The perceived growth of radical Islamic movements throughout the
Middle East and beyond has not only caused major political upheaval in
the countries directly affected but has placed political Islam at the
forefront of concerns voiced by U.S. policymakers. One unfortunate
aspect of this newfound attention has been the way it has strengthened
ugly stereotypes of Muslims already prevalent in the West. This occurs
despite the existence of moderate Islamic segments and secular movements
that are at least as influential as radicals in the political life of
Islamic countries.
Even though the vast majority of the world's Muslims oppose
terrorism, religious intolerance, and the oppression of women, these
remain the most prevalent images of the Muslim faith throughout the
Western world. Such popular misconceptions about Islam and Islamic
movements—often exacerbated by the media, popular culture, and
government officials—have made it particularly difficult to challenge
U.S. policy.
To be able to respond effectively to Islamic militancy, the U.S. must
clearly understand the reasons why a small but dangerous minority of
Muslims have embraced extremist ideologies and violent tactics. These
movements are often rooted in legitimate grievances voiced by
underrepresented and oppressed segments of the population, particularly
the poor. And the U.S. is increasingly identified with the political,
social, and economic forces that are responsible for their misery. Many
Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere are exposed not to the positive
aspects of U.S. society -- such as individual liberty, the rule of law,
and economic prosperity -- but to the worst traits of American culture,
including materialism, militarism, and racism.
Although scientific and other advances from the Muslim world helped
Europe emerge from the Dark Ages, the West has generally viewed Islamic
peoples with hostility. From the time of the Crusades through the
European colonial era to the ongoing bombing and sanctions against Iraq,
Western Christians have killed far more Muslims than the reverse. Given
this strong sense of history among Muslims, Washington's use and threat
of military force, its imposition of punitive sanctions, and its
support of oppressive governments result in a popular reaction that
often takes the form of religious extremism.
When a people have lost their identity -- whether it be due to
foreign occupation, war-induced relocation, the collapse of traditional
economies, or other reasons -- there is a great pull to embrace
something that can provide the structure, worldview, and purpose through
which to rebuild their lives. The mosque is one of the few constants in
Muslim countries undergoing great social disruption. Islam is a faith
that offers a clear sense of social justice, a feeling of empowerment,
and an obligation by individuals to challenge those who cause the
injustice. Although there has been a decidedly reactionary orientation
to some Islamic movements, other currents within Islam have been clearly
progressive.
Washington has used the threat of Islamic fundamentalism as a
justification for keeping a high military, economic, and political
profile in the Middle East. Yet it has often supported Muslim
hard-liners when they were perceived to enhance U.S. interests, as they
did in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
Often, extremist Islamic movements arise in direct response to U.S.
policies. The 1953 overthrow by the CIA of the moderate constitutional
government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, followed by years of support
for the brutal regime of the shah, led directly to the rise of the
Islamic revolution in that country. U.S. support for the regime of
Jafaar Nimeiry during most of his repressive 16-year rule of Sudan led
to the destruction of much of that country's civil society, resulting in
the 1989 coup by hard-line Islamist military officers who overthrew
that country's brief democratic experiment. During the 1970s and 1980s,
the destruction of moderate Muslim-led factions in Lebanon by
U.S.-backed invasions and occupations from Syria and Israel—and later
military intervention by the U.S. itself—led to a vacuum filled by more
sectarian groups such as Hezbollah, even as most of the other militias
that once carved up the rest of the country were disarmed by a revived
central government and its Syrian backers.
The roots of Islamic radicalism stem from economic inequality,
military occupation, and authoritarianism. Given that U.S. policy in the
Middle East and elsewhere has often perpetuated such injustices,
responsibility for the rise of radical Islamic movements can often be
traced to the U.S. itself.
Problems with Current U.S. Policy
The U.S. has supported hardline Islamic movements and governments,
such as the Saudi Arabia regime, which have encouraged extremist
movements elsewhere. U.S. support for repressive governments makes
democratic and nonviolent options for the Islamic opposition extremely
difficult. Neoliberal economic development strategie -- vigorously
encouraged by the U.S. -- have resulted in widespread economic
dislocation, which has in turn encouraged the growth of radical Islamic
movements.
Ironically, the U.S. has at times been a supporter of hardline
Islamic movements and governments. For example, Washington armed
extremist Islamic groups in Afghanistan during the 1980s during the
popular uprising against that country's communist regime backed by
Soviet occupation forces. Some of the most notorious Islamic terrorists
today -- including many followers of Osama Bin Laden -- originally
received their training from the CIA during that period.
