Will we witness a "new Middle East"? Ghassan Salame. No. The term "New Middle East" has become a foil for serving political projects imposed from above and obeyed geopolitical considerations. What happens today is instead the result of pressure from people, and especially youth. So anything else. This is just the beginning.
Other changes will occur even more significant and will affect the way we govern in different Arab countries, even where there has been no rebellion. If you look closely, we notice that all Arab countries have experienced changes in recent weeks to varying degrees in the organization of power, to prevent a rebellion or an attempt to stem the tide.
What is driving these changes? This development is explained by technological progress and globalization. The plans were submitted to the new technique [satellite channels, internet] and have granted freedoms. However, they took their revenge by compensating the progress of freedom by a dramatic decrease in another area of democracy: the alternation of power.
Arab leaders viewed the state as their private property. It had nothing to do with the previous regimes. Has emerged a new class of wealthy businessmen allied with the regime. This was in total contradiction with the evolution of society, where people felt that was based largely on investment in education.
Over the past twenty years, the Arabs have ever invested in education, but after twenty years, these young people have discovered they would be unemployed graduates and the transition to a market economy had benefited only a few thousand privileged, even only a few hundred, enriched so outrageous.
These revolts were directed more against the profiteers and against the powerful. What is the role of Americans? We need to relativize the importance of foreign factors in what happens in the Arab world for several reasons. The main one is the relative decline of Western influence on the international system.
The situation can it take on Iran? It says we are witnessing the emergence of a Middle Eastern Islamist? I am specific in my answer. Are we witnessing a change in the nature of Arab regimes? Sure. Does this mean there a change in relations with the West and particularly the United States? My answer is still yes.
Does that mean the establishment of an Islamic Middle East? Certainly not. Why? Firstly because the current rebellion does not only proclaim the failure of the schemes, but also the failure of the Islamists. It is not Mohammed Badie, the guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, nor Rached Ghannouchi, the leader of the Tunisian Islamist Nahda movement, which were the most insightful and creative in proposing solutions.
They ran after the event they had neither initiated nor control. And I'm convinced they were right not to present a candidate for the presidency, nor in Egypt or Tunisia. Because they would lose. The second reason is that there is a real change in relations between the countries of the region and the West.
Even a country like Turkey demonstrated greater independence vis-à-vis the United States. That does not mean that there will be daily conflict with Washington. What will the future of Christians in the region? My feeling is that it is those Christians who have an interest in seeing the emergence of democratic regimes rather than relying on authoritarian regimes.
The question is whether the level of political will to give this issue the importance it deserves. I have no answer. Nevertheless, Christians have every interest in promoting the principle of citizenship. It is the only salvation. There is no other. I do not think that South Sudan could be a model for the rest of the region.
I am not convinced of the correctness of the approach may have the Eastern Churches. It is the laity to take these subjects instead of the clergy. They expect nothing from these churches, but they commit themselves. The only solution is to convince the Muslim majority from the idea of citizenship.
I do not think the Vatican is now able to understand these problems. The current Pope has a very European view of Christianity, while Europe is no longer the center of Christianity. 
Other changes will occur even more significant and will affect the way we govern in different Arab countries, even where there has been no rebellion. If you look closely, we notice that all Arab countries have experienced changes in recent weeks to varying degrees in the organization of power, to prevent a rebellion or an attempt to stem the tide.
What is driving these changes? This development is explained by technological progress and globalization. The plans were submitted to the new technique [satellite channels, internet] and have granted freedoms. However, they took their revenge by compensating the progress of freedom by a dramatic decrease in another area of democracy: the alternation of power.
Arab leaders viewed the state as their private property. It had nothing to do with the previous regimes. Has emerged a new class of wealthy businessmen allied with the regime. This was in total contradiction with the evolution of society, where people felt that was based largely on investment in education.
Over the past twenty years, the Arabs have ever invested in education, but after twenty years, these young people have discovered they would be unemployed graduates and the transition to a market economy had benefited only a few thousand privileged, even only a few hundred, enriched so outrageous.
These revolts were directed more against the profiteers and against the powerful. What is the role of Americans? We need to relativize the importance of foreign factors in what happens in the Arab world for several reasons. The main one is the relative decline of Western influence on the international system.
The situation can it take on Iran? It says we are witnessing the emergence of a Middle Eastern Islamist? I am specific in my answer. Are we witnessing a change in the nature of Arab regimes? Sure. Does this mean there a change in relations with the West and particularly the United States? My answer is still yes.
Does that mean the establishment of an Islamic Middle East? Certainly not. Why? Firstly because the current rebellion does not only proclaim the failure of the schemes, but also the failure of the Islamists. It is not Mohammed Badie, the guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, nor Rached Ghannouchi, the leader of the Tunisian Islamist Nahda movement, which were the most insightful and creative in proposing solutions.
They ran after the event they had neither initiated nor control. And I'm convinced they were right not to present a candidate for the presidency, nor in Egypt or Tunisia. Because they would lose. The second reason is that there is a real change in relations between the countries of the region and the West.
Even a country like Turkey demonstrated greater independence vis-à-vis the United States. That does not mean that there will be daily conflict with Washington. What will the future of Christians in the region? My feeling is that it is those Christians who have an interest in seeing the emergence of democratic regimes rather than relying on authoritarian regimes.
The question is whether the level of political will to give this issue the importance it deserves. I have no answer. Nevertheless, Christians have every interest in promoting the principle of citizenship. It is the only salvation. There is no other. I do not think that South Sudan could be a model for the rest of the region.
I am not convinced of the correctness of the approach may have the Eastern Churches. It is the laity to take these subjects instead of the clergy. They expect nothing from these churches, but they commit themselves. The only solution is to convince the Muslim majority from the idea of citizenship.
I do not think the Vatican is now able to understand these problems. The current Pope has a very European view of Christianity, while Europe is no longer the center of Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment