The Common Struggle to Change Mentalities
January 21st, 2007In order to investigate how to find the common ground between the West and the Muslim World in respect with the challenge of freedom, brief definitions of the terms “West”, “Muslim World”, and “Freedom” are required. Instead of academic definitions, I will define these terms upon my own cultural background as a Muslim Middle Eastern young woman. The term “West” is meant to describe the other side of the world which I do not live at, particularly Europe and USA. The term “Muslim World” arbitrarily means the Middle East which I was lucky enough to live at. The Middle Easterners are not only Muslims, although the majority is Muslim. However, it does not allow us – Muslims – to overlook the legitimate right of other non-Muslim Middle Easterners to feel that this piece of the globe belongs to them as much as they belong to it. So I would like to replace the term “Muslim World” with the term “Middle East”. Now, we reached the difficult part; the definition of the term “Freedom”.
The only one perfect clear definition of the term “Freedom” is that it is the common dream for both West and Middle East – the two sides of the globe. It is a grieve mistake to claim that the Middle East alone lacks freedom; West does too. The West seeks freedom from fear caused by Middle East ignorance and radicalism which threaten West security all the time. However, the freedom sought by the West is dependent on the freedoms sought by the Middle East. For the West to achieve its freedom, it must work on freeing the Middle East from such ignorance and radicalism. Here lies the common ground upon which both West and Middle East should stand hand in hand for freedom. In their common struggle; the West and the Middle East should keep one thing in mind. That is; the freedom requires the change of mentalities as well as surrounding circumstances. Middle Easterners should understand and subsequently believe that the West is not an enemy but rather a prospected helpful friend. Simultaneously, the West should take the initiative to help the Middle East to reach this belief which will definitely result into positive practices.
Yet, what are the specific needs of the Middle East in its struggle for freedom? The perfect answer of this question can be extracted from the famous Four Freedom Speech which was delivered by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the State of the Union Address to the 77th United States Congress on January 6, 1941. Roosevelt enumerated four points as fundamental freedoms humans “everywhere in the world” ought to enjoy: (1) Freedom of speech and expression, (2) Freedom of every person to worship God in his/her own way, (3) Freedom from want – individual economic security, and (4) Freedom from fear – world disarmament to the point that wars of aggression are impossible[1] . If these freedoms are guaranteed to the Middle East, both the West and the Middle East shall witness prosperity and freedom.
Thereupon, how can the West help the Middle East to achieve these freedoms? Human rights education, individual freedom, and economic competition are the magical keywords for the solution.
The Middle Easterners should realize that they are respectable humans, just like those living in the rest of the world. The lack of human rights education in the Middle East, led the citizens to accept living as slaves to their governments and dictators. Democracy is not a big deal and no one looks forward for change. Hence, Middle Easterners need to learn what it means to live with dignity and to respect one’s own rights as well as to respect the other’s rights. In this perspective, the role of the West could be limited to providing financial and moral support to the existing human rights associations and NGOs. That is not all; the West should also help the Middle East to learn and to adopt new methods to spread human rights culture and to raise awareness among people. At the same moment, the West should provide the Middle East reformists and activists, who are suffering from the tyranny practices committed by their states, with much moral support through campaigns, petitions, political intervention, etc. Thereupon, the Middle East can be healed from the serious diseases of radicalism and extremism. At the same time and as a result, the fears of the West can be eliminated for ever. Thus, the opportunities of mutual rational and fruitful cooperation between the two sides of the globe, in all fields and on all possible levels, will be highly expected.
The individual freedom refers, in a very general sense, to the state of being each individual free (i.e., unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered). Each one of us is a unique human who resembles no one else. That is why we are as individuals are able to form the integral harmonious whole. Thereupon, this sense of individuality should be enhanced and kept unconfined by the so-called “general interest of the group”. Every person is free to identify his/her own goals and responsibilities as long as it does not affect the freedom of other individuals. This way, every one shall be responsible for the consequences of his/her actions and decisions, and subsequently paying more attention for doing the right thing. In this regard, the West should launch campaigns and establish comprehensive and innovative multimedia plans and methods to support religious freedom and women’s freedom in the Middle East. If both of these freedoms are reached, much progress could happen. They are jointly forming the basis upon which the democracy could survive.
