War of Ideas, Part 6 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

[drdon326]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/opinion/25FRIE.html

For the past few weeks I've tried to lay out the tactics we in the West can adopt to strengthen the moderates in the Arab-Muslim world to fight the war of ideas against the forces of intolerance within their civilization — which is where the real war on terrorism will either be won or lost. But if there is one thing I've learned in examining this issue it's this: ideas don't just spread on their own. Ideas spread in a context. So often, since 9/11, people have remarked to me: "Wow, Islam, that's a really angry religion." I disagree. I do agree, though, that there are a lot of young Muslims who are angry, because they live in some of the most repressive societies, with the fewest opportunities for women and youth, and with some of the highest unemployment. Bad contexts create an environment where humiliation — and the anger, bad ideas and violence that flow from it — are rife. In short, it is impossible for us to talk about winning the war of ideas in the Arab-Muslim world without talking about the most basic thing that gives people dignity and hope: A job.

snip

Just read the numbers and weep: of the 90 million Arab youth today (between the ages of 15 and 24), 14 million are unemployed, many of them among the 15 to 20 million Muslims now living in Europe. "There's not enough jobs and not enough hope," Jordan's King Abdullah told the Davos economic forum. According to the 2003 Arab Human Development Report, between 1980 and 1999 the nine leading Arab economies registered 370 patents (in the U.S.) for new inventions. Patents are a good measure of a society's education quality, entrepreneurship, rule of law and innovation. During that same 20-year period, South Korea alone registered 16,328 patents for inventions. You don't run into a lot of South Koreans who want to be martyrs.

snip

So what to do? A lot of help can and should come from Europe. Although America is often the target, Europe has been the real factory of Arab-Muslim rage. Europe has done an extremely poor job of integrating and employing its growing Muslim minorities, many of which have a deep feeling of alienation. And Europe has done a very poor job of investing in North Africa and the Middle East — its natural backyard.

snip

So if you take anything away from this series, I hope it's this: The war of ideas among Arabs and Muslims can only be fought and won by their own forces of moderation, and those forces can only emerge from a growing middle class with a sense of dignity and hope for the future. Young people who grow up in a context of real economic opportunity, basic rule of law and the right to speak and write what they please don't usually want to blow up the world. They want to be part of it.

...................................................................

not sure i agree with all of it but certainly raises interesting
perspective.

would be interested what everyone else thinks.

[drdon326]

1. While that MAY explain some,

it fails to explain why osama and the other 9-11 hijackers
who all reportedly were middle class and had jobs would
murder approx. 3000 innocents.

it also fails to explain why a young women with 2 CHILDREN
would strap on a suicide belt and kill 4 israelis......
it would seem her hatred of israel outweighed her love
or her children. pathologic in itself.

Freidman talks of the failure of the arab and muslim world
to offer alternatives and hope.....i submit by the very
nature of their socities noted for repression of thought
and womens rights, THAT these repressive socities breed
terrorism. If you dont believe me , see Turkey.

And lastly, rather than blame their own socities for their
pathetic repression,they channel their populations anger
to the 'great satin' the west and to that evil zionist entity
called israel. See the multiple articles on state sponsored
arab media anti-semitism. 'Blame everyone else but dont you dare
blame us !!'

[SquireJons]

2. Where is Friedmans Heart, and Where is America's Memory?

I've been watching this series out of the corner of my eye for the several weeks the Times has been publishing it. Most of what he has had to say has been Zionist crap. I like Friedman when he writes about anything except Israel and the Middle East. Unfortunately, when it comes to Jewish issue's he becomes extremely defensive and (almost) completely closes his mind to the other side’s arguments.

As, it would seem, does the previous poster. I am assuming you are American, because only we have such a short term memory that we would forget the last 80 years of lies, deceit and manipulation that the west has perpetrated on the Arab countries. Imagine if the Arabs had been granted true independence after the 'Great War.' Imagine if the U.N. hadn’t carved up Palestine after the next war. Imagine if Europe hadn't created the Suez Canal Crisis on a macho whim. Imagine if the corrupt governments hadn't been propped up by first England and France, then by the United States. Imagine if the United States didn't overthrow governments that we didn't like using everything from the CIA (Iran), to battleships (Lebanon), to B1 bombers and hundreds of thousands of troops (Iraq, Iraq, and who's next?). No, the Arabs know how few their friends are, and will act accordingly.

