Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[omaghjoe]

There needs to be more details on the alternatives to "western style democracy" or "straight democracy" that would be acceptable. My feeling is that the answer you would get from the majority would not resemble anything that we would call  democracy.

..and that's fine by me... but everybody needs to be clear on what they actually want.  We need to remove the excuses. If the US is out of the picture and it ends up that the majority want some variant of theocratic or autocratic rule then people in the west need to get their heads around that. It means we will have to deal with and, crucially, trade with whatever "government" they choose. 

imo they will never achieve their socio-economic goals without western style democracy/capitalism but I'd be open to any alternative , evidence based ideas that are coming out of the ME. Are there any economists in the ME that are advocating new economic theories that are ideally suited to ME societies ?

The options for leadership historically only seem to be Royalty, Religious or Military. None of them are suitable in my opinion. There are so many ethnic groups and vested interested that, say, a NI type solution, of First Minister, Deputy FM, Assistant DFM etc would appear chaotic and unworkable. So it is hard to see what sort of solution could work.

Maybe the area has to be divided into many smaller regions or cantons or whatever and end the big ethnically complex states we have at the moment.

What's to say they wouldnt work? The Ottoman Empire worked for a right well longer in the middle East in relatively stable peace than any democracy 

Its a pretty arrogant Western attitude to suppose that democracy and free market orangised into sovereign states is the way to go as far as a stable, peaceful, and prosperous society goes,when there is clearly many problems and many consequences that other cultures would find unacceptable.

[periere]

Things heating up a bit after Turkey shoots down a Russian jet close to the Syrian border an hour ago:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/24/russian-jet-downed-by-turkish-planes-near-syrian-border-live-updates

Looks like this is spiraling out in all sorts of directions!!

Dave Cameron should be looking to keep British jets out of the airways for a while yet if he's any sense!

For me, in recent years Turkey has, to a certain degree, assumed the role of the true litmus test for what way the Muslim world is going. Recent political developments along with incidents like this do not fill me with great confidence.

Turkey is a bit of an outlier - Muslim but nato member.

Lads what are yis on about?

Turkey an outlier of NATO? They are one of the largest and most influential miliataries in NATO

Also if I wanted to gauge what was goin to happen in Indonesia Pakistan or Bangladesh, Turkey would not be very high on the countries I would be looking for clues

Seafoid can speak for himself but the point I was trying to make is that Turkey has a GDP per capita that approaches Poland and is better than Russia. It has a GINI coefficient (inequality measure) that is on a par with Ireland. Its Oil production is negligible. It is , indeed, a member of NATO but this position is understandable given its historical tensions with Russia. Its relations with the US have been good but deteriorated over Iraq circa 2003. Despite being predominantly Sunni and a member of NATO its relationship with (Shia dominated) Iran has been OKish.

So all the usual socio-economic, geo-political , Oil trade accusations/excuses cannot be levelled at Turkey. Most importantly of all it is a democratic country and (I'm open to correction on this) has a history of free and fair elections.

Despite all this the country is moving further and further in direction of Islamization. The conflict in Syria and the refugee crisis are mitigating circumstances but the AKP have been getting majorities since 2002  and Erdogan has expressed a desire to raise a "religious youth" which is crazy language to use in the present environment. So the only conclusion that I can come to is that this move reflects the long term will of the people and that will is being expressed free (for the most part) of the extenuating factors affecting other countries. 

So, indeed , it is an outlier but, because of that, it gives us the closest example of what people , at least in this part of the region,  want given a "free" choice.

So in three years time if Turkey has descended into chaos I will slap the first person that tells me "its a minority and does not reflect what ordinary Muslims want"

[muppet]

There needs to be more details on the alternatives to "western style democracy" or "straight democracy" that would be acceptable. My feeling is that the answer you would get from the majority would not resemble anything that we would call  democracy.

..and that's fine by me... but everybody needs to be clear on what they actually want.  We need to remove the excuses. If the US is out of the picture and it ends up that the majority want some variant of theocratic or autocratic rule then people in the west need to get their heads around that. It means we will have to deal with and, crucially, trade with whatever "government" they choose. 

imo they will never achieve their socio-economic goals without western style democracy/capitalism but I'd be open to any alternative , evidence based ideas that are coming out of the ME. Are there any economists in the ME that are advocating new economic theories that are ideally suited to ME societies ?

The options for leadership historically only seem to be Royalty, Religious or Military. None of them are suitable in my opinion. There are so many ethnic groups and vested interested that, say, a NI type solution, of First Minister, Deputy FM, Assistant DFM etc would appear chaotic and unworkable. So it is hard to see what sort of solution could work.

Maybe the area has to be divided into many smaller regions or cantons or whatever and end the big ethnically complex states we have at the moment.

What's to say they wouldnt work? The Ottoman Empire worked for a right well longer in the middle East in relatively stable peace than any democracy 

Its a pretty arrogant Western attitude to suppose that democracy and free market orangised into sovereign states is the way to go as far as a stable, peaceful, and prosperous society goes,when there is clearly many problems and many consequences that other cultures would find unacceptable.

I didn't propose democracy as a solution or even mention the free market so I presume you were responding to periere and not me.

But....

The Ottoman Empire! You are having a laugh.

Have a read about the 500,000+ Greeks killed in the The Greek Genocide

Or the 1,000,000+ dead in the Armenian Genocide.

Or any of the other atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire.

[omaghjoe]

There needs to be more details on the alternatives to "western style democracy" or "straight democracy" that would be acceptable. My feeling is that the answer you would get from the majority would not resemble anything that we would call  democracy.

..and that's fine by me... but everybody needs to be clear on what they actually want.  We need to remove the excuses. If the US is out of the picture and it ends up that the majority want some variant of theocratic or autocratic rule then people in the west need to get their heads around that. It means we will have to deal with and, crucially, trade with whatever "government" they choose. 

imo they will never achieve their socio-economic goals without western style democracy/capitalism but I'd be open to any alternative , evidence based ideas that are coming out of the ME. Are there any economists in the ME that are advocating new economic theories that are ideally suited to ME societies ?

The options for leadership historically only seem to be Royalty, Religious or Military. None of them are suitable in my opinion. There are so many ethnic groups and vested interested that, say, a NI type solution, of First Minister, Deputy FM, Assistant DFM etc would appear chaotic and unworkable. So it is hard to see what sort of solution could work.

Maybe the area has to be divided into many smaller regions or cantons or whatever and end the big ethnically complex states we have at the moment.

What's to say they wouldnt work? The Ottoman Empire worked for a right well longer in the middle East in relatively stable peace than any democracy 

Its a pretty arrogant Western attitude to suppose that democracy and free market orangised into sovereign states is the way to go as far as a stable, peaceful, and prosperous society goes,when there is clearly many problems and many consequences that other cultures would find unacceptable.

I didn't propose democracy as a solution or even mention the free market so I presume you were responding to periere and not me.

But....

The Ottoman Empire! You are having a laugh.

Have a read about the 500,000+ Greeks killed in the The Greek Genocide

Or the 1,000,000+ dead in the Armenian Genocide.

Or any of the other atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire.
[/quote

That was the Ottoman empire in its death throes slashing and burning anything it couldn't have.

I was referring to its governance in the Middle East which it ruled for centuries in comparison to the modern attempts of governance.

[periere]

All these systems can "work" in the sense that they will provide security and stability and some limited socio-economic benefits but they will never deliver what western style democracy and the (regulated) free market can deliver.

However, westerners must give up on their "accepted" ideas of human rights if they they concede on democracy. They must forever give up this easy, ideological cop out of deriding Western governments "cooperation" with autocratic regimes to obtain the oil that lubricates their advanced societies. The moral grandstanding has to stop.

[muppet]

All these systems can "work" in the sense that they will provide security and stability and some limited socio-economic benefits but they will never deliver what western style democracy and the (regulated) free market can deliver.