Some economists believe that for any country to achieve political freedom, it must have economic prosperity. Despite the fact that the Middle East is the greatest exporter of oil all over the globe, it is a relatively poor region. The main reason behind this is the lack of economic competition and open markets even at free zones spread all over the Middle East countries. Ironically, these claimed “free” zones are strictly “fettered” with naïve laws. The Middle East needs to learn how to enjoy the risk by providing equal economic opportunities for its citizens based on one rule; which is “the gainer gains all, the loser loses all”. This will ignite competition between individuals. Competition shall result into excellence. Each individual will do his/her best to reach the best quality in his/her area of specialization. Such excellence on individual level will lead to greater excellence on society and country level. High quality will bring more money, which means economic prosperity. The West has a prestigious experience in this sense. Hence, the West is expected to help the Middle East to let the dream of economic prosperity come true. At least, this may provide the West with a new market and a unique opportunity of investment. The West should deliver its own experience to the Middle East, yet in a proper manner that fits the cultural and social background of the Middle Easterners. The West experience may be delivered through education channels and media. At the same moment, the west should interfere to change the current laws fettering economic competition in free trade and open markets in the Middle East.
To achieve the above goals, the positive change on all levels should be aspired, particularly on the intellectual level. The West is not expected to support the Middle East to change only the fettering laws and the barren ideas and inherited traditions, but also to change the mentalities of the Middle Easterners. Much effort is supposed to be exerted by the West to give and the Middle East to receive properly. However, no matter how tiring this is, as long as the prospected results will be for the interest of the two prospected friends (i.e. the West and the Muslim World).
——————————-
Footnotes:
[1] Wikipedia website; Four Freedoms Speech; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms_speech#The_four_freedoms_and_disarmament (visited on 25 August 2006)
Loading ...
Loading...
Dalia,
It is true that all people dream of freedom. People in the West, I think, dream of more than simply freedom from fear, which is very context specific and drawn from a very specific but predominant narrative. Of course, this fear is almost entirely psychological as the actual danger that people in the West face from people in the Middle East is minimal and hardly a threat. On the other hand, the threats that people in the Middle East face from people in the West are encountered daily, and much more worthy of legitimate fear than anything anybody in the West is facing.
At the same time you pinned the responsibility of spreading freedom–even teaching it–in the Middle East on the West. Of course if we look at history of the West, classical colonialism, early American imperialism in Cuba and the Phillipines, even Mexico, and the more recent adventures of America in the Middle East, have all been executed in the name of freedom, of liberation, and of Christendom. It is impossible to spread freedom through subjugation, and peace through war. We should recognize this by now.
I also found it somewhat offensive that you think that people in the Middle East should be “educated” about their human rights, that they needed to learn to known the value of their own dignity. Do you not think that they are fully aware of the lack of rights they have? Do you actually think that they are content with the political and economic order there because they believe they are slaves and are happy with that role, or is it more likely that they are discontent but incapable of doing anything because they have seen the immense and ruthless power their government is willing to take against them to stop them?
And this is where the West and Middle East find a common ground. The worst of our governments, which deny the rights of those under their jurisdiction, are in fact the friendliest with the Western countries; but does the West, as in your imagination of what it should do, brandish the cause of human rights, of freedom, justice, and equality? No. In fact it has often acted to the contrary, doing anything within its power to help those autocrats REPRESS the organic, people’s movements who wanted true reform. Where you believe that it would have spread respect for humanity, the West instead chose to spread conditions that would further its control of the region.
There is another commonality between the West and the Middle East. The individuals in both places continue to seek their freedom. Freedom is not a permanent condition in the West, it is an ideal that is constantly challenged by the governments. And, like in the Middle East, it has been challenged with force, by shooting at protestors, jailing dissidents, and torturing subversives in the past, and to this day. It was only four decades ago that American federal law mandated a semblance of equality between races, and the problems racism has introduced into that society linger to this day.
And what of opening the economies? Do you think that an open economy in the Middle East means that independent citizens from those countries will open businesses and companies for the benefit of their own society? Or, do you understand that really this means opening the country up to Western corporations to come and monopolize the market (as they already do in certain countries), thereby damaging the stability of our own society by making us even MORE dependent on those corporations? Despite the things said to support this (that otherwise there would be no jobs, or people would be making less money, etc), there is nothing to rationalize the huge discrepancy between any benefit that would come to the people under the suffocating presence of a “free market” and those who administer it from the West. We are accustomed to military occupation, but we should be weary even of economic occupation, which historically was a precursor to the former.
