[Nettime-bold] Foreign Policy in Focus: US & Political Islam

[Soenke Zehle <soenke.zehle@web.de>]

Dear All,

maybe this is useful info...in the midst of confusion, tragedy, and
solidarity with those affected, it might make sense to remember to it is
(all too) likely that the terrorist organizations under suspicion attended
at least one seminar with the CIA, back in the days when much of this began.

What scares me is that despite official talk of "high tech terrorism" that
is apparently not what has occurred (knives!!!). Maybe another reason to
wonder whether militarization & more intelligence will be able to offer an
adequate solution, but something tells me it might be a good idea to get
ready for a new wave of anti-arabism as well.

in solidarity,
Soenke

U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol6/v6n24islam.html

Volume 6, Number 24
June 2001

By Stephen Zunes, University of San Francisco
Editors: Tom Barry (IRC) and Martha Honey (IPS)

Key Points

*    U.S. policy toward the Islamic world is skewed by negative stereotypes
of Islam that fail to recognize its diversity.
*    Radical Islamic movements often arise out of the legitimate needs and
grievances of oppressed sectors of the population who see the U.S. as partly
responsible for their suffering.
*    Washington has encouraged the rise of extremist Islamic politics both
through shortsighted support for such movements or governments and through
its support of repressive regimes, which often trigger extremist backlash
responses.


The perceived growth of radical Islamic movements throughout the Middle East
and beyond has not only caused major political upheaval in the countries
directly affected but has placed political Islam at the forefront of
concerns voiced by U.S. policymakers. One unfortunate aspect of this
newfound attention has been the way it has strengthened ugly stereotypes of
Muslims already prevalent in the West. This occurs despite the existence of
moderate Islamic segments and secular movements that are at least as
influential as radicals in the political life of Islamic countries.

Even though the vast majority of the world's Muslims oppose terrorism,
religious intolerance, and the oppression of women, these remain the most
prevalent images of the Muslim faith throughout the Western world. Such
popular misconceptions about Islam and Islamic movements‹often exacerbated
by the media, popular culture, and government officials‹have made it
particularly difficult to challenge U.S. policy.

To be able to respond effectively to Islamic militancy, the U.S. must
clearly understand the reasons why a small but dangerous minority of Muslims
have embraced extremist ideologies and violent tactics. These movements are
often rooted in legitimate grievances voiced by underrepresented and
oppressed segments of the population, particularly the poor. And the U.S. is
increasingly identified with the political, social, and economic forces that
are responsible for their misery. Many Muslims in the Middle East and
elsewhere are exposed not to the positive aspects of U.S. society‹such as
individual liberty, the rule of law, and economic prosperity‹but to the
worst traits of American culture, including materialism, militarism, and
racism.

Although scientific and other advances from the Muslim world helped Europe
emerge from the Dark Ages, the West has generally viewed Islamic peoples
with hostility. From the time of the Crusades through the European colonial
era to the ongoing bombing and sanctions against Iraq, Western Christians
have killed far more Muslims than the reverse. Given this strong sense of
history among Muslims, Washington's use and threat of military force, its
imposition of punitive sanctions, and its support of oppressive governments
result in a popular reaction that often takes the form of religious
extremism.

When a people have lost their identity‹whether it be due to foreign
occupation, war-induced relocation, the collapse of traditional economies,
or other reasons‹there is a great pull to embrace something that can provide
the structure, worldview, and purpose through which to rebuild their lives.
The mosque is one of the few constants in Muslim countries undergoing great
social disruption. Islam is a faith that offers a clear sense of social
justice, a feeling of empowerment, and an obligation by individuals to
challenge those who cause the injustice. Although there has been a decidedly
reactionary orientation to some Islamic movements, other currents within
Islam have been clearly progressive.

Washington has used the threat of Islamic fundamentalism as a justification
for keeping a high military, economic, and political profile in the Middle
East. Yet it has often supported Muslim hard-liners when they were perceived
to enhance U.S. interests, as they did in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi
Arabia.

Often, extremist Islamic movements arise in direct response to U.S.
policies. The 1953 overthrow by the CIA of the moderate constitutional
government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, followed by years of support for
the brutal regime of the shah, led directly to the rise of the Islamic
revolution in that country. U.S. support for the regime of Jafaar Nimeiry
during most of his repressive 16-year rule of Sudan led to the destruction
of much of that country's civil society, resulting in the 1989 coup by
hard-line Islamist military officers who overthrew that country's brief
democratic experiment. During the 1970s and 1980s, the destruction of
moderate Muslim-led factions in Lebanon by U.S.-backed invasions and
occupations from Syria and Israel‹and later military intervention by the
U.S. itself‹led to a vacuum filled by more sectarian groups such as
Hezbollah, even as most of the other militias that once carved up the rest
of the country were disarmed by a revived central government and its Syrian
backers.

The roots of Islamic radicalism stem from economic inequality, military
occupation, and authoritarianism. Given that U.S. policy in the Middle East
and elsewhere has often perpetuated such injustices, responsibility for the
rise of radical Islamic movements can often be traced to the U.S. itself.

