes words more seriously than Collounsbury’s for that reason.
I have seen Pipes refer to modern Islamism as ‘islamic fascism’ before so i used the term.
Quit calling us fools because we disagree with your arrogant clique. This is a discussion board last time i checked.
Daniel Pipes also has a disingenious track record of being heavily pro-Israel, anti-Islam, and perfectly willing to distort the facts to fit his viewpoints. Collunsbury, last I checked, does not.
Cite Daniel Pipes as a source for Islam? You may as well consult Bill O’Reilly for insights into Bill Clinton’s beliefs…
You, and your severe biases masquerading as truth, expressed by quoting a notoriously pro-islamic/anti-israeli author as an ‘unbiased’ source to counteract my ‘biased’ source, and using Zmag (a notoriously leftist magazine, home of Chomsky, Zinn and others) as a platform to do it make you lose all credibility with me. You are not worth addressing cordially so i won’t even try.
And all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten the hands of Bush, Blair and the rest of the evil axis as they wage their unholy War on Islam!
Anyone who quotes people who say crap like that, who post articles on Zmag does not deserve to be taken seriously when they talk about ‘bias’.
Well, well, calculus, it should be quite obvious to you that Pipes use of the term “fascist” in this context is hardly uncontended and most certainly represents a very particular point of view. If you use the term without given the source or motivation you should expect to draw some criticism over it. Now, Pipes is not active on these boards, so it is really up to you to motivate how it is appropriate use, or cite a passage where Pipes does so.
Personally I do think that such a usage is either willfully biased or uninformed, should it be by Pipes or whomever.
On reflection, I think I agree with Collounsbury that the word “fascism” has too many emotive connotations to be used safely. It’s too loaded a term, better to use other more precise words. I’ve read some Pipes on the net - the article I read of his states that the only solution to the Palestinian problem is for Israel to win a military victory.
This would suggest he is even further to the right than Bush who at least appears to finally be countenancing the idea of some kind of road map, some kind of negotiated settlement.
However I wonder whether Collounsbury and Tamerlane are aware of sites like faithfreedom.org and secularislam.org which are supposedly run by (and for) ex-muslims?
I can’t vouch for the reliability of the information in these sites. It could all be hogwash but some of the things they have to say are so harsh they make Pipes look like a liberal. The forum on faithfreedom is interesting because you get practicing muslims and ex-muslims on there having real ding-dong arguments. This is interesting because it’s the kind of dialogue that wasn’t really possible before the internet.
And it’s all the more interesting because the people on there are (allegedly) ex-muslims rather than anti-islam Christians. There appear to be quite a few of these kind of sites springing up on the web.
Oh, I’m aware of them. Like similar sites run by ex-Christians ( including Muslim sites that feature testimony from Christians that have “seen the light” and converted to Islam ), ex-smokers, ex-drinkers, ex-liberals, ex-conservatives and the like, I take them all with a might shaker of salt :).
Speaking as an atheist, I’m not overly fond of some facets of all of the Judeo-Christian religions, at least as they are frequently practiced. But I do try to take a balanced view of them all, good and bad. The fervor of the new convert ( either pro- or anti- ) can get a bit…shrill…at times. So while I don’t entirely discount them, I try to look at other less emotive sources as well.
Heh Heh… as Truman Capote once observed of Grace Kelly’s strident efforts on behalf of royalness, after she became Princess Grace… “No one is more zealous in life than a convert…”
Tamerlane… I agree with you completely about the “shrillness” of converts whether pro or anti.
But there is a part of me that cannot help but wonder whether we are being taken for fools when we in the west try to treat islam as “just another faith”. Islam is more than just a religion, it’s also a political ideology (all that bullshit about the muslim brotherhood) and it’s a legal system.
When Bangladesh and Pakistan went to war in 1971, Pakistan killed thousands of Bengalis and rape was common. Pakistan used napalm for God’s sake, fucking napalm on the poor defenceless Bengalis. And yet not one muslim country came out and condemned Pakistan.
