Business Trip

I was invited to be part of a team from our company that went out to the Eastern Province this last weekend to gather some information for a contract proposal. Located on the Arabian (or Persian depending on who you're asking) Gulf, the Eastern Province of the Kingdom is largely Shiite and sits on some of the largest oil reserves in the world.  It's home to a large number of Westerners in the oil business including the Saudi Aramco headquarters and just across the causeway is Bahrain.  The result of all of these influences is that it's a much more moderate part of Saudi and apart from maybe Jeddah, is the least conservative.  It also has a climate and landscape that isn't as dry and barren as the central plateau thanks to its proximity to the water.  While there I noticed some things.

The surrounding desert was a lighter shade of sand than the more orange-looking sand I'm used to.  Scattered along the horizon were shrubs and even a few trees.  I realized how much I've missed vegetation.  On the complex where we stayed there was landscaping with flowers and a variety of trees that made Riyadh seem rather desolate by comparison.  There were also open green spaces of grass for anyone to sit on and enjoy which made me wish I could have found someone to put my frisbee to use with.  There were also birds chirping.  Which weren't remarkable except for the fact that they made me realize that in the last three months I haven't seen or heard a bird. I really do live in the freaking desert.  I also realized that while I miss being by bodies of water like lakes and rivers I don't really need to be by the coast.  I guess I'm an inland kid, and unlike others I've known who feel they have to be near an ocean, I'm perfectly content being landlocked.  But it is nice to hit the coast for a vacation.

 The conservatism of Riyadh also became apparent.  I saw boys on the boardwalk jokingly serenading some passing girls, something that not too long ago I wouldn't have thought I'd see in Saudi.  I also saw a group of young people, boys and girls alike sitting in the family section of a TGI Fridays.  They were joking and carrying on.  I could have been in Ohio.  Most of my colleagues at the table said something along the lines of "Wow".  It was also really nice seeing young children on the street, whole families just hanging out in public, something I'm not sure they'd do around here, but since there aren't really any places to hang out except malls, I wouldn't know.  A few kids even came up to our group and practiced their English.  They were pretty adorable and made me miss my nieces.

As you can see below, I was also able to put my new camera to use (Thanks, Amy!!).  Taking pictures in public is something Saudis are still getting used to and I've heard quite a few stories about Westerners in Riyadh getting detained, fined, and even arrested for doing so.  Most government buildings have signs indicating pictures are forbidden and I wouldn't envy anyone who was caught by religious police photographing women.  Khobar and Dammam were much more relaxed though, and these kids were glad to pose for a picture.  After I took it they said, "Facebook?  Facebook?"  and when I told them yea, they replied with a laugh-filled, "Thank you, white man" as they ran off.  

The streets of Khobar were abuzz.  King Abdullah has just returned from almost three months abroad for medical treatment in the States and recuperation in Morocco.  In addition to promising increased social benefits to the Saudi people, he also declared Saturday a national holiday giving all state employees (including me) a three day weekend.  People were celebrating.  This mostly consisted of teenagers with painted faces clogging the streets while hanging half out of their cars waving flags.  Some kids were even sitting on top of the cars or standing in the backs of pickups.  It seemed more than a little dangerous but after three months of experiencing how little people around here regard automotive safety it didn't surprise me at all.  We saw at least one kid who looked hurt, sitting in the middle of road.  The whole scene provided a stark contrast to what's going on in the rest of the Arab world including just 20km away in Bahrain, and we all had the thought that we're probably in the safest place we could be in Middle East.  

Middle Eastern Democracy

Is Middle Eastern democracy really something that America, the West and Israel should fear?  Some people feel very strongly that it is.  These same people are quick to conjure up images of World War III, genocide, and nuclear holocaust, further stoking the flame of fear.  Some claim that there is something inherent in Islam or in the Arab mentality that makes people here anti-American and anti-Western or that because of historical animosity, no other outcome is likely.  They promote the idea of a "Clash of Civilizations" between Muslim nations and the West and say that peaceful coexistence between a democratic Middle East, the U.S. and Israel would be impossible. 

