‘Arab Spring’ raises hopes of rebirth for Mideast science
…While it may not be the main impediment, Islam certainly plays a role in limiting the scope of science in the Muslim world. Ideas that seem to contradict the Koran are often greeted with suspicion, and are sometimes rejected outright by religious authorities.
Many Muslims cite the Koran to deny the theory of evolution, for instance, much like fundamentalist Christians who use the Bible to refute Charles Darwin.
Research in fields such as human evolution, genetics, paleontology and anthropology was discouraged by many religious authorities as possible challenges to faith.
Even Egypt’s new science and technology institute would probably not escape this pressure completely, said Ghoneim.
“There’s a very narrow area that could face these restrictions, mainly in the field of stem cell research,” he said.
But scientists as a whole are wary of blaming Islam.
Qanta Ahmed, a British-born Muslim physician, said religion posed no problem during her two-year stint practising critical care medicine in a Saudi hospital. She had no limits on her research and no complaints that she treated men and didn’t wear a headscarf.
“Even the most conservative families, where the women were gloved and wearing black socks, never objected,” she said.
A scientist pointed to the scientific achievements of the past.
“For centuries, Islam and science not only co-existed very well but produced a glorious scientific civilisation. If Islam was so good then, why is it so bad now?”
Instead, many say, the Middle East’s present-day political and social structures are the chief culprit, in particular the authoritarian nature of politics in the region.
Ahmed saw this at work in Saudi hospitals where she has worked as a staffer or consultant.
“You can identify brilliant researchers who you know will only rise so far because they don’t have the favour of the royal court, or they’re not from the right family or group. It’s not a meritocracy.”
Another saw free thought and speech stifled across the Arab world.
“This is a political situation that has prevailed for at least 50 years and its roots may go back even longer. The effect is not only on politics, but on the whole society.”
Bureaucracy and cronyism have also conspired to stifle scientific progress. Research grants and academic jobs often go not to the most qualified, but the best connected.
“People in key positions are often put there for political reasons, and you couldn’t question that before because there was no freedom to do so,” a scientist said. “We don’t have any problem getting funding abroad or locally. It’s the bureaucracy and management that really kill things.”
In addition to the political changes the region has seen in recent months, there must be guarantees that scientists will not be jailed, censured or declared heretics for something they have said or written. “Then there will be a transformation of society and science will flourish.”
One scientist called himself “an optimist in the long term” because the Arab Spring has accelerated modernising trends he said were already under way.
“There is no doubt in my mind that more freedom and democracy, and more ability to debate, are going to promote science and open new avenues to explore,” he said.
“In the long run, we’ll see significant improvements.”
State of the Arab Spring
From a few days ago, but still very helpful.
On the eve of President Obama’s address, the Middle East’s restive countries are experiencing everything from measured success to incipient civil war. Here’s where things stand.
Unfit for Democracy?
…We Americans spout bromides about freedom. Democracy campaigners in the Middle East have been enduring unimaginable tortures as the price of their struggle — at the hands of dictators who are our allies — yet they persist. In Bahrain, former political prisoners have said that their wives were taken into the jail in front of them. And then the men were told that unless they confessed, their wives would promptly be raped. That, or more conventional tortures, usually elicited temporary confessions, yet for years or decades those activists persisted in struggling for democracy. And we ask if they’re mature enough to handle it?
The common thread of this year’s democracy movement from Tunisia to Iran, from Yemen to Libya, has been undaunted courage. I’ll never forget a double-amputee I met in Tahrir Square in Cairo when Hosni Mubarak’s thugs were attacking with rocks, clubs and Molotov cocktails. This young man rolled his wheelchair to the front lines. And we doubt his understanding of what democracy means?
In Bahrain, I watched a column of men and women march unarmed toward security forces when, a day earlier, the troops had opened fire with live ammunition. Anyone dare say that such people are too immature to handle democracy?
Look, there’ll be bumps ahead. It took Americans six years after the Revolutionary War to elect a president, and we almost came apart at the seams again in the 1860s. When Eastern Europe became democratic after the 1989 revolutions, Poland and the Czech Republic adjusted well, but Romania and Albania endured chaos for years. After the 1998 people power revolution in Indonesia, I came across mobs in eastern Java who were beheading people and carrying their heads on pikes.
The record is that after some missteps, countries usually pull through. Education, wealth, international connections and civil society institutions help. And, on balance, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain are better positioned today for democracy than Mongolia or Indonesia seemed in the 1990s — and Mongolia and Indonesia today are successes. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain visited the Middle East a few days ago (arms dealers in tow), and he forthrightly acknowledged that for too long Britain had backed authoritarian regimes to achieve stability. He acknowledged that his country had bought into the bigoted notion “that Arabs or Muslims can’t do democracy.” And he added: “For me, that’s a prejudice that borders on racism. It’s offensive and wrong, and it’s simply not true.”
Some other examples of reporters or celebrities being assaulted by crowds are here and here. Wingnuts, and also Bill Maher, who do not immediately make generalizations on these bases about large groups of Westerners are wusses.
