Reflection 4

Reflection 4
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/11/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=imi_c2

According to New reports there are now 150 U.S. special forces that are on the ground in Jordan. They have been deployed over concerns over Syria's ability to use Chemical weapons that they do posses. This is a very scary thought. As Syrians use of Chemical Weapons is not what the region needs all. Syria knows that any use of Chemical weapons would break international law and would send many a nation to sending in troops to stop this. Compiled with there continued attacks on Turkey could only worsen the situation. The Worst case scenario would be that Syria would fire chemical weapons into a neighboring country or god forbid its own people. I think that Syrian regime are numbered, but i do not like to see the alternative as there are Al Qaeda groups that are fighting with the rebels. So who would take over in Syria were to fall? Going back to Libya there were similar concerns. I do recal that the Libyan rebels did free many Al Qaeda prisoners that Colonel Gaddafi had actually jailed. Which is no surprise since they are a terrorist organization and stood to threaten his rule.
I also have to calm down, as I point to every week. I have once again gotten caught up in the Media hype that is Surrounding the middle East. I think that I need to focus on larger picture. But as the same time the fact that Syria has chemical weapons really disturbs and scares me.
We shall see

Reflection 4

One big thing that happened this week in the MENA region that shows the impact of civil society on the region was the recognition as recipient of the prestigious PEN Pinter International Writer of Courage Award to Samar Yazbek. She wrote a memoir chronicling the 1^st month of the Syrian revolution against Bashar Al-Assad.

Yazbek, who is an alawite, a member of the same sect as Al-Assad’s family, was disowned by her family for taking a stance against the Regime. Her book was dedicated to the martyrs of the uprising and those still fighting against the ruling regime. Not only does the presence of a recognized alawite give legitimacy to the uprising as it shows that even members of his own sect can see Al-Assad’s wrongdoings but it also inspires those taking part in the Revolution. She was disowned, therefore she sacrificed part of herself already for the uprising. She fought amongst them as an alawite, showing that the uprising unites Syria against the regime and she was recognized on the World Stage where she dedicated to those that sacrificed for the Revolution and those that still do. Inspiring them to fight harder and see the end of the authoritarian regime in place.

The whole Syrian conflict and, of course to a greater extent, the Arab Spring shows profoundly the importance of civil society in the MENA region. After all, it is these civil societies that decided that they had had enough of the status quo of authoritarian regimes and pretty much organized the uprising themselves giving credence to the idea that a government only governs at the sufferance of the people. Of course the help of a few foreign government here and there did not hurt either but for the most part the uprisings were a result of the people’s actions thus illustrating the importance of civil society.

Perhaps, the situation is a warning to all governments, authoritarianism can be carried out however after a certain point the people will decide that enough is enough and the authoritarian leader and/or regime will be forced to concede their hard gained power. Maybe authoritarian regimes and regimes with strong oppression in other parts of the world (North Korea, Iran, Russia, Thailand, Singapore) survive for a couple of reasons: lack of viable alternatives, ingrained cultural indoctrination in the case of North Korea, and in the case of Singapore where I lived for 3 years good governance, showing that one does not need to be a full democracy in order to run an efficient well governed country and perhaps, making us consider whether democracy is such an ideal situation especially when a country is unstable and needs a strong powerful government like the current state of the MENA region. What they are currently doing in Singapore now is relinquishing, albeit slowly, their hold on power so as to make it more of a democracy now that a strong authoritarian regime is not needed as Singapore is currently a stable, modern, economic power. Maybe that is the model that countries in the MENA region, emerging from the Arab Spring, should take into account.

Reflection 4

Paul Ropp

                                    Reflection Week 4

            As far as the discourse on civil society this week has gone I found myself wondering how effective is civil society at procuring rights and privileges for the people? Can a civil society that lacks social cohesion and state support march forward into the legislatures of countries and demand freedoms without a single cohesive bond, without unity, and most of all in spite of sectarian conflict amongst not only the people but the government as well.