Despite horrific reports from Afghanistan about the Taliban
government's totalitarian theocracy, which has far surpassed the
brutality of the communist regime of the 1980s, the U.S. voiced little
opposition to the regime until it refused to extradite Bin Laden for
trial on terrorism charges.
Currently, the U.S. maintains close strategic cooperation --
including massive arms transfers, training and logistics, and a
permanent military presence -- with Saudi Arabia, one of the most
extreme states in the Muslim world considering its strict interpretation
of Islamic codes, repression of women, and political orientation. The
Saudis have used their vast oil wealth to encourage like-minded
movements throughout the Islamic world. Some of the Islamic-identified
governments and movements the U.S. has found most troubling—the Hamas of
Palestine, the Taliban of Afghanistan, the FIS of Algeria, and the
military government of Sudan—all had backing from the Saudis at some
point in their development.
Perhaps the most serious problem with U.S. policy has been
Washington's support for repressive allied governments that suppress
even moderate Islamic opposition groups. This often leads to a backlash
against any U.S. presence by Islamists reacting to American support of
what they perceive as an illegitimate government. The U.S. has
rationalized its support for several regimes engaging in patterns of
gross and systematic human rights violations as a regrettable but
necessary means of suppressing an Islamic opposition that Washington
fears would be even worse if it came to power. In many respects, this
policy closely parallels the decades of support during the cold war of
repressive right-wing governments in the name of anticommunism. The
result is similar: the lack of open political expression encourages
suppressed sectors to ally with an underground—and often violent and
authoritarian—opposition movement.
In some cases -- such as in Tajikistan and other former Soviet
republics -- the U.S. has even allied with old-line Communist Party
bosses as a means of countering the growth of Islamic movements. This
occurs despite the fact that the Islamic movements in much of Central
Asia are actually quite progressive and moderate (in part because of the
strong Sufi influence) when compared with some of their Middle Eastern
and North African counterparts.
Another factor fueling radical Islamic movements has been the
perceived U.S. culpability in the deaths of Muslim civilians. From
Washington's initial failure to respond to the Serbian slaughter of
Bosnian Muslims to the sanctions against Iraq to the support of Israeli
repression against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, U.S. foreign
policy has laid itself open to this accusation.
Extremist Islamic political forces have also arisen in areas where
there has been large-scale dislocation due to war. U.S. support for
Israel's ongoing occupation and repression in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip has contributed to the rise of Hamas and other radical Islamic
movements, despite the fact that Palestinians historically had been more
pluralistic and tolerant than many of their Arab neighbors. Islamic
extremists were never much of a factor in Lebanese politics until after
the U.S.-backed 1982 Israeli invasion and Israel's 22-year occupation of
southern Lebanon.
Social dislocation can also result from uneven economic development,
as has been encouraged by the
U.S. insistence on globalization according
to a neoliberal economic model. Largely unregulated Western economic
penetration in Egypt, Tunisia, the Philippines, and elsewhere has
exacerbated gross wealth inequalities and triggered disruptive internal
migration, giving rise to these countries' Islamic extremists.
It would certainly be simplistic to blame the U.S. exclusively for
the rise of violent and extremist Islamic political movements.
Autocratic and misguided socialist policies in Algeria -- which has had
very little U.S. influence -- also resulted in an Islamic reaction
similar to movements triggered by autocratic and misguided capitalist
policies elsewhere. And in other countries, the colonial legacies of the
French and British along with certain domestic factors have spawned
extremist Islamic groups. Yet U.S. policies have unquestionably fueled
the development of this dangerous political trend.
Military solutions -- apparently preferred by the U.S. and many of
its allies -- will not succeed in countering the rise of militant
Islamic movements. Nevertheless, Washington has successfully encouraged
the NATO alliance, in a desperate attempt to justify its existence at
the end of the cold war, to place challenging Islamic movements among
its top strategic priorities. NATO has already begun a dialogue with
some North African regimes regarding mutual security arrangements
against a perceived Islamic threat.
Over the past two decades, the U.S. has bombed Lebanon, Iran, Sudan,
and Afghanistan in an effort to challenge Islamic movements and
governments viewed as antithetical to U.S. interests. Such air strikes
have not only been contrary to international law but have also resulted
in fueling anti-American hatred, particularly when they have caused
civilian casualties. Trying to impose military solutions to what are essentially political, economic, and social problems is doomed to fail.
