A predictable outlook on International Relations

Predictable, since there is no empirical evidence to support it, only an inclusive analysis of the global system as it is today, and how it will probably look like in the future, if it stays on the course that is currently in motion. The motion, or the driving mechanism I speak of, is globalization. It has bestowed its rules indiscriminately on all countries, making competitiveness the absolute priority. One must question, the future that such a system mainly characterized by competitiveness, has to offer, to the international relations of countries around the globe. I once pondered on the novelty of that word "competitiveness", when I said "It would be ignorant to not see that barriers are being torn down constantly, yet it would be the pinnacle of ignorance to not see the system of blocs that is being created to replace them in order to alleviate competitiveness, that replaces those torn down barriers with ever larger and sturdier walls. What will happen fifty years along the road of globalization? Will it force small countries to unite in order to compete? Is the complete unification of the European continent, Latin America, the remaining relatively small Asian tigers, and the Arab World a given, or will they wither away?"

If necessity is indeed the mother of all invention, then the meshing of certain small states into one entity is inevitable. Small individual countries, no matter how robust their economic performance and their decent standards of living, will mostly strive for more, history serving as a precedent, with a few exceptions acknowledged. The pressure exerted on countries to produce and reform is often overwhelming, even after applying all necessary reforms, the sheer magnitude of their economies will obviously be a crucial element contributing to just how much they can offer their people. Therefore the countries that find themselves in a position to unite with other similar countries (ethnically or ideologically), in order to expand and enrich their economies will inevitably do so, out of economic needs, if not desirable ideological dreams. Here, a dummy system has been created, to experiment with the notion of one of the predicted blocs that would stem directly from the effects of globalization in the future, (In this case, the Arab world)   

The idea behind introducing a truly unique democratic model tailored to cater the Arab world is simple. It is first and foremost, about Arab competitiveness in the global system. Implemented with validity by way of the ballot box, this system will put into consideration the freedom of man to be, and to choose his own destiny. If man is to be presumed free by nature, then any constraints on his freedom is unjust, as long as he is leading a life that does not harm others around him in his society. The idea behind it is to insure maximum flexibility for tranquil, economically and socially sustainable, prosperous provinces (Currently sovereign independent Arab countries), so that the citizens of that United Arab World can excel, no longer awaiting concessions from large powers in order to promote fair globalization. Instead, the urge to take matters into their own hands, due to the discontent of being the underdog in such a system, will overwhelm them. A well publicized example of unfair trade in recent years has been the developed worlds' insistence (Mainly European countries), on keeping mainly their farm subsidies in place, therefore leading to a decline in the developing worlds' agricultural exports.

The core concept is integrating the two predominant forces on both the social and political fields in the Arab World today, they are the religious/conservative and the liberal/secular. In my opinion there are certain, in fact numerous limits to individual liberty. I am equally certain however, that it is our duty to extend and expand them as much as humanly possible, in order to receive the true consent needed from man to bind him. Therefore guaranteeing both sides an equal voice regarding how they wish to be ruled is in my opinion by no means tresspassing the limits set upon individual liberty, yet still, such a goal in the current system remains unattainable at best.

-Tamer Elsahy

I have got to say (with a bit of a self pat on the back here) that there have been some great dialogues going on here. What makes them so great, in my opinion, is the extremities in the polarization of opinion represented; done so, by and large, with meticulous calculation, support, professionalism, levelness of thought, and very little bullshit (relative to politics of course) on behalf of the people that comment here.

I would like to bring particular attention to a couple of readers/commenters/regulars as an illustration of what I am talking about.

These two guys are at fairly solid ends of the spectrum; at least in the context of the kinds of discussions carried out here. I read both of them with an approach that ranges from extreme interest to fatigue. Depending on how my day is going I will open up their newest comment with an excitement that cable internet cant cope with to “damn it not this guy again.”

It’s obvious that one is a Jew and one a Muslim; hardcore at that.

So here it is; two commenters profiled:

Abd ul-Rahman Hilmi:

“I cannot disclose any personal information as I worry for my safety when considering what I say. Abd ul-Rahman is not even my real name. I do apologize for this if it causes any inconvenience. I can tell you that I am a male Arab and part of the Islamic Liberation Party. My views are the views of Hizb ut-Tahrir al Islami, you can scan through one of our sites to get a more in depth understanding."

Previously profiled here.

Andrew Brehm:

“I have few things to hide. :-)

I am 28 years old, work as a system engineer for a multi-national software company (the name of which I fear I should not make public as I am a consultant and not an employee), was born and grew up in West-Berlin, and live in Dublin, Ireland. My non-spam-trap email address is ajbrehm @ gmail.com. My home page is at http://www.netneurotic.net and on http://www.netneurotic.net/me/ you will find a picture (it's five years or so old but it's me all right). I have a blog at http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com.

Apart from computers and the Internet I am interested in linguistics, evolutionary biology, religion, politics, old/classic movies, humor, British television shows, French comic books, and food.

I attend shul (synagogue) services every Friday (very strictly so) and sometimes Saturday mornings as well. And I am well known as a good customer in the local Subway's, the Chinese restaurant across the road, and several Arab fast food places! :-) Think somebody who starts eating as soon as left alone and who complains a lot about minor things when asked how his day went, and you have me in a nut shell. And the shell fits.”

We also have our eye on a couple of other regulars; Alien Kain, Strange Attractor, a few Danes we picked up since the cartoon fiasco, and the up and coming Raccoon (shoot me out some emails with a little personal info). You people have taught me so much while almost continuously annoying the hell out of me, so to both of you and the rest of you; hats off and thank you for making this thing readable.

-Karim Elsahy

On morality and knowledge.

I should have developed on a certain knowledge based childhood. Yet it was insufficient to satisfy my thirst. Therefore, I must have remained in a state of seeking out the unattainable. Confucian oriented thoughts would normally shower my mind into an alleviated and content state, reminding me that wisdom is morality, and knowledge is unsubstantial, if it were not considered as a pre-requisite, indeed transitory vessel to attainable morality. For knowledge as a form, has changed in this age of globalization, into an unspeakable vehement creature, bent on transforming us humans into a system, the system. To be a part of the system, they say, is the righteous way of living. Righteousness becomes treachery, and the line between the purest form of knowledge, and its modern counterpart, is ever blurry. The system is global in essence, which is an acceptable trait; if and only if, it takes into account the different ideals of man, for no system should be called global if it neglects he who conforms, while shunning away he who does not. Should man choose capitalism or socialism, theocracy or democracy? What is that way of living that would best accommodate for humans in this age and the next?

Morals at war, and the clash of ideals.

Ahmadinajad says that democracy and liberalism have failed. Coming from a tyrannical psychopath, I am expected to discredit it instantaneously, yet I won’t, for it reflects the preaching of ideals of one opposing side in the war of ideas. I have personally witnessed the drive from morality for the substitution of liberalism, liberalism as a word, is nothing when preached, and everything when lived. I myself must choose liberalism, for it entails the highest form of morality, and suits me greatly when I have the leisure to experience it. The freedom to be, is not contended. Yet liberalism and democracy have been transfixed today, poised in a battle against theocratic and conservative ideals and morals. Our morals standings against theirs, is the prevailing attitude. Just like a man in battle mode, our moral standings and ideals lose all consideration to the basic elements that constitute them. Like a mad mans eyes, the void reflected there, is no more merited than our ideals today. The Denmark newspaper incident thus, serves as a vivid illustration. You cannot justify the fruits of your ideals when your ideals are at war, for they lose all substance. As weak and tender as silk they become nothing but that, ideals. Morality as a given, without the need for ideal, that is how I perceived the world I live in as I grew up in Egypt. Yet that world of morality I speak of has been fitted for war as well, by a group of people beyond my reach. All that remains is a clash of civilizations. I for one see the crucial need for change in the Arab World, concerning our moralities as well as our ideals. For that to occur we must shift from the age of defeat and despair that we live in, on to our very own age of enlightenment. The form, of which this enlightenment can take place, is discussed below.

Today we in the Arab world can no longer live without ideals. Morally induced ideals surely must precipitate a true form of morality. The ideal I speak of is a United Arab World. An ideal based on thoroughly addressing and considering, all outstanding moral issues of all different ethnic and ideological identities. A system created by all, for all. Where consideration in essence, is not to be neglected. Inclusion. Inclusion. Inclusion. Inclusion is key, within each individual Arab country, within a United Arab World, and within the global system. It is the least we can ask for as a people. Inclusion is the key element for the system to be sustainable. No longer should we need to have another Gamal Abdel Nasser. He can die, as all men do, but the ideal must remain. For the ideal, belongs to the people, and the people do not belong to Nasser, nor to any one that precedes him. We speak of Arab Unity for a reason, it is not just a passionate long held dream nor is it a void ideal, it is morality at its pinnacle. The Arab world in its current state is not even scratching its pool of potential; therefore there is no compelling reason for us to remain as thus, when we are in essence a single mixed race, with much more obvious similarities than differences. When I say it is morality at its pinnacle, I do not intend to relate my thesis to the form Arab Unity took in the 50’s and 60’s. Instead, I speak of a system of that would take all historical accounts into consideration. A system that we as Arabs can start and create together. A system that would bring with it much needed reformation of ideas, a system that would introduce identity to the people, a system that would revive and reform the much distorted ideals and morals that we plunder our lands with today.

Introductions are always dramatic, that is their purpose, therefore I presume that I have done my part here, and from now on I will try to immerse myself with the ideas and thoughts of the readership that this blog contains.

-         Tamer Elsahy

So there it is. You finally get to hear from the guy that’s been with me on almost all the things we’ve done from the anti terrorism protests to the Basilica Vigil and Itharak to our planned North African Trip. I have invited my younger brother to write regularly here so feel free to rip him to pieces as frequently as you do me.

-         Karim Elsahy

I’ve been traveling and largely away from a connection for about a week or so. I managed to rack up about a thousand emails that I’m not even close to getting back to. Most of the emails are about Alaa getting arrested which I still don’t know much about.

I am in Egypt now and will be living here for a while. Now I will finally be able to do some things I’ve been wanting to do for a while.

Once things settle a bit (a couple of more days) I’ll resume regular blogging and I’ve got a ton of exciting things I’m working on that I cant wait to share with you all.

In the mean time, if you haven’t already, link it up.

Peace.

- Karim Elsahy

Sandmonkey gives his two cents on Arab Unity

Excerpt:

Arab Unity will require thought, not emotion; Planning, not reactionism; Following one's best interest, not one's sense of Pride or lack thereof; and more than anything, it will require leaders, not pompous tyrannical assholes whose only interest is enriching themselves and their families on our expense and who don't have the leadership skills to manage a MacDonalds store. And maybe it will require us Arabs to change as well. Be a bit more self-critical, be a bit more open to new ideas, and Judge an ideology or a belief or a mode of behavior by how successful it has been in meeting its said goals, instead of just following it because it's what your parents did. And more than anything, we have to change our flawed understanding of what the word "Pride" means. If we want to be proud of something, it has to be of something we are doing, not something we did 600 years ago. We might even have to think about planning for our future just a little bit, instead of just focusing on the past and the "right now". We have so much potential, but that's not enough. We have to act. We have to demand and facilitate change and reform in our respective countries first in order for that potential to be realized and actualized. Until that happens, you can talk about Arab Unity till the cows come home, knowing at the same time that it is nothing and will never be nothing more than a pipe dream.

Came across this pic I took (well set-up) at a club in Savannah. I thought I'd introduce you guys to my brothers. 

-Karim Elsahy

A Grand One Arab World Hatsoff to:

Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum

By SCOTT MACLEOD

This year's headlines about a Dubai company's attempt to take over port operations in major U.S. cities publicized what Middle East hands already understood: Dubai's ruler, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum (or Sheik Mo, as some of his subjects fondly call him), is a very ambitious chap.

Although government-owned Dubai Ports World diplomatically withdrew its plan after the U.S. Congress raised a stink about port security, the bid demonstrated that Sheik Mo's aims extend beyond his dream of turning his patch of desert into a futuristic global hub in the span of a generation. His Dubai Investment Group, for example, has taken a 2% stake in DaimlerChrysler AG, while other government entities gobbled up real estate like New York City's landmark Helmsley Building and won contracts worth billions to build Mediterranean spas and even a new city in Saudi Arabia.

Sheik Mo's bold vision of transforming Dubai (pop. 240,000, not including a million or so foreign workers) into another Singapore and raising gdp from $8 billion to $37 billion in 15 years is urban planning on a cosmic scale. A man of many guises—poet; champion horseman; United Arab Emirates Vice President, Prime Minister and Defense Minister—Sheik Mo, 57, above all sees himself as CEO of Dubai Inc. His family-run city-state is no democracy, yet it has become a model of business-style governance in a region known for kleptocracies. His realm includes a blossoming financial center, regional headquarters for global brands, mega shopping malls, amusement parks, a world-class airline and an airport to go with it, luxurious hotels that play host to 7 million tourists annually and the world's largest man-made islands. "What he is trying to do," says confidant Mohammed al-Gergawi, "is to build an Arab and Muslim success story." In case anyone misses the point, Sheik Mo has broken ground on the Burj Dubai skyscraper, intended to be the planet's tallest building.

Egypt extends its emergency laws

Egypt has extended controversial emergency laws giving the security forces broad powers to arrest and detain people without charge.

Parliament agreed another two years of the legislation on Sunday. It had been in place since President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981.

The “Emergency Laws” an Egyptian version of the Patriot Act on steroids are what some claim to be what stands between us and the terrorists and what others claim to be the main source of breading terrorists.

Very little in the actual law is very shocking in this day and age of global terrorism (albeit it was implemented before it was internationally acceptable to impede basic rights in the pursuit of security). It is the implementation that is hair rising. The Emergency Laws are what everyone in the Egyptian Security Apparatus, from the Interior Minister on down, hides behind and justifies their actions with.

The “far right” everywhere have a strategic tendency to push draconian measures the population would normally shun during times of panic that typically ensue acts of terrorism. After Sinai this was inevitable.

Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif (not that he is even that far right) said the law was vital after recent bomb attacks.

That isn’t the case in point though. This is:

But opposition groups said the law failed to combat terrorism and was used to violate the rights of Egyptians.

Yeah right.

And the fact that someone like me that would typically be venomly opposed to the extension of laws like these and the inevitable trampling of rights that would follow isn’t quite sure this is a bad idea. For starters the claim above that this has failed to combat terrorism is ridicules. Of course it did; it did better than any other idea I’ve heard of.

"They use (the legislation) to silence and oppress the opposition," deputy of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Habib, said.

One thing I would like see happen though is some kind of awareness campaign by a NGO to start monitoring the implementation and getting the security app to start doing things by the book (which is thick enough as is).

So let me know; the chicken or the egg…. Which way should we go.

-Karim Elsahy