              Malala Yousafzai was shot today, October 9^th, after being on the Taliban’s hit list for months (BBC). It is amazing to see that an activist for what would be considered a trivial subject in the US, women’s education, gunned down for advocating women’s right to education in Northern Pakistan. The stark sectarian conflict of civil society has shown itself in the story more precisely and broadly then I could ever care to attempt. Yousafzai was advocating education for girls in Northern Pakistan while the Taliban are advocating for Islamic extremism. The deep sectarian divide in this case ended with a terrible act of violence being inflicted on a young girl who in the mind of the international community was doing extremely good and beneficial work in Pakistan. So how can a civil society be helpful, or be even remotely successful if there are actors claiming organic legitimacy, going against the will of popular culture, and committing acts of violence to gain power.  The theory of broad unity enacting incremental change on the regime at large and forming a cohesive civil society that would band together in mass democratization is swept out the window. The mass sectarianism in the MENA region to me is a hurdle that has to be overcome. No, not all sectarianism just that which causes harm to the civil society. I guess, what I am getting at here, is how can the civil society even get to the point of changing laws of the regime if it isn’t one cohesive unit. Yes, civil society should fight for freedom but I believe that unity should be another main task not just the advocacy of one’s own cause.
                In class we watched the documentary on Iran and the failure of the first and second revolutions. I really was interested in how the second revolution became a familiar failure despite all actions taken by Iranian citizens in the right direction. Although,  Iranians used non-violent means to enact a regime change the government wouldn’t let them achieve their ends no-matter what the cost; in this case the government had the means and the will to quell the civil unrest. Or maybe, in a realistic way, Iranian civil society was not yet strong enough to attempt a non-violent uprising the regime was too strong for the civil society at the time and the civil society relented maybe in this case it’s just a matter of re-organizing and being in for the long hall.

            I also found the article about the state in the MENA region to be particularly interesting, the point made about politics and administration being separate in the MENA region. That in the MENA region politics are more or less the same as the Western counterpart, however, the administration of the policies and laws is quite different. The fact that the royal family in Saudi Arabia is given special privilege, that the state’s administrators first help their sect then the state. Another interesting part of the article pointed out that although the civilian bureaucracy plays a far more substantive role in the everyday policies of the MENA region we focus primarily on the military aspect. The average day in MENA region society there is discrimination based on a myriad of factors, but researchers focus primarily on the military and how it discriminates.

           Over this week of class I have come to the realization that despite the prominence of the military in the MENA region by far the most important factor is civilian civil society, the unification and shared ideals of the group being a far more important factor in everyday life than the transitory autocratic military regime that we all seem to be so in lust with.

Reflection #4

Magda Borgarelli

This week a girl in my English class explained her background to my Professor.  Though she does not seem anything other than American, she is in fact Indian.  However, she lived her entire life in Saudi Arabia, and my Professor was asking her whether or not she felt oppressed there, since she was a woman.  Her answer, I have to say, surprised me.  She defended Saudi Arabia’s law that prohibits women from driving, claiming that the crime rate would go up if they would be allowed to do so, Hearing this left me conflicted.  As a woman that lives in the Western world, I personally find the situation of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia to be unacceptable.  I firmly believe in the equality between genders, and the mere assumption that women need to be driven around in order to keep the crime rate down seems ridiculous to me.  However, the girl was convinced that it was not oppression, but rather protection, that her culture was giving women.  At this realization, I was speechless.  I have always assumed that what we call “oppressed” women in today’s world wouldn’t be happy with their situation and would want to do all they can to change it.  It never occurred to me that they would be content and appreciate their situation.  Do we really have any right to interfere and bring change to a population or group that does not ask for it?  Simply because I believe in gender equality and feel that is how the world should work does not give me any right to impose my beliefs (though widespread) on anyone else.  I might not like the fact that women in general in some countries are considered inferior to men, however, except in cases of violence, is it my or my country’s place to intervene and change the status quo?

Paul Ropp

                                                                Structured Response #3

                                When we talk about Civil Society claiming legitimacy it is just an expansion on a notion that both, states and people claim legitimacy. That in the grand scope of things a member of Civil Society needs to be recognized as much as the forlorn NGO, or government agent. However, when civil society actors begin to claim legitimacy as organic parts of a broader society it tends to hamper the creation of a civil society.