However, westerners must give up on their "accepted" ideas of human rights if they they concede on democracy. They must forever give up this easy, ideological cop out of deriding Western governments "cooperation" with autocratic regimes to obtain the oil that lubricates their advanced societies. The moral grandstanding has to stop.

So what is the objective?

To keep the oil flowing?

[armaghniac]

The options for leadership historically only seem to be Royalty, Religious or Military. None of them are suitable in my opinion. There are so many ethnic groups and vested interested that, say, a NI type solution, of First Minister, Deputy FM, Assistant DFM etc would appear chaotic and unworkable. So it is hard to see what sort of solution could work.

Maybe the area has to be divided into many smaller regions or cantons or whatever and end the big ethnically complex states we have at the moment.

Does Lebanon not have a NI style setup, with the President from one lot and the Prime Minister from the other? But then Lebanon is probably chaotic and unworkable.

[periere]

There needs to be more details on the alternatives to "western style democracy" or "straight democracy" that would be acceptable. My feeling is that the answer you would get from the majority would not resemble anything that we would call  democracy.

..and that's fine by me... but everybody needs to be clear on what they actually want.  We need to remove the excuses. If the US is out of the picture and it ends up that the majority want some variant of theocratic or autocratic rule then people in the west need to get their heads around that. It means we will have to deal with and, crucially, trade with whatever "government" they choose. 

imo they will never achieve their socio-economic goals without western style democracy/capitalism but I'd be open to any alternative , evidence based ideas that are coming out of the ME. Are there any economists in the ME that are advocating new economic theories that are ideally suited to ME societies ?

The options for leadership historically only seem to be Royalty, Religious or Military. None of them are suitable in my opinion. There are so many ethnic groups and vested interested that, say, a NI type solution, of First Minister, Deputy FM, Assistant DFM etc would appear chaotic and unworkable. So it is hard to see what sort of solution could work.

Maybe the area has to be divided into many smaller regions or cantons or whatever and end the big ethnically complex states we have at the moment.

Oil revenues would have to Be divided up as well.

Divided up on a risk/investment/labour versus what ?? basis  or a per capita basis..what do you mean ?

[muppet]

The options for leadership historically only seem to be Royalty, Religious or Military. None of them are suitable in my opinion. There are so many ethnic groups and vested interested that, say, a NI type solution, of First Minister, Deputy FM, Assistant DFM etc would appear chaotic and unworkable. So it is hard to see what sort of solution could work.

Maybe the area has to be divided into many smaller regions or cantons or whatever and end the big ethnically complex states we have at the moment.

Does Lebanon not have a NI style setup, with the President from one lot and the Prime Minister from the other? But then Lebanon is probably chaotic and unworkable.

And yet probably the best of a bad lot?

[periere]

All these systems can "work" in the sense that they will provide security and stability and some limited socio-economic benefits but they will never deliver what western style democracy and the (regulated) free market can deliver.

However, westerners must give up on their "accepted" ideas of human rights if they they concede on democracy. They must forever give up this easy, ideological cop out of deriding Western governments "cooperation" with autocratic regimes to obtain the oil that lubricates their advanced societies. The moral grandstanding has to stop.

So what is the objective?

To keep the oil flowing?

If that is to the benefit of the greater society then , yes. of course. The Norwegians have turned their good luck in relation to oil into a sovereign fund that will last generations. I don't see any reason why Saudies, Iranians etc cant go down the same path.

Oil is a tradable commodity. It is no more inherently evil than  trading in yams. It is a question of supply and demand. I refuse to accept the premise that I am morally on the hook for the actions of somebody that I buy oil from. I may CHOOSE to make decisions based on their actions but that does not translate to some moral OBLIGATION. If you are against regime change you must accept this fact.

Too many people in the west talk shite about energy dependence but don't back it up with action.

I don't own a car and bike everywhere. My conscience is clear 

[muppet]

I can't believe that a decade and a half into the 21st century, our priority with the geo-political disaster that is the ME is to keep the oil flowing.

