Would promoting Nationalism in the Middle East curb Islamic extremism?

[nittanylion302]

That is, promote the Egyptian, Morrocan, or Persian (for example) identity in order to distance them from the pan-islamism supported by many fundamentalists.

[C.J.Woolf]

It might happen again someday, but no time soon.

In the early to mid-20th century, secular nationalism was promoted as an alternative to the backwardness of Islamic culture, a way to get out of poverty and Western domination. With the exception of Turkey it didn't work out as planned; in the place of economically stagnant monarchies they got economically stagnant military dictatorships. Islamism is a reaction to the failure of secular nationalism to make things better, and it will take some time before it plays out and it's replaced by something else.

[slacker]

An empire based on religion tends to disintegrate into smaller nationalist states. A new caliphate might actually be the best solution for dealing with Islam, as it will hasten the inevitable process of internecine conflict.

[Homini Lupus]

The difficulty is also find the basis on wich invent the nation. In Egypt it somewhat worked but it was based on charismatic legitimation wich is not made to last. If you use arab past to build up the nation you couldn't explain why the countries are still divided or find a leading state, wich is difficult since too many people would see their power diminish. Basing it on pre-arab world is even worse, since it would somewhat delegitimate the population. The best solution I can see for western countries to the problem is starting to become as independant as possible from oil. In the short term would be a real problem since it would mean depending on less efficient sources of power. But on the long run it seems a good bet.

[SWPIGWANG]

Nationalism sounds like "the enemy of my enemy is....." sort of thing.

[RedFox]

It probably would, but the pay-off for that wouldn't happen very fast. We'd have to wait generations for a tangible difference. Some of the Cultural/Racial and Religous rifts there are as old as time, and in a few cases Nationalism has caused wars there. Not to mention pumping money over there for oil exports has just added fuel to the fire.

[PenguinHunter]

No, it wouldn't work. As Mr Woolf said, it happened in the past already. . . to build on his concise summary:

The short version for most Arab states -

1) Colonial mandates become nations due to pressure from their populations,

2) Enthusiasm for the new country causes soaring national pride,

3) Slow realization that the new government is corrupt, authoritarian, simply unable to reach everyone in the population with social services (to create jobs, health care etc) sets in.

4) Religious organizations offer an alternative. At first it isn't politically motivated, they are simply charities. If you want food because your family can't afford it, go to the mosque. If you want a job, go and talk to people at the mosque and they'll help you with your networking. If you want health care, go and talk to someone at the mosque. They may front some money for your mother's surgery or they might even have some doctors donating time on hand.

5) Out of these religious networks, groups like Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah are formed. Obviously they have massive street cred so their popularity soars and they begin to become politically motivated to meet demands of representation from their supporters.

6) Now (and for the past 10 years or more) we're at a point where negotiations must be done through these groups if western governments want to speak to these countries. Unfortunately that hasn't been happening.

Trying to meddle with other people's governments the way you're suggesting results in things like the Iranian Revolution.

[RedFox]

No, it wouldn't work. As Mr Woolf said, it happened in the past already. . . to build on his concise summary:

The short version for most Arab states -

1) Colonial mandates become nations due to pressure from their populations,

2) Enthusiasm for the new country causes soaring national pride,

3) Slow realization that the new government is corrupt, authoritarian, simply unable to reach everyone in the population with social services (to create jobs, health care etc) sets in.

4) Religious organizations offer an alternative. At first it isn't politically motivated, they are simply charities. If you want food because your family can't afford it, go to the mosque. If you want a job, go and talk to people at the mosque and they'll help you with your networking. If you want health care, go and talk to someone at the mosque. They may front some money for your mother's surgery or they might even have some doctors donating time on hand.

5) Out of these religious networks, groups like Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah are formed. Obviously they have massive street cred so their popularity soars and they begin to become politically motivated to meet demands of representation from their supporters.

6) Now (and for the past 10 years or more) we're at a point where negotiations must be done through these groups if western governments want to speak to these countries. Unfortunately that hasn't been happening.

Trying to meddle with other people's governments the way you're suggesting results in things like the Iranian Revolution.

Said it better then I could. National coups and infighting would decrease, but we'd have more lovely oil fueds to look forward to. Until oil exports taper off there's probably not going to be stability.

[Huston]

Nationalism sounds like "the enemy of my enemy is....." sort of thing.

For me, it is:
Hmm, here is the Islamic extremist enemy.. ah here is the Nationalist enemy. Now I have two enemies, fuck!!!