 I for one don't buy a word of it.  I'm living in possibly the most fervently Islamic state in the world and nothing I have seen or heard leads me to believe that there is a predisposition for Muslims to hate America, the West, Christianity or Judaism for that matter.  In the case of Egypt, the revolution has not taken a particularly Islamic tone.  Christians and Muslims protested side by side.  Some Christians even vowed to protect mosques from attacks by pro-Mubarak supporters while Muslims prayed.  Women were heavily involved in protesting as well and are looking to have their own set of grievances heard, showing the revolution's secular and progressive leanings.  The belief that a democratic Middle East will be automatically anti-American and anti-Israeli is something no one could convince me of, but don’t get me wrong; the possibility of that result, particularly in some countries is still a real one.  So how the U.S., Israel and the international community decide to proceed could make all the difference.  Thankfully, if the right people are willing to notice, there are lessons from which to be learned.

Model:  Iran

Iran, whose Islamic and anti-American 1979 revolution is everyone's worst fear for nations currently experiencing popular protest, is exactly the model that Washington should be looking at in deciding how they want to involve themselves in the affairs of countries engaged in their own attempts at revolution. In 1953, the intelligence agencies of the UK and the US orchestrated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected, secular government of Iran under the popular leader Mohammed Mossadegh.  Mossadegh two years previously had nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil company costing the Brits millions.  Once Eisenhower came into office the British were finally able to convince the Americans that his nationalism and cold-war neutrality were threatening enough to help them get rid of him.  The coup they executed succeeded in toppling Mossadegh's government, led to his eventual humiliation and life-long house arrest, and installed the harsh dictatorship of Mohammed Reza-Shah Pahlavi.  Pahlavi's rule was characterized by lavish spending on the part of the elite thanks to special deals made with the U.S. as well as the brutal oppression of the population through extreme violence and secret police.  

The people's response to Pahlavi, his harsh rule, and America not only propping him up but putting him into and keeping him in power was the 1979 Islamic Revolution.  The Iranian people had tried secular democracy; America wouldn't let them have it because it wasn't good for business and they feared communist collusion.  So the next time they had a revolution it was decidedly anti-American, anti-Shah, and because the secularists had lost legitimacy it was easily taken over by Islamists.  The result is the Iran we have today and the hardly tenable situation western governments have with the current regime there. None of this is conspiracy theory.  It is widely-known fact (outside of the U.S.).  Verify it independently.  Don’t take my word for it. 

If the U.S. had left well-enough alone in Iran it's true that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's investors would have had better days.  It's also very likely that Mossadegh would have led Iran to becoming a democratic, secular, modern, progressive although predominantly Muslim country on par with modern-day Turkey.  The 1979 Islamic revolution never would have happened and so neither would have the Iran hostage crisis, the Iran-Iraq war and the continuing struggle with present day Iran's radical Islamist constituents whom Iranian rhetoric must always placate.  So in hindsight, were short-sighted interests really worth interfering with Middle Eastern democracy, propping up a harsh ruler and eventually making such an enemy over, at the cost of so many additional dollars, lives and hardships?

The Israel Question

There are those that feel that Israel's security and possibly their existence would be jeopardized were the people of Muslim countries in the Middle East allowed to have their voices heard.  Again, I don't see this as a likely or reasoned outcome given a few conditions.  An attack on Israel is an attack on the United States, plain and simple.  And I believe that no state, no matter how fatalistic or supposedly in favor of martyrdom would risk their own assured destruction.  Also, getting along with Israel and in-turn the U.S. means good business, and governments love what's good for business.  Some would say it's hard to blame Israel for not wanting to make that leap of faith though, since it is their existence on the line if crap did hit the fan, but becoming much more reasonable and concessionary in their efforts (or lack there of) to reach some sort of an agreement with Palestinians in the context of the greater Middle East would go a long way towards ensuring lasting peace in the region and getting more of the general Arab public open to the ideas of recognition and peaceful coexistence.  My fear is that it is not their existence that Israel actually fears for, but instead their sovereignty over a "Jewish" state, something that would not be possible if they were effectively pressured into a one-state solution now that the two-state process is effectively dead.  

