Structured response 2

Paul Ropp

                                                Structured response #2

After yesterday’s class I don’t believe that Civil Society can be relegated to a singular definition; every person can base it on his/her own perspectives. But to me Civil Society is the non-government, non-business, and non-violent sector of the society that works to further the will and standard of living of the people without causing sectarian riffs. Civil society can affect the political spectrum of government in two ways through social cohesion, and through advocacy of the peoples will.

                When a group of society is no longer living on the fringe and is standing in solidarity with one another the role of an authoritarian regime becomes more complex, and harder to achieve. The government may easily be able to manipulate sects of a society, but when a whole country comes together the will of the masses may, and tends to overwhelm the will of the authoritarian regime; as seen in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. Bellin’s argument pointed out that the Regime must have the will and the power to remain in control of a territory; power over the people, power to control and manipulate society for the regimes purposes; will to remain in power. Now in the case of Palestine Israel has both the will and power to remain in control, however, as Palestinian civil society grows like it has for the past decade Israel will be dealing with the affront of not only a united people, but a united civil society.

                The Advocacy of the Palestinian people takes up 31% of NGO’s focus activity while social cohesion only takes up only 26% of the budget. So what is about advocacy that is more important than social cohesion? Isn’t a slow progress to democracy the better path, a path of civil unity bringing up the advocacy of a majority group a more effective path? It seems a bit counterproductive, a bit premature to start the advocacy of what you would like to happen with Palestine before the people as a whole are unified in one peaceful direction, although in the case of Palestine and Israel, Israel seems to both have the will and power to ensure that any civil society movements in Palestine are to be blocked by shows of force and political manipulation on a grand scale.

                The Palestinian case shows the one major problem that is prevalent in most MENA region countries; a government that is willing and has the power to subdue any sort of civil society that has any chance of subduing the regimes power; the State will protect itself at all costs even if the cost are citizens or displaced Palestinians. Moreover the State run economies have much more longevity which in cases of revolutions or the composing of a civil society on the other half has destructive consequences.

When a nation controls the way to make a living, the people who are trying to compose an uprising against the government can be put down simply by taking away the means of living. On a more positive note I feel that despite all the challenges facing Civil Society in the MENA region that slow and steady progress to democratization will trump most attempts to quell it by the regimes of the region. 

Structured Response #2

Magda Borgarelli

The term civil society is rather relative and broad.  Depending on the situation and the place, civil society can mean and encompass a number of things.  Some may consider civil society as composed of people with a purpose, while others might only include “official organizations” who do not aim for power but for change.  In my opinion, civil society is a little bit of both.  The key word is society, which, if we think about it, includes all people and organizations that are part of it.  Civil society then is everything in a society which is outside the government (“civil”) and that promotes change of some sort.

I do believe that civil society can play a very important role in broadening political participation.  A strong civil society pushes people to change what they believe should be different, because it makes them feel part of a movement.  It is rather hard to go against the system as an individual and feel effective.  However, if that is done by a “society”, then the desired result is more likely achieved.  One can see this in the Arab revolts that took place in the past two years.  It would be naïve to think that before then nobody dared to go against the government, even though no tangible results could be seen.  However, as soon as people united and became part of a movement, the “civil society movement”, presidents and dictators were pushed out of power, and elections were held.  Civil society played a great role in all of that.

            However, it is true that civil society in the MENA region faces many challenges, one of them being the funding and the government control.  In Palestine, for example, the stricter Israeli control on the daily life of its citizens somewhat discouraged people to participate in NGOs that advocate change, since the political balance in the country is already fragile.  Because of this, funding to those same organizations has been decreased, inhibiting their growth and their influence.  It seems clear to me then that in order for civil society to be a strong actor in a country, its government must somewhat be stable itself and allow NGOs and their likes to expand.  However, that is not to say that the government must necessarily encourage the activities of its own civil society.  In the end, it is up to the people themselves to create the movements to change what they feel is wrong, just like we have seen in Egypt and Lybia.

Reflection 2 Sean OBrien
This week I was happy to see that a mob Libyan protesters stormed a compound of a group suspected in the US Embassy attacks. It shows that those people do want democracy or at least do not persecution like they had with Gaddafi. The western had pictured the middle east as going to hell in a handbasket and myself included bought into that idea. However just like you said professor, that we needed to wait to get all the facts and that democracy in the Middle East would not change overnight and like most important decisions would have its difficulties. So i guess you were right all along... As well I see that Egypt is progressing quite Nicely and the presidents recent interview lets me rest a little bit easier. I think that the american public as well as the world has calmed down after everything that has happened. Having said that we must not forget those that have died and continue to be on the watchful eye of any group that threatens our interests and our people abroad.

Reflection 2

I've recently had the opportunity to go to a presentation on Russian-Iranian relations and the affect on US policy given by regional expert Mark Katz. While not a major topic of discussion, Syria was often brought up and hearing about the conflict from a different perspective gave me new eye when reading the news this week. Katz discussed how Russia and Iran,  opposing US interference and influence, believe that even if Assad is overthrown, the group that would take over would be Sunni radicals and extremists and that it would not lead to democracy ( he also asserted that Russia would rather stand behind a Assad doomed to fail in defiance of the west that side with the US). Of course, none of the countries in question are free of bias; even in Russia the conflict has become a domestic issue because of the muslim population. Still, this view reminded me of when the US got involved in another conflict only a few countries over. Of course, the US couldn't have known what the Taliban would become, right? Of course these are different circumstances, different countries, different motivations, different people. But the comparison between the two isn't lost on me.

The United Nations has convened it's GA to discuss the conflict in Syria. As predicted, no compromise has been reached. While most nations (including Russia and the US) agree that the violence done by the Syrian government must be condemned, but beyond that the Council and the Assembly cannot find common ground. Russia and China have so far used veto power on three resolutions, a pattern that hasn't been seen since the Cold War. Russia believes that it is not only the government at fault, but the opposition who must be condemned as well. The foreign minister Lavrov called the opposition terrorists, and those who support them proponents of terrorism. Such stalemates and an inability to compromise give little hope to the conflict ending any time soon. It seems to me that the P5 nations are struggling with letting go of their own agendas. In my opinion, all countries should  want the same thing: peace. However, it seems that the countries are forgetting that there is more than one way two end a war. The US seems to believe that the tens of thousands of lives lost in the conflict (30,000 and rising according to most recent reports) are worth it if there is a chance for a fair democracy in the future.  I think that it is inevitable that lives will be lost in such a fight, but when there is an 18 month stalemate, it's not absurd to question the value of continuing the fight. Especially considering that there's no guarantee the next leader will be any better than Assad. However, I do believe that the chance of a better future is worth fighting for, that fighting for your rights and the rights of your children is a noble one and one that should  be at least supported by the international community. Whether the FSA is truly in that fight, I'm not sure anymore. They've certainly considered enough atrocities and war crimes to make me question their motives. Regardless, Assad's time is over. No country can deny that his bloodthirsty dictatorship is excusable. No matter what happens next, Assad has to go. Otherwise there's no hope for the violence to stop.

reflection #2

Paul Ropp

                                                            Reflection #2

            As the week wore on I was getting a bit bereft of the two stagnant conflict driven situations surrounding the prophet Muhammad video, and the deteriorating situation in Iran and Syria. However, as a few days wore on and I got more involved in this week’s topic, civil society,  as information descended from the MENA region to popular media, then to facts. Now when facts started to evolve out of the various Eye-witness reports I became more interested in the subjects at hand; especially in light of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s interview on Pierce Morgan, and the insurgence of violence in Sryia.

            In the interview on Pierce Morgan Tonight Ahmadinejad expressed his reason for saying that “Israel should be wiped off the map”. I found this very interesting, perhaps President Ahmadinejad is using this as a ploy to divert bad attention away from Iran and gain support for Iranian proliferation of nuclear weapons, or perhaps he actually truly cares about the Palestinian people and their right to self-governance.  Whatever President Ahmadinejad’s believes he brought up the topic of civil society as more than just an abstract concept of class into my head. How can someone who’s regime blatantly violates the progress of civil society in Iran show support for a Palestinian civil society; even if it is for some hidden agenda?  In class we have been referencing the Arab Spring more and more as we have broken into civil society and it seems odd that the proliferation of civil society is helpful not only to good governments, but autocratic regimes; that some sort of organization resulting in Palestine as a state would bolster the Iranian government but a revolution on the other side would bolster Western backed democracies; so why not two more Arab Springs? Yes, civil society in the best of circumstances, as we discussed in class, needs time to properly evolve and become a personification of well thought out ideals rather than the emergency valve of popular frustration. Although, this foray into civil society by an autocratic ruler was a bit misbegotten it spurred up a rekindling of interest for me! Does anyone have any ideas thoughts about Ahmadinejad’s statements; did anyone watch the interview and see anything interesting I didn't get to see all of it?