Pretty much both do the same thing in the end. Splitting people. They just split different people, or more people.

[amur]

For me, it is:
Hmm, here is the Islamic extremist enemy.. ah here is the Nationalist enemy. Now I have two enemies, fuck!!!

Pretty much both do the same thing in the end. Splitting people. They just split different people, or more people.
The real problems start when they split people under the guise of what a minority who claim to represent one whole of a group want, no one except a very few see it coming.
And that is separation according to values/race in a nation leading to fractionisation and ethnic/religious population clusters leading to...lines being drawn...leading to...borderline disputes...leading to outright disharmony...leading to...War.

Culture merging, coupled with reasonable living standards has proven in the past the most denotive of peace and eradication of fundamentalism.

[kuranes]

6) Now (and for the past 10 years or more) we're at a point where negotiations must be done through these groups if western governments want to speak to these countries. Unfortunately that hasn't been happening.

Maybe that idea of "punishing people by not talking to them" concept will end or be modified if Obama wins. Giving people "the silent treatment" seems to be a popular meme with some, worldwide, however.

[dubbeltop]

Maybe that idea of "punishing people by not talking to them" concept will end or be modified if Obama wins. Giving people "the silent treatment" seems to be a popular meme with some, worldwide, however.

:happpy: ...Yeah Palin said something similair I think...

[PenguinHunter]

Maybe that idea of "punishing people by not talking to them" concept will end or be modified if Obama wins. Giving people "the silent treatment" seems to be a popular meme with some, worldwide, however.

I'm not that optimistic. Clinton did it too, he just didn't make it official government policy. A tasty, relevant Obama link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3897414.ece) I just found.


. . .Mr Obama, who repeated earlier statements saying that Hamas was “a terrorist organisation [and] we should not negotiate with them unless they recognise Israel, renounce violence”.

I'm no foreign relations adviser but I'd have thought that before you start listing demands you should enter into negotiations. This has been the US foreign policy approach for ages now: "You meet our demands and we'll reward you with another, official, list of demands." Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like this is going to change.

[kuranes]

I'm not that optimistic. Clinton did it too, he just didn't make it official government policy. A tasty, relevant Obama link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3897414.ece) I just found.

I couldn't get it to "finish loading". I saw the article title, though, and I could certainly understand that things might have been different in 2009 or December-ish. Timing is a bitch. :)

Check out my thread "The Other Bad Guys" at MBTIc.

[Ferrus]

Yes it would. But it is impossible to for several reasons:

a) Nationalism is anti-Islamic and a Western ideology, any attempt to foster it would appear to be interference by the West (which is why nationalist elites and dictators there were seen as puppets of the West).

b) The post-WW1 'countries' that were created were primarily the result of opportunist semi-colonial division. Few people identity with any such country even if they identify with pan-Arabism (and few now do).

[mario101]

That is, promote the Egyptian, Morrocan, or Persian (for example) identity in order to distance them from the pan-islamism supported by many fundamentalists.


Before Islamic fundamentalism became popular, many in the Arab world united over Pan Arabism.

Ataturk preached Turkish nationalism and was successful (to an extent as Islamic parties are gaining more power in the Turkish government now).

The Shah of Iran preached solely Persian nationalism - but his downfall was more due to his image as an American puppet which the fundamentalists capitalized on.

The Kurds have always been and always will be nationalists since they seek a nation amidst their fellow Muslims.

As for Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan, Jordanian, Saudi Arabian...nationalism - they have the same language and similar cultures and often use this to unite against the non-Arab powers in the region (Especially Iran then Turkey). For instance Iran and Saudi Arabia have been sworn enemies from the time of the Shahs until now.

Nationalism does not have to refer to the events surrounding WWI; Nationalism refers to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation. (from Wikipedia)

Hence, nationalism has been around for ages from the time of the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans...(notice that the first 3 nations are Middle Eastern). It continues to exist in the Middle East today although many categorize the region into a single a ideology...

[**life is...**]

This problem is so easy to solve it's mind boggling. First find the most SJ people in the whole country. Give them a job as school teacher and make them feel empowered. Give them a curriculum that stresses materialism and trust in the dollar(which would be extended to their country). On tv, show programs that stress ideas such as birthday presents, and valantine's day; you know like totally one sided materialistic holidays. Empower all SJ's who follow the rules and give them very easy jobs with a huge amount of power(such as judge, police chief, government official, board of public health). Start rolling advertisements on television asking people if their depressed and telling them to talk to their doctor. Provide motivation for the doctors to dole out massive quantities of prazac and other fluoride based anti-depressants. Explain to people that iodized salt is harmful and that they should all cut it out of their diet.

