MESA Lunacy Continues
Unabetted and rewarded.
Lee Kaplan attended.
Juan Cole is the new President.
Each year – this year in San Francisco, from November 20-23 – the Middle East Studies Association's conference shows the world what topics and themes really do hold sway in this field of the academy. In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. defeat of two Middle Eastern autocracies, and the continued War on Terror, one might expect to see papers on militant Islam and terrorism playing a large role in a gathering of Middle East experts. But with the same willful blindness shown in the past, in each of the post-9/11 events MESA scholars have treated these as almost taboo subjects. The San Francisco conference, with some notable exceptions, suggests that most of MESA’s taboos remain firmly in place.
The 2004 conference program reveals that "terrorist" and "terrorism" remain words scarcely used by the MESA participants. Indeed, "terrorism" doesn’t appear in the titles of five papers in a special session on "Islam and Political Violence." When ‘terror’ is mentioned it is usually contained in "The War on Terror" and most often as a topic of derision.
Whether named as a subject or region, nine times out of ten the sovereign 56-year-old democracy of Israel is referred to as "Palestine-Israel." The conference boasts exactly one paper on suicide bombing; the same number as those speaking on "Palestinian-Israeli Resistance Poetry."
On the war in Iraq, MESA’s lineup remains eclectic at best. Juan Cole of the University of Michigan described Moktada al-Sadr’s violent insurgency as a "movement of the poor," and a panel discussed "Communities Under Siege" actually comparing Iraq, Palestine, and Sudan. Saddam Hussein’s downfall and capture was rendered wholly unimportant; in fact, Saddam Hussein’s name does not appear in the 25-page program.
Amidst all of this unfortunately typical fare, some bright spots can be found.
A roundtable discussion on post-Saddam Kurdish nationalism boasts scholars from England, Canada, Utah, Kentucky and the Ahmed Foundation for Kurdish Studies. It is one of the few discussions willing to acknowledge, at least indirectly, that the American removal of the Ba’ath regime was a good.
Several scholars from the Naval Postgraduate School form a panel – actually, the only panel – conducted from an American security perspective on the Middle East after operations ‘Enduring Freedom’ and ‘Iraqi Freedom.’ The Naval Postgraduate School also offers several scholars to another panel on Islamism and its discontents. Perhaps those professors who must each day explain a war to those who would fight it see a particular urgency in defining the enemy. MESA’s policy the rest of the year is to refuse to accept advertising in its journals from "defense and intelligence related agencies from any government.” Against this backdrop, the very appearance of participants from the Naval Postgraduate School at the MESA meeting seems an enlightened act.
But as with all MESA conferences, one learns the most about the organization not by what these politicized scholars choose to laud or disparage, but by what they leave out altogether. Despite the undeniable historical significance of the last three years, and the fact that approximately fifty million Muslims have been freed from unquestionably horrific tyranny, the term "liberation" does not appear in the program. Not even belittled within quotation marks.
As far as MESA is concerned, the oppression of Arabs and Muslims remains paramount, but the end of 25 years of oppression doesn’t even rate a "thematic conversation." America’s Middle East historians remain perfectly willing to let history pass them by.
The program of the 2004 Annual MESA Conference can be viewed online at: http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/MESA04/2004programadjusted.htm
Lee Kaplan attended.
Juan Cole is the new President.
Each year – this year in San Francisco, from November 20-23 – the Middle East Studies Association's conference shows the world what topics and themes really do hold sway in this field of the academy. In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. defeat of two Middle Eastern autocracies, and the continued War on Terror, one might expect to see papers on militant Islam and terrorism playing a large role in a gathering of Middle East experts. But with the same willful blindness shown in the past, in each of the post-9/11 events MESA scholars have treated these as almost taboo subjects. The San Francisco conference, with some notable exceptions, suggests that most of MESA’s taboos remain firmly in place.
The 2004 conference program reveals that "terrorist" and "terrorism" remain words scarcely used by the MESA participants. Indeed, "terrorism" doesn’t appear in the titles of five papers in a special session on "Islam and Political Violence." When ‘terror’ is mentioned it is usually contained in "The War on Terror" and most often as a topic of derision.
Whether named as a subject or region, nine times out of ten the sovereign 56-year-old democracy of Israel is referred to as "Palestine-Israel." The conference boasts exactly one paper on suicide bombing; the same number as those speaking on "Palestinian-Israeli Resistance Poetry."
On the war in Iraq, MESA’s lineup remains eclectic at best. Juan Cole of the University of Michigan described Moktada al-Sadr’s violent insurgency as a "movement of the poor," and a panel discussed "Communities Under Siege" actually comparing Iraq, Palestine, and Sudan. Saddam Hussein’s downfall and capture was rendered wholly unimportant; in fact, Saddam Hussein’s name does not appear in the 25-page program.
Amidst all of this unfortunately typical fare, some bright spots can be found.
A roundtable discussion on post-Saddam Kurdish nationalism boasts scholars from England, Canada, Utah, Kentucky and the Ahmed Foundation for Kurdish Studies. It is one of the few discussions willing to acknowledge, at least indirectly, that the American removal of the Ba’ath regime was a good.
Several scholars from the Naval Postgraduate School form a panel – actually, the only panel – conducted from an American security perspective on the Middle East after operations ‘Enduring Freedom’ and ‘Iraqi Freedom.’ The Naval Postgraduate School also offers several scholars to another panel on Islamism and its discontents. Perhaps those professors who must each day explain a war to those who would fight it see a particular urgency in defining the enemy. MESA’s policy the rest of the year is to refuse to accept advertising in its journals from "defense and intelligence related agencies from any government.” Against this backdrop, the very appearance of participants from the Naval Postgraduate School at the MESA meeting seems an enlightened act.
But as with all MESA conferences, one learns the most about the organization not by what these politicized scholars choose to laud or disparage, but by what they leave out altogether. Despite the undeniable historical significance of the last three years, and the fact that approximately fifty million Muslims have been freed from unquestionably horrific tyranny, the term "liberation" does not appear in the program. Not even belittled within quotation marks.
As far as MESA is concerned, the oppression of Arabs and Muslims remains paramount, but the end of 25 years of oppression doesn’t even rate a "thematic conversation." America’s Middle East historians remain perfectly willing to let history pass them by.
The program of the 2004 Annual MESA Conference can be viewed online at: http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/MESA04/2004programadjusted.htm
posted by JCH | 9:31 AM
8 Comments:
"...but the end of 25 years of oppression doesn’t even rate a "thematic conversation." --> in relation to the removal of Saddam Hussein. Especially coming from an academic view, perhaps a reason why scholars at this conference did not talk of the recent IRaqi invasion as a "liberation" was because at this stage, it might be a stretch to call it a liberation in real terms. Agreed, yes, of course its a liberation from Saddam, but only to be occupied by another foreign power, the United States (given their history of domination by the British until the 1940s, and then replaced by the B'aath in the 1960s, this doesnt bode well). Hence, coming from an Iraqi point of view, any form of celebration of "liberation" might be premature, as they may be liberated from one form of tyranny, only to be greeted by a drastically different form of tyranny, not least of which may be civil war.
In addition, academics will generally try to interpret the middle east, or any region, in a non-normative manner, meaning that words such as "liberation," as being dramatically filled with normative motives, will more likely be replaced by words such as "change." One man's liberation is another's imprisonment, and hence for an academic to objectively study such movements within a region, it is best to understand it as change from the previously held norm. In specific demonstration of this concept, I bring you "Panel #006 State Building and Institutional Change in the Middle East (P015)." If yer looking for discussion as to the consequences of the recent IRaqi invasion, or Amercan policy regarding despotic regimes within the middle east, I recommend you investigate this panel, as these would be where you might find your answers.
I would like to remind people to re-read over and over again "Orientalism" by Edward Said, the reason being that, Americans especially, must understand the historical path that western attitudes have taken towards the Middle East and the Oriental world. The British in the 1800 and 1900s argued they understood the Middle East better than those that lived there, and recent American literature , especially that which is promoting the spread of democracy throughout the region, seems to be following in this same vein. As a country, the United States must be careful and understand we are following a path of imperial conquest that bankrupted the British, and cost the French dearly as well. While America may dress its foreign policy up in the language of liberation, democracy, and freedom, the First rule of Realism is that state's continually veigh for power, and that in their conquests for power they may dress up their language with liberal ideas, but in reality their actions (at least of intelligent Great Powers) simply position themselves to optimize their power, and not over or underextend it (Morganthau).
In this modern day where it seems liberalism is on the retreat (see George Will's recent article "Academia: stuck to the left") and conservative (the Amercan brand of conservative, which frankly is hardly conservative at all) forces begin to soak American society, we would do well to realize that terrorism is not without purpose, and not without rationality. In truth, terrorism, especially suicide bombing (see the "Strategic Logic of Terrorism," by Robert Pape) has been so frequent since the late 1980's because it has demonstrated its effectiveness and efficacy in changing the behavior of democracies. Moreover, terrorism is largely initiated by groups seeking their territorial homeland that they believe was taken from them unjustly by foreign forces. Here's some food for thought...the best way for the United States to stop terrorist attacks against itself is to remove its military forces entirely from the Middle East. This removes the major target of many terrorist acts and reaffirms the American belief that domestic soceties should be given the opportunity towards self-determination as argued by President Wilson.