The war only lasted 11 days and yet it was one of the most vicious wars of modern times. It only ended because India joined in and kicked the Pakistanis out. But muslims were so concerned with maintaining this stupid muslim brotherhood that they were willing to overlook any amount of Pakistani atrocities.
Contrast that with the US and the UK kicking Saddam out of power. All muslims were against it purely because it was a “Christian” coalition fighting a “muslim” leader.
Collounsbury…you said:
As I said above, you are right to say that I am being overly emotional in calling islam “fascistic” but let me explain where I am coming from:
far as I am concerned, islam is just another belief system
it is a belief system that entails a total religious, political, social and legal framework
therefore it is all-pervasive and all-encompassing unlike all the other religions
once in, you are not allowed to leave the “islam belief system” under pain of ostracism or even death
those people who are part of the system (muslims) are not allowed to come into contact with ideas that challenge their belief system (since non-muslims are not allowed to proselytise in muslim countries). Therefore muslim children grow up believing totally in the “islam belief system” with no exposure to any other belief system.
islam is the only belief system that does not allow proselytising by other belief systems
the “islam belief system” is total and uncompromising since it encompasses religion, politics, law and society. And allows for no other point of view (or where it does have to allow for other points of view, it does so reluctantly and in as limited a manner as possible).
This is why I can understand why people may think of islam as fascistic.
Please note that this mini-rant isn’t directed at muslims (who are entrapped by the system) but at the edifice that is Islam. I don’t like any belief system that believes it is so correct that it should eliminate all other belief systems (or restrict other belief systems, as in the case of the Iranian parliament that only allocates 5 seats to non-muslim groups).
I just worry that in our haste to be understanding and tolerant of other peoples beliefs, we are being taken for fools.
Clique, I like that word, although personally I prefer cult. And in any case you point? Or is this just empty whinging on because you got spanked for blithering on w/o a good grounding?
[quote[
Daniel pipes, although a conservative writer, is a middle east expert with a Ph.D and decades of experience. Collounsbury is a bank teller who lives in Egypt. I tend to take pipes words more seriously than Collounsbury’s for that reason.
[/quote]
Bank teller? That is rich. Well, no matter, you hold the opinions you want. BTW, I do not live in Egypt. I do some business there, and several years ago lived and worked there.
As for Pipes, well my opinion of him is well known. Yes, Pipes has a PhD degree in Middle Eastern History, Harvard. That’s nice, I have similar pedigrees, except with a modern turn. Nota bene: in Medieval History. In fact his first book, his most truly scholarly work in my opinion, Slave Soldiers in Islam isn’t bad. I read it a while back, I recall differences, but it is the field he is trained in.
The one thing he is not is not trained are modern issues. I first Pipes writing when someone asked me back in 1994 about an article he had written for that paragon of dispassionate analysis, the National Review. In it he argued that Iran was composing an “Islamic Comintern.” Yes, playing off his dear old dad, the cold warrior Poppa Pipes, Pipes has long moved from the realm of scholarship to that of punditry.
His descriptive work, in my opinion, is competent enough, but I find it lacking in honesty. His analyses, however, are again in my opinion, ill-informed and ideologically driven.
Now the one good turn you have done is I did a search for the post I recalled writing on this and found it is unfindable. On Pipes’ “Islamic Comintern” etc. Must have been lost in the great Winter Loss a bit back, or perhaps on the temp board. Regardless what I thought was out there is not.
So, now I know I have to find some time to craft a post on Pipes and why I am so bitterly critical of his punditry on the Middle East.
Now of use, by the way, is an article reproduced on Pipes’ very own site – I do give him credit for reproducing almost anything his name has touched. Not sure what that says, but who am I to critique ego:
Reproducing a FT article from 10 Jan 2003 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/996
As the article notes:
The language and habits for fighting communism, in my own not at all humble opinion, are not in any way appropriate to engaging a religion nor even political offshoots thereof.
Now just for background, emphases mine:
So, there you have access to some of the background.
Now it is upon me to find some time in the next week to write a critique to replace the lost one.
And this stupid empty and abusive usage is one of the reasons I dislike Pipes. Aping his father.
Heh Heh… so the Kurds like a drink do they?