THE GULF'S BLACK
TREASURE No clash of
civilizations By Hossein Askari
This is the 19th article in a special
series on oil and the Persian Gulf. For previous
articles, please see the foot of the page.
United States administrations have
considered "Islamists" the biggest threat to US
national security. Why? To US thinking, the rise
of Islamists to power in two or three Arab
countries could quickly spread across the entire
Middle East as US supported dictators are swept
aside by invigorated and emboldened popular
movements under the liberating banner of Islam.
This could be accompanied by political
instability, unprecedented anti-US policies,
overwhelming hostility towards Israel, oil supply
disruptions and higher oil prices, withdrawal of
financial assets from US financial institutions,
and dumping of US government
securities that would
increase the cost of financing US national debt.
The euphoria of Islamists could in time
spread to the rest of the Muslim world and
Islamists and the West would be confronting each
other for decades, if not for centuries, to come.
The only thing preventing this catastrophic
scenario is a group of "friendly" dictators who
"share" the US quest for peace and stability!
They, the lesser of two evils, must be
supported, as the Islamists must be undermined and
defeated. Policy nonsense built on a pile of even
more nonsense that will lead to centuries of
conflict and pain.
What is wrong with this
received wisdom? How should the US change its
thinking and its policies towards the Middle East
and the Muslim world to usher better relations?
How should aspiring "Islamists" change their
thinking to be in accord with Islamic teachings to
support human, social, political and economic
progress with cooperative relations with the West?
First, let's dispel some ingrained myths.
The parties and groups that the West
labels "Islamists" are not adherents or disciples
of the Islam that is preached in the Koran or
lived by the Prophet Mohammad. To call them
Islamists is a gross misrepresentation - while
alienating Muslims from the West, widening the
cultural divide and erecting an invisible barrier
that is difficult, if not impossible, to climb.
The popular Western linkage of "Islamists"
with the Islam of the Koran is a myth that must be
broken and dispelled. Islam preaches the world is
one; sanctity of life; religious freedom and
tolerance; justice in all its dimensions -
political, social and economic; communal
selections of government and rulers; condemnation
of corruption, hoarding, opulence and poverty; the
importance of honesty, education, hard work and
charity; society's requirement for economic
prosperity based on good institutions; and Allah's
absolute ownership over creation and human
obligation, as trustee, to share the bounty with
every generation.
Are these the attributes
of those coined as Islamists by the West? They
should be more correctly labeled "Mislamists". The
reason they attract a significant following is
that they afford a known umbrella, Islam, for all
manner of dissidents. They are invariably the only
game in town. Even a corrupt ruler dare not be
perceived as opposing Islam in the Middle East.
There are no other parties that could attract
followers in countries where the law is a barrel
of a gun and a prison cell.
With the
elimination of the myth that the opposition in
Middle East countries represents Islamic
teachings, Middle East rulers, in turn, will find
it more difficult to use the threat of "Islamists"
or "fundamentalists" as their justification for
dictatorial rule. The West will not see Islam as
the enemy but instead will discover the real
reason behind anti-Western sentiments, Western
support for illegitimate and oppressive rulers.
The world must cease referring to the
opposition in Muslim countries, be they radicals,
disenfranchised, fundamentalists, terrorists or
whatever, as Islamists. Just this simple step will
rob radicals of a potent weapon, namely "the West
is waging war against Islam".
A second
popular myth promulgated by Western politicians,
corporate interests and lobbyists is that Middle
East family rulers, "strongmen" and assorted other
dictators are necessary to maintain regional peace
and stability and to keep the oil flowing at a
reasonable price. And as to be expected, this is a
myth that Middle East rulers have embraced and
espoused at every opportunity to garner the
support of their foreign backers.
While it
is true that US backing, sophisticated weaponries,
outsized armed forces, brutal intelligence
services, harsh rule and oil-financed subsidies
(from oil that belongs to the people but rulers
portray as their generosity) appear to keep the
lid on dissent and pre-empt the open participation
of popular parties, they also foment and fester
even more hostility and radicalism, garner support
for Mislamists and resentment for foreign
supporters of tyrants.