            As Bowers mentioned in the reading most Arab’s in cultural no matter how liberal they are, are very traditionalist; they will stick to the way things have been and even when liberalist Arabs argue for democratization they cite the Qur’an. But when one group of Arabs say radical Islamists claim organic legitimacy not only on behalf of their organization but others as well it can lead to just another tyrannical regime or in the worst case other countries will disparage the growth of democracy as they are afraid of Islamist extremist rhetoric. In Egypt this fear proved to be ever true when the US was distant in supporting the revolt in fear that the “Muslim Brotherhood” would assume power. It is this single sided rhetoric that precludes a mass advocacy of the majority of the population and only allows the top tier of non-state actors to assume control of the advocacy. Moreover, one group claiming some sort of organic legitimacy of the civil society’s periphery, as well as, civil society itself, leads to a lack of multilateral cooperation, as one group has the power to speak for multiple sections of the population that will remain largely in the dark. The population left in the dark will remain there as Bowers also mentioned that Arab civil society has a different meaning not only culturally but linguistically.

            When one group claims organic legitimacy it may be all well and good, I mean who doesn’t want a jumpstart to a democracy, but is it really a democracy? In the MENA region civil society is much more segregated, different in every region and to every person. Civil society has a much more interpersonal family base, whereas in the West civil society is a burgeoning concept of civic duty. Now when one group claims to speak for the whole society when the whole society is devoid of popular meaning or ideals, besides religion, things get a bit fishy. The MENA region historically is a very family oriented society and as long as the family unit is enjoying relative freedom and the right to practice traditions it will remain intact. This difference in civil societies meaning has allowed the Sultanic state, tyrannical regime, and lack of advocacy by many groups in the region.

            In short when one group claims to have organic legitimacy it will forgo the standard rise of a proper, diverse, and unified social society and in the long run cause more political and sectarian strife then would have been caused otherwise. 

Reflection #3

So in my search for something to write about this week I was exploring Al-Jazeera. There were the usual posts about drones and bombings and stagnant UN talks, but I felt tired from such topics and needed a break. Instead, I (accidentally) found some interest pieces on Al-Jazeera. I watched a series of videos about people struggling within Syria. The first video was about a school with internally displaced people (IDPs), children around six years old. The children were coming out of conflict zones and many of them knew someone who had died because of the war. Most were very confused about what had happened, and all were scared of walking outside. They new about Assad, and one little girl called him a dog. The teachers asked them to talk about their experiences because they believed it helped them. A test is done when a child first comes to the school where they are asked to color in a picture. The teachers noticed that most children were using very dark colors.

The second story was about a neighborhood in a conflict area. The video showed children in homes where planes could be seen overhead dropping bombs. This neighborhood in particular had run out of baby formula, and many of their medical supplies were expired and still being used. The children here were well aware of what was happening, but had no choice but to be brave an live with it. Daily they saw and heard bombs dropping nearby. One father said his child, who looked under two, cried whenever she heard a plane, or whenever she was to close to the ground. Here they showed pictures of Assad as an 'ass' (donkey). When asked, the children say they just want freedom after the war is over. One young boy said he would like to be a teacher, but his school has shut down.

The third story was about a little girl who had been hit by shrapnel while in her own house, and is now living in a Turkish hospital, paralyzed. Her father was arrested and it is unknown whether he is alive or dead. The mother is distraught and had to leave her very young son with his grandmother while she stayed with her daughter.

It is stories like these that remind me why I am interested in IR, why I care about world affairs. After watching these stories, I was motivated to go on more news sites and read about what I had previously written off as dry repetitive stories.

Structured Response 1

It's undeniable that claims of legitimacy helps a organization or civil society grow and gain respect in a society. To be able to claim that a group is a natural response to the state or society is not only saying that it is legitimate, but that it is a direct product of the government and the community. This gives it a sense of necessity. But what can determine whether an organization is actually organic? Apparently not much. Perhaps more important than being organic is being seen as organically grown, as it gives strength to the members and status in the community. 

If a civil society is in response to the government, than how could it not be, in at least a small sense, political. I agree with the statement that (very paraphrased said) a civil society should be for the community and apart from goals of authority. In other words, not for the furthering of the self but for improving situations for the whole. Whether a traditional, 'civic' or hybrid, a civil society organization is most successful when it can make the most amount of people care and hopefully get involved (whether civilians or the government), and the effectiveness of each type greatly varies in different regions, even within different countries. It makes sense to me that such CSOs can share the same goals with different reasoning, and therefore together can be very strong forces.