The only way to end militant Islamists is to change our economic policies toward the third world (never gonna happen), change our religious self righteousness (never gonna happen), change our energy policy (never gonna happen - until we run out), and change our policy towards Crusader States like Israel and New Iraq. The Arabs are not dumb or backward people. They have simply been messed with so much, for such a long time, and now they're pissed off. The bright side is that they are a very forgiving people and it's not too late to change our policies.

[drdon326]

4. Pul-eeze

you too, huh??

So, you put the blame on ....lets see....

UN
England
France
United States
Israel (of course)
CIA

"They have simply been messed with so much, for such a long time, and now they're pissed off."

They should be pissed off.....at themselves and their own
monarchies and throwback societies from another era.

Sadly, you too want to put the blame on EVERYONE ELSE but
their own miserable regressive often dictatorial thugocracies.

[SquireJons]

6. Yeah, me too

You seem to think that the super powers of the 20th century had no power or influence over events. Gosh, that would sure surprise the various governments and their agencies that have spent billions of dollars trying to do just that. Heck, I'm willing to acknowledge that there were compelling cold war issues we had to deal with, but imagine what good that money would have done if properly invested in the future of those counties (along with the oil revenue that eventually came to some Arab counties). The four great post war powers have used the Middle East as a chess board / gas station for so long it seems normal to folks like drdon. The only reason Israel can be held up as any kind of a model in the region is because they have been propped up and subsidized by the US. Without our money, Israel would be just as bad off as any of the other non-oil producing countries in the region - which are the majority. Remember, it was the Israelis who got the terrorist ball rolling (against the British). The whole pan-arab movement over the last 40 years has been an attempt by the people of the region to throw off the shackles of colonialism that still persists there. Of course, these movements have all been vigorously opposed by western interests. Even to the point of war.

Drdon, if you disagree with my statements, why don't you refute them (maybe because you can't?)? Please be specific. Please tell us why you think all the stage managing and war profiteering is irrelevant to the political situation over there. I'm all ears (and eyes).

[bemildred]

7. FWIW

Revolutionaries and the like always turn out to be middle or
upper class. The underclass does not have the time or
inclination to worry about theoretical things. Che, Fidel, Lenin,
Arafat, Begin, it was not some bricklayer leading the charge.
For the most part, this makes me think better of bricklayers.
People that just want a beer and enough sleep to be ready for work
the next day are not the problem in the world, it's the one's that
think they are going to create some half-wit utopia, and that that
somehow justifies killing half the people alive today that you
have to watch out for.

[Gimel]

3. the point of joblessness

this has some relevance in the modernization concept, but the old world of Muslim aristocracy, is of land owners an wealth (oil contract) and the rest of the Masses being impoverished. There is no infrastructure of jobs, as there is in the West. The young descend on the Western nations to look for work, but do they have the knowledge and training to be other than laborers? Those who are skilled craftsmen could set up shop anywhere.

The power structure, however, is not relating to this problem successfully it seems.

Another point that could be relevant is teaching people to use idle time constructively. To learn to make use of times of unemployment in order to increase skills, build health and raise consciousness. This is the new age approach to life that views health of mind and body as important as sufficient income.

Workshops could be set up to teach the skills of Eastern philosophy to the Muslim masses. Meditation, yoga and healthy diet. All these items increase acceptance of life whatever level of material wealth.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Critique

Friedman is not a total idiot, but he isn't as smart as he thinks he is, either. He's still muddling around trying to figure out why Bush screwed up such a righteous cause as the invasion and occupation of Iraq (perhaps because, as far as Bush is concerned, this is gunboat diplomacy with cruise missiles?) and why the developing world doesn't love us for forcing the free market down their throats.

Friedman is writing from Davos; I write as one whose heart this week has been in Mumbai.