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - -

I would like to think that it is possible for all people to have a say in who their leaders are.  I’d like to believe that leaders and governments are capable of acting not purely out of self-interest.  I’d also like to believe in real and lasting peace.  I doubt that all or even any of these hopes will ever become a reality.  It seems that it will be difficult for major players, the U.S. in particular, to behave not according to their short-term political, military, or economic security.  But if they did.  If they happened to actually support the ideals of freedom and democracy they claim to represent and helped to empower the people of these nations instead of those who oppress them, maybe they (and Israel by extension, or vice versa) wouldn't be seen as an enemy.  As the Great Satan.  As the meddler, the hypocrite who manipulates, spies, schemes and orchestrates all in the interest of resources and power, if not some greater Zionist conspiracy (in the eyes of some).  Who knows? Maybe we could all even start sharing this big ol' rock we're living on a little better.  But at the same time, it is all together possible that there are those who stand to benefit a whole lot more from fear, oppression, and war.  And maybe those folks are just too powerful.

Still, we're starting to see that in the information age, when governments are no longer able to get away with violent repression without it being plastered all over Twitter and Youtube, maybe people's voices can no longer be effectively silenced.  So maybe it's time governments of the world actually started to listen, or they may be forced to.

Wave's Crest

The wave of protests in the Arab world may not have crested for the last time with the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak from Egypt.  In fact it seems to only have made the wave spread.  Now Bahrain is seeing its first large-scale demonstrations and they're turning violent.  Clashes in Iran, Jordan and Libya have been mounting between government loyalists and opposition supporters, and Yemeni protests have gathered strength and grown increasingly more deadly.  Fresh protests have even broken out in Iraq.  Huge questions are facing Arab governments across the region as even the most seemingly stable regimes are starting to question their own grip on power and are having to tread lightly.  How the U.S. reacts will be critical.

  

Bahrain, an island nation off the eastern shore of Saudi Arabia of only 1.3 million and host to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet is a particularly interesting case.  The Sunni royal family have been called to answer for what the largely Shia majority claims to be widespread discrimination including limited access to jobs and social benefits and almost no say in government.  The small nation has long been seen as as bulwark in the region to Shia Iran for both the U.S. and Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia whose own Shia population, while comprising only 10-15% of the total, have their own fair share of grievances and just so happen to live in the oil-rich Eastern Province.  Bahrain is a huge banking hub for the Middle East and its proximity and close relationship with the House of Saud put the Saudi Royal family and the U.S. in a precarious position.  While the State Department and the White House have used condemning language in reference to Iran's violent crackdown on protests, they have only called the shooting deaths of protesters in Bahrain "disappointing" and expressed "deep concern".  The Saudi government again has left no question as to who they support in the protests-- not that many in the region would be particularly surprised by this-- but still, the rising fervor is making the royal family here call in to question their own approach to reform.  Some voices are even coming out in favor of speeding up that process while they still have the opportunity under King Abdullah*.  But regardless, eyes here as well as in Washington will be watching with keen interest as events transpire just across the causeway in Bahrain.  

U.S. Response

The U.S. appears to be walking on eggshells in statements coming out of Washington regarding the region’s unrest, especially since many felt that those made during the Egyptian uprising effectively sold out Mubarak.  These feelings seem to be coming mostly from people who saw Mubarak and his monopolization of power in Egypt as a necessary evil and the key to holding together the peace deal with Israel and maintaining regional stability.  Many of those same people fear that a truly democratic Egypt would see the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, who they believe would steer the country towards empowering an Islamist regime possibly on par with Iran.  The U.S. has been put in a tough position.  

Protesters around the region are demanding democracy-- a political system and an ideal the U.S. claims to promote and support around the world.  There are many, however, that fear that democratically elected governments in countries like Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and so on would be anti-American, anti-Israeli and in the worst case align themselves with Iran. The U.S. will make every effort to ensure this doesn't happen.  Washington even has a history of not recognizing democratically-elected governments in the past whom they perceived to be threatening (see Lebanon, Gaza).  Washington will feel that it must also maintain and negotiate its "special relationships" with both Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Additionally, there are leaders such as Ghaddafi of Libya and formerly, Ben Ali of Tunisia who have maintained power and crushed opposition, but just so happen to be on good terms with Washington at present and are tough on terror.  It appears to be a tenuous at best, a quagmire at worst. 

So what should Obama and the State Department do?  What should they say? In Egypt, they eventually felt like they had no choice but to come out in support of the protesters' demands.  Israel and people who fear an Islamist takeover of the Middle East weren't too happy about it.  In the other Arab countries they still have the opportunity to push their weight, money, and influence around.  They'll also be keeping in mind their strategic military interests (like the naval base in Bahrain, fighting extremism in Yemen), their economic interests (oil and natural gas from a number of countries), and political interests (relationships with Israel, authoritarian dictators and royal families).  Do they attempt to maintain these interests at all costs, or would they be better served ushering in change that may be inevitable. 


