By Michael Garson
With Iraq and Iran dominating the headlines on a daily basis, many extempers insist on using these two countries as templates for a proper understanding of American-Middle East relations. Unfortunately, these two countries are examples of little more than international relations gone horribly, horribly irrational. It is imperative to look at how the entire Muslim world is moving on in light of increased American involvement.
While every tournament will have Iran and Iraq questions, understanding the Middle East on the whole will help not just with these areas, but also benefit your analysis of other countries in particular. Whether it is political pressure in Pakistan or another failure in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, even the slightest of changes in the Middle East gets five-star treatment by major publications and extemp question writers.
This brief will provide:
*A look at Islam’s role in the area
*An examination of the Sunni-Shi’ia divide
*A clearer understanding of how Arab nations deal with each other
*Profiles for a deeper analysis on the area’s other significant countries
True Theocracies?
Whether talking to a university professor or an “ignorant” bus driver (yes, both serve as judges at forensic tournaments), the Middle East is immediately linked to Islam. Rightfully so, given that, with the exception of Israel, the Middle East almost by its very definition is comprised of countries with overwhelming Muslim majorities. Many in the Arab world take great pride in having Muslims govern Muslims according to sharia law. While this is certainly true in some countries, it is not true in others. How governments rise to power, use power, and stay in power in relation to Islam is an extremely interesting and complex issue.
There are those countries that are strictly Islamic theocracies. The clearest example of this style of governance is Iran. While Ahmadinejad may act in a sacrilegious way according to some, he uses the Koran as a justification for his rhetoric. More importantly, the Supreme Council of Rulers in Iran is a group that truly has power. Determining if an act is in accordance with sharia is a key arbiter of policy decisions. To be fair, Iran is not completely Islamic. Some actions are selfish and are in Iranian, not Muslim, interests. Surely advocating a war with Sunni Muslims and aligning with secular China are not templates of theocratic governance. Yet, in order to better understand Iran and similar governments, it is essential to recognize that a war against a religion can never be won. There is no greater power than the power of faith. No economic analysis or threat of war can truly shake people from their core values and beliefs. It is these governments that are the most dangerous to the non-Muslim world.
Other countries use Islam as a justification for power, but not one for policy. Saudi Arabia routinely skirts the Koran in order to protect itself. The Saudi royal family’s relationship with the United States has been long documented and criticized. While American critics are quick to chastise the United States for aligning with a government that punishes women for crimes as heinous as driving, the Saudi street is equally displeased. The royal family uses its unfathomable wealth to sustain itself. Foreign policy decisions are based on survival. Keenly aware that its population is far more religious, extremist, and angry than preferred, the royal family does its best to satiate and suppress the people. It should come as no surprise that Saudi Arabia is a haven and a target in the War on Terror. Seen as a traitor to Islam, terrorists have attacked Saudi Arabia. Ironically, these attacks only endear the United States more, as it coerces Saudi Arabia into cooperating and joining in the War on Terror.
A third version of rule in the Middle East is apparent in Egypt. Ruling his country with an iron fist, President Hosni Mubarak has stayed in power for decades by not allowing free or fair elections. Mubarak does not invoke the Koran as much as his neighbors, but is an absolutist. A country where political opposition is suppressed and homosexuality exists under penalty of death certainly is not a beacon of liberal democracy. Though to a lesser extent, Mubarak fears internal pressure. Since the Egyptian population is less religious, it uses more secular justifications to overturn Mubarak.
On the whole not every Muslim country is similar. While this epiphany should seem painfully obvious, far too many extempers speak of the Middle East purely in generalities. Those who distinguish between theocracies, manipulators, and strongmen show a stronger understanding and command of the topic at hand. When addressing the role religion, question writers may inadvertently lump the Arab world together. The policies and responses to hot button issues will vary from government type to government type. The good news is that all of these types of governance are highly predictable. Ahmadinejad’s bosses truly believe they are acting in god’s will. And since god’s will is supposedly written a book, that will is open for all, including extempers, to read. This is not to say that Iran’s playbook is completely obvious, but it certainly is intelligible. Saudi Arabia wants to avoid a repeat of the Iranian revolution of 1979. Mubarak wants to avoid any revolution. At the end of the day, all governments want one thing: to stay in power. Why they want to stay in power and what they do with power tends to vary, but the desire is universal. This sole fact can be the unifying thread in many extemp speeches, Middle Eastern and otherwise.
Religious Schism
When contemplating an invasion of Iraq in 2002, President Bush supposedly needed Middle East specialists to tell him there is more than one type of Muslim. In fact, Shi’ias and Sunnis are very different and rule over different areas. Before discussing the differences and their importance, I urge every extemper to use the word “Shi’ia” instead of “Shi’ite”. The term “Shi’ite” is based a French term that dates back to colonialism. Though the overwhelming majority of judges will not notice or care, there are some who perceive those who use the antiquated term as ill-informed and/or ignorant. It is a really small pet peeve, but in an event that requires so much effort and intellect, there is no reason to risk getting docked a rank because of a nit-picking judge. Tangents aside, the schism between Sunnis and Shi’ias has become more pronounced in light of the Iraq War. To be brief and simplistic, Sunnis are the majority faction in Islam. Shi’ias are the minority, but hold majorities in Iran and Iraq. Since Saddam Hussein was a Sunni who subjugated Shi’ias, the causes of Iraq’s civil war become much clearer.
Iraq is seen as a battleground by both Sunnis and Shi’ias. Sunnis around the region wish to maintain control over Iraq, despite their low numbers and Saddam’s less than benevolent tenure. Shi’ias, most notably those in Iran, want to build an ally in an extremist, fundamentalist Shi’ia Iraq. How appropriate that an Iraqi democracy is in Iran’s best interest. However, there is also a third, more maligned group, the Kurds. The Kurds technically are Muslim but have a culture that is very different from the Sunnis and the Shi’ias. Since they have their own ethnicity, they want their own country, or at least increased autonomy. The problem is that there is no way to make a country without taking territory from pre-existing states. Therefore, Turkey and Iraq are both staunchly opposed to a Kurdistan, which would take land, resources, and people away. Again, governments of all continents and religions desire to maintain and increase power. Turkey has the trump card of being a secular Muslim state, which it can use to deflect any pressure to create a Kurdistan. Iraq currently lacks the ability to speak with a singular voice, so it would be most likely to be forced to concede territory. However, the added chaos of carving out new states may cause more trouble than it is worth. After all, if the Kurds get a state, it logically follows that the Sunnis and Shi’ias should have their own state, as well. Yet, oil production and economic development differ so greatly within Iraq, which the new states would invariably go to war with each other. So while creating a Kurdish state certainly seems to be the magnanimous thing to do, there are too many roadblocks and the Kurds lack an international champion, such as the United States, to be taken seriously.
Country Profiles
Pakistan
Pakistan is currently an international lightning rod. Ranging from ally of the War on Terror to international pariah, General Pervez Musharraf certainly wears many hats. He tells President Bush that he agrees that the War on Terror is a top priority and he is working to destroy the terrorist cells within his country. Skeptics believe that Musharraf is intentionally not antagonizing terrorist cells in order to stay in power. Maintaining one of the most delicate balances in politics today, Musharraf has been able to conceal his true intentions from the rest of the world. Likening it to Severus Snape (no Harry Potter spoilers, I promise), Pakistan is an enigma wrapped in a riddle that is shrouded by mystery.
The case for Pakistan being in bed with the terrorists is very easy to make. Much was made over the fact that those who carried the 7/7 Subway bombings studied at a madrassa in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden and his closest advisors are believed to be in hiding in western Pakistan. Pakistan’s borders are very poorly defended areas with small populations that tend to be sympathetic to terrorist cells. How much information Musharraf has about these terrorists is currently in question. Since we are not privy to the intel of the Pakistani military, it would be equally unfair to claim that Musharraf is intentionally ignoring terrorists or that he has no information to act on. An objective analysis suggests that the odds are good that the General is not doing everything in his power to eradicate terrorist cells and their supporters. It has been no secret that terrorist militias are spearheading Pakistan’s current conflict with India over Kashmir. While the hypocrisy may be obvious, it also serves Pakistani interests. When speculating on any actor’s true motives in extemp, the best thing a speaker can do is see the issue through the actor’s eyes. Musharraf’s ad hoc alliance with terrorists is both possible and logical.