Note to Muslim-hater Bill Maher, who should know better: It is not true that women cannot vote in 20 Muslim countries, and please stop generalizing about 1.5 billion Muslims based on the 22 million people in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, the only place where women cannot drive and where men can vote (in municipal elections) but women cannot. It would be like generalizing from the Amish in Pennsylvania to all people of Christian heritage and wondering what is with Christianity and its fascination with horses and buggies.” Top Five Myths about the Middle East Protests
Egypt: Secretary of State Clinton warns of 'perfect storm'
Speaking from a security conference in Munich, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned of a “perfect storm of powerful trends” across the region, including a young population, political repression, economic disparity, and dwindling supplies of oil and water.
“This is what has driven demonstrators into the streets of Tunis, Cairo, and cities throughout the region,” Clinton said in her speech Saturday.
“Some leaders may believe that their country is an exception – that their people will not demand greater political or economic opportunities, or that they can be placated with half-measures,” she said. “In the short term, that may be true; but in the long term that is untenable.”
What Democracy Could Bring
Beyond their immediate impact on the reigning autocracies in Tunisia and Egypt, the protests engulfing the Middle East have challenged a central premise of many Arab regimes, namely that in exchange for political passivity the leaders would provide stability and economic opportunities. The states never really kept their side of the bargain, and the Middle East increasingly came to resemble the Soviet Union of the 1970s, a corrupt, stagnant bureaucratic state.
It is obviously too early to know what will arise from the upheavals in the Middle East, but a new order would offer the United States both challenges and opportunities.
From the outset it is important to dismiss the trite Orientalist assertion that democratic movements would only lead to the rise of radical Islamist regimes. The reality remains that in the past three decades the Arab populace have gradually grown weary of radical ideologies and their self-proclaimed truths. From pan-Arabism and its promise of Arab renaissance to Islamism and its quest for salvation, the beleaguered populace has come to appreciate that the primary effect of such ideologies is repression and stagnation.
What is unfolding in Arab streets is not an assertion of religious reaction but a yearning for democracy with all its burdens and rewards.
The first such reward would be joining the global movement toward economic reform. The preconditions for a successful market transition, such as rule of law, competing centers of power, transparency and cohesive administrative networks are also essential pillars of democratic polity. Only legitimate regimes resting on popular support can undertake painful structural reforms. A more liberal polity that cedes power to the private sector is well-suited to rekindling the confidence of diverse international investors and meeting the standards of the global economy. Both Eastern Europe and Latin America testify to the fact that an expanding entrepreneurial class has historically proven to be the most enduring nemesis of autocratic rule. In the end, free societies are the most effective way to create prosperous economies.
Although it is too facile to suggest that popular sovereignty dispels conflict, a democratic Middle East is likely to be a more peaceful region. Even a cursory examination of the post-independence Middle East belies the realpolitik confidence in the strategic stability of Arab autocracy. Under the banner of various transnational ideologies, the aspiring hegemons have waged war and conspired against their fellow rulers. Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and his brand of pan-Arabism, Saddam Hussein and his Baathist creed, and Iran’s ayatollahs with their mandate from heaven have all engaged in prolonged conflicts with the neighbors. Proxy war, assassination attempts and even outright military aggression have been the currency of Arab international relations.
Would prospective Arab democracies behave in a different manner? History has demonstrated that citizens in most places most of the time are generally averse to conflicts with long-term costs, and that democracy restrains aggressive rulers. Fully constitutional rule would lead to an independent legislature examining the causes of war, a free press assessing the claims of the executive and an informed public questioning the necessity of burdens it must bear.
Democracies may not necessarily be peaceful, but neither are they naturally prone to indiscriminate belligerence and adventurism. For Arab dictatorships that have often viewed war as a means of enhancing their prestige, an injection of democratic accountability can go a long way toward arresting impetuous impulses.
While the spread of democracy might stabilize inter-Arab relations and create more viable economies, it is unlikely to accommodate America’s presence and its expansive regional agenda. An emerging democratic order would impose certain obligations on Arab states and lead them toward a greater degree of solidarity and coordination than exhibited by fractious despots. Such states would more easily cooperate with one another in protecting the region’s riches, determining the price of its oil and employing all their collective advantages to emerge as important players in the international community free of superpower domination. They would see no rationale for continuing to accommodate U.S. military installations or cooperate with efforts to disarm Iran. This is not a clash of civilizations, but a nationalistic defiance of a global power’s priorities.
Yet another casualty of the democratic epoch would be the Arab-Israeli peace process and the integration of Israel into the regional order. Arab public opinion continues to reject Israel as an agent of an alien and pernicious ideology that usurped Arab lands. Such rejectionist views go beyond Islamist parties and color the perspective of secular, liberal Arabs. All this is not to suggest the imminence of war between Israel and more democratic Arab states. The balance of power will hold, as Israel’s formidable military will continue to deter its adversaries. Still, the prevailing cold peace between Israel and its neighbors will likely be transformed into a cold war, with all its debilitating tensions.
