How free is the worker in capitalism? A student wrote “ The corporate domain is not the only area in which a laborer lives; the laborer leaves the workplace and may do as he or she pleases.”
True, although as some other students point out, in times of recession the worker is reluctant to walk out on a job. Karl Marx, in Das Capital,(1867) makes the point that capitalism is predicated, among other factors, on the freedom of the worker to sell his labor power. Marx says this is why capitalism could not exist in antiquity (slavery) or the Middle Ages (feudalism).
Why does he say that? In Chapter Six, he makes the following points:
1. Labor power is a commodity because it has use value and exchange value.
2. The worker must sell his labor power which he owns as a free person, to the capitalist. The worker’s labor power is the worker’s private property
. 3. The worker sells his labor power because he does not own the means of production and therefore cannot go into business himself.
4. The worker is not however free to sell the commodities that his labor power has produced
In Chapter 7, Marx makes the following points:
1. All value comes from the laboring process. In other words, trees are value-less until they are handled by laborers to have use-value (for example, a table) and exchange value (the selling price of the table in the market place).
2. The capitalist pays the laborer enough for him to subsist or survive (enough for food, clothing, shelter etc). Marx gives the example of a worker paid 3 shillings for six hours work.
3. For the capitalist to make a profit, the worker must work 12 hours at 3 shillings - six hours of which are free to the capitalist. This is why workers’ struggles revolve around hours in a working day.
Paula wrote" However, it is the right of workers, as human beings to enjoy certain alienable privileges that are also protected in collectively such as those explained by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "ARTICLE 4. NO ONE SHALL BE HELD IN SLAVERY OR SERVITUDE; SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE SHALL BE PROHIBITED IN ALL THEIR FORMS. "
My comment: There is no doubt that capitalism arose at the same time as human rights ideologies, around the 17th century in Europe. Marx believed it’s important to distinguish workers in capitalism from slaves, although the expression ‘wage slaves’ exists. There are other articles in the UDHR and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which the US has ratified) that declare the right to bargain collectively.
Slaves don’t receive wages, therefore they cannot be consumers.
Consumerism is a critical function of capitalism. You need people to buy items so they can be sold at a profit. One of the causes of the US Civil War in the 19th Century was that industrialists in the North needed free labor power for industrialization profit making.
Marx makes a critical point. He says that since value comes ONLY from human labor, it must be manipulated in such as way as to create profit. Some might say, isn’t profit created by setting prices? This is my comment: If prices are raised beyond the value that labor has created, the price of the workers’ subsistence will also have to be raised. The only way to realize profit is to add hours to the working day, beyond how much it cost for the workers to subsist and return to work every day. This, again, explains the fight over the working day. The capitalist wants to add more unpaid workers’ hours beyond what it cost to keep the workers ‘alive.
While unions “FOUGHT ONE HUNDRED BLOODY YEARS TO WIN THE RIGHT TO A FORTY-HOUR WEEK,” such rights have been rolled back. “IN THE LAST TWENTY YEARS, THE PROPORTION OF EMPLOYEES WORKING FIFTY HOURS OR MORE EACH WEEK HAS JUMPED BY 50 PERCENT” (Kelly, p. 37, 2001).
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
What is Global Governance?
There was an explosion of all kinds of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) after the end of the Cold War. Academically during the 1990s, this explosion was understood from the perspective of a new concept: global governance. Let’s unpack what that discussion has been about:
Global Governance and NGOs: Opposing viewpoints
1) Global governance is a mainstream notion developed during the 1990s. It was a response to globalization, which became truly global after the end of the Cold War. The idea is that transnational actors such as international institutions and NGOs, are called on to provide solutions to transnational problems that are global: refugees, the environment, immigration, wars. Global governance implied that the ‘free market’ solution wasn’t working, and another authority had to supply coordination, cooperation, management and altruistic projects that the ‘free market’ couldn’t offer. Academics also believed that terrorism was and popular uprisings were the result of poorly managed economies and poverty. NGOs, it was believed, would step in and start up employment and reduce poverty. I participated in many academic debates on ‘global governance’ during the mid-1990s. This debate has died down somewhat in academia, because high hopes for GG and NGO participation globally, have not been realized.
2) Conservative investigative sites were the first the sound the alarm re: the new concept of global governance. Reporters like Alex Jones said it was nice-sounding term for a behemoth, un-elected, dictatorial ‘one world government’ under the auspices of the United Nations. In this view, NGOs are the well meaning puppets of this ‘one world government’. The puppet masters are considered to be the most elite bankers and multinational corporate leaders, who want stability to ensure good conditions for profit making. I think this view has a lot of validity if we look at it from the point of view of ‘elite theory’ (that a small elite is managing our lives and want to centralize power in fewer and fewer hands). MY CRITIQUE. Conservatives like Alex Jones want to eliminate as much government intervention as possible. I believe that the only a shift of wealth from the rich to the poor, under the management of the state, can effectively make change for the better.
3) On the other hand, left wing thinkers called the proliferation of NGOs ‘the rise of civic society’. The idea was that NGOS, whether under the auspices of the UN or a state, were the spokespeople for the masses, whose voices were going unheard at the state international level. NGOs provided the framework at the UN and other interstate institutions to voice popular concerns and to raise human rights issues. This view also has some validity. I have been a NGO delegate at the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1994,1996 and 1999. I myself have initiated resolutions and surfaced human rights issues that otherwise would have gone ignored (the humanitarian impacts of UN sanctions, for example). My book in 2004, describes my experiences. I saw firsthand the hard ‘human rights’ football that states play. It goes like this: I won’t raise your human rights issues, if you don’t raise mine. So for example, Russia was afraid that the US would accuse them of human rights violations in Chechnya, so didn’t want to raise US violations of Iraqi human rights during the UN sanctions period in Iraq, 1990-2003. But ultimately, I found human rights NGO efforts were productive. MY CRITIQUE: NGOs aren’t elected, and should not take the place of genuine democratic institutions. If funded by a party to a conflict, they cannot be considered neutral.
Global Governance and NGOs: Opposing viewpoints
1) Global governance is a mainstream notion developed during the 1990s. It was a response to globalization, which became truly global after the end of the Cold War. The idea is that transnational actors such as international institutions and NGOs, are called on to provide solutions to transnational problems that are global: refugees, the environment, immigration, wars. Global governance implied that the ‘free market’ solution wasn’t working, and another authority had to supply coordination, cooperation, management and altruistic projects that the ‘free market’ couldn’t offer. Academics also believed that terrorism was and popular uprisings were the result of poorly managed economies and poverty. NGOs, it was believed, would step in and start up employment and reduce poverty. I participated in many academic debates on ‘global governance’ during the mid-1990s. This debate has died down somewhat in academia, because high hopes for GG and NGO participation globally, have not been realized.
2) Conservative investigative sites were the first the sound the alarm re: the new concept of global governance. Reporters like Alex Jones said it was nice-sounding term for a behemoth, un-elected, dictatorial ‘one world government’ under the auspices of the United Nations. In this view, NGOs are the well meaning puppets of this ‘one world government’. The puppet masters are considered to be the most elite bankers and multinational corporate leaders, who want stability to ensure good conditions for profit making. I think this view has a lot of validity if we look at it from the point of view of ‘elite theory’ (that a small elite is managing our lives and want to centralize power in fewer and fewer hands). MY CRITIQUE. Conservatives like Alex Jones want to eliminate as much government intervention as possible. I believe that the only a shift of wealth from the rich to the poor, under the management of the state, can effectively make change for the better.
3) On the other hand, left wing thinkers called the proliferation of NGOs ‘the rise of civic society’. The idea was that NGOS, whether under the auspices of the UN or a state, were the spokespeople for the masses, whose voices were going unheard at the state international level. NGOs provided the framework at the UN and other interstate institutions to voice popular concerns and to raise human rights issues. This view also has some validity. I have been a NGO delegate at the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1994,1996 and 1999. I myself have initiated resolutions and surfaced human rights issues that otherwise would have gone ignored (the humanitarian impacts of UN sanctions, for example). My book in 2004, describes my experiences. I saw firsthand the hard ‘human rights’ football that states play. It goes like this: I won’t raise your human rights issues, if you don’t raise mine. So for example, Russia was afraid that the US would accuse them of human rights violations in Chechnya, so didn’t want to raise US violations of Iraqi human rights during the UN sanctions period in Iraq, 1990-2003. But ultimately, I found human rights NGO efforts were productive. MY CRITIQUE: NGOs aren’t elected, and should not take the place of genuine democratic institutions. If funded by a party to a conflict, they cannot be considered neutral.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
ALTERNATIVES TO ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION
BOOK REVIEW: ALTERNATIVES TO ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION, A BETTER WORLD IS POSSIBLE
JOHN CAVANAGH AND JERRY MANDER, EDS, 2004
The battle over the spread of global corporate control in the last two decades is ongoing. The 2008 global economic crisis seems to ‘prove’ that the bankers and corporate leaders are headed in the wrong direction: millions of unemployed, widespread pollution, and the sort of protests we saw in early 2011, in Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia.