Problem solved :)

If it's a really big problem you could open the boarders and allow Mexicans to take all of the lower paying jobs that can be obtained without indoctrination into the system. But when you do be sure to beat some of them to the point of death and then blame it on the majority race at the time.

[djm]

I actually think it would increase fundamentalism, which is a cross border movement in any case.

[YHWH]

Promoting democracy in the middle-east led to the rise of fundamentalist Islam, promoting nationalism would undoubtedly cause much nastier consequences.

The west should simply stop promoting things in the middle-east.

[djm]

Promoting democracy in the middle-east led to the rise of fundamentalist Islam, promoting nationalism would undoubtedly cause much nastier consequences.

The west should simply stop promoting things in the middle-east.

Yes the Suez crisis was bad enough, no more of that thanks.

[Ferrus]

How do you promote nationalism among a people for whom their religious and tribal affiliation is more important than the pseudo-nations invented by Western powers after WW1?

[YHWH]

How do you promote nationalism among a people for whom their religious and tribal affiliation is more important than the pseudo-nations invented by Western powers after WW1?

You create a nation-state for the Jews, then one for the Kurds, then one for the Iraqi Shiites, then one for the Iraqi sunnies and before you know it every little ethnicity/tribe/sect/religious group would want one for them.

Then the fragmented middle east would live and prosper in peace under the holy guidance of the US and A and Israel.

[Ferrus]

Iraqi Shiites, then one for the Iraqi sunnies
The term 'Iraqi' in either case means very little. Iraq was merely an administrative devision of the Ottoman Empire, and even that didn't quite equate to the modern boundries.

[YHWH]

Shiites are scattered all over the Arab world, you can't put them all in one state...Well unless some sort of holocaust took place.

[Ferrus]

Shiites are scattered all over the Arab world, you can't put them all in one state...Well unless some sort of holocaust took place.
No, but then again that is why the Shi'ite movement has always considered themselves a victimised minority, right from the time of the Islamic civil war, and it is an important part of their mythos. The majority however live in Iran and Iraq.

This is also why the nation-state in many areas, without forced population movements, tends towards civil war, or monarchical dictatorship. The same thing happened in E. Europe post WW1 (before the Soviets moved people around), in the Middle East, and in Africa after decolonisation. Relatively stable homogenous nation states are only really a product of Western Europe, North America and the Far East where historical conditions have been favourable.

[C.J.Woolf]

The term 'Iraqi' in either case means very little. Iraq was merely an administrative devision of the Ottoman Empire, and even that didn't quite equate to the modern boundries.
To split hairs, Ottoman "Iraq" was more than one province:


For administrative purposes, Ottoman Iraq was divided into the three central eyalets of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra...
The centers of the Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia regions of Iraq.

That doesn't make your post any less accurate, of course.

[Limey]

Trying to meddle with other people's governments the way you're suggesting results in things like the Iranian Revolution.


...and the "freedom fighters" souring into disowned religious student groups with a chip on their shoulder. Then there are the Madrasahs in Pakistan...

[DaleTerra]

How do you promote nationalism among a people for whom their religious and tribal affiliation is more important than the pseudo-nations invented by Western powers after WW1?

I always said that if they truly wanted to conquer Afghanistan (and Iraq, for that matter - but, we should never of been there to begin with - now Bush made it our longterm nightmare.) Is right after pulverizing the Country, the cable and internet companies should of been the 2nd tier of defense and given every family two tv's and two laptops with internet access. (Yeah, yeah - there's that ole electricity problem - ok, 3 laptops, a generator and satellite internet access.)

That way they can watch TV, whilst hanging out it forums and bitch about everything, thinking because they wrote down their opinion that it mattered -

You know, kind of like how the US keeps its masses in line - 'active' inertia.

Toss in that Cheney is monitoring every forum and email for a touch of paranoia and there you have it. Divide and conquer.

BTW... I did come across a muslim forum once and lurked there for a bit to determine what these folks thought. Not only are they like christan fundamentalist, because the only 'learning' and value system they ever had was based around Quran, but then they had to WRITE after almost every other sentence - Allah is great, Allah is good - or something like that. What a huge waste of time.

[YHWH]

What a huge waste of time.

You'll find out how ironic that is while spending eternity in hell.