Ok ok, final food for thought, and perhaps this is why Middle East studies are sooooo important. The American sponsored coup of Iran in 1953 lead directly to the 1979 anti-Amercna and anti-Shah iranian revolution of 1979, which ultimately can be linked to the 9/11 attacks in New York. Hence, the lesson America may want to draw from its history of Middle East support for dictators and anti-democratic regimes is perhaps the only major step we need in order to "liberate" the Middle East is to stop suporting dictators as seen in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere, and let a real Middle East develope. As it is, what today we call the Middle East is simply a holdover from the British drawing of the lines in the 1920s, and since then Arabian nationalism has been stifled and refused a political outlet. Perhaps in time America will learn, I only hope its before we lose our national treasury and all of our international prestige.
If you're Arabic or at least darker-skinned, I
recommend submitting a study on the terrorism and
American policy in the Middle East. Should you write
anything that can be construed as negative about the
US, you can then feel self-righteous as you get
strip-searched/denied boarding at airports, have
your income tax filings reviewed for errors, bank
records scoured for affiliation with "terrorist
organizations", visa renewal delayed for a half a
year or denied outright, your stipend withdrawn, and
if you happen to be a full naturalized citizen, the
conditions of your citizenship revoked after a 2-year
free stay at Gitmo.
Or you can steer clear and write the same old drivel
that gets usually gets ignored. It's not like we
wanted your opinion anyway.
A quick note to the reality-challenged: “civil war,” terrible as it is, is not tyranny. And to say the Iraqis have gone from tyranny to tyranny is just silly. It’s not tyranny, it’s occupation. Which is no doubt difficult to bear, and to be sure we’ve made a hell of a lot of mistakes, but the implied moral equivalence to the regime that gassed its own citizens is willfully stupid.
Re. the efficacy of terrorism, suffice it to say that the 2nd intifada has largely been a disaster for the Palestinians.
And OK, so the US should remove its forces so the countries can have “self-determination”? What a joke! Have you noticed there are no Arab democracies? None of those countries’ citizens have anything like self-determination – they all live under despots. But of course, that’s our fault (it’s always America’s fault, after all). Just get rid of the Americans and “self-determination” will flower. Someone alert Basshar Al-Assad. Actually, it’s only the presence of the Americans that can account for Ghadaffi’s sudden re-evaluation of his WMD program – or do you think that’s a coincidence?
As a former staff member of Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, I can tell you that Juan Cole's observations on Shia Iraq, his translations of Arab newspapers and news from his sources in Najaf and Karbala were read and valued by many CPA staffers.
So what if he said that Muqtada al Sadr's followers were a "movement of the poor?" Al Sadr's followers WERE poor. Cole also said that al Sadr was probably mentally ill: he's not a fan of al Sadr.
The first commentator on the article suggested that imperialism somehow bankrupted Great Britain. How absurd! Britain's empire provided it with cheap labor, loads of raw materials, and vast markets for manufactured goods. It put the "Rule" in "Rule Brittania". Without the British Empire, there would be no United States. I was always under the impression that defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in a gigantic world war bankrupted Great Britain. Without the British Army (reinforced with troops from India, South Africa, etc.) facing the Afika Korps in Egypt in 1940-42, the Middle East would have become a territory of Facsist Germany, Italy, and the Vichy French who had to be driven out. Even though Arab nationalists were willing to play footsie with Hitler, they would have ultimately found out (like the Russians, Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, etc.) the hideous price of doing business with the guy. Detailed histories of the Middle Eastern region before 1948 are still widely available.
The main reason why Arab nationalists sided with Germany during WW2 was because they were opposed to the British. The Brits betrayed the Arabs After WW1 because they had promised Sharif Husayn ibn Ali an Arab state in the Husayn-McMahon correspondence (interpretations abound, but clearly the reason Husayn instigated the Arab revolt was because he was under the impression an Arab state would be created in Greater Syria). When the British, due to the Psyches-Picot agreement gave most of greater syria to France, the Arabs never fergot the British betrayal. Hence, WW2 comes around, and the Arabs side with Germany not because of an ideological affinity (though there were some that agreed with the militaristic tendencies of Germany) but largely because Germany was opposed to the Brits.
The British empire was bankrupted by WW2, in fact, they were in a depression until they finally payed off all their War debts to the United States in the early 1960s. One of the major reasons the United States was able to become a global power after WW2 is because they made so much money from it, selling arms and supplies to the French, Germans, and British. Frankly, I've read several histories of the Middle East and post War Europe, two that are highly regarded are "A history of the modern middle east" by william cleveland and "Europe in the Twentieth Century" by Robert Paxton.