The authors critique comparative advantage theory. “Under comparative advantage concepts, the viability of economic systems depends entirely upon whether the importing community can pay for its imports with the earned income of its exports…in practice, this neat formula rarely works. Export markets are variable, volatile, and unreliable. More than one nation is now facing a hunger crisis caused by the failure of comparative advantage theories, as export prices crash” (p 162).
What are some alternatives? Cavanagh and Mander suggest that natural resources belong to all us and to future generations, and should go under the heading of the ‘commons’.
The commons, the authors say, include earthly resources, the oceans, outer space, the moon, asteroids, as well as cultural resources, electronic broadcast waves, the internet, and the genes of human beings, animals and plants. All of this is being placed into private hands (unelected, for the most part).
These are the authors’ suggestions.
• Recognition of the Commons, as the heritage of everyone on earth
• Strengthen multilateral treaties such as the Kyoto Protocols. By the way, I don’t agree with the authors about global governance of the environment, because I am not sure how democratic this governance would be
• Install more public trust models to ensure ecological integrity. For example, wide swaths of wilderness in the US are kept by the state on behalf of the public.
• Implementing subsidiarity, which means favoring local production whenever a choice exists. Local commons should be the property of the local community. Includes protectionism of local domestic economies. For example, preventing a Walmart from undercutting local merchants, and encouraging small scale local organic agriculture and energy infrastructures.
• Ground capital and investment in the community. Profits made locally should remain local.
• Introduction of new taxes, such as the “Tobin Tax” on speculative financial transactions and ending corporate tax relief.
• Re-introduction of exchange controls, reregulation of banks and finance institutions. Increase capital gains tax and limit tax evasion tactics.
My view: This book is long on proposals for alternatives but these are never presented in great detail. Implicit in many of the proposals is advocacy for a form of political decentralization. But how does that work in real life? I felt that an imagined case study was needed. The authors could have imagined Anytown, USA, adopting the principles of the commons. Questions of how federal, state and local government might interact, could be answered hypothetically. The best part of the book describes successful alternative policies and systems already in use in communities around the world today.
JOHN CAVANAGH AND JERRY MANDER, EDS, 2004
The battle over the spread of global corporate control in the last two decades is ongoing. The 2008 global economic crisis seems to ‘prove’ that the bankers and corporate leaders are headed in the wrong direction: millions of unemployed, widespread pollution, and the sort of protests we saw in early 2011, in Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia.
The authors critique comparative advantage theory. “Under comparative advantage concepts, the viability of economic systems depends entirely upon whether the importing community can pay for its imports with the earned income of its exports…in practice, this neat formula rarely works. Export markets are variable, volatile, and unreliable. More than one nation is now facing a hunger crisis caused by the failure of comparative advantage theories, as export prices crash” (p 162).
What are some alternatives? Cavanagh and Mander suggest that natural resources belong to all us and to future generations, and should go under the heading of the ‘commons’.
The commons, the authors say, include earthly resources, the oceans, outer space, the moon, asteroids, as well as cultural resources, electronic broadcast waves, the internet, and the genes of human beings, animals and plants. All of this is being placed into private hands (unelected, for the most part).
These are the authors’ suggestions.
• Recognition of the Commons, as the heritage of everyone on earth
• Strengthen multilateral treaties such as the Kyoto Protocols. By the way, I don’t agree with the authors about global governance of the environment, because I am not sure how democratic this governance would be
• Install more public trust models to ensure ecological integrity. For example, wide swaths of wilderness in the US are kept by the state on behalf of the public.
• Implementing subsidiarity, which means favoring local production whenever a choice exists. Local commons should be the property of the local community. Includes protectionism of local domestic economies. For example, preventing a Walmart from undercutting local merchants, and encouraging small scale local organic agriculture and energy infrastructures.
• Ground capital and investment in the community. Profits made locally should remain local.
• Introduction of new taxes, such as the “Tobin Tax” on speculative financial transactions and ending corporate tax relief.
• Re-introduction of exchange controls, reregulation of banks and finance institutions. Increase capital gains tax and limit tax evasion tactics.
My view: This book is long on proposals for alternatives but these are never presented in great detail. Implicit in many of the proposals is advocacy for a form of political decentralization. But how does that work in real life? I felt that an imagined case study was needed. The authors could have imagined Anytown, USA, adopting the principles of the commons. Questions of how federal, state and local government might interact, could be answered hypothetically. The best part of the book describes successful alternative policies and systems already in use in communities around the world today.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2010 and THE LEGATUM PROSPERITY INDEX - IMPROVEMENT OR NOT?
A 2010 Human Development Report by the UN states that overall, life expectancy around the globe has jumped to 70 years in 2010, up from 58 in 1970.
The Human Development Index (HDI) looks at both political and economic status as indicators of development. For example, it looks at gender equality.
The HD Report shows that , in some African countries, life expectancy decreased because of AIDs and wars. Life expectancy decreased in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine. The report blames alcoholism and the stress of shifting to a market economy in the former Soviet Union. Countries that improved the most since 1970 are: China, Oman, Nepal, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Laos, Tunisia, S Korea, Algeria and Morocco. A study of one or more of these countries would be useful. Is some form of strategic trade theory being applied, I wonder?
Developed nations still rank the highest HDI, although the US has gradually been shifting downwards. For example, the US is ranked 37th in gender equality (measured by number of women in Congress, maternal health, etc). 2010 HDI Report is here: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/trends/.
The Legatum Institute's Prosperity Index also doesn't measure prosperity by income or GDP alone. It also considers personal freedoms, safety/security,and entrepreneurship. It has ranked Egypt, scene of this month's uprising against a US-backed military dictatorship, as 89th out of 110 nations. Two countries in the Middle East are in the bottom 10: Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Around the world, millions are suffering. This is from the non profit site World Hunger:
* Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger. 75% of them are children.
* There is enough food to feed every person on earth, yet 17% of us are currently malnourished or starving.
* The problem affects people of every race and on every continent.
* 1,386 people died from Hurricane Katrina, yet 24,000 people die EACH DAY from starvation or malnutrition.
* Even in the richest country in the world, the United States, over 10 million people suffer from hunger.
* More people around the world are dying of starvation than any other time in history.
* Malnutrition, as measured by stunting of growth, affects 32.5 percent of children in developing countries
Source: http://dreamer.me/world-hunger
The Human Development Index (HDI) looks at both political and economic status as indicators of development. For example, it looks at gender equality.
The HD Report shows that , in some African countries, life expectancy decreased because of AIDs and wars. Life expectancy decreased in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine. The report blames alcoholism and the stress of shifting to a market economy in the former Soviet Union. Countries that improved the most since 1970 are: China, Oman, Nepal, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Laos, Tunisia, S Korea, Algeria and Morocco. A study of one or more of these countries would be useful. Is some form of strategic trade theory being applied, I wonder?
Developed nations still rank the highest HDI, although the US has gradually been shifting downwards. For example, the US is ranked 37th in gender equality (measured by number of women in Congress, maternal health, etc). 2010 HDI Report is here: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/trends/.
The Legatum Institute's Prosperity Index also doesn't measure prosperity by income or GDP alone. It also considers personal freedoms, safety/security,and entrepreneurship. It has ranked Egypt, scene of this month's uprising against a US-backed military dictatorship, as 89th out of 110 nations. Two countries in the Middle East are in the bottom 10: Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Around the world, millions are suffering. This is from the non profit site World Hunger:
* Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger. 75% of them are children.
* There is enough food to feed every person on earth, yet 17% of us are currently malnourished or starving.
* The problem affects people of every race and on every continent.
* 1,386 people died from Hurricane Katrina, yet 24,000 people die EACH DAY from starvation or malnutrition.