 Problems with Current U.S. Policy

Key Problems 

*    The U.S. has supported hard-line Islamic movements and governments,
such as the Saudi Arabia regime, which have encouraged extremist movements
elsewhere.
*    U.S. support for repressive governments makes democratic and nonviolent
options for the Islamic opposition extremely difficult.
*    Neoliberal economic development strategies‹vigorously encouraged by the
U.S.‹have resulted in widespread economic dislocation, which has in turn
encouraged the growth of radical Islamic movements.


Ironically, the U.S. has at times been a supporter of hard-line Islamic
movements and governments. For example, Washington armed extremist Islamic
groups in Afghanistan during the 1980s during the popular uprising against
that country's communist regime backed by Soviet occupation forces. Some of
the most notorious Islamic terrorists today‹including many followers of
Osama Bin Laden‹originally received their training from the CIA during that
period.

Despite horrific reports from Afghanistan about the Taliban government's
totalitarian theocracy, which has far surpassed the brutality of the
communist regime of the 1980s, the U.S. voiced little opposition to the
regime until it refused to extradite Bin Laden for trial on terrorism
charges.

Currently, the U.S. maintains close strategic cooperation‹including massive
arms transfers, training and logistics, and a permanent military
presence‹with Saudi Arabia, one of the most extreme states in the Muslim
world considering its strict interpretation of Islamic codes, repression of
women, and political orientation. The Saudis have used their vast oil wealth
to encourage like-minded movements throughout the Islamic world. Some of the
Islamic-identified governments and movements the U.S. has found most
troubling‹the Hamas of Palestine, the Taliban of Afghanistan, the FIS of
Algeria, and the military government of Sudan‹all had backing from the
Saudis at some point in their development.

Perhaps the most serious problem with U.S. policy has been Washington's
support for repressive allied governments that suppress even moderate
Islamic opposition groups. This often leads to a backlash against any U.S.
presence by Islamists reacting to American support of what they perceive as
an illegitimate government. The U.S. has rationalized its support for
several regimes engaging in patterns of gross and systematic human rights
violations as a regrettable but necessary means of suppressing an Islamic
opposition that Washington fears would be even worse if it came to power. In
many respects, this policy closely parallels the decades of support during
the cold war of repressive right-wing governments in the name of
anticommunism. The result is similar: the lack of open political expression
encourages suppressed sectors to ally with an underground‹and often violent
and authoritarian‹opposition movement.

In some cases‹such as in Tajikistan and other former Soviet republics‹the
U.S. has even allied with old-line Communist Party bosses as a means of
countering the growth of Islamic movements. This occurs despite the fact
that the Islamic movements in much of Central Asia are actually quite
progressive and moderate (in part because of the strong Sufi influence) when
compared with some of their Middle Eastern and North African counterparts.

Another factor fueling radical Islamic movements has been the perceived U.S.
culpability in the deaths of Muslim civilians. From Washington's initial
failure to respond to the Serbian slaughter of Bosnian Muslims to the
sanctions against Iraq to the support of Israeli repression against
Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, U.S. foreign policy has laid itself open
to this accusation.

Extremist Islamic political forces have also arisen in areas where there has
been large-scale dislocation due to war. U.S. support for Israel's ongoing
occupation and repression in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has contributed to
the rise of Hamas and other radical Islamic movements, despite the fact that
Palestinians historically had been more pluralistic and tolerant than many
of their Arab neighbors. Islamic extremists were never much of a factor in
Lebanese politics until after the U.S.-backed 1982 Israeli invasion and
Israel's 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

Social dislocation can also result from uneven economic development, as has
been encouraged by the U.S. insistence on globalization according to a
neoliberal economic model. Largely unregulated Western economic penetration
in Egypt, Tunisia, the Philippines, and elsewhere has exacerbated gross
wealth inequalities and triggered disruptive internal migration, giving rise
to these countries' Islamic extremists.

It would certainly be simplistic to blame the U.S. exclusively for the rise
of violent and extremist Islamic political movements. Autocratic and
misguided socialist policies in Algeria‹which has had very little U.S.
influence‹also resulted in an Islamic reaction similar to movements
triggered by autocratic and misguided capitalist policies elsewhere. And in
other countries, the colonial legacies of the French and British along with
certain domestic factors have spawned extremist Islamic groups. Yet U.S.
policies have unquestionably fueled the development of this dangerous
political trend.

Military solutions‹apparently preferred by the U.S. and many of its
allies‹will not succeed in countering the rise of militant Islamic
movements. Nevertheless, Washington has successfully encouraged the NATO
alliance, in a desperate attempt to justify its existence at the end of the
cold war, to place challenging Islamic movements among its top strategic
priorities. NATO has already begun a dialogue with some North African
regimes regarding mutual security arrangements against a perceived Islamic
threat.

Over the past two decades, the U.S. has bombed Lebanon, Iran, Sudan, and
Afghanistan in an effort to challenge Islamic movements and governments
viewed as antithetical to U.S. interests. Such air strikes have not only
been contrary to international law but have also resulted in fueling
anti-American hatred, particularly when they have caused civilian
casualties.