Democracy may stabilize the Middle East and rejuvenate its economies, but it will also create a region averse to American command. As democratic movements seek to displace Arab tyrannies it is important that the debate move beyond superficial parameters and that the costs and tradeoffs are more clearly understood.
Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Getting in line for a revolution
…In seven days, Egyptians of all stripes - young, old, male, female, religious, secular - have fundamentally rocked the 30-year-old regime of president Mubarak. They have sought to keep the revolt peaceful. When security forces became aggressive, protesters fell to their knees in prayer, evoking some of the most emotional pictures of this uprising yet. They have nipped rumours in the bud swiftly, they have sent their rank and file to speak to the world’s media, they have put aside differences to speak with one voice.
That voice - en masse - is not demanding lower taxes or higher subsidies as would be expected from a people whose per capita income amounts to less than two dollars per day. It is demanding the removal of their president, a fundamental change in the constitution and the reform and re-election of all political bodies. But wasn’t this all about poverty and human rights?
Yes and no. ”Yes”, in that the clever Arab masses realise the obvious: that good policies can only come from good governance. And “no”, in that this is obviously not only about the individual and his/her needs: a closer examination of the governments under threat in the wider Middle East shows that they are all US allies - regimes that we have supported regardless of their human rights records or their ability to govern fairly and effectively.
None of them are on the side of that famously maligned axis consisting of “Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas”. Those state and non-state actors will not be directly touched by this gale of unified popular protest - and neither will Qatar, Oman, Iraq and Turkey.
But don’t be mistaken that the Arab masses are unleashing an anti-American revolution in the region. In fact, while they dislike US policy, there does not seem to be a specific rage directed at Americans at all. This smarter-by-the-second Arab Street realises full well the reasons for the US’s rotten policies in the region - primarily its blind commitment to promote Israel’s interests and “security” above all else, including its own. So while most American politicians and pundits remain “concerned” about the spiralling events in Egypt, it is Israel and its US allies who are really, truly splitting a gut.
Now two years on the job market with no job, Dhouibi — polite, earnest, thoughtful, and fluent in three languages — spends his morning with other unemployed high school and college graduates at the stand-up tables in Sidi Bouzid’s Café Charlotte. He nurses a coffee, thanks to the change his mother gives him from her olive sales. He goes home for lunch, visits an Internet cafe in the afternoon, returns home for dinner, sleeps in a room with his brother, and wakes, hopeless, in the morning to do it all again.
“Imagine your life going on like this,” he said at the Café Charlotte, standing over the coffee that was the treat of his day. “Every day the same.” The Arab World’s Youth Army
Indeed, this week would be an opportune moment for key men in the security forces of the Arab autocracies to seek a pay raise. The key ingredient of last week’s turnabout in Tunisia was the security forces, or a significant part of them, who refused to fire on their fellow citizens to protect the ruling family. Authoritarian regimes are innately vulnerable once economic despair strips citizens of their fear of challenging those in power. When soldiers are sent onto the streets to fire on people they recognize as their neighbors, their loyalty is far from certain. And it was clear that in Tunisia, the officer class was ready to seek a new governing arrangement once the cronyism of the rulers had ignited a popular revolt. That scenario ought to give Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak pause if, as is widely assumed, the 82-year-old autocrat plans to install his son, Gamal, as his successor — a move that would break the authoritarian regime’s tradition of picking its leaders from within the senior ranks of the military.” Tunisia: No Domino Effect, but A U.S. Dilemma Over Arab Democracy
INNOCENCE DESPITE WAR Palestinian children from al-Samuni family play atop the rubble of a mosque that was destroyed during Israel’s offensive on the Gaza Strip earlier this year. (Photo: Mohammed Abed / AFP-Getty via the Chicago Tribune)
Geography FAIL.
Of course it’s on Fox News.
From the NY Times article Iraq’s Shiites Show Restraint After Attacks. Excerpt:
BAGHDAD — Shiite clerics and politicians have been successfully urging their followers not to retaliate against a fierce campaign of sectarian bombings, in which Shiites have accounted for most of the 566 Iraqis killed since American troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities on June 30.
“Let them kill us,” said Sheik Khudair al-Allawi, the imam of a mosque bombed recently. “It’s a waste of their time. The sectarian card is an old card and no one is going to play it anymore. We know what they want, and we’ll just be patient. But they will all go to hell.”
The patience of the Shiites today is in extraordinary contrast to Iraq’s recent past. With a demographic majority of 60 percent and control of the government, power is theirs for the first time in a thousand years. Going back to sectarian war is, as both Sunni extremists and Shiite victims know, the one way they could lose all that, especially if they were to drag their Sunni Arab neighbors into a messy regional conflict.
It is a far cry from 2006, when a bomb set off at the sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra killed no one, but ignited a fury at the sacrilege that set off two years of sectarian warfare.