* Even in the richest country in the world, the United States, over 10 million people suffer from hunger.
* More people around the world are dying of starvation than any other time in history.
* Malnutrition, as measured by stunting of growth, affects 32.5 percent of children in developing countries
Source: http://dreamer.me/world-hunger
Friday, December 3, 2010
MARX - THE 'SECRET' OF SURPLUS VALUE
KARL MARX AND CAPITAL VOLUME 1
Good theory is theory that is proven to be correct in its predictions for future phenomena. Karl Marx’ DAS CAPITAL (1867) discovered the long term laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production. Here is what Karl Marx predicted in the 19th century, which has come true in the 20th and 21st century:
• Stepped up technological progress
• Accelerated increase in the productivity and intensity of labor
• Spread of capitalism through every part of the world
• Growing concentration and centralization of capital
• Transformation of the great majority of economically active people into sellers of labor power
• Declining rate of profit
• Increased rate of surplus value
• Periodically recurrent recessions
• Inevitable class struggle between Capital and Labor
• Increasingly revolutionary attempts to overthrow capitalism
(list taken from Ernest Mandel's Introduction to Capital, Vol 1, London: Penguin Classic, 1990).
While many said that Marxism had died an ignominious death after the fall of the USSR in 1992, in fact, there has been a resurgence of socialist ideals in Latin American governments today. Developing countries in most recent years, are rejecting the ideals of privatization and unfettered capitalism, because of resultant high poverty rates. Instead, countries like India are contemplating the need for more welfare state programs. Russia has returned to many of its socialist programs, after a failed experiment in complete privatization. The world may be turning towards a ‘mixed economy’, in which entrepreneurship and socialist policies share the same stage.
DAS CAPITAL Vol 1, AN OUTLINE
Most mainstream economists focus on the circulation of money. Marx starts by examining ‘the commodity’ as an elementary form of capitalist wealth. For Marx, commodity production is the basic and fundamental feature of capitalism. Everything becomes a commodity. Labor power itself is a commodity under capitalism. Capitalism is the pursuit of capital or wealth, using privately owned means of production.
Marx exposes the dual nature of the commodity, its use-value and exchange-value. He tells us that all forms of production hinge on human energy and material obtained from nature. In pre-capitalist societies, items are produced primarily for their use-value. In capitalism, they are produced primarily for their exchange value and ability to yield a profit. Thus an item must be sold at more than it cost. Marx calls this difference - between the cost and sale price of a commodity - ‘surplus value’. This surplus value is derived from labor power, i.e. the more a worker can produce, the more a capitalist can sell. The capitalist must maximize the amount of surplus value from the labor power of the worker. Volume 1 of Capital centers around this ‘secret’ of surplus value. Labor power produces new exchange value larger than the costs of labor power . This is surplus value. As a result, the capitalist must keep wages at the lowest possible minimum. Today, in the US , if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be set at $20 per hour, not $7.00 approx.
Good theory is theory that is proven to be correct in its predictions for future phenomena. Karl Marx’ DAS CAPITAL (1867) discovered the long term laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production. Here is what Karl Marx predicted in the 19th century, which has come true in the 20th and 21st century:
• Stepped up technological progress
• Accelerated increase in the productivity and intensity of labor
• Spread of capitalism through every part of the world
• Growing concentration and centralization of capital
• Transformation of the great majority of economically active people into sellers of labor power
• Declining rate of profit
• Increased rate of surplus value
• Periodically recurrent recessions
• Inevitable class struggle between Capital and Labor
• Increasingly revolutionary attempts to overthrow capitalism
(list taken from Ernest Mandel's Introduction to Capital, Vol 1, London: Penguin Classic, 1990).
While many said that Marxism had died an ignominious death after the fall of the USSR in 1992, in fact, there has been a resurgence of socialist ideals in Latin American governments today. Developing countries in most recent years, are rejecting the ideals of privatization and unfettered capitalism, because of resultant high poverty rates. Instead, countries like India are contemplating the need for more welfare state programs. Russia has returned to many of its socialist programs, after a failed experiment in complete privatization. The world may be turning towards a ‘mixed economy’, in which entrepreneurship and socialist policies share the same stage.