Surely we should have some concern for the children being bombed, or the innocent being beheaded, or those being driven from their homes to end up as refugees for no reason other than someone rich person's ideological view of the world?

[periere]

cmon muppet ............Have you ever been to the bog ? Ultimately its a fossil fuel. I often walk the bog that we harvested  for 20 years and ponder the greater loss to the environment. Then I check myself and remember I just wanted to keep my arse warm.

People make choices. Sometimes circumstances are imposed on them due to the choices made by their neighbours. Further consequences are imposed on them by choices on local,regional and national government and  , yes, international actors but my belief is that most people in the ME are primarily responsible for their situation and they are definitely responsible for any consequence that flows from their exploitation their "god" given resource of oil.

[muppet]

cmon muppet ............Have you ever been to the bog ? Ultimately its a fossil fuel. I often walk the bog that we harvested  for 20 years and ponder the greater loss to the environment. Then I check myself and remember I just wanted to keep my arse warm.

People make choices. Sometimes circumstances are imposed on them due to the choices made by their neighbours. Further consequences are imposed on them by choices on local,regional and national government and  , yes, international actors but my belief is that most people in the ME are primarily responsible for their situation and they are definitely responsible for any consequence that flows from their exploitation their "god" given resource of oil.

I don't understand your reference to the bog. You aren't suppressing anyone, ethnically cleansing a people or beading anyone while cutting your turf.

I am not excusing the locals either for their situation. But the countries were drawn up by the West. The regimes are armed predominantly by the West, and while the oil flows to the west, so does a lot of the resulting money. I am not blaming the west exclusively either, but we shouldn't stand idly by watching atrocity after atrocity either.

And that is without mentioning 911, the Madrid bombings, London bombing or the Paris attacks. Sometimes the mess in the ME can spread.

[periere]

The "bog" point is that  being blessed with a natural resource is exactly that, a  blessing . It does not follow that the society will be consumed with greed or a murderous desire to exploit the natural resource to the detriment to all else.  If Oil is THE problem or a big part of the problem or even a small part of the problem then why have Norway, UK,US, Canada, Russia etc managed to trade in what is, basically,  a commodity without compromising their society, security   or ideals (ok, Russia is dodgy) .

Trading in oil is NOT the problem.

You will now counter that "I never said that Oil was the only problem". I will concede that you are correct but I pine for the contributor that can go 10 posts on the subject of the middle east without resorting to the moral crutch that is middle eastern oil consumption

[periere]

Sorry, I just don't buy it (the Khasoggi article). Eventually countries in the ME will have to take the lead in sorting out the problems in their own countries. Of course Europe, Russia and China have a role to play but it is common sense that ME countries  understand the intricacies better than anyone else and there is no point in the US being involved if their presence is so polarizing and toxic to so many. It just makes it easier to disengage. Why cant Saudi, Turkey and Iran lead the way and Europe/Russia/China can facilitate ?

I agree that Arab people desire justice and decent living however I am not sure about the desire for democracy bit ...? Is this really a true statement ?  Is their any poll data across all segments and for each country that supports this assertion ? (and yes, I know it's hard to do polls in oppressive countries but we have to start somewhere)

Exactly, it is not as if the trips to Iraq and Afghanistan were roaring successes. Also trying to impose a western style democracy in those places is nuts.

This Shia/Sunni issue seems to be similar to the Catholic/Protestant conflicts elsewhere. Straight democracy wasn't the wisest in the wee 6 for example. Once you have a winner, then you quickly have minority losers.

As for the question in bold, the answer simply seems to be because they can't see past their own interests. After Paris, much of Europe's interest in the region will have changed, and not for the better.

The Sunni/Shia thing might quieten down if Iran makes a rapprochement with the West.

The Sunni/Shia thing will be small change unless you combat this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn4mVDtqi7g

It is time that the Muslim world start communicating or else we are all up the creek