In short, those four freedoms are a good place to start. But Roosevelt was not original in them (not even in an American context, people like Eugene Debs were decades ahead of him), and they certainly are not Western ideals that are products of Western culture. You should know that even in Egypt, Iran, Syria, and other countries around, that people actively promote those ideals in varying ways–from an Islamic context to a secular one.
These freedoms will not come to us as a result of American or British or French military “aid.” The exact opposite comes with tanks and airplanes, and in fact even until today those tanks and airplanes have always been on the side opposing genuine freedom and respect for human rights. We should look inward and join the movements that have come of ourselves, from our own societies, rather than look falsely for a romantic knight in shining armor to save the day. There is nothing different between waiting for a religious Messiah and waiting for the modernistic Western messiah.
Interesting Dalia and Yaman
1st I can’t help but saying this. If I could write in Japanese the way you can write in English I would think I had died and gone to heaven REALLY!
2nd Dalia seems to be on a philosophical level, with certain assumptions made for its application.
Yaman has more of the real issues of the actual experience here.
Well, a comment. The son of the Founder of the Bahai Faith was visiting America and he said that true freedom exists only in the animal world. The animal is free to do whatever it feels at the moment to do. But man, because of his higher capacities and powers that can easily cause more impact on the world and himself than the animal should not limit himself to the freedoms of the animal. The highest expression of man’s capacities and potential exists in man’s self-discipline to God’s will.
There is a reason why the Christ in the Christian Bible uses the “servant” and the “master” terms in His stories. Not only is it a familiar relationship for the society of those times but also there is a spiritual meaning for “servant hood”. IN this all mankind are in the same equal level, we are all servants, and because we are all on the same level of responsibility before God, we should all have equal civic rights,as Dalia mentions.
I generally agree with Yaman, and therefore I shudder to think of the current policy the US government is pursuing in Iraq. It would seem that after 3 years of pain and suffering, but it is apparently not enough…when is it enough, I wonder.
Dalia-
I think you are onto something…though this would be far from simple…
First of all…the USA, as Yaman tries to state, is not buddy-buddy with the worse the ME has to offer…namely Iran, formerly Iraq or Syria as examples. And we have been trying to hold up the liberal government in Lebanon…against an anti-freedom movement like Hizballah, supported by Iran. So that argument is absurd. In fact…it seems Yaman wants to not only knock the West out of the savior role (fair enough) but place them in the grand repressor role (also absurd).
Dalia…I agree that the West should support pro-human rights, pressure governments like Egypt and, yes Yaman is correct that the West has turned a deaf ear to places like Saudia…which is wrong.
I also like your basic premise…that assumptions about each other have to be attacked. This is difficult, of course, since I can’t think of a country in the ME that allows freedom of expression. The very image you would like to rid yourself of tends to be perpetuated by your leaders.
But good for you Dalia…I don’t see frequent whiney, blaming, victim, handicapped thinking I often encounter on this subject. Thinking that demeans the Muslim world FAR more than Western sterotypes because to me it communicates “oh we just can’t…we have had imperialists running around keeping us down”. Most imperialism in the ME and North Africa ended decades ago…and some of the imperialism probably helped in certain areas.
So…I liked much of what you had to say Dalia…you are not bitter and blaming, but thinking and trying to suggest some ideas that just might help, albeit just a bit, but could help.
Howie,
It speaks wonders that you should refer to Syria and Iran as the worst examples, when Saudi Arabia is far more gruesome than either in almost all respects. To call Hizballah “anti-freedom” implies that those in the current Lebanese government are in fact “pro-freedom” instead of “pro-themselves.” Please, when in the history of the world was there ever a political movement genuinely concerned with the people and their welfare, rather than with their own power? This is rather naive of you, and your classifications neglect that fact that Hizballah enjoys wide popular support.
Of course, I’m not one for creating roles. I am one for attacking them, when they are false and imagined (ie the savior role). But the role of America in propping up oppressive governments in the region should not be ignored, either by Americans (since they are the only ones that can end this easily) or by those under the rule of America’s friends. It is not a matter of denying people their agency; of course, people should strive for their rights (AND THEY ALREADY ARE) regardless of what America is doing. But when you are in that position of a struggler, it is not hard to ignore the reality that one of your biggest obstacles is the fact that America supports those who are oppressing you. This is not a reason to stop trying; it is not a reason to accept the crimes of those who are collaborating with the imperialist project (ie, the governments); but it is an analytical position to keep in mind when considering: why is it that these governments are in place? America’s behavior in this regard is not exclusive to the Middle East, but also to other places like Latin America.