Musharraf’s insistence that he is a “good guy” certainly warrants an argument that he is opposed to the terrorists. The bright line that his defenders will point out is the recent attack on the Red Mosque. Over the summer, Musharraf made a big splash when he authorized the destruction of a mosque in Islamabad that was attended by extremists. Members of the Jamia Hafsa Seminary formed moral squads that sought to bring a strict religious morality to Pakistan. Since these members represented a direct threat to the General’s ability to maintain power and control over his country. Prior to Musharraf’s act, the terrorists threatened to bring bombings and murders to the streets. An ability to stand strong to opposition forces is the sign of a powerful leader. However, being powerful and being righteous are not one in the same.
I will not be as arrogant to say that I have the answer on Pakistan. I think that Musharraf probably opposes terrorism on principle and is scared of a political revolution. As an insurance policy, he gives independence to terrorist cells in exchange for their assurance that he is not a target. Keeping the terrorists quiet and happy allows Musharraf to consolidate power and focus on his true enemy, India. Using this explanation in extemp speeches is not very easy. Questions about Musharraf’s motives and ambitions regarding terrorism must be explained very carefully to avoid redundancy and/or contradiction. It is important to show how leaders can make small concessions in order to achieve long-term gains. To reiterate, governments seek to maintain and enhance power. Making feigned attempts at fighting terrorism increases international respect and support. Not actually cracking down protects Musharraf domestically. In order to fight this scenario, there is little the United States can do. While increasing pressure to act may have some benefits, I think it would be misguided. Musharraf is only helping to fight terror because he thinks he has to keep his image. If he perceives that his actions are not being appreciated or reciprocated, he has lost incentive. Pakistan needs to feel wanted and liked by the international community, regardless of how childish it may seem. American nuclear deals with India and the Indian economic explosion are making Musharraf feel more uncomfortable. Recent successes and support of India have a direct impact on Pakistan. Careful surveillance of any excessive or overt support of terrorist groups must be maintained. If Musharraf chooses to be another Ahmadinejad, the entire ballgame changes. In order to keep international peace, America must keep Musharraf the friend close, but Musharraf the enemy closer.
Afghanistan
Home to the Other War, Afghanistan is still a country in transition. After beating completely controlled by the Taliban and then the United States, it is a country struggling for independence and identity. The invasion and occupation during 2002 and 2003 went as well as could be expected. Coalition forces worked together to eradicate the Taliban and install a democratically elected government. Since America has turned its focus to Iraq things have gone downhill. Without the same troop presence, the United States has not been able to keep the Taliban from rebuilding. The Taliban has taken advantage of Afghanistan’s sparsely populated areas to build up strongholds and sympathizers. The lack of sheer numbers is keeping America and its allies from sustaining Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has done about as well as can be expected, considering the circumstances. It is his job to bring a peaceful stability to a country that has not been “free” for decades.
By now nearly every extemper should be well versed in the tale of 1980s Afghanistan. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and attempted to expand its communist empire. The United States opposed Soviet expansion and provided weapons to Afghan fighters. As it turns out, these fighters were mujahideen, waging a jihad. This lack of communication seemed irrelevant at the time, since Osama bin Laden served his purpose as a Soviet enemy. The victory that Afghan terrorists scored over the Soviet Union empowered them. It has been used as an example of the power of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalist movement. Osama bin Laden will never credit American support for his victory. Instead, he insists that the United States can be defeated as soundly as the Soviet Union was. Factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies aside, American support for bin Laden turned out to be a horrible mistake. While the weapons offered are bad, the morale boost provided by the United States is far worse. As a site of symbolic and practical value, Afghanistan is a high-stakes target. Terrorist cells want to use Afghanistan as the haven that it was prior to 9/11. Also, poppies, which become opium and heroin, were used to help fund the jihad. Presently, the United States has been unable to eradicate poppy cultivation since it is so profitable. Similar to the War on Drugs in South America, America cannot defeat capitalism in such a rural environment.
