THERE ARE CURRENTLY 22 STATES IN THE WORLD WHICH EARN
OVER 60% OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GDP FROM OIL (AND GAS), AND ARE RULED BY
NON-DEMOCRATIC, AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES
By correlating hydrocarbons with the
present political and socio-economic landscape, scholar Larry Diamond revealed
that there are currently 22 states in the world which earn over 60% of their
respective GDP from oil (and gas), and are ruled by non-democratic,
authoritarian regimes. All of them are characterized by disparity, steep
socio-economic cleavages, sharp political inequalities and lasting exclusions,
not to mention poor human rights records. These represent nearly half of the
countries considered by the Freedom House’s annual reports as ‘not free’– the
very same that are predominantly held accountable by the Western media for
domestic and regional insurgences, intl. armed conflicts, famines as well as
for harboring and financing terrorists.
As for the fact that 9 of the 11 top
crude exporters are usually labeled as dictatorships, Prof. Diamond calls this
a ‘democratic recession.’ This all points to the fact that there is not a
single economic or political indicator in the MENA (MIDDLE EAST – NORTH AFRICA)
region that suggests any ‘Spring’ has occurred, just a severe and lasting
recession.
Indeed, modern history is full of examples where any given crude exporting countries’
development was hindered by huge revenues. Far too often, the petro-cash flow
did not assist but delayed or derailed necessary economic diversification and
political reform. Conveniently using revenues to buy and otherwise subsidize
social peace, these regimes were actually creating a kind of self-entrapment in
the form of an ever-stronger psychological and political dependence on
hydrocarbons. Therefore, a real ‘Arab Spring,’ for the MIDDLE EAST and the rest
of us, will only come after socio-economic decoupling and diversification,
socio-political horizontalization; all grounded in a decisive departure from
oil-dependence. By no means would it ever come by the purely cosmetic change of
who resides in the presidential palace.
SAUDIS ONLY REPRESENT 1.5% OF THE WORLD’S MUSLIMS, BUT
FINANCIALLY CONTROL AROUND 90% OF THE ISLAMIC INSTITUTIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Fearing leftist republican pan-arabism and nasserism, the us encouraged saudi arabia to sponsor the large network of madrasahs throughout the middle east – Prof. Cleveland reminds us in his capital work: A History of the Modern MIDDLE EAST. In the last three decades, this tiger became ‘too big to ride’, as Lawrence Wright points out in The Looming Tower. Wright states that while representing only 1.5% of the world’s Muslims, SAUDIS fund and essentially control around 90% of the Islamic institutions from the US to KAZAKHSTAN/Xinjiang and from NORWAY to AUSTRALIA.
Fearing leftist republican pan-arabism and nasserism, the us encouraged saudi arabia to sponsor the large network of madrasahs throughout the middle east – Prof. Cleveland reminds us in his capital work: A History of the Modern MIDDLE EAST. In the last three decades, this tiger became ‘too big to ride’, as Lawrence Wright points out in The Looming Tower. Wright states that while representing only 1.5% of the world’s Muslims, SAUDIS fund and essentially control around 90% of the Islamic institutions from the US to KAZAKHSTAN/Xinjiang and from NORWAY to AUSTRALIA.
By insisting on oversimplified and rigid, sectarian Wahhabi-Salafist
interpretations of religious texts, most of these institutions along with their
indoctrinated clerics are in fact both corrupting and preventing an important
inner debate about Islam and modernity. Self-detained in denial limbo,
they largely (and purposely) keep the Arab and non-Arab Muslim world in a
dangerous confrontational course with both itself and the rest of the world.
Background Information:
To this end, there is a claim
currently circulating the EU, both cynical and misleading:
‘multiculturalism is dead in EUROPE.’ Not entirely surprising, as the EU has
silently handed over one of its most important debates – that of EUROPEAN
identity – to the right wing-parties. The way to save EUROPE’S domestic
cohesion and overall credibility within its strategic neighborhood lies in the
reinvigoration of its ‘everything but institutions’ transformative powers,
those that were stipulated in the Barcelona process of the EUROPEAN Neighborhood
Policy as well as in the EURO-MED partnership (OSCE).
EUROPE’S GEOPOLITICAL INDECISIVENESS, A HINDERING STONE TO
PROSPERITY
Why is this the case?
Young generations of EUROPEANS are taught in schools about a compact unity (singularity) of an entity called the EU. However, as soon as serious external or inner security challenges emerge, historic EUROPE resurfaces.
 |
| Center Right shift in Europe: Center Right Governments of Europe oppose Multicultural Awareness |
Formerly in ALGERIA,
EGYPT and LEBANON, then in IRAQ (with the exception of FRANCE) and now with LIBYA
and SYRIA and BOSNIA, Central Europe is hesitant to act, ATLANTIC EUROPE is
eager, SCANDINAVIAN EUROPE is absent, EASTERN EUROPE is bandwagoning, and RUSSOPHONE
EUROPE is opposing.
Background Information:
The 1986 Reagan-led ANGLO-AMERICAN bombing of LIBYA was a one-time, head-hunting punitive action. This time, LIBYA (and currently SYRIA) has been given a different attachment: The considerable presence of CHINA in AFRICA; successful circumventing pipeline deals between RUSSIA and GERMANY (which will deprive EASTERN EUROPE from any transit-related bargaining premium, and will tacitly pose a joint RUSSO-GERMAN pressure on the BALTIC states, POLAND and UKRAINE); the boldness of IRAN; and finally the overthrows of the EU friendly, TUNISIAN, YEMENI and EGYPTIAN regimes –all combined– must have triggered alarm bells across ATLANTIC EUROPE.
Background Information:
ISLAM THAT THE EU SUPPORTED IN THE MIDDLE EAST YESTERDAY IS
THE SORT OF ISLAM THAT EUROPE GETS TODAY
Thus, in response to the MENA crisis, the EU failed to keep up a broad, consolidated agenda in regards to its strategic neighborhood, even though it had the institutions, interest and credibility to do so. The only direct involvement of the continent ranged over dialog (instruments) and consensus (institutions).
between a diplomatic de-legitimization (by Goebbels-izing the media for it) and punitive military engagement via the ATLANTIC EUROPE-led coalition of the willing. Confrontational nostalgia prevailed again
The consequences are striking: The sort of Islam that the EU supported in the MIDDLE EAST yesterday is the sort of Islam that EUROPE gets today.
Small wonder that
Islam in TURKEY (or in KYRGYZSTAN OR INDONESIA) is generally broad, liberal and
tolerant while in NORTHERN EUROPE it can be brutally dismissive, narrow and
vindictively assertive.
By Anis Bajrektarevic via
Geopoliticalmonitor
No comments:
Post a Comment