In any case, Howie, you missed my point entirely. It was not, as you’ve claimed, that “everything is America’s fault and therefore we should sit around and do nothing until America gets here.” But the fact that we are completely aware of America’s past and current behavior, of how it acts with regards to Middle East governments, introduces a lot of skepticism into the way I look at things in the region: especially when you go around and start talking about the “pro-freedom” “liberal” government of Lebanon, which happens to be supported by the United States.
No progressive movement in the Middle East should seek US approval, and such approval should never be interpreted as a badge of honor, or some sign of that movement’s validity or the nobleness of its intentions. As far as I’m concerned, any government that enjoys America’s support–with the obvious strings attached–is one that I wouldn’t touch with a thirty-nine-and-a-half-foot pole. After all, that support is based on political ambitions and on America’s self-serving interests, not on what are popularly perceived to be American “values” or “ideals.”
Yaman-
“No progressive movement in the Middle East should seek US approval, and such approval”
I agree with that part…nobody requires a pat on the head from Uncle Sam.
But we live in a very connected world now…and given that the USA is currently at the top of the heap…in terms of money, power and political influence…we are a very important player…China is barking at the door…if you don’t like America…just wait til those dudes start pushing their weight around (already killing Muslims in their western territories…and they don’t care about NGO’s etc).
In terms of “strings”…well I will make you a list of nations and interests that don’t have strings attached to their actions:
OK…now that you have reviewed that…then we have to pick our poison…hmm..let’s ally with ever fun loving Russians, or the Chinese and Japan has a long illustrious history of being a bunch of nice guys.
Saudia might be more miserable than Iran…but barely.
Seriously…how would you have it…don’t do business with anyone that hurts people’s feelings…then nobody does business with anyone.
And yes, the current government in Lebanon also has very board support. Hizboallah…yes they have support too…yes they do…so did the Ayatoallah Khomeini…ask the Iranians who read this how he came through for his country…
So…it is not a world or black hats and white hats…but a blurred, complex, shifting mass…and you have to place your bet or get out of the game…I placed my bet with the West long before I would touch the likes of 99% of the ME leadership with a 49 and and a half foot pole.
Howie,
At this point you are basically agreeing with what I’ve said, but you think “realism” demands some sort of cooperation. I did not say there was anything wrong with cooperation, but there is a terrible disconnect between puppetry–which is what we have, not “cooperation”–and the goal of having a freer society.
My main objection in my initial post was the image that Dalia cast of the US as a “savior.” She seems to be banking everything on the US’ willingness to come liberate the Middle East. Besides being a historically inaccurate role, it is an unrealistic one.
It will never happen. Freedom comes from the inside, not the outside, and there is nothing else to be said about that, really.
Yaman-
By-the-way..you write quickly and well…you got to be Western-born or have hung out in those parts quite a bit.
Yes Howie, I am. My profile shows “Syria & USA” and I live in California.
Yaman-
“It will never happen. Freedom comes from the inside, not the outside, and there is nothing else to be said about that, really.”
I always have something else…though I primarily agree with that last statement…but in repressive, authoritarian and utterly brutal environments…how does one get himself some of that freedom? Look at the Kareem case in Egypt for just one tiny example.
Forget America…but the West in general, can and does have some influence in these areas…If societies completely close off…say kind of like China or what Afganistan had, then the bullies really come out and play.
In a quest for freedom in ME-like environments…I would say yes freedom must come from within…but it does help when the bullies know somebody is looking over their shoulders, esp. if that somebody has dollars.
Yaman-
“I live in California”
Well shit howdy neighbor. Not a little hard on the country that took you in are you?
Do you read http://amarji.blogspot.com/ ????
If not…you would like it…well maybe.
The effect external powers can have in “shaking up” a place in order to destabilize the existing political order, and in effect open the door for new orders whether they be more liberal or more repressive, should not be confused with imparting any sort of liberation.
Yaman-
“The effect external powers can have in “shaking up†a place in order to destabilize the existing political order, and in effect open the door for new orders whether they be more liberal or more repressive, should not be confused with imparting any sort of liberation.”
