The Arab World Takes a Hard Look at Itself

Adam Smith · July 17, 2002, 10:39

Earlier this month, the U.N. Development Program issued its first comprehensive report on political, social and economic conditions in the 22 countries that make up the Arab League. The "Arab Human Development Report 2002" is notable for its frankness, all the more because it was written by (in the report's words) "a group of distinguished Arab intellectuals."

Tthe report's sponsor is the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development. The fund's members are the League nations: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.More than 280 million people live in these countries, 5 percent of the world's population.

Exerpts from the report include the folllowing:

Quote:

The wave of democracy that transformed governance in most of Latin America and East Asia in the 1980s, and Eastern Europe and much of Central Asia in the late 1980s and early 1990s, has barely reached the Arab States. ... While de jure acceptance of democracy and human rights is enshrined in constitutions, legal codes and government pronouncements, de facto implementation is often neglected and, in some cases, deliberately disregarded.

Quote:

Women's literacy rates have expanded threefold since 1970; female primary and secondary enrollment rates have more than doubled. However ... more than half of Arab women are still illiterate. The region's maternal mortality rate is double that of Latin America and the Caribbean, and four times that of East Asia.

Quote:

The utilization of Arab women's capabilities through political and economic participation remains the lowest in the world in quantitative terms

Quote:

About 65 million adult Arabs are illiterate, two-thirds of them women. Illiteracy rates are much higher than in much poorer countries. ... Ten million children between 6 and 15 years of age are currently out of school; if current trends persist, this number will increase by 40 per cent by 2015.

Quote:

Arab countries' access to and use of cutting-edge technology, exemplified by information and communication technology, is very limited. Only 0.6 percent of the population uses the Internet and the personal computer penetration rate is only 1.2 per cent. More generally, investment in research and development does not exceed 0.5 per cent of gross national product, well below the world average.

Quote:

Political participation in Arab countries remains weak, as manifested in the lack of genuine representative democracy and restrictions on liberties. At the same time, people's aspirations for more freedom and greater participation in decision-making have grown, fueled by rising incomes, education, and information flows.

In light of these issues, as assessed by the Arabs themselves, is it reasonable to expect that a policy of political liberalization and economic development will succees any time soon, say in the next 10-20 years? Is 10-20 years soon enough? If liberalization ansd development does succeed, will it reduce or prevent terrorism, or are we just pushing a rope? If not, what, if anything, should be done?

The entire UN report can be found HERE
Further exerpts from the report can be found HERE

Urban Ranger · July 17, 2002, 10:51

AS,

Not to jack the thread, but democracy and economic development has never been obstacles to US state-sponsored terrorism.

drake · July 17, 2002, 10:51

As with most problems, people needn't point fingers or try to blame others for their hardships.......they simply need look at a mirror for the answer.

Lefty Scaevola · July 17, 2002, 10:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not to jack the thread,

liar

Kropotkin · July 17, 2002, 11:06

UR: "The US state terror" has hardly been the result of private initiatives but part of the interest of the goverments and is thus hardly comparable with terrorist groups from arab states.

As for the issue at hand: economic and, probably more importantly, democratic development would likely effect the number of people prone to terrorism. These kinds of development in other parts of the world have often correlated with the strengh of extermist forces.

Q Classic · July 17, 2002, 11:09

at least their intellectuals understand this.

how's this going to change the mindset of john q. average (adjust appropriately for ethnicity)? not very much, i'm afraid, not for a while.

ivory tower intellectuals writing about very real problems, but unable or unwilling to obtain political influence to actually make an attempt at applying theories to reality.

Kropotkin · July 17, 2002, 11:17

Who cares about reality anyway I want a Ivory tower for my glass bead games!

Jac de Molay · July 17, 2002, 11:18

Quote:

As with most problems, people needn't point fingers or try to blame others for their hardships.......they simply need look at a mirror for the answer.

I'm not so sure. The fact that the West has treated the region as little more than a big, dumb, oil depot for the past 30 years, IMHO, has contributed greatly to the current situation. We've been more than willing to turn a blind eye as long as the oil flowed, and Israel was unfettered.

Dave

DaShi · July 17, 2002, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave

I'm not so sure. The fact that the West has treated the region as little more than a big, dumb, oil depot for the past 30 years, IMHO, has contributed greatly to the current situation. We've been more than willing to turn a blind eye as long as the oil flowed, and Israel was unfettered.

Dave

So we were supposed to civilize them. How did Britain miss that area?

DinoDoc · July 17, 2002, 11:23

Quote:

Originally posted by DaShi
So we were supposed to civilize them.

It's the white man's burden.

Chris 62 · July 17, 2002, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
AS,

Not to jack the thread, but democracy and economic development has never been obstacles to US state-sponsored terrorism.

Why do you write this stuff?

If you believe it, your not to swift on the uptake.

It's up to them to effect change, nobody can do it for them.

Jac de Molay · July 17, 2002, 11:29

Quote:

So we were supposed to civilize them. How did Britain miss that area?

My post didn't say that. I was referring to the fact that human rights abuses, illiteracy, and the like were caused by a sense of isolation that has grown between the Arab world, and other regions. This was the negative consequence of letting sleeping dogs lie
Dave

DanS · July 17, 2002, 11:59

"We've been more than willing to turn a blind eye as long as the oil flowed, and Israel was unfettered."

I would suggest that Israel has very little to do with it, one way or another. Consider that the Palestinians are some of the best educated Arabs. For instance, Jordan (which includes a majority of Palestinians) has a much higher literacy rate than Saudi Arabia.

The oil is another matter. I'm reserving judgment.

Chris 62 · July 17, 2002, 12:01

How welcome would be a US "intiative" on women's rights and education be in the Muslim world?

chequita guevara · July 17, 2002, 12:08

The imperial powers do have some part to play. For example, in 1963, the CIA handed Saddam Hussein a list of 5,000 suspected leftists and democrats. The US overthrew the democratic Iranian government in 1953. Little things like that have helped keep the ME in the hands of corrupt tyrants who cared for little more than getting rich off of rents from the imperialists' oil companies.

The danger of democracy in the region is that oil companies could be nationalized (as happened briefly in Iran, before the US put the Shah back in power). Even countries without oil could not be allowed to become democratic, because of the "bad example" they would set for others.

But the Arabs have more or less been content to let things remain in that state. The Algerians fought for years to overthrow the French, but rolled over when the military overthrew their socialist republic.

edit: fixing typos and layout

Chris 62 · July 17, 2002, 12:09

Broke out the X-files again, eh?

Q Classic · July 17, 2002, 12:13

very welcome. we can see how well it worked in saudi arabia, and how the people accepted it so well.

of course, we didn't really do it to them, just to our people. "sensitivity" training or what not.

Kropotkin · July 17, 2002, 12:14

Just 'cause you don't like some information doesn't necissarly mean it's not true...

chequita guevara · July 17, 2002, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Broke out the X-files again, eh?

What X-Files? This is all part of the public record.

Arrian · July 17, 2002, 12:16

The "West" has definitely had an effect. Britain and France ruled areas of the ME and then divided it up into countries (or was that the UN who decided the borders). The US was clearly involved in Iran and Iraq at various stages (though I think Che exaggerates for effect the extent of our control).

Still, it's up to the Arabs themselves to solve their own problems, most of which have nothing to do with the West, or any other part of the world. Just like it's up to us to deal with our ****.

-Arrian

Shi Huangdi · July 17, 2002, 12:21

Great Britain definitley had a role in putting up these autocrats. Still blaming the west doesn't really work- Latin America had the USA supporting several dictatorships there, and they ended up turning democratic. Eastern Europe had the Soviets propping up brutal regimes, and they won their freedom. The Arabs have failed to put up serious democratic resistance to their rulers so far, and what is scary is that much of the youth instead of wanting more democracy want hard-line Islamic governments instead.

