BOOK REVIEW Universally rejected The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East by Oliver Roy
Reviewed by Dmitry Shlapentokh
Olivier Roy, the author, was a close confidante of leading US neo-conservative
strategists when they were engineering the Afghan mujahideen resistance against
the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, yet in this book he decisively tears these
same neo-conservatives apart.
In his view, the US, at least from the beginning of the George W Bush
presidency, has been dominated by several trends. First was the empowerment of
pragmatists in the mode of former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who
believed that foreign policy should be reduced to the pragmatic interest of
control over major resources, such as oil. They believed there should be no
concern about political changes in particular societies as long as they did not
conflict with US interests.
The second trend incorporated the ideas of the Huntington school, which based
foreign policy on the notion of the “conflict of civilizations”. These scholars
assumed that the West (the US) and the Muslim world were engaged in an
irreconcilable conflict, and any attempt to change Muslims along Western models
would be rather fruitless.
Those who finally prevailed in the Bush administration - according to Roy -
could be called “universalists” (although he does not use this term), Coming
from the left and right wings they were united on some basic principles,
regardless of external signs of conflict.
Both left and right assumed that the American experience is universally
applicable. Their difference was mostly in what aspects of the American
experience should be implemented. The left, for example, believed that the
pathway to a stable society is through the empowerment of women, and ending the
way women are treated in traditional societies such as Afghanistan.
This “universalist” left actually influenced US policy in Afghanistan and other
parts of the world, where large numbers of women were promoted to visible
positions. The conservatives who dominated the Bush administration, despite a
lot of external conflict - shared many of the left’s premises.
For example, they believed that American democracy is the best among all
possible systems. A cornerstone of their belief was Francis Fukuyama’s famous
statement about “the end of history”, which implies that American capitalism is
the best possible model.
The neo-conservatives - the dominant ideological and political group in the
administration - apparently, subscribing to Fukuyama’s viewpoint, assumed that
the removal of the Middle Eastern dictators and implementation of the US
political and economic system would be much welcomed by the natives.
Neither of these models (left or right) works, and neither the removal of
Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq nor, especially, of the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan had the desired result.
Instead, the US simply brought instability and, in some cases, chaos to these
societies. The author implies that even if the US were to reverse the policy of
the early years of Bush administration and try to salvage the traditional
elements of these societies, it would hardly bring stability to the Middle East
and chaos would most likely prevail in the future.
The other important point of the book is its criticism of the prevailing views
- at least in the US - of the Muslim world. The entire Muslim world and
practically any movement originating from it are seen as the same by most
American pundits and of course the general populace.
In fact, the term “Islamofascism” became quite popular as part of the
administration’s parlance. The author argues that this dangerous
oversimplification prevents both understanding of the Islamic world and the
shaping of a viable policy toward it. He sees the Muslim world as divided into
two halves, each with its own political culture.
Al-Qaeda and similar movements are engaged in a permanent struggle not just
with the West but also with most Muslim states, what could be called, in a sort
of Trotskyist fashion, a “permanent revolution". The other group, the Muslim
movement, is actually integrated into state ideologies. Iran is a good example
of such a Muslim state. There Islam is just an ingredient of Iranian
nationalism, which is the driving force of national policy.
The author does not provide direct recommendations for US policy, but they can
easily be inferred from the narrative. First, the US should be more
accommodating to the traditions of the Muslim world and not try to homogenize
Muslims. Second, the US should reach out to pragmatic Muslim nationalists, for
example those in Iran. And it is quite likely that some of Roy's
recommendations may indeed be incorporated in the political design of the
post-Bush administration.
The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East by Oliver Roy. Columbia
University Press, 2008. ISBN-10: 0231700326. Price US$24.95, 60 pages.
Dmitry Shlapentokh, PhD, is associate professor of history, College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences, Indiana University South Bend. He is author of
East Against West: The First Encounter - The Life of Themistocles, 2005.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
Those who finally prevailed in the Bush administration - according to Roy -
could be called “universalists” (although he does not use this term), Coming
from the left and right wings they were united on some basic principles,
regardless of external signs of conflict.
