Poverty, Illiteracy, and Unemployment or a Clash of Civilizations?

Bombing Muslim countries with jobs and education to end terrorism? The prime minister of Malasia, Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi, says attributing problems between the west and the Muslim world to a clash of civilizations diverts attention away from the real source of discontent. The key to stabilizing the Muslim world is to improve economic conditions and reduce the high levels of "poverty, illiteracy and unemployment":

The real challenge for Muslim nations is economic, by Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi, Commentary, Financial Times: The divide between the Muslim world and the west has become the great issue of the decade. It has succeeded the cold war as the strategic issue of global concern. The terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Palestinian issue, have created the impression of a clash of civilisations.

The confrontation between the Muslim world and the west is inflicting enormous political, economic and security costs on both sides. The human cost is especially appalling on the Muslim side. It is in the interests of both the west and the Muslim world that this confrontation ends...

[A] new “Economic Agenda for the Islamic World” ... must be a central pillar in our efforts to tackle the roots of unrest and help our own peoples, thus also addressing the causes of discontent that create breeding grounds for terrorism.

There is a danger that today’s overwhelming focus on the Muslim world’s political relationship with the west is diverting attention from even more fundamental social and economic problems. The Muslim landscape that stretches from Morocco to Mindanao is more diverse than western commentators often suppose. There are peaceful countries where the people are wealthy, healthy and educated. However, these are sadly outnumbered by countries and regions that are under­developed, poor and in turmoil.

Some 31 of the 57 member states of the Organisation of Islamic Conference are classified among the least developed nations, including the ... bottom five ... on that list. Unemployment rates are double the global average, nearly one-third of the population is illiterate and women face many disadvantages. This level of backwardness and economic deprivation helps fuel a host of social ills and makes it easier for people to recruit terrorists.

Poor governance is a feature of many parts of the Muslim world. Political oppression, abuse of civil and political rights and corruption trouble many Muslim countries. Extremism and militancy also dot parts of the Muslim landscape due to factors that are largely domestic but are sometimes external.

What is needed is a clear and shared commitment to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and unemployment in the Islamic world. These are the real threats to both the Muslim and western worlds. If people have a sense of economic opportunity and purpose they are far less likely to be seduced into becoming terrorists. ...

It is only by taking responsibility for their own fate that Muslim countries can gain the self-respect needed to occupy a position of dignity within the global community. Unless they are economically strong, politically viable and socially resilient, they will remain marginalised from the global mainstream; vulnerable to exploitation, division and domination.

Development must, therefore, be at the top of the agenda of all Muslim countries and communities. This is not simply an issue of income levels, good housing and adequate health facilities. It must also mean a literate and informed society, a representative political system that gives effective voice to the people, the absence of severe inequalities, efficient and honest administration and a commitment to the rule of law. A country cannot be considered developed until rights are respected, women are empowered, minorities protected and corruption eradicated...

[I]t is also time that other world leaders recognise that most Muslims share their hopes for a prosperous and peaceful world. Muslim leaders are already taking responsibility for modernising their own societies. Malaysia will continue to lead by example. This, and not the nihilism of global terrorism, represents the truest form of liberation and it is one I would call on all world leaders to support.

This is related:

America's Muslim success story, by Asra Nomani, Commentary, UK Guardian: After printing the new Pew Research centre report, "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream," on my Samsung four-in-one laser printer/digital copier/laser fax/color scanner, I buckled my four-year-old son into his car seat in our family's Dodge Caravan minivan, picking up his new McDonald's Happy Meal Shrek toy when he dropped it. We dashed across town to the 4.30pm Tiny Tigers class at Casey's American Taekwondo Association, tucked behind the local West Virginia State Police station. I pretended to ignore my son as he asked, "Can we go to Burger King?" At taekwondo, sitting in a waiting room of folding chairs with other American parents, I read the Pew report... When I left the cover page face up, I quietly wondered if any parents would freak reading the big font headline, "Muslim Americans." I quickly flipped it over. I would have analyzed the Pew report more but we had to zip across town again for T-ball, a mini-version of baseball. I'm the coach for my son's team... And I also happen to be Muslim.

