Terrorism, Radical Islam and the Middle East

Following the recent terrorist attacks in France and the continuing presence of the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" in the Middle East, many commentators have sought to understand and explain the underlying motives and reasons behind the emergence of this new wave of war and terrorism. Oftentimes, there are claims being made that the "Western world" (especially the USA) is responsible for the radicalization of Islamist groups or even the foundation of ISIS. I strongly disagree with this point of view and believe that the root of the problem lies in the ideology of political Islam.

First of all, I believe there have been several mistakes made by Western states in the recent history of international relations between the "Muslim" and the "Western" world. The Algerian war, where France tried to prevent the country from gaining its independence, was one of them. So were certain aspects of other military operations, like the Iraq war in 2003. In general, the colonial era often signified the oppression of other people. But apologists for Islamist movements see these historic circumstances as a reason why Islam became so radical in parts of the Muslim world over the last decades. Picking up on this, they sometimes implicitly justify terrorist acts like suicide bombing as a "response" to all the cruelties that the Western world has brought about in their home countries. Suicide bombers are sometimes depicted as "desperate" individuals, caught up in a struggle for freedom that leaves them no choice but to resort to these violent means to fight against their evil Western oppressors.

If this was an inevitable causality of world politics, England would be terrorized by radical Indians taking revenge for the colonization of their land. The USA would live in constant fear of Vietnamese terrorists who want to retaliate upon America for waging war in their country for 10 long years. But this is not the case. Reasonable people and governments tend to seek peace, they want to be integrated into the international community and try to ensure that their country can survive and build up a prosperous economy to generate wealth for its citizens.

Moreover, the simplified narrative that says the West would constantly attack and oppress the Muslim world fails to live up to reality. "The West" consists of different countries that rarely act in a coherent manner, but often try to pursue their own interests. In the past, many alliances have been formed with Muslim countries and / or political groups. For example, the people of Kosova (which is a predominantly Muslim country) have a very high opinion of the USA who helped them gain independence in the 1990s (they even put up a statue of Bill Clinton in the city of Priština). The USA also aided in ending the 1956 Suez crisis in favor of Egypt. Many other countries that are considered as "Western" have formed close economic ties with Muslim countries. The age of the crusades is over and reality is much more complex.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims are far from being terrorists. They condemn the cruelties done by ISIS and other terrorist groups. They try to live "normal" lives just as characterized in the above paragraph. This alone proves that Islamists indeed had the choice to not become violent and reject the sanguinary ideology of Islamism. Yet they choose not to do so, and this is where the root of the problem lies. It is the political implementation of radical Islam. This ideology is actually somewhat coherent throughout the extreme parts of the Muslim world. From the Islamic State to Iran, from the Muslim Brotherhoods to Al-Quaeda, from Hamas to Hezbollah, they all follow very similar principles. The rule of Allah is more important than any man-made legislation and the Jihad is the way to fight the infidels who refuse to accept these principles. An important aspect is the inherent hostility towards almost every modern achievement of humanity - be it democracy, equal rights, the rule of law or pretty much any other political concept that distinguished human progress over the last 500 years. This hatred is paired with the willingness to die for the cause. The suicidal attitude to value death over life. Suicide bombings are the peak of this twisted ideology. Carrying out an attack on innocent people in this way symbolizes everything that is inhuman and fundamentally wrong and evil about Islamism.

In my opinion, this ideology needs to be destroyed in order to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. It is wrong to ally with Assad or the Iranian regime in the fight against the Islamic State, because they also are part of the problem. States based on the principles of political Islam cannot be part of a long-term solution. The West has failed in keeping the situation in Syria under control because no Western country effectively intervened in 2011 when the civil war broke out. Part of the reason why the situation escalated this much is the Western reluctance to address the ideology of Islamism as the root of the problem. The civilized and democratic countries and people of the world need to be more determined in fighting Islamism in order to give hope for the long-term goal of a peaceful Middle East.

Reactions to Risk

              Though frustrating by the end of the game, I do see the point in having us play Risk because I definitely see how it parallels the world of international relations. Even while playing it, I thought to myself how difficult this was and I think it was a solidifying moment for me at the end of this class being able to say to myself, “Wow, this stuff is really hard to figure out. I understand why our world has so many problems politically.” Some of my team members didn’t think this game really paralleled international relations, but I do for a number of reasons.