It will be interesting to see how they walk the tightrope in between until they're forced to show their hand.  Condemn violence here, call for restraint there.  Applaud free speech, but ask that protesters be realistic.  Be outraged by a state's violent response to protests in one country, but don’t focus on it so much in another.  Don't appear to be selling out any friends. Don't put yourself in a tough position if your friend gets ousted.   Don’t make new enemies. Don't embolden and/or legitimize old ones.  It will be difficult for the U.S. to navigate this wave of protest in the Arab world successfully.  At least for now though, the protesters are only demanding more democracy.  How that democracy would and will proceed is another question entirely.  One that will keep many guessing, and more than a few worried.  

*http://en.news.maktoob.com/20090000590112/PrincefearsSaudiuprisingwithoutspeedyreforms_report/Article.htm

Exercises in Maybe: The Veil

I think it's a natural reaction when confronted with something foreign to be skeptical.  It's easier to dismiss something as wrong or misguided, stupid or antiquated when at first sight it seems so different from what you're used to.  It's especially easy to do when whatever it is goes against morals you've been raised to believe in, morals that seem both essential and logical.  And stepping outside of your own skin can be nearly impossible in these situations.  When dealing with cultural differences this applies as much as with anything, and the supposed "gulf of understanding" or in more extreme terms,  "Clash of Civilizations" between the Muslim world and the West only makes these feelings more pronounced and in a lot of ways more socially acceptable. So as a means of an exercise in "perspective transplantation", I've decided to take the opposite approach, to assume that things most foreign and seemingly wrong about what I happen to see might just happen to be the opposite, and that I and my socialized morality structure are what might be misguided.  And so here begins the multi-part series:  Exercises in Maybe.

 ____________________________________________________________________

The Veil

Maybe all women everywhere including in magazines and on film should wear the veil.   Maybe they should all wear burkas.  They should cover their hair, arms, necks, legs and faces.  Their figures should be in no way discernible.   I'm not saying they should be forced to do it-- that is a leap in perspective that I'm not so willing or able to make-- but instead that maybe they should volunteer to do it out of humility, and in the interest of curbing so many of society's ills.  Think of some resulting effects.  

If no one knew who was beautiful and who was not, how could there be jealousy? Or vanity?  Would we have problems with women killing themselves to be thin or going under a plastic surgeon's knife to live up to the impossible standard that magazines, movies and television have led us to believe define what is beautiful?  Would we have women walking around so high and mighty based solely on the merit of their looks?  It's hard to think you're hot stuff with a black sheet over your entire body.  Would divorce rates be so high?  Since the introduction of satellite television and western movies here, for example, divorce rates have risen astronomically.  Is this because men expect that they too can have a woman as beautiful as the ones they see on the silver screen and are disappointed when they don't?  Wouldn't we start to assign more value to qualities other than physical beauty?  Wouldn't we be able to appreciate women more for who they are?  Maybe we'd be happier?  

Maybe men really can't be expected to control themselves.  Maybe women have to be covered in order to escape covetous stares.  Maybe I wouldn't mind if no one knew my sister or my girlfriend were beautiful.  I wouldn't have to hear my college buddies give me grief about the former that's for sure.  Maybe a woman's beauty should be saved only for the man she loves.  Maybe publicly displayed individuality is just another form of vanity.  It's possible it would be a better world if everyone wasn't always walking around trying to impress everybody else.  Maybe men should be covered too.  That way physical appearance is taken completely out of the picture. (pun?)

It's easy for westerners to see all that's wrong with the veil.  But for a lot of women who support it, it makes sense.  It shows humility before both god and man.  It shows piety and attempts to remove the ego.   And maybe we could all use a little more of that.   Maybe.