            The resurgence of rebel violence in Syria is also something I found pertained to what happens when the cohesion of society fails to take down a regime peacefully. The Syrian conflict seems to have both bolstered the strength of civil unity, but has also destroyed the lives of the people who have made this revolution happen. So I guess I am a bit confused as to what the cost of civil society in the MENA region is, to the people of the region; must the price of freedom be so high. I would hope that revolutions could be allowed to take place relatively peacefully; however, there is a proclivity to violence which in itself is unstable and cause harm to any social cohesion. In any case I think the discussion we had in class about moderate change, baby steps to democracy, would be a more pragmatic road and benefit all countries far more in the end. If anything last week’s lesson, and our papers on civil society have gotten me really thinking about the subject, is it worth it, can it work in the MENA region, will it always be in another states interest to keep others under the thumb of authoritarianism; or even their own citizens? I would love to go into more detail but sadly I am running out of time and I have some other Homework to attend to, although I would like to say one last parting word, that this week’s reading on civil society in Israel and Palestine has been very enlightening to the subject and it pairs well with a book “From Beirut to Jerusalem” by Thomas Friedman!  

Reflection #2

This week I want to discuss two provocative pieces of "art" if they can be called as such. The first is the cartoon in the French journal Charlie Hebdo depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a very derogatory light and the second is an ad by the American Freedom Defense Initiative implying that the arab nations are savages and Israel the only civilized force in the region.
While I stand entirely behind the First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech, I believe that there should be a conscious effort to try to educate people because these 2 pieces have been put on display at the worst possible time. After the heavily anti-islam film "Innocence of Muslims" produced by a California-based Coptic Christian. These anti-islam productions are simply provoking more hatred and helping to continue a tense situation while we should all strive for an understanding of the situation on both sides and try to simply diffuse this situation.
It angers me that people such as the cartoonist from Charlie Hebdo would misuse his freedom of speech so badly that it caused the French government to up the security at embassies in over 20 countries. By publishing his cartoon the cartoonist endangered the security of the personnel of the embassies in all those 20 countries and therefore by putting the personnel in danger he could should be able to face restrictions or at least sanctions due to this.
This is all about Social Consciousness: do individuals in society have a duty to beware of what they say and do or are they allowed to say and do what they please?
In my view the individuals of society should consider freedom of speech as a privilege and not a birth given right and therefore should exercise caution when using that privilege. By doing what they have done Charlie Hebdo and the American Freedom Defense Initiative have tended the fires of an otherwise extremely tense situation and therefore are delaying the cool-down process which should have been well on its way at the moment.

Reflection #2

Magda Borgarelli

What caught my attention the most this week, was the controversy over the ad published by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The ad reads “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad”.  I do understand that freedom of speech is something that should be respected at all times, especially if a country is to call itself democratic.  However, looking at the unrest in part unleashed by the video that was released last week, I ask myself if an ideal is truly more important than innocent lives.  Though this ad will probably not “cause” nearly as many problems as the video, regardless of what one’s position might be on the issue, is this really the best time to post it on public display?  Does the US truly need more extremist action here to fuel more fundamentalist acts there?  I believe not.  I do respect and strongly believe in freedom of speech, but not when it is directed to purposely provoke unrest in places where the situations is already dangerous as it is.  Your rights end when the rights of another begin, and by posting an ad like this one, the AFDI is screaming fire in a crowded theater, which is not protected by the first amendment.  I can only say that I disrespectfully disagree with the decision that was taken, and hope that one day, we, as a nation of so many different cultures and opinions, will respect each other enough to “stop the hate and start the love”.  