American Muslims as middle class? Mostly mainstream? That's an understatement. But with big headlines from USA Today ("Poll: American Muslims reject extremes") to the Sacramento Bee ("Upbeat portrait of US Muslims: study finds most embrace America, denounce extremism") and the Christian Science Monitor ("In many ways, US Muslims are in mainstream America"), we would have thought we'd learned that, indeed, Muslims aren't Martians.

To me, the brouhaha over the study's findings underscores how little we've understood a basic fact: give folks something to lose, and they probably won't want to destroy you. Success in America has taken an edge off Muslims in America; the same can't be said for their counterparts in Europe. In large part, I blame institutionalized racism and discrimination that doesn't slap us in the face in America. ... To me, contentment is directly proportional to tolerance and progressive thinking. ...

Comments

[James Killus]

Were the goal to "stabilize the Muslim world" there might be a point to this, but that has clearly never been anyone's goal. The actual goals for the Iraq were permanent bases in the Middle East, with which to control the oil supply, and revenge for the 9/11 attacks. The former was the goal of neo-con policy makers, the latter the primary goal of most Americans who supported the war. The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 has yet to penetrate the minds (for want of a more accurate word) of the war's supporters in the general public, or alternately, they just don't care, owing to the usual reasons of racism and religious bigotry.

Bush falls into neither of these categories, as nearly as I can tell. He just likes to strut on the deck of an aircraft carrier and is pouting because he can't do it any more.

[Wayne Jett]

Badawi's predecessor supported a pan-Arab currency with a stable value anchored in gold as key to greater prosperity in the muslim world. The idea was not so much that a currency must be controlled by muslim countries, but that muslim countries cannot prosper so long as they are using currencies manipulated by central banks controlled by other countries. An honest dollar likewise anchored in gold would serve the purpose very well.

[James Kroeger]

The key to ending terrorism has always been the same. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the economic/political evolution of Muslim civilization.

Fanatical attacks by militant Muslims on Americans have occurred for only one reason: we have continually used our military muscle to try to force them to accept humiliating incursions into their lands. If we had stayed on our own side of the planet and stayed out of their affairs, no Islamic terrorist would ever have attacked an innocent American, on Nine Eleven or at any other time.

It all began, of course, with our support for Israel. Prior to the emigration of foreign-born Jews into the area in the early decades of the 20th Century, Palestine was a Muslim land, period. When the 'foreign invasion' of Zionists occurred, culminating in the 1948 war, the Palestinians and their Arab/Muslim 'cousins' felt they had been invaded by people from far away lands who had taken their land at gunpoint. They were right.

This whole situation never had to be a problem for America. If the Jewish immigrants who managed to pull off the creation of the state of Israel had done so without our involvement, then the dispute they've had with the Muslims ever since would have continued to fester in the ensuing decades, but it would not have been our problem. We've made ourselves the target of Islamic militants by getting ourselves involved in this dispute (by essentially guaranteeing with our military muscle and financial support that the efforts of the Palestinians to retake their land from foreign invaders would fail).

That is why the Islamic terrorists hate us enough to try to kill us. We've humiliated them by sending our armies into their lands to impose our will on them, and that includes trying to force them to accept the seizure of their land by foreigners. However much sympathy we might feel for the Israelis, they've gotten themselves into a heck of a mess, one that really isn't our problem, but is one that they created for themselves.

There is a solution to their dispute with the Palestinians, one that would bring them lasting peace, but it remains to be seen if they are wise enough to embrace that choice. We can only hope...