DAS CAPITAL Vol 1, AN OUTLINE
Most mainstream economists focus on the circulation of money. Marx starts by examining ‘the commodity’ as an elementary form of capitalist wealth. For Marx, commodity production is the basic and fundamental feature of capitalism. Everything becomes a commodity. Labor power itself is a commodity under capitalism. Capitalism is the pursuit of capital or wealth, using privately owned means of production.
Marx exposes the dual nature of the commodity, its use-value and exchange-value. He tells us that all forms of production hinge on human energy and material obtained from nature. In pre-capitalist societies, items are produced primarily for their use-value. In capitalism, they are produced primarily for their exchange value and ability to yield a profit. Thus an item must be sold at more than it cost. Marx calls this difference - between the cost and sale price of a commodity - ‘surplus value’. This surplus value is derived from labor power, i.e. the more a worker can produce, the more a capitalist can sell. The capitalist must maximize the amount of surplus value from the labor power of the worker. Volume 1 of Capital centers around this ‘secret’ of surplus value. Labor power produces new exchange value larger than the costs of labor power . This is surplus value. As a result, the capitalist must keep wages at the lowest possible minimum. Today, in the US , if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be set at $20 per hour, not $7.00 approx.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
WHAT IS THE 'MIDDLE EAST'?
WHAT COUNTRIES ARE SAID TO BELONG TO THE ‘MIDDLE EAST’?
There is some disagreement about which countries belong to the Middle East. Naming countries and regions is a political act, subject to controversy and dispute. So for example, the Scottish people don’t in general, adhere to the concept of the “United Kingdom”, because that infers the non-independence of Scotland. Persia is deemed to be a colonial term, and therefore this country was named Iran after the 1979 Iranian revolution. Most of the Middle East was carved into countries in the European style, after the World War I conquest of the Ottoman Empire by England, France and Russia.
For the purposes of my classes, the Middle East is composed of the following countries:
• Bahrain
• Iraq
• Iran (named as such since the Islamic revolution of 1979. It used to be called Persia)
• Israel
• Jordan
• Kuwait
• Lebanon
• Oman
• Palestinian Territories (there has never been a state called Palestine)
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia
• Syria
• United Arab Emirates
• Yemen
• Egypt.
• The Arabian Gulf. This stretch of sea used to be called the Persian Gulf, which is deemed now to be a colonial term used by Europeans.
(Of ten, Egypt and Yemen are said to be part of Africa, but it is quite common to refer to Egypt for example, as a country in the Middle East.)
The Middle East is home to numerous ethnic groups, including Arabs, Turks, Persians, Jews, Kurds, Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs, Armenians, Azeris, Circassians, Greeks and Georgians.
The two principle Islamic denominations in the Middle East are the Shia and the Sunni. The split arose after Muhammed’s death over the issue of his descendants and therefore, who should properly lead the Islamic faith. The Sunni are more secular, and believe in the split between faith and politics. The Shia (principle country, Iran) believe that the state and religious leadership should be intertwined.
HOW DID THE ‘MIDDLE EAST’ GET NAMED?
It's a relatively modern term, popularized by Alfred Mahan in early 1900s, an American imperialist.
“Writing for London's National Review [in 1902], Mahan used the new term in calling for the British to strengthen their naval power in the Persian Gulf.
'As scholar Roderic Davison explains, Mahan’s Middle East "was an indeterminate area guarding a part of the sea route from Suez to Singapore.’ The new coinage played off the terms Near East and Far East,"already in use. “
Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations, http://www.unc.edu/mideast/where/mahan-1902.shtml
There is some disagreement about which countries belong to the Middle East. Naming countries and regions is a political act, subject to controversy and dispute. So for example, the Scottish people don’t in general, adhere to the concept of the “United Kingdom”, because that infers the non-independence of Scotland. Persia is deemed to be a colonial term, and therefore this country was named Iran after the 1979 Iranian revolution. Most of the Middle East was carved into countries in the European style, after the World War I conquest of the Ottoman Empire by England, France and Russia.
For the purposes of my classes, the Middle East is composed of the following countries:
• Bahrain
• Iraq
• Iran (named as such since the Islamic revolution of 1979. It used to be called Persia)
• Israel
• Jordan
• Kuwait
• Lebanon
• Oman
• Palestinian Territories (there has never been a state called Palestine)
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia
• Syria
• United Arab Emirates
• Yemen
• Egypt.
• The Arabian Gulf. This stretch of sea used to be called the Persian Gulf, which is deemed now to be a colonial term used by Europeans.
(Of ten, Egypt and Yemen are said to be part of Africa, but it is quite common to refer to Egypt for example, as a country in the Middle East.)
The Middle East is home to numerous ethnic groups, including Arabs, Turks, Persians, Jews, Kurds, Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriacs, Armenians, Azeris, Circassians, Greeks and Georgians.
The two principle Islamic denominations in the Middle East are the Shia and the Sunni. The split arose after Muhammed’s death over the issue of his descendants and therefore, who should properly lead the Islamic faith. The Sunni are more secular, and believe in the split between faith and politics. The Shia (principle country, Iran) believe that the state and religious leadership should be intertwined.
HOW DID THE ‘MIDDLE EAST’ GET NAMED?
It's a relatively modern term, popularized by Alfred Mahan in early 1900s, an American imperialist.
“Writing for London's National Review [in 1902], Mahan used the new term in calling for the British to strengthen their naval power in the Persian Gulf.
'As scholar Roderic Davison explains, Mahan’s Middle East "was an indeterminate area guarding a part of the sea route from Suez to Singapore.’ The new coinage played off the terms Near East and Far East,"already in use. “
Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations, http://www.unc.edu/mideast/where/mahan-1902.shtml
Monday, September 27, 2010
Pan Islamic Movements and Self Determination, South Asia
Would you characterize a pan Islamic, Taliban-like militant group such as the Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)Movement of Holy Warriors in Kashmir. as a movement towards 'self determination' and 'independence' ? Kashmir, northwest of India, has been partitioned between India and Pakistan since 1948. It is 70% Muslim. Chadda (2000) says Kashmir is divided about its allegiance, or even if it wants to govern as an integral territory: “THE KASHMIRIS THEMSELVES ARE DIVIDED ABOUT THE STATUS OF KASHMIR AND THE KIN OF RULE THEY WOULD PREFER” (Chadda, 2000, p 204) yet fundamentalist groups want to take over Kashmir entirely, and place Pakistan and Afghanistan under Sharia law.
In my INTL 5665 Fall 2010 class, I asked student Carolyn to comment. She wrote that “I concur with your contention that it would be both inappropriate and erroneous to characterize HUM as a movement towards 'self-determination' and 'independence'." She then discusses what might be characterized as a political group promoting independence. "The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JFLK) of the greater Kashmir polity proceeds from a predominantly secular stance purporting to embrace all religions in its quest for self-determination. In contrast, HUM religious ideology strives to disseminate ... political Islam across the Line of Control not only Kashmir's secession from India and accession to Pakistan."
She compared HUM to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam LTTE which "(like the JFLK) represent a legitimate drive for self-determination in response to the pogroms carried out by the Sinhalese government. Karen Parker noted that the Tamils demonstrated all five elements essential for self-determination… [Karen Parker is an international human rights lawyer who represents the LTTE at the UN. The LTTE, defeated in 2009, is often cited as the first modern group to use suicide bombing tactics, PW].
Carolyn wrote that "HUM’s drive is towards Kashmiri unification with Pakistan and the global jihad, rather than the establishment of an autonomous state.
HUM appears to an uncanny ability to strike at the Achilles heel of the Kashmir separatist movement, gaining a foothold from which to propagate its militant Islamic agenda. Pakistan has shown a marked incongruity in its purported efforts against terrorists. Pakistan’s ambidextrous policies are typified by its “clampdown on extremist groups and freezing of terrorist assets” (global security.org) on one hand, and the training of jihadists (by the ISI arm of its military).
I believe there is a growing international consensus that there is indeed a strong element of state sponsorship."
In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "chastised Pakistan for not making enough effort to seize senior al-Qaeda leaders who she said were hiding in the lawless tribal region bordering Afghanistan" (Hussein, 2009). The UK Prime Minister David Cameron has accused the Pakistani government of exporting terror (Watt, 2009).
Another student pinpoints the aspirations of the Kashmiri pan- Islamists: “ In a 2000 article for the World Affairs journal, Kashmiri academic Riyaz Punjabi summarized the view of the Indian government with regard to the insurgency. He concluded that ‘Kashmir’s cultural identity is threatened by pan-Islamists seeking to create a modern-day caliphate stretching from Kashmir to Central Asia….Punjabi says the character of Kashmiri militancy has changed over the years from homegrown non-sectarian nationalism to foreign pan-Islamism…’”
It is noted that Kashmiris have a long-standing affiliation with Sufi mysticism, a more esoteric and peaceful branch of Islam.
REFERENCES: • Chadda, Maya, Building Democracy in South Asia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Boulder, Co: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc, 2000.
Hussein, Zaid, "Hillary Clinton says Pakistan does not really want to stop al-Qaeda" Sunday Times (UK), October 31, 2009,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6896956.ece
Watt, Nicolas. "Pakistan Must Not Be Allowed to Promote Export of Terror, Says David Cameron | World News | Guardian.co.uk." Latest News, Comment and Reviews from the Guardian | Guardian.co.uk. Guardian.co.uk, 28 July 2010. Web. 24 Sept. 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/28/pakistan-promote-terror-david-cameron
In my INTL 5665 Fall 2010 class, I asked student Carolyn to comment. She wrote that “I concur with your contention that it would be both inappropriate and erroneous to characterize HUM as a movement towards 'self-determination' and 'independence'." She then discusses what might be characterized as a political group promoting independence. "The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JFLK) of the greater Kashmir polity proceeds from a predominantly secular stance purporting to embrace all religions in its quest for self-determination. In contrast, HUM religious ideology strives to disseminate ... political Islam across the Line of Control not only Kashmir's secession from India and accession to Pakistan."
She compared HUM to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam LTTE which "(like the JFLK) represent a legitimate drive for self-determination in response to the pogroms carried out by the Sinhalese government. Karen Parker noted that the Tamils demonstrated all five elements essential for self-determination… [Karen Parker is an international human rights lawyer who represents the LTTE at the UN. The LTTE, defeated in 2009, is often cited as the first modern group to use suicide bombing tactics, PW].
Carolyn wrote that "HUM’s drive is towards Kashmiri unification with Pakistan and the global jihad, rather than the establishment of an autonomous state.
HUM appears to an uncanny ability to strike at the Achilles heel of the Kashmir separatist movement, gaining a foothold from which to propagate its militant Islamic agenda. Pakistan has shown a marked incongruity in its purported efforts against terrorists. Pakistan’s ambidextrous policies are typified by its “clampdown on extremist groups and freezing of terrorist assets” (global security.org) on one hand, and the training of jihadists (by the ISI arm of its military).
I believe there is a growing international consensus that there is indeed a strong element of state sponsorship."
In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "chastised Pakistan for not making enough effort to seize senior al-Qaeda leaders who she said were hiding in the lawless tribal region bordering Afghanistan" (Hussein, 2009). The UK Prime Minister David Cameron has accused the Pakistani government of exporting terror (Watt, 2009).
Another student pinpoints the aspirations of the Kashmiri pan- Islamists: “ In a 2000 article for the World Affairs journal, Kashmiri academic Riyaz Punjabi summarized the view of the Indian government with regard to the insurgency. He concluded that ‘Kashmir’s cultural identity is threatened by pan-Islamists seeking to create a modern-day caliphate stretching from Kashmir to Central Asia….Punjabi says the character of Kashmiri militancy has changed over the years from homegrown non-sectarian nationalism to foreign pan-Islamism…’”
It is noted that Kashmiris have a long-standing affiliation with Sufi mysticism, a more esoteric and peaceful branch of Islam.
REFERENCES: • Chadda, Maya, Building Democracy in South Asia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Boulder, Co: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc, 2000.
Hussein, Zaid, "Hillary Clinton says Pakistan does not really want to stop al-Qaeda" Sunday Times (UK), October 31, 2009,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6896956.ece
Watt, Nicolas. "Pakistan Must Not Be Allowed to Promote Export of Terror, Says David Cameron | World News | Guardian.co.uk." Latest News, Comment and Reviews from the Guardian | Guardian.co.uk. Guardian.co.uk, 28 July 2010. Web. 24 Sept. 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/28/pakistan-promote-terror-david-cameron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)