Now we are 100% in agreement…
Howie, yes, I’ve been reading Ammar’s blog for almost two years now, and I’ve always been in contact with him. He is a good and inspirational man.
If by “took me in” you mean that immigrants have less rights than natural citizens, then I think the legal system disagrees with you, even if there is a predominant attitude that loud mouthed immigrants should “love it or leave it.”
In any case, I was born here as well. But I do not think this makes me special or gives me more right to say anything than anybody else.
Yaman…
I am for freedom of speech and also gratitude…and I don’t know many cases of immigrants having been booted for criticizing the government…not many places more tolerant than the USA…especially California..
I love Ammar blog.
So you surf? Fish? Smuggle Syria hashish?
Immigrants have always been scrutinized and deported, especially in times of war or mass hysteria. The first amendment has limits and almost every war president has violated them.
I don’t really do any of those things, I just study.
Yaman didn’t imply this.
Do you know the reason behind why NAM was created? Why can’t the Middle Eastern countries do something like that? Middle Easterners got the resources and the manpower required to do anything they want. In fact, they can handicap the world if they wanted to. They have more power than the United States in that term. Talking about oil, btw. Why would someone with this kind of power would want to appease some one from the other side of the world?
Those who are in power are the ones who are holding the region hostage. They will keep on doing what they are doing as long as possible so they can stay in power. America is just happen to be one of the main backers of these tyrants. It’s not just America, I can list all the Western countries to the list, but America is the main one. When the American military bases disappear from the Middle East we can demote America from the ranks of assholes who are responsible for maintaining the depots in the region.
He was a better choice than what they had. Just because he was the better choice at that time doesn’t mean he is the better choice now. Time changes people must move on and Iranians will move on. Just going to take time… progress don’t happen over night.
Lebanese have a choice between the corrupt and the fundies. They tried the corrupt, now let them have a try at the fundies. They have to learn this lesson, so that they will learn something for the future, just like the Iranians did.
Do not forget, of course, that the freedom lovers of Lebanon’s “liberal” government include such liberal thinkers as al-Jama` al-Islamiyyah.
Yaman-
Dude come on…we haven’t even started kicking out the 4 million ILLEGAL Mexicans we have right here in California…you are thinking back to WWII or something…or a couple we booted in the hysteria after 9-11…be real dude come on…
And Jina…who the hell invited you? Lebanon should let the fundies get in? Really…even many Shia’s are not really happy about the HA…
Howie, yes, World War II, World War I, the Spanish-American War, the Civil War, etc, etc, etc… see the pattern?
Yaman-
So they shipping your ass to Syria and mine to the Ukraine soon? Yikes…that would put my wife in….OMG…Iraq!!! (hmmm…maybe not a bad idea).
Of course, I never made any such claim.
Yaman…
I am only making joke…its ah nice.
Jina-
By-the-way…do you EVER agree with me…damn I already have a wife.
I did agree with few things before, but then again you are old so you probably forgot.
1) Howie how is your Qur’an reading coming along
;-)
2) I book marked Amarji’s blog, but didn’t read, however I noticed that he is a resident guest at the Brookings Institution…..FIRST RATE Scholars. No I’ve never been there but I worked down the hall from a member a long time ago,.really nice humble guy (don’t remember what he wrote ) and I have read their other stuff from time to time.
3) If so many people are from Calif. LETS PARTY ;=) where did you folks live?
We used to live in LA, Monterrey, San Diego, and Vista.
Jina-
Forgot what?
Who are you?
San Francisco
Hi everybody, thank you so much for your comments. I enjoyed reading them.
I just wanted to clarify the point I would like to state here. I did not mean to show neither the west nor the Middle East as the victim of the other. I just wanted to say that we have to stop fighting and look for something in common; to cooperate rather than to combat.
lol
If we did this we’ll have peace on Earth. This goes for every single one of us.
Nice to dream
But she does have a point as impossible as that sounds. If we can at least cut each other some slack, and stop generalizing too much, dialogue can lead to mutual respect and understanding. Not necessarily peace and love, but at the very least, an understanding which is crucial.
Thanks Dalia for your great post.
Her point is very valid, it’s just that trying to get people to listen is the…
I very much agree with you there. If we target the educational institutions with these kinds of ideas, we may have a case. But most of such arguments end up falling on deaf ears.