SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (55846)11/5/2002 4:19:40 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism 2/6

continued...
Nonetheless, during the Cold War it became popular to portray U.S. policy as anti-Arab -- despite the evidence to the contrary. Such rhetoric became a convenient way for radical regimes to establish their own legitimacy and to brand their moderate opponents as Western puppets. Radical Arab regimes (whether nationalist or Islamist) also accused U.S.-backed moderate governments of being antidemocratic or of ignoring human rights, even though the radical regimes -- such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, and revolutionary Iran -- had far worse records themselves.
Indeed, internal conflicts in the Arab world have posed impossible dilemmas for U.S. policymakers. When the United States helps friendly governments such as Egypt's or Saudi Arabia's, it is accused of sabotaging revolutionary movements against them. As soon as Washington starts to pressure Arab governments into improving their positions on democracy or human rights, however, it is accused of acting in an imperialist manner -- as happened this summer, when the White House threatened to block any increase in aid to Cairo after Egypt jailed Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a prominent human rights advocate. If Washington did nothing and friendly regimes were overthrown, the radical conquerors would be unlikely to show any gratitude for U.S. neutrality.
All the same, when conflicts in the region did erupt during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s pitting Islamists against more moderate governments, the United States avoided taking sides. During Iran's 1979 revolution, for example, although Washington clearly wanted the shah to survive, it nonetheless restrained him from taking tougher actions to save his throne. And once the revolution had succeeded, President Jimmy Carter then sought to conciliate the new Islamist government. (It was American contact with moderates in the new regime, in fact, that provoked the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November 1979.) Although the United States did not want Iran to spread its radical Islamism throughout the Muslim world, it nonetheless sought the best possible relations with Tehran in order to minimize its cooperation with Moscow. And even though relations subsequently soured, Washington has never seriously tried to overthrow the Islamic government; on the contrary, it has periodically sought detente with Tehran.
In fact, the only time the United States has ever become directly involved in a dispute between a government and Islamist revolutionaries was in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation -- and in that case, Washington backed the rebels.
A brief survey of U.S. policy toward the Middle East, furthermore, reveals just how hard Washington has tried to win the support of Arabs in particular and Muslims in general. Consider the following:
In 1973, the United States rescued Egypt at the end of the Arab-Israeli War by forcing a cease-fire on Israel. Washington then became Cairo's patron in the 1980s, providing it with massive arms supplies and aid while asking for little in return.
The United States also saved Yasir Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982, when Washington arranged safe passage for the Palestinian leader and pressed Tunisia to give him sanctuary. Washington's support for Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization overlooked a history of Palestinian terrorism and anti-Americanism as well as the plo's alignment with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, moreover, despite the Palestinians' backing of Iraq during the Gulf War, the United States became the Palestinians' sponsor in the peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would create a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem.
Over the years, the United States has also spent blood and treasure saving Muslims in Afghanistan from the Soviets; in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraq; and in Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia. It has supported Muslim Pakistan against India and Muslim Turkey against Greece. Washington has courted Damascus, even tacitly accepting Syria's control over Lebanon. The United States supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and also refrained from overthrowing Saddam Hussein after pushing him out of Kuwait in 1991.
For decades, the United States kept its forces out of the Persian Gulf to avoid offending Arabs and Muslims there. They entered, in fact, only when invited in to protect Arab oil tankers against Iran and to save Kuwait from Iraq. In Somalia, where no vital U.S. interests were at stake, the United States engaged in a humanitarian effort to help a Muslim people suffering from anarchy and murderous warlords.
The United States showed moderation when U.S. oil companies' holdings were nationalized by Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other countries, and prices rose steeply after 1973; Washington did not try to overthrow the offending regimes or force them to lower prices. Nor did it take advantage of the Soviet Union's demise to dominate the Levant or take revenge against former Soviet allies there. Similarly, it did not use its overwhelming military strength to dominate the Persian Gulf region after 1990 or to force any local regime to change its policies. And when al Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in eastern Africa in 1998, causing an immense loss of life, Washington responded with only very limited retaliation. Finally, since September 11, American leaders have taken pains to remind the world (and the American public) that Islam and Arabs are not U.S. enemies.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (55846)11/5/2002 5:19:31 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Respond to of 281500
 
Rather, such animus is largely the product of self-interested manipulation by various groups within Arab society, groups that use anti-Americanism as a foil to distract public attention from other, far more serious problems within those societies.

Indeed... isn't that ALWAYS the way with despots trying to cover up their own economic and political failures??

And it would seem that if the US is increasingly going to "catch the flack" for the corruption in these societies, then we might as well become directly involved and actually do something worth being blamed for...

New American attempts at appeasement would only show radicals in the Middle East that their anti-American strategy has succeeded and is the best way to win concessions from the world's sole superpower.

Which ties in with the belief that the only governments deserving of being treated with "respect" and diplomacy are those which are democratically elected. All others are nothing more than petty kleptocracies, where the ruling powers were merely that group which was able to dominate the other corrupt potential despots in that society.

Hawk@tiredofpussyfootingaroundwithdespots.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (55846)11/5/2002 7:45:43 PM
From: Condor  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
In fact, if the United States tries to prove to the Arab world that its intentions are nonthreatening, it could end up making matters even worse.

We cannot ignore the fact that the entire world is presently watching the US manipulate and tweak a resolution that will go before the UN and its intention is to allow the US (not the world) a freehand to go to war on Iraq. The world knows most countries don't agree with allowing this freehand and watch this performance. It is hard to see how anything could make matters worse. The Islamic Arab world will no doubt understand quite clearly that what the US wants to do, it will do. The Arabs are the Pals and the US is Israel. Needn't ever worry that the US will be understood as nonthreatening. Uh-uh...never.

C



To: Brumar89 who wrote (55846)11/6/2002 4:47:52 AM
From: zonder  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Re Arab and Muslim hatred of the United States is not just, or even mainly, a response to actual U.S. policies -- policies that, if anything, have been remarkably pro-Arab and pro-Muslim over the years

Could you give a few examples of pro-Arab US policies "over the years", please? I cannot think of one off the top of my head.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (55846)11/8/2002 2:30:18 AM
From: FaultLine  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hello Brumar89,

The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism 1/6
by Barry Rubin
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2002


Thank you for taking the time to post this article. It certainly presents an unexpected case doesn't it?

--fl