[real person from the real world]

I'm no fan of the Iraq war, and the 3rd World should be given reasonable help to raise living standards, but frankly, assuming that the Muslims are merely reacting to lack of jobs, et al, seems to ignore the fact that so many of the 9/11 hijackers came from wealth Saudi Arabia, and some (Mohammed Atta) have been well educated. Peaceful strains of Islam have been poisoned by Wahbism, and these ideas have been spread and promulgated by wealthy Saudi Arablia. Ideas can be very potent. The US has been arrogant, but why is it the only cultures that rants about "humiliation" seems to be muslim? Why aren't the poverty stricken of South America blowing themselves up by the score? How about Africans?

[James Killus]

The US has been arrogant, but why is it the only cultures that rants about "humiliation" seems to be muslim? Why aren't the poverty stricken of South America blowing themselves up by the score? How about Africans?

RPFTRW, this sounds like you equate "ranting" with "blowing themselves up." If you restrict the realm of discourse to complaints about American arrogance and its visiting humiliation on other countries and peoples, I believe you'll find plenty of examples in Latin and South America, Asia, Africa, and probably a whiff or two in Europe.

In other news, I wonder if there is any malady for which Wayne Jett would not prescribe a return to the gold standard. Street crime? Incompetent auto mechanics? Jet lag? The common cold?

says...

I have no doubt, there are many examples of American arrogance to be found thru out the world. However, saying terrorism is merely a result of inadequate economic opportunity is simplistic, especially when those other victims of American arrogance seem to behave in a more civilized fashion.... in stead of going to another country to blow innocent people up and create a media event. Terrorism is nothing short of our own petro-dollars being put to work.
BUY ELECTRIC/HYBRID CARS!

[archer]

I find it distressing that the "Muslim world" is presented as a monolith by someone who purports to represent their point of view. Indonesia is pretty tolerant of other cultures, and they did manage to bring the Bali bombers, which was part of a domestic radical group, Jemaah Islamiah, to trial and convict them.

[Lafayette]

AN: But with big headlines from USA Today ("Poll: American Muslims reject extremes") to the Sacramento Bee ("Upbeat portrait of US Muslims: study finds most embrace America, denounce extremism") and the Christian Science Monitor ("In many ways, US Muslims are in mainstream America"), we would have thought we'd learned that, indeed, Muslims aren't Martians.

This points to the real reason for Muslim fundamentalism.

Why aren’t American Muslims fundamentalists? Maybe it's because they enjoy all the trappings of a solid middle class existence? Why are Saudi Sunnites not terrorists? Because they have the same privilege, and only slightly more constrained in their personal liberties as their counterparts in the US.

This problem will not be solved until Middle-east Muslims can enjoy a middle-class exist, even the hum-drum variety. Can you imagine the desperation of a people, the Palestinians, who have been fighting for independence since 1948?

Why not give them the bit of land in Palestine that they seek, that was theirs for a thousand years before the European Jews where resettled in Palestine after WW2? Nobody asked them for permission to do so.

All the Palestinians seek is a semblance of a normal life without the Israelis peering over their shoulders. A normal existence means a functioning economy, a functioning government and a job … i.e., to live like you and me. Is that so very much?

The solution to the Palestinian revolt and that of fundamental terrorism is one and the same. Give people a choice between a gun and a house mortgage to be paid, they will always choose the latter. They aren't fools.

[Lafayette]

jk: We've made ourselves the target of Islamic militants by getting ourselves involved in this dispute

Agreed.

But, we weren't the only ones involved. At critical junctures in the not-so-far political history of the Middle East, both the Brits and the French were involved.

The Brits allowed the European Jews to resettle in Palestine just after WW2, and well before the UN took a vote on the matter. France gave the Jews atomic bomb technology with which to develop a nuclear capacity back in the late fifties.

So, if we can share the blame, we can also share the responsibility for the solution. First and foremost is to end knee-jerk support to Israel in order to assure a more balanced approach to negotiating a peace.

Secondly, and the EU is doing this precisely, start refunding the Palestinian state to bring basic public services back on line.