Toward a New Foreign Policy
The U.S. must shift from supporting repressive governments to
encouraging greater democracy and pluralism in the Islamic world. The
U.S. must demand an end to Israel's illegal occupation of Arab East
Jerusalem and other Palestinian territories and promote a peace
agreement that recognizes the city's importance to all three
monotheistic faiths. The U.S. should support sustainable economic
development in the Islamic world, so that the benefits of foreign
investment and globalization can be more fairly distributed with minimal
social disruption.
To effectively challenge the threat from radical Islamic movements,
the U.S. must shift its focus from trying to crush such movements to
pursuing policies that discourage their emergence. Similarly, the U.S.
must recognize that not all Islamic movements are contrary to the
development of political pluralism or good relations with the United
States.
From Afghanistan to Algeria and beyond, radical Islamic movements
have grown to prominence where there has been great social dislocation
in the population, whether it be from war or misguided economic
policies. Policies designed to minimize such traumatic events will be
far more successful than military threats in encouraging moderation in
Islamic countries.
The U.S. must cease its support for autocratic regimes and encourage
greater political pluralism. In countries like Jordan, Turkey, and
Yemen, where Islamic parties have been allowed to compete in a
relatively open political process, they have generally played a
responsible -- if somewhat conservative -- role in the political system.
The more radical elements observable in many Islamic movements are
usually a reflection of the denial of their right to participate in
political discourse. Many radical Islamic movements, such as those in
Egypt, Palestine, and Algeria, include diverse elements. Were they no
longer under siege and instead allowed to function in an open democratic
system they would likely divide into competing political parties
ranging across the ideological spectrum.
It is noteworthy that the FIS in Algeria competed fairly and
nonviolently during that country's brief political opening in the early
1990s, only to have its anticipated election victory stolen in a
military coup. In the aftermath, the radical GAM emerged to launch its
campaign of terror against foreigners and broad segments of Algerian
society.
Indeed, no extremist Islamic movements have ever evolved in
democratic societies. Supporting democracy would therefore be a major
step in the direction of moderating political Islam. The U.S. must stop
considering Islam to be the enemy and instead encourage Islamic
movements by working for justice and economic equality.
Washington must support the Palestinians' right to statehood in the
West Bank and Gaza, including a shared Jerusalem that would serve as the
capital of both Israel and Palestine. Both Congress and the executive
branch should rescind resolutions and past statements that imply support
for Israel's unilateral annexation of Arab East Jerusalem and
surrounding Palestinian lands. Washington must instead recognize the
city's importance to all three monotheistic faiths. Not only would such a
policy shift bring the U.S. in line with international law, UN Security
Council resolutions, and virtually the entire international community,
but it would also remove a highly emotional and volatile issue from the
arsenal of Islamic extremists, who exploit the widespread anger about
U.S. support for the illegal Israeli occupation of a city that Muslims
also see as holy.
The U.S. should stop pushing for radical economic liberalization in
Islamic countries, since such policies increase inequality and result in
rising materialism and conspicuous consumption for elites at the
expense of basic needs of the poor majority. Instead, the U.S. must
support sustainable economic development, so that the benefits of
foreign investment and globalization can be more fairly distributed with
minimal social disruption. Although some Islamic traditions have proven
to be relatively tolerant of autocratic governance, the presence of
corruption and a lack of concern about social injustice by a country's
leadership are generally seen by Muslims as a violation of a social
contract and must be resisted.
In many respects, political Islam has filled a vacuum that resulted
from the failure of Arab nationalism, Marxism, and other ideologies to
free Islamic countries both from unjust political, social, and economic
systems and from Western imperialism. Just because radical Islamic
movements have embraced tactics and ideologies reprehensible to most
Westerners does not mean that the concerns giving rise to such movements
are without merit.
Only by addressing the legitimate grievances of these movements will
there be any hope of stopping their often illegitimate methods and
questionable ideologies. Otherwise, the U.S. may find itself dealing
with a series of conflicts that could eclipse the bloody surrogate cold
war battles that ravaged the third world in previous decades.
Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/11479/u.s._policy_toward_political_islam
Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of politics and
chairperson of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University
of San Francisco. Zunes is also a senior analyst and the Middle East
and North Africa editor at Foreign Policy In Focus.
Comments