(I)f there is one thing I've learned in examining this issue it's this: ideas don't just spread on their own. Ideas spread in a context. So often, since 9/11, people have remarked to me: "Wow, Islam, that's a really angry religion." I disagree. I do agree, though, that there are a lot of young Muslims who are angry, because they live in some of the most repressive societies, with the fewest opportunities for women and youth, and with some of the highest unemployment. Bad contexts create an environment where humiliation — and the anger, bad ideas and violence that flow from it — are rife. In short, it is impossible for us to talk about winning the war of ideas in the Arab-Muslim world without talking about the most basic thing that gives people dignity and hope: A job.

This seems typical of Friedman. He begins with what sounds like a profound generalization (ideas don't spread on their own; they spread in a context) and then says something specific (Islam is not an angry religion) that is news only to truly hapless Islamophobes. It is true that if the dominant religious faith of the Arab world were Zen Buddhism instead of Islam, we would be seeing anger and frustration expressed through a slightly different set of reference points. So Friedman shows that Islamophobia is a crock of manure and that the anger and frustration is rooted in economics.

So, Friedman apparently does not believe that the solution to this problem is to invade Islamic countries, kill their leaders and convert the local populations to Christianity. Instead, the solution is to provide jobs for young people in developing nations.

Well, at least he's on the right track.

Friedman spends more time documenting the problem in this piece than proposing a solution. He only gets around to problem solving in the last three paragraphs. Here, Friedman falls flat on his face.

Friedman's solution is based on the discredited formula of neoliberalism. He suggests that the US and Europe export more jobs to developing nations, like those in the Middle East. In this, he blames Europeans more than Americans. After all, he cites the success of NAFTA for providing Mexico with an environment that spurred job growth and democratization.

What nonsense.

Friedman seems to overlook the fact that ten years after NAFTA, poor Mexicans are still running to El Norte through holes in the US border and the natives of Chiapas are still resisting the globalization of their agricultural economy. NAFTA has simply provided Mexicans with more manufacturing jobs paying inadequate wages. The profits still flow from the global South to the global North. And, while for the first time since the end of the civil strife known as Mexican Revolution the President of Mexico is from a party other than the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), Senor Fox, while less corrupt than latter-day PRI presidents, is still a compliant stooge to interests in the global North.

NAFTA has made some things better in Mexico, but overall conditions are still inadequate and don't show any promise of becoming adequate. Neoliberalism is not a model for the rest of the developing world. It benefits not the poor peasants and workers; it does not even benefit those with manufacturing jobs or even, as HP's Carly Fiorina so gently pointed out not long ago, professional jobs in the global North. It benefits those in the global North who already live better than a person is entitled to live; those who count money and pretend that they've earned it; those who foot the bill to elect a crooked president and then foot the bill for election theft once he loses.

Following such a model will not alleviate the anger and frustration in the developing world, whether in Latin America or the Middle East.

We need to find model for economic development and growth other than Friedman's beloved neoliberalism. We need to find a model that will provide good-paying jobs in the global South and keep the profits there. We need to find a model that will allow people to benefit from the resources of their own land rather than be forced to sell it to foreign profiteers. We need to find a model that allows people to choose a government that is responsible to them, not to the business elites either locally or globally.

Whatever model that is, it isn't Friedman's neoliberalism.

[dudeness]

8. excellent critique jack..

:)

[Fight_n_back]

9. There are a lot of reasons not to buy

oil from opressive monarchies that export terrorism. Not the least of which is the oppressive monarchies use the money to export terrorism. The oppressive monarchies who export terrorism also treat their own citizens poorly (hence the oppressive monarchy part).

A reaasonable point could be made that using fossil fuels is bad for our health and environment. There are probably some scientists somewhere who have studied this.

The best reason, I think, for not sending a trillion dollars a year to oppressive monarchies that export terrorism is that it would make the Bush family mad.

Can anyone come up with any reasonable positives that come from buying oil from oppressive monarchies that export terrorism? I mean, I want to be fair.

[legin]

10. If you haven't done so already

check out part 5 for a 'my love affair with tony blair's New Labour and the DLC' piece:
Part 5

I knew it was a mistake having a charitable thought about this pig, you always regret it afterwards.