And, that's just to get us back to square one.

If somehow the miracle of Foreign Direct Investment could be provoked to create jobs, then maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians could have decent lives to live. If they have supported the hard-line Hamas, it's because Hamas runs the schools and provides food to the needy. It is a semblance of a functioning public service.

[Farrar Richardson]

Lafayette and others -
for the Jews, this goes back a lot longer than post WW2. Jewish organisations began efforts to resettle Jews in Palestine late in the 19th century. The British made things worse during WW1 with the Balfour Declaration indicating that HMG would favor the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. This was designed to encourage support by central European Jews for the Allies. Lawrence was at the same time aiding and abetting Abdullah II's ancestors in their revolt against Turkey, with the implicit promise of establishing a unified Arab kingdom in the middle east. The British were typically playing both ends against the middle. Trouble was, it was they who found themselves in the middle in the inter war period.

The Arab dream of unity was frustrated, as the French and British carved up their kingdom into mandate protectorates. At first, the British tried to keep their promise to the Jews, and more and more immigrants arrived buying up lands owned by Arabs. By the end of the 20's the Palestinians figured out what was happening, and stirred up by the fanatical Grand Mufti, massacred some Jewish settlers. The British tried to freeze things but it was too late. Jewish settlers kept arriving and the Kibbutz movement added idealism to the mix.

During WW2, the Grand Mufti made things worse for the Palestinians by supporting the Axis. Post war, we more or less know what happened. Boatloads of homeless Jews arrived. Americans, thinking Palestine was an uninhabited desert, overflowed with sympathy for the Jews and lent their overwhelming support to Israel.

Meanwhile it was the JEWISH TERRORISTS who made life unbearable for the British protectors, who washed their hands of the problem and left.

I agree with those who opine that the Palestinians have right on their side from the historical perspective. But then you have the religious Jews who believe firmly that god gave them the land, and they're not about to move. Meanwhile, the Israelis have worked hard, most of them peacefully for more than sixty years to make a success of their country and in my opinion have earned some rights, too.

So, waddayagonnado, it's not as simple as it looks.

[James Kroeger]

...then you have the religious Jews who believe firmly that god gave them the land, and they're not about to move. Meanwhile, the Israelis have worked hard, most of them peacefully for more than sixty years to make a success of their country and in my opinion have earned some rights, too. So, waddayagonnado, it's not as simple as it looks.

Waddayagonnado? No, the answer is not as simple as giving the land of Israel back to the Palestinians, but I do think it's possible for the Israelis and the Americans to make an offer to the Palestinians that would bring about a lasting peace and---in so doing---bring about an end to America's problem with "Terrorists." Why not read this proposal, Farrar, and tell me what you think?

[save_the_rustbelt]

Not an expert, but it appears to me the Palestinians are convenient surrogates for other Arab states, allowing those states an an on-going war without getting their own hands too dirty.

Any solution is going to have to include economic help from the wealthier Arab states, the ones that have used the Palestinians to their own ends for several decades.

[Lafayette]

FR: The British were typically playing both ends against the middle.

You're right. The Brits have more than their fair share of the blame for this mess.

But, the Zionist desire of unifying all Jewish peoples into a Jewish state was no less a pipe dream than that of the Muslims for the same, was it not?

Regardless, like Northern Ireland, the stubborn mindlessness of humanity is what makes for the gridlock on the peace process in the Middle East. Both sides see themselves as having been victimized by history.

The Middle East poor seem to think that the oil there should go to "all Muslim brothers". This is yet another pipe dream. Each oil-producing country wants the riches for its own, and in Iraq that challenge is proving to be intractable.

Besides, when the oil runs out, what then? They need, now, a basic industrial/commercial infrastructure that will employ people. Let's remember that as traders, they have a two thousand year history. The Ottoman Empire was one based upon mutual trade (as well as iron-fisted control).

