A case of selectivity

Submitted by Bader S (Saudi Arabia), Feb 15, 2006 at 08:19

The last sentence of the concluding paragraph of the chapter titled "Islam: A Threat to World Stability" is the key to the entire argument of whether it is the Moslem states that actually represent a potential threat to world peace or whether it was and still remains, in fact, Western policies that are the precursors to world instability.

" There cannot be permanent world stability, when one-seventh of the earth's population exists under the economic and political conditions that are imposed upon the Moslems." The question that this last sentence leads one to ask is, who has imposed these conditions "upon the Moslems"?

The answer to this question lies within the analysis itself. It is the "great and near-great Powers" that "cover the economic riches of the Moslem area" imposing their domination on the Moslem states, while exploiting the local resources. It is these same Powers that buy the leaders of the Moslem states and keep them within their "sphere of influence". These so-called leaders eventually turn into dictators and autocrats who, with the consent and support of the Powers, end up oppressing and robbing their own peoples. The result of this duplicity between the Powers and their puppets is an environment of frustration, distrust, poverty, and, eventually, extremism.

The threat to world peace will come when these Muslim masses try "to regain political independence and to reap the profits of their own resources, which in recent times and up to the present have been surrendered to the exploitation of foreigners who could provide capital investments." But that world peace is in fact the peace of the Powers only, because these Powers know that they will have to enter into a conflict with the Moslem masses in order to maintain their domination and exploitation of the Moslem states. Independence from imperialist colonizers and military occupiers has hardly ever been peaceful, but let us not blame the victims for disturbing the peace.

Such was the situation back in 1946 as clearly described by the study before us. What is surprising is that the U.S. government of the time and subsequent U.S. governments perpetuated this situation.

It was only after that shock of 9/11 that the sitting government of the U.S. realized that, "For 60 years Western governments excused and accommodated the lack of freedom out of a misguided belief that this was the best way to ensure stability. But it was precisely the lack of democracy, the lack of economic opportunity and development or respect for personal freedoms which are causing, I think, the discontent to grow in the region" (Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Alina Romanowski). Romanowski adds "I think for us in the United States, September 11 was that brutal wake-up call and a stark lesson that our policies that we pursued in the past were based on an illusion." (See http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Apr/15-506226.html)

So it is not the "Moslem states that represent a potential threat to world peace", but the policies of the Western Powers towards those states that will ignite the conflict and lead to instability. And bear in mind that instability will be more prevalent in the Moslem parts of the world than in the Western world.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".