              One of things we discussed in class that I think is relevant to this argument is the states/positions on the board that each team starts out with. I think that a team’s starting position is very influential in how easy it is to spread to other states. This was the mission for the Yellow Team (my team) and it was pretty difficult with our starting positions being in Southern Europe and two sections in Africa. I feel as if we had started out more territories in North America it would’ve been much easier to spread. In fact, as soon as it was possible we started acquiring territories in North America for a time our team was spreading throughout North America quickly and we acquired new territories somewhat easily. From North America, a team could go in one direction to Russia, one direction to South America, and one direction to Europe. In Africa, there’s really no other choice besides occupying Africa and then eventually going one direction to Europe. So to answer one of the discussion questions asked in class, I think starting location is very influential to a team’s/state’s success.

              I think Risk also speaks to the challenges faced internally in a state or team as they try to make decisions. As the whole class saw, Will on my team decided to schism and break away from the team to form the Pink team because (I’m assuming) he didn’t like the decisions I was making as Head of State. This is a concern that other states have on varying levels. Obviously in the United States, if constituents don’t like the decisions President Obama makes internationally, they probably won’t create a civil war and start another state, but it would definitely hurt him in an upcoming election if he were able to run for another term. For more unstable, weakened, or failing states, fears of major protests, outcries or even civil war could be a serious concern and greatly influence the decisions the Head of State makes. And that factor is just another added layer of difficulty among the whole process.

              So even though I was quite irritated leaving class on Tuesday, I think it was a great way to encapsulate everything that we’ve learned throughout the semester. I think the game really did parallel the real world of international relations to a certain degree. And I was actually having fun (before the whole schism thing).

The (non)tragedy of the Montreal Protocol

In Hardin’s article, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” he asserts that humans act in self-interest, treating limited resources as if they were unlimited. For one person to use as much as they want and be concerned for their own well-being, the impact would be small. But if everyone behaves in this manner, what seems unlimited will become limited and disappear. While Hardin uses the example of arable land, “the commons” can refer to many different aspects of the environment, including the atmosphere. By looking at the Montreal Protocol, one can see how ozone and the atmosphere are an example of the tragedy of the commons and how the regime is a method to combat the “tragedy” of ozone’s depletion.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are chemicals that are unreactive in the troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere that humans live in. However, once they reach the much hotter stratosphere higher up in the atmosphere, the CFCs absorb ultraviolet light and break apart into individual atoms of chlorine, fluoride, and carbon. As single elements, these have the power to break apart ozone, a necessary part of the atmosphere that reduces the amount of UV rays that are harmful and even fatal to life.

With the increased production of CFCs in the 1980s, more ozone has been depleted, increasing risks to humans. Looking through Hardin’s lens, the “commons” is equivalent to ozone, the important resource that is limited, in this situation. Hardin states that self interest is the reason why the environment is in trouble. CFCs were used in varied cooling units such as air conditioners and refrigerators. While the output from one fridge does not make a huge impact, the output from thousands of fridges does. Manufacturers are concerned about profit, not environmental safety, so this cheap, mass production that CFCs provided is proof of self-interest. On the other side, users of fridges are also concerned about buying the cheapest, best product, which of course was a fridge using CFCs. More CFCs led to increased ozone depletion and health hazards. Self-interest caused the problem, as fits with Hardin’s argument.

The Montreal Protocol is an international regime signed in 1987 with a goal to reduce CFC emissions. Ways they enforced this was by phasing out the many substances that contribute to ozone depletion. All major Western countries signed the agreement and indeed the ozone holes in Earth’s atmosphere are getting smaller. By limiting use and production of CFCs, the Montreal Protocol has proved an effective way to combat the tragedy of commons of ozone depletion. The basis of the Montreal Protocol inhibits all the factors that contribute to the tragedy: self-interest, increasing demand due to population growth, undefined social arrangements. Through the monitoring and regulation of this treaty as well as agreement from the world’s major powers, the atmosphere is not in the dire state that it would be if we kept treating ozone as an unlimited resource.

The Ethics of War

While war is sometimes a necessary measure that needs to be taken in order to stop human rights violations, for self-preservation, etc, there has never been and most likely never will be an entirely “just” war. The publically accepted reasons for entering a war or for the measures taken during war can sometimes seem ethically correct. However, there are always underlying motives that go beyond altruism and which prevent one from considering a war as just.