Trying to impose military solutions to what are essentially political,
economic, and social problems is doomed to fail.

Toward a New Foreign Policy

Key Recommendations

*    The U.S. must shift from supporting repressive governments to
encouraging greater democracy and pluralism in the Islamic world.
*    The U.S. must demand an end to Israel's illegal occupation of Arab East
Jerusalem and other Palestinian territories and promote a peace agreement
that recognizes the city's importance to all three monotheistic faiths.
*    The U.S. should support sustainable economic development in the Islamic
world, so that the benefits of foreign investment and globalization can be
more fairly distributed with minimal social disruption.


To effectively challenge the threat from radical Islamic movements, the U.S.
must shift its focus from trying to crush such movements to pursuing
policies that discourage their emergence. Similarly, the U.S. must recognize
that not all Islamic movements are contrary to the development of political
pluralism or good relations with the United States.

>From Afghanistan to Algeria and beyond, radical Islamic movements have grown
to prominence where there has been great social dislocation in the
population, whether it be from war or misguided economic policies. Policies
designed to minimize such traumatic events will be far more successful than
military threats in encouraging moderation in Islamic countries.

The U.S. must cease its support for autocratic regimes and encourage greater
political pluralism. In countries like Jordan, Turkey, and Yemen, where
Islamic parties have been allowed to compete in a relatively open political
process, they have generally played a responsible‹if somewhat
conservative‹role in the political system. The more radical elements
observable in many Islamic movements are usually a reflection of the denial
of their right to participate in political discourse. Many radical Islamic
movements, such as those in Egypt, Palestine, and Algeria, include diverse
elements. Were they no longer under siege and instead allowed to function in
an open democratic system they would likely divide into competing political
parties ranging across the ideological spectrum.

It is noteworthy that the FIS in Algeria competed fairly and nonviolently
during that country's brief political opening in the early 1990s, only to
have its anticipated election victory stolen in a military coup. In the
aftermath, the radical GAM emerged to launch its campaign of terror against
foreigners and broad segments of Algerian society.

Indeed, no extremist Islamic movements have ever evolved in democratic
societies. Supporting democracy would therefore be a major step in the
direction of moderating political Islam. The U.S. must stop considering
Islam to be the enemy and instead encourage Islamic movements by working for
justice and economic equality.

Washington must support the Palestinians' right to statehood in the West
Bank and Gaza, including a shared Jerusalem that would serve as the capital
of both Israel and Palestine. Both Congress and the executive branch should
rescind resolutions and past statements that imply support for Israel's
unilateral annexation of Arab East Jerusalem and surrounding Palestinian
lands. Washington must instead recognize the city's importance to all three
monotheistic faiths. Not only would such a policy shift bring the U.S. in
line with international law, UN Security Council resolutions, and virtually
the entire international community, but it would also remove a highly
emotional and volatile issue from the arsenal of Islamic extremists, who
exploit the widespread anger about U.S. support for the illegal Israeli
occupation of a city that Muslims also see as holy.

The U.S. should stop pushing for radical economic liberalization in Islamic
countries, since such policies increase inequality and result in rising
materialism and conspicuous consumption for elites at the expense of basic
needs of the poor majority. Instead, the U.S. must support sustainable
economic development, so that the benefits of foreign investment and
globalization can be more fairly distributed with minimal social disruption.
Although some Islamic traditions have proven to be relatively tolerant of
autocratic governance, the presence of corruption and a lack of concern
about social injustice by a country's leadership are generally seen by
Muslims as a violation of a social contract and must be resisted.

In many respects, political Islam has filled a vacuum that resulted from the
failure of Arab nationalism, Marxism, and other ideologies to free Islamic
countries both from unjust political, social, and economic systems and from
Western imperialism. Just because radical Islamic movements have embraced
tactics and ideologies reprehensible to most Westerners does not mean that
the concerns giving rise to such movements are without merit.

Only by addressing the legitimate grievances of these movements will there
be any hope of stopping their often illegitimate methods and questionable
ideologies. Otherwise, the U.S. may find itself dealing with a series of
conflicts that could eclipse the bloody surrogate cold war battles that
ravaged the third world in previous decades.

Stephen Zunes <zunes@usfca.edu> is an associate professor of politics and
chairperson of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San
Francisco. Zunes is also a senior analyst and the Middle East and North
Africa editor at Foreign Policy In Focus.

 

Sources for More Information

Publications

Dale F. Eickelman and James Piscatori, Muslim Politics (Princeton University
Press, 1996).

John L. Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995).

John L. Esposito and John O. Voll, Islam and Democracy (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1996).

Fred Halliday, Islam and the Myth of Confrontation: Religion and Politics in
the Middle East (New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1995).

Scott W. Hibbard and David Little, Islamic Activism and U.S. Foreign Policy
(Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997).

Charles Hirschkind, "What Is Political Islam?" Middle East Report,
October-December 1997.

Stephen Hubbell, "The Containment Myth: U.S. Middle East Policy in Theory
and Practice," Middle East Report, Fall 1998.


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold