Crazy Poor Middle Easterners

Categories: Civil War Conflict Middle East Conflict

Essay, Pages 6 (1360 words)

Views

100

Orientalism is how we perceive the Asian states, but in particular its how we perceive the Middle East and the Arab world. The Middle East in recent times has been plagued with wars such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. The region has also seen proxy wars(Syria) and genocides(Yemen) that continue to destabilize the region and affecting power shifts. With this taken into consideration, there are many Orientalist features that continue to affect current relationships within the region.

Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times believes that if the Middle East would move on from its past, then the region may begin to flourish as eastern Asian states such as South Korea and Japan have.

In the article ‘Crazy Poor Middle Easterners’ Friedman engages with Orientalism by criticizing the modern state of the Middle East and its constituents, mentioning external powers such as the United States and Russia and how they ultimately affect the relationship between the Orient and the West, and Friedman briefly mentions slight gender issues and portrays the battle between tradition and modernity within the Oriental sector.

Friedman criticizes Iran for expanding its “malign military and religious influence” into nearby countries. Friedman believes that this is an attempt to gain regional superiority over countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are backed by the West. This is significant because there are political and religious separations between a Sunni majority country in Saudi Arabia and a Shiite majority in Iran. The Sunni-Shiite relationship could be taken as an implied discourse for the Middle East not moving on from the past.

In other words the successor of Muhammad, the first messenger of Allah, was a large religious debate that separated the two subgroups within the Islamic religion and as a result has created much conflict. Along with this, the feuds between the Jewish state and Iran-backed Palestinian groups do not help alleviate the trouble in the area. Though the reasons and relationships between the regional powers are much more complex, this ties back to Edward Said’s statement of “Europeans dividing the world into two parts, the east and the west.” Even though Europeans have had a short impact on Middle East in terms of time, they have shifted power and support to augment previous feuds of historic relevance in the region. One example of this could be how Europeans redrew political lines in the Middle East after WWI and did not put ethnic group chemistry into consideration, thus placing ethnic groups who had nothing in common in the same land. Much of the perception and relationships between Middle Eastern countries today can be attributed to previous moments in history. Friedman also believes that if regional countries stopped fighting over “who owns which olive tree”, then they may be able to round up human capital and create a booming economy. The Middle East has extensive amounts of valuable resources such as oil, but Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, who is the Vice President of the U.A.E, believes that the region has a “management problem” as opposed to a resource problem when asking why the Middle East is not on the same tier as South Korea and Japan’s powerful economy. Friedman criticizes Middle Eastern countries for fighting over the past, destroying the present with war, and ultimately not focusing on how these actions can have huge implications in the future.

Friedman also begins to introduce the United States and Russia as major components who affect the relationship between the Orient and Western/international nations. This is important because it engages with Orientalism by displaying multilateral relationships between regional powers and external powers and how this can change perspectives of the Orient. Just as Sonali Kolhatkar, a Henry A. Wallace National Security Forum host, said on the video “How many countries has the US invaded?”, The United States is notorious for siding with undemocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia if it fits within the parameters of America’s interest. This is significant because the United States negates much of the “Oriental Despotic”(coined by the Ancient Greeks) values that Saudi Arabia possesses such as being undemocratic and oppressive. This perception exchanges the reality of the Orient to a malformed reality that benefits the United States and the new perspective of Saudi Arabia. In the book “Contending Visions of the Middle East”, Zachary Lockman describes “Oriental Despotism” as the “gap between ruler and ruled.” The ancient Greeks and Romans were noted as despising the Middle East for their tyrannical nature. The United States cooperates with Saudi Arabia for regional control even though the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia(KSA) has characteristics of being oppressive as is the case towards women. Many American civilians do not hold the KSA as being free due to their ultra-conservative ways, but American politicians and officials disregard characteristics and place a priority on regional power in the Middle East through KSA influence. These different views juxtapose each other which affect relationships between the Orient and the West. Moreover, the Russians hold a strong interest in Syria. Many Russian officials and citizens hold great perspectives towards Syria due to the fact that the Russian have many economical, political, and military interest in Syria. The Russians, the Syrian government, and pro-Assad groups hold each other very highly thus affecting the relationship between the Orient and international nations, in this case, Russia. Though the United States does not fully agree with Saudi Arabia on some political stances or characteristics of the Middle East, the U.S. as the leader of the free world can distort the perspective of a powerful nation in the Middle East towards being friendly to international causes.

The gender roles can tie greatly into Orientalism. With Orientalism being considered the traits of the Middle East, religion would be crucial in order to understand gender roles. Dr. Nahid Angha, an emissary of the International Association of Sufism to the U.N, identifies that nations in the Middle East have “been notorious for their unequal treatment of women.” Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the prince of Saudi Arabia, has delegated municipal leadership jobs to women. This represents a more liberal reformation in the power given to women in a conservative country such as the KSA. MBS has also given women the opportunity to drive vehicles. Even though this is not as significant as the leadership jobs, it’s displaying a continual gradual change in the social standings of gender roles. The expansion of women’s rights can also portray a battle between tradition and modernity. In another New York Times article “Saudi Arabia Agrees To Let Women Drive”, some women rights antagonists have argued that driving would destroy women’s ovaries and that it would “lead to promiscuity and the collapse of the Saudi family”. This displays the battles of traditional patriarchal families to the modern and gender expansive family. Even more so, the deception such as claiming that driving will destroy your ovaries displays how threatening expansion of female rights is in the country. It also displays the magnitude that some religiously-conservative people would go to prevent women from driving and breaking the social norms of Saudi Arabia. Though mentioned very briefly, Friedman does an excellent job on reflecting on the expansion of gender roles of the article and how they affect Oriental sectors. The format is important due to the fact on how it presents the information. The information is displayed from regional powers, to the influences of international powers, to Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum and how he focuses on the economic factors of the Middle East and how they have been troubled by conflict and mismanagement.

With everything tied back to the ideals of Orientalism, Friedman involves Orientalism by exposing the constituents of the Middle East and how they and their history has affected relationships between regional states. Friedman also drags in international nations to put a focus on how the perception of the Orient can change where interests and power are at stake. Lastly, Friedman applies gender to display some of the changes that have occured in which tradition is challenged by modernity while referencing Orientalism.