What is lacking is the will to do it. May I suggest that a good dose of benign neglect should be administered? Both sides keep thinking that either the US or Europe will arrange things to their advantage.

And, that ain't gonna happen.

[Lafayette]

strb: it appears to me the Palestinians are convenient surrogates for other Arab states, allowing those states an an on-going war without getting their own hands too dirty.

Oh, like the Yanks fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are surrogate combatants for the rest of the "God-fearing civilized world"?

Such thinking is perverse. Of the kind that got Uncle Sam into a quagmire in the first place.

[Farrar Richardson]

James Kroeger,

I agree entirely with your proposal entirely. Additionally you have a good understanding of Arab psychology.

As long as the Palestinians keep getting humiliated, they will never give up, and will keep blowing themselves up along with others. They must have some kind of a victory, even if it's largely symbolic.

The Egyptians refused to consider peace, until after they made a reasonable showing in the yom kippur war. After that, everything became possible.

After a symbolic victory in the first Intifada, Arafat was able to negotiate. But apparently the victory was not big enough, or perhaps he felt humiliated by pressure from Clinton and Albright.

The Jewish withdrawal from Gaza, might have been spun as a victory for Palestine, but neither the Jews nor the Arabs were ready.

The Israelis will have to give on the two thorniest issues -
- sharing Jerusalem (tough because the religious nuts on both sides must be satisfied)
- symbolic right of return (tough because of Israeli fears of being overwhelmed by Palestinian birth rates)

Some other symbolic victory would help, too, and let's hope it doesn't take a war.

As long as the Arabs feel humiliated, nothing is possible. This goes on every level. The second generation immigrants in the Paris suburbs won't stop burning cars until they get an equal chance to participate in society, nor will the concierge in our building start cooperating with the tenants until he takes his revenge against certain residents who have needlessly humiliated him.

[James Kroeger]

They [the Arabs] must have some kind of a victory, even if it's largely symbolic.

The Arabs have been portrayed as people who "just hate", but the truth is that there is a reason why they are angry, a very good reason. They have been the victims of a great injustice and they know it. They are enraged at Americans because we always talk about the need to correct injustices, but then we make them out to be the bad guys, instead of the victims.

Anyone who is familiar with the history of jurisprudence should be able to see that even the members of Hamas would be able to give up land that the Zionists stole from them and even grant the Jewish state's right to exist if they were to receive extremely generous compensation for it. If they felt as though they had finally been paid a fair price for the land that was taken from them, they'd be able to accept Israeli sovereignty while holding their heads high.

[real person from the real world]

Alot of talk seems to focus on the Jewish immigrants who started coming in the 19th century. The comments seem to assume, the territory was all arabs until then. You have had Jewish communities in arab territories since Mohammed. One large Jewish community was wiped out in Arabia with the surviving males being beheaded, and Mohammed himself beding a few of the widows the same night afterwards, while his followers kept watch with sword in hand, in case the ladies got out of hand. I read once about a Jewish guy from Peria, whose father had had problems at school, until the shite principal had him drink from a glass of water, and then drank from the same glass. Those sympathetic to Arab culture talk about the "golden" ages when arab centers of culture also were home to foreigners and their ideas. Now suddenly Jews and Israel are the big problem. Or, muslim poverty and humiliation. No one ever talks about the millions of Armenians done in by the muslim turks.

Napoleon invaded Egypt, and controled Algeria, but now they are out of there, and you still have fundamentalist terrorists making life miserable for other Algerians. But few remember or talk about the French.

Frankly, I think there are a lot of proarab biases showing. Is that because it is "their" oil, and the west needs oil (actually its the CEOs of Exxon, BP, et al) and we make deals for it, even though these mideast economies produce nothing.

You cannot eat oil, altho maybe with new modern western technology you can wear it or build with it. Oil seems to be the only thing these economies have going. And yet, with all that money, any money that comes in just props up the old status quo, and the elites pay off the population while they build palaces and go shopping in Europe.