 For the most part, most people can agree that war is usually not a good thing and it should be considered a last resort. I do not deny that there are times when war is unavoidable. However, the massive death toll and destruction that war induces can never completely be considered morally just. The “Just War Theory” is used to make war seem okay in the eyes of the public and, in my opinion, it is outdated in our continually modernizing era. War no longer consists of regular armies that are deployed by states; it now is usually involves non-state actors such as al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. This makes it difficult to utilize the Just War Theory because the rise of these irrational actors makes it hard for states to declare war on other states seeing as these extreme individuals or groups act independently of a state. Furthermore, we must now factor in nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will most likely guarantee the death of innocent civilians and the destruction of entire civilizations, which results in the inability to consider wars involving nuclear weapons just.

The example of a “just” war that is most often cited is World War II. There is no denying that the U.S. intervention was essential and that the most accepted reason for entering, to stop the atrocities Hitler was committing, was crucial and ultimately just. However, the innocent lives that were lost while the allies tried to stop Hitler cannot be consider a just causality because the loss of human lives denies us the ability to ever consider that action a just action. The reason we enter the war can be justified but we cannot deem it a just war. The best examples of the unnecessary loss of lives, are the nuclear bombs that America dropped on Japan. While this did lead to the end of the war, 120,000 innocent people were killed immediately and tens of thousands of more lives were lost through radiation exposure. The fact that the massacre of innocent lives went on for so long before the US decided to intervene shows that there were additional underlying reason for our entrance into the war, other than to stop the Holocaust.

While wars, and certain actions during war are sometimes required, that does not give us the right to consider a war just. The dictionary definition for the word “just” is; based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. How can taking people’s lives ever be considered morally correct or fair even if it is sometimes “necessary”?

The Politicization of the Tragedy of the Commons

           

            Garret Hardin’s infamous paper “The Tragedy of the Commons” regarding the causes of degradation in our global environment has unfortunately been greatly politicized. He makes the claim that humans act solely out of self-interest rather than to benefit the whole of the group, or in this case; the environment. One of Hardin’s claims is that land privatization will help this tragedy because land owners will want to preserve their land. Hardin’s argument is flawed in that he provides no evidence for saying how land privatization is beneficial for the commons. However, privatizing communal lands has had the same implications that leaving the land to communal use would. Deforestation, overuse of fertilizers leading to run-off, and the harming of biodiversity is still being reported on private land, more so than mutually owned land. Throughout history it has been seen that a community that shares land actually has stronger incentive to preserve it. For example, an individual owning private land would want to preserve it because they have their children, grandchildren, etc. in mind. This is because they are thinking about the future generations to use that land, therefore disproving Hardin’s argument.

           

            This claim that land privatization is beneficial to the commons has been greatly politicized. Despite refutations against Hardin’s paper, “The Tragedy of the Commons” is still serving as a basis for social policy for many institutions including the United Nations. This adoption by influential corporations, institutions, and governments has only continued to promote private ownership and uncontrolled growth through capitalist markets. Another one of Hardin’s widely accepted arguments is that the poor are to blame for environmental destruction. The falsehood of this arguments only gives more power to wealthier countries in the world and their ability to blame third world countries for their own wealth gap and impoverished areas. Hardin discounts racism, imperialism, and exploitation of humans claiming that poverty is a natural element in the world and those living in it bring it upon themselves.

            How can we blame third world countries for environmental degradation? We must take a look at ourselves. Countries like the U.S. and the U.K. had their time to industrialize, and now that global warming has been taken off the political back burner, wealthier countries are looking at third world countries to blame for it. However, rather then set blame and prevent these nations from further development, we must search for a solution to allow these countries to develop more sustainably. This is a large piece of the current climate talks in Paris. Do the wealthier nations owe it to those who have less? Less developed countries feel it would be unfair that they have the same amount of responsibility as developed nations for a problem they did not initially cause. Whereas wealthier nations, such as the US want to avoid binding commitments that could be detrimental to their economies. There seems to be a considerable amount of support for an agreement on emission goals and financial commitments, but it will be tough on deciding what to call it. A treaty? An accord? A protocol? The United Nations climate chief is hoping the outcome will be something binding.

            The adoption of “The Tragedy of the Commons” theory by governments and institutions has created a political myth. This had led to a façade that there is basically no other option besides the current dominant world order. Hopefully this myth can be looked beyond and powerful countries will realize that it is them to blame for environmental degradation, and the financial costs should be allocated accordingly.