"The US overthrew the democraitc Iranian government in 1953"

Psssst....... Che, this thread is about the Arab world. Iran isn't an arabs state.

chequita guevara · July 17, 2002, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
(though I think Che exaggerates for effect the extent of our control).

Not so much control as simply a force. The fact that Hussein was given those names (most of whom ended up dead) didn't guarantee that a rightest dictatorship would take control of Iraq, but it certainly pushed things in the direction.

Iran was most definately a case of US control, though, as US forces (under the command of Stormin' Norman's father) landed in Iran and reinstalled the Shah.

edit: Re BD's comment:

Uhm, well, Iran has Arabs in it, yeah, that's the ticket.

Imran Siddiqui · July 17, 2002, 12:23

Chris: che is for the most part correct. I'm sorry if that contrasts with your US = always good, Arabs = always bad rhetoric.

Roland · July 17, 2002, 12:26

If you look at outside meddling, then latin america and SE asia had a lot of that too, but most countries still managed to get to various stages of development higher than most arab countries.

It also varies a lot for countries - how many foreign interventions have there been in Tunisia post 1956 ? All I know is an Israeli air attack.

Chris 62 · July 17, 2002, 12:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Chris: che is for the most part correct. I'm sorry if that contrasts with your US = always good, Arabs = always bad rhetoric.

Uh Imran, I have no such "rhetoric'.

You seem to have a ME one though.

As soon as you say "the CIA..."
Your talking through your backside, because it's all specualtion.
And don't bother trying to tell me how many people try to confirm it, all CIA records are sealed and you know it.

Arrian · July 17, 2002, 12:30

Roland's got a point there. Just about every area of the world has experienced some form of outside intervention at some point in time. There's a lot more here than evil, greedy Westerners keeping the Arabs down.

-Arrian

Sprayber · July 17, 2002, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The imperial powers do have some part to play. For example, in 1963, the CIA handed Saddam Hussein a list of 5,000 suspected leftists and democrats. The US overthrew the democratic Iranian government in 1953. Little things like that have helped keep the ME in the hands of corrupt tyrants who cared for little more than getting rich off of rents from the imperialists' oil companies.

The danger of democracy in the region is that oil companies could be nationalized (as happened briefly in Iran, before the US put the Shah back in power). Even countries without oil could not be allowed to become democratic, because of the "bad example" they would set for others.

But the Arabs have more or less been content to let things remain in that state. The Algerians fought for years to overthrow the French, but rolled over when the military overthrew their socialist republic.

edit: fixing typos and layout

Do you not hold them responsible for anything che? Are they that small and powerless that they cannot take credit for their own **** ups? In that case che, it's not America's fault at all. It's the Brits. It was their imperialistic meddling that caused all the evil things the US has done in it's history.

I wonder who the Brits can blame? Maybe the Normans. Or maybe the Danes who meddled in their affairs. That's it, the human rights abuses in the Mid East is a direct result of Viking interference in native Celtic affairs long long ago.

Kropotkin · July 17, 2002, 12:37

To be frank he said that they played some part. That's harldy the same as blaiming everything on western influence. In fact, saying that something happened is not the same to as saying that this played a important role later on. That's something the reader puts in the others mouth.

Sprayber · July 17, 2002, 12:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
To be frank he said that they played some part. That's harldy the same as blaiming everything on western influence. In fact, saying that something happened is not the same to as saying that this played a important role later on. That's something the reader puts in the others mouth.

I never pictured you as a Frank. More like a Karl or Gustav.

Anyway, I still like my Viking theory.

CyberGnu · July 17, 2002, 12:48

well, eastern Vikings traded with Byzantium, and the revenue from that trade mighe prolongued the fall of constantiople with up to 30 minutes. This in turn could have ramifications for the rest of arab history. Makes sense to me. Blame Kroppie! (Oh, and I'm from the part of Sweden whose vikings went west. I'm innocent).