Solutions to help fix Afghanistan are easy and multiple. The easiest and most obvious cure is to increase troop levels. The amount of boots on the ground has been slashed by the War in Iraq and the need for troop rotation and rest. The military is overstretched, to say the least. Afghanistan is just not a place that the United States can afford to give up on. Advocating a pullout of Iraq or a reinstitution of the draft has their own set of issues, but troops need to be in Afghanistan. Another way to increase soldiers is to increase international support. Portraying Afghanistan as a key site in the War on Terror to western allies may coax some international contributions. As European leaders continue to take heat for having soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan would serve as a far more meaningful and successful use of military power. Also, Afghanistan needs to continue on the path to self-sufficiency. No one wants western troop involvement to last indefinitely. Not one to advocate timetables, I believe that this war can only be declared a success when the last soldier returns home. In order to do so, certain balances, sacrifices, and compromises must be made. Karzai tends to be very assertive with his power, but he certainly is better than other alternatives. He needs to be supported by the United States, but must also make concessions. Some autonomy must be given to areas of Afghanistan out of necessity. The Afghan government is ill-equipped to properly secure the entire country. Areas with strong senses of tribalism should not be subjugated. Granted, areas with a high susceptibility to terrorism need to be monitored. However, those who simply want to be left alone should be. Afghanistan, like many other countries, suffers from cultural tension and has a topography that makes federal governance difficult. In order to preserve its safety, two separate agendas are necessary. For international allies, more involvement is more. When addressing Karzai’s interactions with the more peaceful citizens, less is more.
Israel/Palestine
One of the most storied and analyzed issues of the 20th and 21st centuries, the Palestine question guarantees to be at nearly every single extemp tournament from here until eternity. Given that Palestine exists at the crossroads of civilizations and cultures, it has great symbolic significance. The added tension resonating from the facts that Israel is the only Jewish homeland, is still as a haven and buffer against another Holocaust, and the religious importance of Jerusalem to all three Semitic religions only serves to increase the stakes. The most important thing that any extemper speaking on this issue can do is stick to facts. Like abortion or gay rights, everyone has their own opinions on what to do with Israel and Palestine. However, going off on a seven minute speech concerning why Israel is committing hate crimes tantamount to those of Hitler is certainly not going to get you anywhere. In fact, the ability to take a controversial issue and provide an objective analysis is very rare and highly coveted in extemp. Take advantage of the high level of difficulty by showing the judge that you can control your emotions and intellect.
Facts on the history and derivation of Israel are hotly debated, but I will do my best. Israel and the “occupied territories” were part of the Ottoman Empire prior to World War I. After the war, the lands were given over to the United Kingdom as part of its colonial empire. The land called TransJordan encompassed modern-day Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. Jews, Muslims, and Christians fought during the 1920s over who was allowed and who should live in the area. During this decade, the UK divided the land into an Arab area, Jordan, and a Jewish area, Israel. This Israel included Israel proper and the occupied territories. During World War II, many Jews attempted to flee Europe and seek refuge in Israel. Unfortunately, the British limited immigration into the Jewish area in order to preserve the proper religious proportions. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, Jews and sympathizers around the world called for a Jewish state. The United Nations stepped in and in one of its first actions as an organization, created what it called Israel. This Israel took British Israel and subdivided it into a Jewish state and an Arab state, Palestine. Jordan was left with its British boundaries.
Prior to its official emancipation and recognition, Israel faced a threat from nearly all of its Arab neighbors. Arab leaders around the Middle East urged Palestinians living in Palestine and in Israel to abandon the area. They promised a victory over Israel and guaranteed that the land would be redistributed to those who left. So on the day that Israel’s independence was declared, war was waged on it. Thanks to support from the United States and Western Europe, Israel ended up defeating its enemies. In so doing, it claimed Palestine as part of its own territory, sparking the debate today. I think it is appropriate to also briefly look at the viability and morality of winning land. Israeli supporters will maintain that countries can gain land through warfare. After all, no country would exist unless it could win land. If Israel’s neighbors thought it could win Israel, there is no reason why Israel could not win Palestine. Those critical of this policy advocate a modern morality, instead of historical precedent. They argue that it is inherently wrong to wrest territory from other peoples and cultures. Anyone who attempts to gain land is morally in the wrong. While it is regrettable that Israel’s existence was threatened, there is no justification for winning and keeping territory. Again, everyone has an opinion on the question of the morality and viability of winning land. This is an important issue to raise and examine when looking at Israel and Palestine.
Flash forward fifty years, and a few wars later. I doubt anyone will be asking questions about how Israel won the Six-Day War, so I will leave history to textbook authors. The issue was reawakened in 1994, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin met with Palestinian Prime Minister Yasser Arafat to discuss peace plans. Meetings at Camp David and Oslo, Norway were both close, but could not resolve the issue. The Israelis offered upwards of 90% of Palestinian territories, but where rebuffed by Arafat. In the past two decades, Israel continues to offer the majority of the occupied territories only to be declined. There are two possible reasons for this trend: obstinacy and viability. Critics of Palestine will suggest that Palestinians truly do not want peace. Palestinians are willing to be suppressed in exchange for not acknowledging Israel’s right to exist. Fundamentalists who want to build the global Islamic caliphate cannot let “Jewish infidels” stand in their way. The more compassionate view is that Palestine cannot accept less than 100% of their demands because of political reasons. The Middle East is counting on Palestine to score a victory over Israel. In order to survive as a country, Palestine will need the political and economic support of its allies. This support may be in jeopardy if Palestinian leadership is seen as a traitorous group that conceded to Israel. As terrorists prove on a nearly daily basis, a successful jihad does not negotiate with the enemy. Whether or not Palestine is part of that Jihad or simply along for the ride is up for each extemper to decide.
In terms of the current state of politics, there may be some hope. the good news is that the Israeli and Palestinian people both want the same thing, peace. Israelis have given power to the Kadima party, led by Ehud Olmert. The Kadima party is relatively moderate and wants to take part in the peace process. Yet, Israel is maintaining its policy of not negotiating with terrorists or terrorist organizations. Therefore, interactions with Hamas are going to be limited to the point that peace, at present, is impossible. Since Israel is not going to budge, the focus shifts to Palestine. Peace cannot occur unless Hamas legitimizes itself or is replaced by the PLO. The problem facing the Palestinian people is that Hamas offers a lot of economic and social support to the people independent of its militant wing. Citizens are being asked to forego hospitals, schools, and funding in order to support a government regime that can and will negotiate with Israel. Given the pervasive poverty in Palestine, it seems likely. The other solution would be for Hamas to give up its calls for a wholesale destruction with Israel and win a Palestinian homeland. This action would require a lot of internal politicking and power shifting within Hamas. Also, Hamas would risk losing the support of some allies that support its aims. The best and most likely solution that I see is that Hamas recognizes that it now has a chance to put the corruption of the PLO behind Palestine, renounce terrorism, and negotiate a two-state solution with Israel. Issues over exact territorial boundaries, control of Jerusalem, and safe transit between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank I find to be less relevant than the desire for peace. Hopefully, more moderate actors such as Egypt, Jordan, Russia, the EU, and the United States can offer support to the provisionally legitimate Hamas government and wean Palestine off of its more extremist supporters. As a human being (and yes, I think a brief departure to provide a philosophical justification for answers in extemp), I have to believe that humans inherently want peace. Sometimes they believe that war is simply a prerequisite for a lasting peace. In the case of Israel and Palestine, war has not gotten these two areas closer to peace. If Hamas is ready to set more realistic expectations, then all that is left are details.
Looking Towards the Future
The Middle East has been so many moving parts and different hot button issues that it is impossible to generalize. On that note, I urge extempers to not give broadsides about the Middle East. Most of the issues are independent. Some of them are interrelated. An overthrow of the Saudi royal family would cause oil prices to skyrocket, allowing Iran to increase its oil shield. A highly pro-Sunni theocracy would also shake up whatever stability Iraq has. An independent, recognized Palestine would also add a new voice to international relations and serve as a positive sign that peace is possible. Running through the exhaustive list of how one issue affects another would become redundant and far too ink-intensive for those who print this out. Suffice it to say that logical connections are essential in extemp. This brief hopefully provided enough background information on the countries and issues that compose the Middle East, sans Iraq and Iran, so that you can make the connections for yourself. Reading the news is important to be a good extemper. Understanding the news is the key to being a great extemper. Always be aware of the actors, the stakes, and the justifications of actions. For those who do not recall 2nd grade current events projects, be aware of the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How. The last two questions are the most significant and most often ignored among extempers. Letting your analysis show a complete understanding of the question and its subtopics lets the knowledgeable extempers separate from the rest of the room.
Cards:
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||