Globalization and the Plutocracy

Globalization, regardless of one’s opinion of it, is growing and spreading rapidly throughout states in the world. I dislike the wealth disparity that is occurring worldwide due to globalization. Over the summer I began reading a book called Plutocrats: The Rise of the Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else by Chrystia Freeland. This book completely enlightened me to just how bad the wealth disparity is already and how quickly it is growing.

Chapter 7 of the Foer reading greatly explains the economic concerns with capitalism in globalization. Foer illustrates the concerns with his explanation about how referees are nominated. In Italian club soccer, referees are nominated by two members on a council and they decide. One member is a representative of Juventus of Turin and the other AC Milan, the two most powerful football clubs in Italy, both owned by exponentially rich families. Foer highlights that because of this, the two clubs usually get the most mediocre referees and the ones who can be easily corrupted for their benefit. Well known and impartial referees never work at Juventus games and when referees go against these powerful clubs, they find themselves working in less popular leagues, Foer notes on page 170. Not only does this narrative parallel the growing disparity in Italy, but also the wealth gap worldwide.

Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else takes on the task of explaining how rapidly the wealth gap has grown worldwide in the past few decades. One of the reasons I personally love the book is because rather than focusing on persuading readers, Freeland focuses more on explaining the rise of plutocracy in globalization as objectively as possible. One of her main points in the book so far has been that this increasing global wealth gap has caused people all over the world to have more in common with citizens from other countries than his own countrymen—all because of socioeconomic status. I think this is a really interesting point especially when considering it with one of possible outcomes of globalization—the deterioration of individual states and the formation of one giant global state. Though I’m not sure if the deterioration of individual states could completely take place because capitalism requires competition, I think it brings an interesting image of the future into question; a future where instead of nations, people are separated and grouped by class. Once again, though I’m not sure how probable this outcome is, it is still one worth considering.

Freeland also notes that globalization has kick started “twin gilded ages.” The first gilded age is one occurring in the BRIC nations—Brazil, Russia, India and China—where their industrializations are taking off. Part of the industrialization of these nations has come from out sourcing of labor from the United States and other western nations. The second gilded age is occurring in the United States, where a growing wealth gap is occurring, especially worse after the recession. Historically, we have learned that gilded ages are not good for the general populous. And this is all because of globalization, according to Freeland. 

The effects of globalization on pre-existing cultures

Globalization is a term that defines the movement towards intensified economic interaction and towards global uniformity. Due to the current power and influence that the Western world exercises, globalization can be seen to imply the integration of the world into a capitalistic western culture. While globalization has an array of positive effects such as opportunities, interconnectedness, economic prosperity, etc. there are also many problems that can arise. One such problem is that globalization tends to impose the western culture onto other countries.

Media and technology are the basis for the advancement of globalization. They enable the quick spread of goods as well as ideas. However, the media is a form of propaganda for the western world whether this is intentional or not. Third world countries are compelled to view the western world in a positive light due to the images of the modern world that are represented in magazines, newspapers, social media and films. The problem with this is that the negative events that occur are often over looked. There are a multitude of problems that exist in the western world, yet they are ignored. These industrialized countries seem to lack flaws and their ways seem to be the answer to any problems. I experienced an example of this is when I was in Tanzania and would make conversation with the women who did their laundry outside on my way home from where I was working. One conversation that stuck with me was when I talked to this one lady on my last day in Africa. She looked at me and asked me to please take her children back with me to the United States. When I asked her why she wanted me to do this she told me that America was perfect and without any poverty and that she knew this from all the magazines where everyone was beautiful and rich.

In the book, How Soccer Explains the World the author gives an example of how globalization affects local culture. A big part of the Iranian culture is the role women play. The book talks about how women were not allowed to watch soccer yet they pushed through the gates in order to watch the game. And after the match was won, some women took off their Hijab to celebrate. While globalization gave these women the opportunity to fight for their rights, which is a positive thing, it does conflict with their traditions and culture.

It is not always easy to decide whether or not this is a good or a bad thing. On the one hand, globalization can give people an outlet for expressing their beliefs and improving their lives yet on the other hand, this can sometimes lead to the alteration of long traditions and deeply rooted local culture. One thing that is clear, however, is that the western world is imposing their culture on the rest of the world. In this way, globalization can be compared to colonialism in the sense that it impacts the pre-existing culture of the developing countries. Through the promotion of globalization in media, the western world, especially the United States, indirectly imposes their ideas and promotes their system to the rest of the world.