This affords
short-run stability but with turmoil that is
absolutely sure to follow, with the only question
being when? And when chaos and anarchy ensue they
are blamed on Islamists, not Mislamists, and the
policy of supporting tyrants is further
re-enforced in Western minds.
It is as if
the West is trying to create a cleavage between
Muslims and the rest of the world. Just look at
Iran, Libya and Egypt. Yes, president Jimmy Carter
toasted the Shah of Iran as an "Island of
stability in" a troubled Middle East but how long
did the stability last? When the lid could no
longer be kept on, mayhem followed.
Libya
and Egypt were "stable" too. But again, all of a
sudden and with little warning mayhem followed. It
need not have to be this way. In all these
countries, if torture and the barrel of the gun
had not stifled change for decades, change would
have occurred more gradually, in spurts and with
instability, but not with the explosion that will
always come after decades of repression and
deprivation. Gradual change accompanied by
some instability that is normal has been
compromised for short-run stability, which will
always be followed by explosion, mayhem and more
widespread suffering.
Western support for
tyrants naturally results in popular hatred for
foreign governments that support these oppressors.
The world should cease all manner of support for
these tyrants, which would in turn allow political
change to occur more gradually, reduce the
attraction of radicals, starve anti-Western
sentiments and usher better relations.
A
third myth is that Mislamists will hold back, or
disrupt, oil sales and increase oil prices. As we
have said before, all these countries must sell
their oil to finance their expenditures or to
build an adequate financial fund for future
generations, as oil is a depletable resource.
Libya sold its oil to all takers, as did
Iran. It was the buyers who didn't want to buy
from them - introducing sanctions and the like.
Yes, there might be temporary disruptions but
these will occur no matter what, as in the case of
the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq War, the
invasion of Kuwait, the liberation of Libya and on
and on - no matter what the form of rule.
Simply said, the West has created a
confrontation that should never have existed in
this day and age. The West pursues policies that
nurture Mislamists and radicals to provide
recruits for terrorists of all shapes and then
fears Islam. These rulers - every single one of
them - are not worth saving. As we have said many
times before in this series, they are all corrupt.
They have little interest in building good
institutions and supporting the rule of law. If
they do, they would be out of power in favor of
accountable governments and rulers. They are
compromising the lives of millions of people who
deserve a better chance. These societies will be
held back in every way - socially, politically and
economically - and as long as they rule, progress
will be limited and anti-Westernism will thrive.
Their only interest is to accumulate vast
fortunes for themselves from the country's oil
revenues, their families and their cronies who
support them. They or their descendants will in
time meet a violent end with much of the fallout
on the West.
At the same time, the Muslim
citizenry in the Middle East should see Mislamists
for what they are - opportunists of a different
shade. Once they assume power, they are likely to
follow in the footsteps of the overthrown tyrants
- consolidating their absolute power, imposing
constitutions that support their continuous rule
and amassing fortunes with different cronies and
foreign partners. The cycle continues.
Muslims should have little need for
opportunists to interpret their religion (they
should study it on their own), to deny them
elected leaders and governments, to rob them of
their national wealth, to refuse them the right to
justice and to preclude even the hope of human,
political, social and economic progress in the
future. The West, and especially the US, can
support progress in these oil-exporting countries
just by ceasing its support for tyrants.
Mislamists could well learn from the
mistakes of the tyrants that rule today. Don't
pretend to represent Islam. Yes, overthrow tyrants
but then submit to the will of the people. Let the
citizenry select their constitution and their
leaders. Do everything to promote good
institutions and policies and especially equal
justice for all. Persevere for reconciliation
among domestic factions, with neighbors and with
the world at large as peace will be supportive of
human, political, societal and economic
development.
If these groups are followers
of Islam, then these are the policies they should
adopt.
NEXT:Tyrants atop a
vast sea of oil - how the West should deal with
its favorite tyrants.
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