Al Jazeera

Since its inception in 1996, the history of the Qatar-based Al Jazeera news organization has been a history of the Middle East.  From the Second Intifada in Palestine in 2000, to 9/11, through the U.S. led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, wars in Gaza and most recently the toppling of Tunisia's government and the struggle to oust Egypt's, Al Jazeera has been on the ground giving coverage that has never failed to captivate its audience and make its fair share of enemies along the way.  At one time or another Al Jazeera has come under fire from the governments of the U.S., the U.K., Saudi, Bahrain, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Spain, Sudan and many others, often simultaneously.  Their unapologetic approach and freedom in editorial policy has drawn enough scrutiny to easily call them the most controversial news organization of the last 15 years, but it is undeniable that they have changed the way the region and indeed the world get their news about the Middle East.  

It has seemed that with each conflict in the Middle East since 1996 Al Jazeera has grown in both popularity and notoriety.  Often, as was the case during the Second Intifada and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Jazeera has been the only international news organization with anyone on the ground, reporting live, especially in the early stages of the conflict.  Their far-reaching approach of creating foreign offices in as many countries in the region as possible, especially the most conflicted ones, has given them a leg up.  When conflict has erupted and borders closed, Al Jazeera in almost every case has already had someone, often a local, in-country broadcasting, forcing others like CNN and the BBC to have to purchase their coverage directly from Al Jazeera.  Additionally, their correspondents' ability to converse in Arabic and move around freely in Arab countries has proven invaluable in capturing the feeling of the often illusive "Arab Street."  

In the early years of Al Jazeera the Unites States praised the network for ushering in a new era of openness in media in the Middle East where only State-TV had been available previously.  All of this changed in September of 2001.  While the world clamored for information on the recently named "Most Wanted Man in the World," Al Jazeera became Osama bin Laden's network of choice for the release of his taped messages.  The network was labeled as a "Mouthpiece of Terror," and was claimed to incite violence against the U.S. and other Western interests.  This rhetoric continued up through the invasion of Afghanistan and the second Iraq war.  Images coming out of both countries on Al Jazeera depicting the humanitarian cost of the wars were deemed "inflammatory".   The perception in the U.S. media became that Al Jazeera was the network of the enemy.  Donald Rumsfeld even stated falsely that Al Jazeera had aired the beheading of western kidnapping victims.  In fact, the only exposure Americans had to Al Jazeera was when it was being lambasted in the U.S. media and espoused for apparent links to terror.

The network's Kabul office was bombed by the U.S. during the invasion of Afghanistan.  In both Iraq and Afghanistan its reporters were harassed, had their credentials revoked and offices were shut down.  The same treatment of reporters that is being condemned by the U.S. in Egypt right now was being perpetrated against Al Jazeera's journalists by Americans for the very same reason-- because their coverage made the government look bad.  The network is still banned from maintaining a field office in Iraq.  

The U.S.' war against Al Jazeera has been fought at home as well.  It is currently only available in Washington D.C. -- where it is the network-of-choice for a number of senior policy makers-- and through a few select satellite carriers in scattered small markets.  The network has experienced countless obstacles put in place by the largest American satellite and cable providers. A court battle was recently won in Canada allowing the network access to markets there.  The demand in the U.S. for alternative media, however, is growing.  According to Al Jazeera's English-language website, during the recent weeks' events in North Africa traffic on the website has increased 2000 percent with 60 percent of that originating from the U.S.   Cable providers are starting to develop deals that may bring Al Jazeera International (their English Language TV station) into American homes, but barriers, not the least of which being misinformed views about the news station, will continue to hamper progress.  At the very least Americans should be allowed the opportunity not to chose Al Jazeera let alone the option to have access to an alternative view of events. 

When it comes to coverage of the Middle East, for me, Al Jazeera is the only option.  No other station gains such access and can provide such context to conflicts and stories in the region.  If a news organization's responsibility is to check government, understandably causing disputes with those governments, then Al Jazeera cannot be rivaled.  No other has come under such scrutiny, in most cases by governments on both sides of the issue.  It's editorial integrity has been questioned, however, when it came to how the network covered it's own government of Qatar-- mostly in that it hasn't been at all critical.  The government does provide a large amount of financial support and while claiming to hold no editorial sway, it's hard to deny the lack of public criticism.  This relationship offers a stark reminder that there is always someone paying the bills, but I feel that overall, the absence of critical coverage of a small gulf state is a small price to pay for honest and open coverage of a region that previously had only known complete informational control.  Thanks to Al Jazeera and satellite television, Arabs in their home countries and around the world are finally able to get a version of events in the Middle East that are openly and unapologetically critical of the governments involved, something that Americans could stand to benefit greatly from as well.