Historian Eric Hobsbaum famously talked about "the Short 20th Century": 1914 to 1989. The idea being that 1900-1914 was pretty much like the 19th century, but everything really changed with the outbreak of World War 1. Only the fall of the Berlin Wall brought that era, broadly speaking an era defined by wars or the threat of wars in Europe, to an end.
I'm going to make a rash prediction now and say that the first decade of this century started on 9/11/2001, and it ended yesterday, 2/11/2011.
That it started on 9/11 is fairly obvious. Saying that the 9/11 era ended yesterday is why this is a possibly rash prediction, but I think it's fair to say that the game has just changed completely.
For the past decade the main story in world politics has been Islamic extremism. Of course Islamic extremism has not suddenly disappeared overnight; but the way in which the rest of the world deals with it will from now on have to be very different.
For the past 10 years, the people of Muslim countries have had very little say in the matter. Their governments - with just a couple of exceptions - were not democratic. More importantly, they were apparently safe and secure in being non-democratic.
Someone could overthrow them and install new governments from outside, but they had efficient internal security and there was no prospect of them being overthrown from within. So to all intents and purposes, our relationship with "the Islamic world" was our relationship with their governments. Get the governments on our side, or not, and the rest will follow, or not. We thought.
That worked, or seemed to, for 10 years. Never again. For better or worse, the people of Muslim countries are now an issue.
11 comments:
Sound resoning behind the dates of this decade. Lets hope the next brings a somewhat more positive look at muslim countries from the western world and vice versa, of course...
Do you mean we are going to live in "interesting times" ?
(like the fake Chinese curse says...)
Well. It will be interesting to revisit this post in 3 months, a year, 3 years and a decade to see if anything really has changed in Egypt - to see how long that year is.
I don't think the Egyptians are free yet.
What I see currently is that one figurehead is gone, largely I suspect because he has served his purpose. The army failed to get behind him, and behind them is the US army. Wikileaks, I would love to see emails between those two groups!
The army are *still* in control, and I predict they will remain so. A new figure-head will be found, and he will appear to grant freedoms, and be popular. He will serve to distract Egyptians, and us, from the exercise of power.
But circumstances - such as terrorism - will necessitate rolling back freedoms so that in 3 years we'll be back to where we were 3 years ago.
And the US will back this because it suits them now, as it has suited them for the last 30 years.
And that's if Islamists do not get into power.
I'd love to be wrong btw. But I'm pessimistic.
On another point has anyone seen any fat people amongst the demonstrators? I was comparing the people I see waddling around in Cambridge with pictures of the protesters in Egypt. Our fatness, and their subjugation are probably not unrelated, hmm?
I can only agree with Jayarava. But being more concerned about my welfare and those around me then that of the Egyptians (call me egotistic) i rather liked the status quo.
The idea that it's a military coup rather then a liberation comforts me.
Democracy is OUR thing. It fits OUR culture. It doesn't fit in a theocratic system. The 2 are incompatible.
Sure there is a small percentage of enlightened people in Egypte who understand what democracy means. About 84% don't however. Those are the 84% who fully support the idea of Israel having no right of existence.
If even such a basic right, to be a sovereign state, isn't understood how on earth can they understand more complex issues. Such women's rights, religious freedom etc.
So if there'd be a true election nobody in the Western world would like the outcome. Obviously people have the right to vote themselves stupid but then they should keep that within their borders.
In view of the experiences with the Islamic Republic of Iran i shiver at thought of the Islamic republic of Egypt.
Democracy only works if most of the participants are compos mentis.
The largest portion of Egypt having been kept ethically stationary in the late middle-ages nothing god can come of that.
jayarava: It's possible. But I don't think it's likely. The army have lots of guns but that doesn't necessarily mean they have lots of power. Say Lt. General Imadictator takes power and starts repressing people. Vast numbers come out and protest, like they just did.
The army could physically crush the protests Tiananmen Square-style. They have the guns. But if they did the fallout would be huge and it wouldn't be in the Army's best interests in the long term. No army wants to be at war with their own people.
However... I can see this happening if the Islamists win elections. The army allows the elections but when the results come in they say "You voted for the wrong people, we're not accepting that." Which is exactly what happened in Algeria some years ago.
However... that assumes that the MB do take power which is A Big If.
it will all depend on the voting system. Under some systems, like the one we have in Britain, a plurality of votes is enough to get complete legislative and executive power.
In 2005 Labour got just 35% of the popular vote but because of the system they still got a comfortable majority in the Commons, which also means they controlled the government; we don't have a legislative/executive division of power.
@Neuro
This site is biased, it's mosytly IDF info but they are well-informed:
"Cairo sources report that the division commanders did not ask for permission; they gave the high council's 25 generals due warning that the soldiers were to be phased out of the cities and it was necessary to get the police in to replace them.
This tenor of exchange placed a question mark over the measure of control the high military command exercises in the towns. There are signs that the division and brigade commanders in the field may be calling the shots in many instances. Some intelligence quarters in Washington are led to believe that the transition period may well throw up a charismatic field commander for taking over the presidential palace rather than a known civilian face."
http://www.debka.com/article/20662/
@petrossa
This site is biased,
Yeah, indeed, it is soooo biased that it is mostly useless.
Except when it reveals facts that can be CHECKED elsewhere.
I do share your "egotistic" options but I am much more wary about whom could be favorable to our (frenchies and more generally europeans) interests.
BTW, the Egyptians are yearning for jobs and money much more than freedom, and this won't come.
They are probably ascribing their poverty to the authoritarian state but they are mistaken.
Neither Egypt or Tunisia have significant oil reserves, nor do they have nuclear weapons.
For short, they do not matter...
Indeed so. Even dictators rather have their people be well nourished and happy.
Saves them on crackdowns. Saudi-Arabia and other oil states show how it's done, spend your oildollars on keeping the population happy and they won't try and overthrow you. Simple.
Btw. There is no real difference between a dictatorship and a nannystate. Take the Netherlands where they live under the dicatorship of the almighty computer. The SocSec number connects ALL databases, from the supermarket client card via the fiscal, judiciary, communication to the hospital records. At the touch of a button anything that has been registered can be seen by anyone with access.
Municipal authorities have the right to access your house without warrant, whether you are there or not, if the computer signals anomalies. People have been surprised by the fact that their door was forced and a notice to come look for the keys at the local policestation.
Freedom of expression is severely limited. A standard, regular cartoonist was taken from his bed at 6 am by an arrest team of 10, his house searched and his computer confiscated because he had drawn and publicized a cartoon.
A politician was charged for expression his opinion as a politician. The prosecutor denied to prosecute on the grounds they couldn't. The supreme court ordered them to prosecute anyway because: Even if what he said was true, he had no right to say it.
He's still defending himself in court now, a year+ already
Patriot act, another example.
He who is without sin cast the first stone. We are quick on the draw to point out the flaws of others, but do so out of a totally misplaced sense of superiority.
Thanks so much for this post, pretty helpful data.
Post a Comment