And as far as blaming the United States for all the problems in the world, frankly when it comes to the Middle East, if anyone is to blame it should be the colonial empires the British and the French tried to maintain from the late 1800s to the end of WW2. Throughout that perod, the United States was considered a good friend of the middle east, largely because it removed itself from British imperialism, and as the Arabs were currently experiencing that imperialism, the Arabs really liked the USA. In fact, hugely positive sentiment towards the United States was very high until we removed the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mossadegh. The worst part about the 1953 coup is taht originally, when the British came to truman in the late 1940s, Truman told the Brits to not instigate a coup and that the United States would not allow it, preferring to allow the Iranins to develope their democracy. It was when eisenhower was elected that the British were able to have the United States support their coup attempt. Hence, the British talked to the Dulles brothers, the dulles brothers agreed that a coup against Iran would protect the United States from communism, and consequently the Dulles convinced Eisenhower that the coup was in America's interest. Of course, this coup had the positive effect of imprinting throughout the Middle East the idea that the United States was the sponsor of dictatoriship, as the Reza Shah in Iran abused his population with significant support from the USA.
And as fer commentors that argue it is stupid to compare to tyranny under saddam as being relatively equal to the tyranny of a civil war, I dont think an American, who has lived a life in suburbia and relatively safe from humanity can possibly even attempt to compare the differences between the two. But hey, I mean thats how you stop dabate in this countr, just call everyone stupid.
Please - calling someone stupid doesn't halt debate. I called it as I saw it. As for saying that because you live in suburbia you can't differentiate between the barbarous order of life under Saddam & the chaos of civil war - well, that's ridiculous (oh dear, there I go w/ the ad hominem again, stopping debate). They're 2 different things by definition, like a chair and a dustbrush.
And it may be that the US "made money" (aside from losing lots of lives) from WWII. But let's not forget - to the extent we're interested in fair treatment as opposed to demonizing - that we also gave away enormous sums, via the Marshall Plan. The main reason we emerged as a global power is the accident of geography: France, England, Germany, & Japan were in ruins after the war; we were not.
>> the best way for the United States to stop terrorist
>> attacks against itself is to remove its military forces
>> entirely from the Middle East
The U.S. did remove its military personnel in Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout in 1989. Subsequently, Afghans had a chance to forge their own America-free future. And what did they choose? They chose the extremist, terror-supporting, Buddhist-hating Taliban.
The U.S. did remove its military personnel in Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991. Subsequently, Iraqi Shiites and Kurds had a chance to forge their own America-free, post-Saddam future in Iraq. They chose revolt. Even then, a much-weakened Saddam still managed to squash their attempts to forge a Shia-Kurd future of their own. Yet people still wonder why America did not intervene (meddle?) on behalf on the Shias and Kurds. The Shias and Kurds still couldn't overcome Saddam on their own, even after Saddam's forces had been severely weakened by the U.S.
The U.S. did get booted completely out of Iran after 1980. Subsequently, Iranians had a chance to forge their own America-free future. And what did they choose? They chose a dogmatic, closed-minded, terror-supporting Shia theocracy.
>> The American sponsored coup of Iran in 1953 lead
>> directly to the 1979 anti-Amercna and anti-Shah
>> iranian revolution of 1979, which ultimately can
>> be linked to the 9/11 attacks in New York.
1979 linkage to 9/11? Hardly. 9/11 was perpetrated by Sunnis, who shun Shias for the most part. The 1979 Islamic revolution gave rise to the Shiite theocracy that controls Iran today (and is feared by Sunnis).
>> the only major step we need in order to "liberate"
>> the Middle East is to stop suporting dictators as
>> seen in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere,
>> and let a real Middle East develope.
And what exactly would a "real Middle East" look like, if the U.S. stopped supporting these dictators? On one hand, the dictators probably stay the way they are, maybe even tighten their grip. On the other, the dictators would weaken and get overthrown by their disgruntled subjects and be replaced by....well, see earlier comments re: Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq at the beginning of my post for likely outcomes. But highly unlikely they'll achieve any kind of respectable democracy on their own.
If we insist that the U.S. recognize these dictators as unworthy of their support, then I submit that EVERY country in the world that dares to have diplomatic and economic relations with the "dictators of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere" should do the EXACT, SAME thing out of moral principle. But frankly, I doubt that any country would do that. EVERY country in the world loves their oil too much. Name one that doesn't. Name one country that would unilaterally give up their oil for the moral sake of cutting off ties with the dictatorial regimes that supply it.
Post a Comment
<< Home