I'm not Jewish but I am sure am tired of the ol' BAD JEW, GOOD ARAB claptrap. It's about time the Arabs and proarab western elites take a good look at the flaws in some of these coutries.

[James Kroeger]

...I am sure am tired of the ol' BAD JEW, GOOD ARAB claptrap.
If this is a reference to me, then you are mistaken. Please read the linked article and become informed. No part of me has ever been anti-Jewish.

[Lafayette]

jk: grant the Jewish state's right to exist if they were to receive extremely generous compensation for it.

This would be possible, were the left bank Israeli settlements given over to the Palestinians to occupy and there were a commitment to build even more into villages/cities for those Palestinians who want to live there.

Round this off with some FDI of a kind to kindle some economic fire and, most importantly, jobs ... and we have a recipe for peace - given the Israelis are acknowledged the mutual right to an existence in Israel next door.

Let the Americans and Saudis pledge the money for reconstruction and let the Europeans arrange for FDI by European countries looking to dislocate to a point closer to their markets. (Frankly, even the Israeli economy could become dependent upon cheap Palestinian labor on the other side of the green line.)

The concept is called "separate but equal" treatment.

[Lafayette]

jk: No, the answer is not as simple as giving the land of Israel back to the Palestinians

Please note that, with the exception of Hamas, the Palestinians never asked for Israel back. They demand, however, that the Left Bank be retroceded to them.

According to the UN mandate that created Israel, the Left Bank and northeastern Jerusalem are part of the Palestinian territory that were confiscated in one of the wars and are now occupied/colonized.

This Green Line, negotiated unofficially five years ago by Palestinians and Israelis in Geneva, is a possible solution since it does give back most of the land to the Palestinians. But, therein lies the rub. The present government will not recognize that negotiation.

[James Kroeger]

...with the exception of Hamas, the Palestinians never asked for Israel back.
I'm not sure that statement is strictly accurate (...with the exception of Hamas...) but even if it is, it doesn't matter. I think Hamas is correct to not concede Israel's "right to exist" even before negotiations begin. It is the only thing they have that the Israelis value. Why should they simply give it away to meet Israel's pre-conditions to negotiations? It would be madness for them to do so, and they know it.

The Palestinian people are the only people who have the moral right to grant Israel's right to exist on land that previously belonged to the Palestinians------not Israel, not the United States, and not the United Nations. It is irrational, and ultimatley immoral, for the United States to back up Israel's insistance that their 'right to exist' be conceded by Palestinian negotiators before the Israelis will even agree participate in negotiations.

But what else is new in the bizarre world of U.S. foreign policy?

[Lafayette]

JK: I think Hamas is correct to not concede Israel's "right to exist" even before negotiations begin. It is the only thing they have that the Israelis value.

You're right, it is a bargaining chip.

What they must do, both sides, is to agree to stop military actions against one another for the period of discussions.

Frankly, I sense that the reason they don't want to do this is because of the Hamas leader holed up in Damascus, and controlled by Syrian authorities.

So, Hamas is simply Syria's "stalking horse" in the Middle East equation. Just as they control Hamas in Lebanon, they control it in Gaza. Hamas is a surrogate for Syria in its own conflict (regarding the Golan Heights) with Israel.

There is no solution to the Middle East riddle without Syria involved in it. Which is why Rice is schmoozing with Assad.

It's all a silly game. But deadly.

[reason]

Water and a sovereign link between Gaza and the West Bank - they are important issues as well. And the right to self-defence. Lots of issues, but I agree not insoluble with good will. But fundamentalism and good will don't go together, fundamentalist on both sides must be isolated.

[Lafayette]

reason: fundamentalists on both sides must be isolated.

Go for it! We all are wishing you the very best of luck! ;^)

One of the best definitions (that I have ever seen) of a fundamentalist is someone who cannot be reasoned with.