Reflection 1

How much power can something seemingly insignificant have? Had americans seen the video before the riots in Libya and  Egypt , their reaction would most likely had been little more than some disgust for the makers, and even humor from some misguided people. However now that they know what such ignorance and cruelty has incited, Americans are filled with a great sorrow and rush of furiousness at the video. Only AFTER the video caused riots were Americans able to see how hateful and callous and affective the bashing of the Prophet Mohammed was. The video easily could have been used as an act of war. After the riots in Libya ended in the deaths of four americans, President Obama mobilized Warships and Marines to the region. Although there was no cause for attack,  how easy would it have been for this to become another war for America and the Middle East? If something caused Libyans to become even more infuriated and they started making way for US ships or troops, how long would it have taken for the ships to release their missiles. If the Libyan President decided not to make a statement on the matter, would our diplomatic relations with the country have been hurt?

A weekly newspaper in France published a cartoon depicting Mohammed negatively. A nation with a rather sizable and growing Muslim population (about 10 % of the country), France was forced to shut down it's schools and embassies in at least 20 countries in fear of a similar attack as seen in the past week. If riots had not happened so recently, would France still have taken action? Or would they see the publication as insignificant?


The comic was clearly in retaliation to the violence the past week, but one has to wonder what the goal of the film makers from California were. Perhaps they were just ignorant people filled with hatred and thought it was funny. However, with support from people like Pastor Terry Jones, it's more likely a political statement aimed towards Muslim people across the globe, including those residing in the US. Whether they wanted to cause violence or not is unclear. However as their message was one of hate, violence would probably be seen as a bonus. More violence from Arabic nations could cause people to think of them even more as violent, savage, dangerous people. Although this is clearly not the case (if nothing else evidenced by the numerous videos emerged of Libyans trying to help the ambassador and apologizing for the violence of their fellow citizens), it's not a reaction unheard of in the states. If nothing else, to me, the past week has shown me not how Muslims can be full of hate, but how Americans can be. Fueled by ignorance as ever.

Reflection 1: A Spark Igniting Violence

Reflection 1: A Spark Igniting Violence

In the span of a week we have seen what ignorance and misplaced zealousness can cause. Ignorance and zealousness on both sides mind you. On the part of the producers of the "Innocence of Muslims" film because their goal was to incite violence from the extremist portion of the muslim population which does not reflect the large majority of Islam. They did so in order to fuel anti-muslim sentiment. Why? Well, that is anybody's guess. It could be out of a desire to renew enthusiasm in the Middle Eastern Conflicts or it could be out of simple anti-Islam bigotry. However that does not stop the fact that they produced this film to trigger a violent reaction from the population of the Middle East and create tension between the West and the Arab World.
Ignorance and Zealousness is also present in the reaction from some of the protesters. When a particularly offensive "piece of art", and I as someone who has seen parts of the film I use the term art lightly, is produced violence is never the answer as the bigotry and hate of the instigators is validated. Peace can not be achieved when both sides foam at the mouth at every occasion. It was a very offensive film but by acting the way these extremists have they are only validating the thoughts of the filmmakers and giving them fuel to preach to people who are currently seeing the violence emerging from the Arab World.
Now, as to the question of the legality or ability to prosecute the filmmaker or makers, I do not believe he or they should be subject to imprisonment. If this film falls under the jurisdiction of the United States Free Speech protects said film. The United States cannot alterate its laws for the purposes of temporarily placating an extremist faction of the Muslim World which, admittedly vocal, is still a minority. Should an apology be made? Perhaps but once again it was a private film. If the United States were to apologize for every private citizen that has offended a country or an important person of a country, the list would be endless.
This is a situation with no true resolution in sight. I firmly believe that time should just be allowed to run its course, we should strive to understand other cultures in order to alleviate this problem of incendiary filmmaking. However, there will always be another bigot or zealot, there will always be someone willing to stir the fires of hate and anger and that, is not a problem that can ever be remedied in my my mind. We can only strive to make it happen far less.

Life as Normal

It my surprise people of the events that are unfolding in the Middle East. However the fact of the matter is that these events are nothing new. The middle east has been fighting and rebelling for a long time. Dating back to the Crusades and going even further that this area is currently, always has, and will continue to be a hotbed. Through the countless articles that I have read about the middle east it is evident that this area is one of the last bastions of traditional almost outdated traditions. For instance these London Olympics this past summer saw the first women compete for Saudi Arabia. In a nation where driving permits will not be issued to women it just incomprehensible that in the 21.st century that this is still going on. As I read "Authoritarianism in the Middle East" I noticed that again Saudi Arabia is not lacking funs, between their annual oil exports and foreign support from the U.S. it is simply amazing. So what does Women Suffrage in Saudi Arabia and a US Ambassador killed in the line of duty have to do with each other? Personally I think this shows the Middle easts reluctance to adapt to the changing world. Granted the middle east is not the only place where this takes place, but still. In Professor Hardings blog post, he talks about how the world has this vision of all islam hating the US and her Allies, which I do not see as true. But take for instance in Mali for instance, the Islamic presence in the North has the country worried. For instance, I watched a CNN article on Media and rights in Mali http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2012/08/24/pkg-mali-culture-legacy-threat.cnn&hpt=hp_tvvideo
It goes into detail how the Islamic powers in the North have banned foreign Music. Muslim women in the North are now forced to wear the Burka, instead of the women in the South who wear a veil on their head. It is a cluster you know what ..... because between the sometimes strange tendencies of islamic countries as well as the middle east in particular makes predicting whats going to happen in the Middle East totally unpredictable

Magda Borgarelli

Reflection #1

As I look back at this week, I can barely believe all that has happened in the Middle East in a matter of days.  An ignorant video was posted about Islam’s prophet, which was enough to fuel extremists in countries such as Lybia to attack US embassies in order to show their contempt.  Innocent lives were lost, and the situations in those areas, already fragile to begin with, became even harder to manage. What left me pondering was how quick both sides (Americans and Middle Easterners) began attacking the other either physically or trough hateful words.  Though I do concede that the reaction to the video was rather extreme and out of place, I do believe that we, as a nation, need also to recognize our own extreme views, which after all, are not any different from those held by the ones who attacked the embassies.  How many times do we read on the paper about Americans who denounce the Islamic religion as evil, or even as a tumor, and who do not bare any respect to its sacred objects such as the Koran?  We can’t close our eyes to the fact that we too have many people who believe that all Muslims should be converted at all costs because it is the righteous thing to do.  As a society, we have reached a point in which we are again distinguishing between the “us” and the “them”, when in reality, we act just in the same irrational way.

Magda Borgarelli

Structured Response #1

One might have thought of many reasons as to why the MENA region had been so resistant to democratic reform before the Arab Revolts.  However, as the events in the Middle East and North Africa unfolded in 2011, some of them became invalid.  Take Bellin’s argument that the region’s civil society is too weak to be a champion for democratic change.  Can this assertion still stand after the social mobilization we witnessed in Egypt?  People were able to organize and protest against a government which they believed did not hold their best interest in mind.  They voiced their discontent in the streets and pushed president Mubarak out of power.  This demonstrates the fact that civil society in Egypt was not that fragile after all, otherwise it wouldn’t have accomplished what it did.  Same goes for Tunisia.  The democratic transition that occurred there wouldn’t have been possible if not for the will of its citizens to change the status quo.  However, though some of the reasons offered to why so much resistance to democracy was encountered in the MENA region were discredited during the Arab Spring, others became more evident instead.  Bellin, for example, would have justified the revolts in both Egypt and Tunisia by making the argument that they took place because of the failure of the coercive apparatus to provide for the economic and social need of its citizens.  In fact, unemployment was becoming widespread in Egypt as well as in Tunisia before the rebellions took place, therefore supporting Bellin’s assertion.  The government in the MENA region is capable of exerting almost an absolute control over its citizens as long as it takes on the responsibility to provide for them from “cradle to grave” as well.  However, as soon as it ceases to do so, we see the drive for democratic change increasing, like during the Arab Revolts in 2011, which indicates that authoritarian regimes’ fiscal health does play an important part in whether of not a country will embrace democratic reform.  Despite Bellin’s argument about the weakness of civil society in the MENA region, I do agree with her when she claims that what dictates why a certain country might be more prone to a democratic transition greatly relies on the overall “robustness of the coercive apparatus” (Bellin 2005:  27).  As we observed the general unrest in the MENA region these past two years, it could be easily noted that rebellions took place when the governments began to deteriorate and gave their citizens doubts about their efficacy.