The State of US-Islamic World Relations
Post your feedback here. You can also read a report on the forum here before you post.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
About Me
- Name: Muqtedar Khan
- Location: United States
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Director of the Islamic Studies Program. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
- Globalization, Culture and Music
- Religion and Global Order
- Islam and the West
- Dealing with Global Inequity
- Defining Globalization
- Muqtedar Khan with Benazir Bhutto a two time PM o...
- Globalization is a double edged sword. For the fir...
- Some Basic Introductory Articles
15 Comments:
In the presentation “The State of US-Islamic World,” Peter Singer explained that 9/11 has been a defining moment in the history of the United States. He explained that this single event shaped the relationship between America and the Muslim world. Dr. Singer described that 95% of America believes that Islam is a religion of violence. There is much discontent with Muslims in the American citizenry. Additionally, in much of the Islamic world, Americans are being portrayed as violent, materialistic, enemies that take over countries out of self-interest. I find this phenomenon very intriguing. There seems to be so many misunderstandings between Western culture and the Islamic world, and I believe this is leading to a lot of the failure occurring in Iraq. It is clear that we have not succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of Muslims, and they feel that Americans are self-serving and cannot be trusted.
Singer also described the shift in the debate occurring in American policy circles over terrorism. He explains that there has been a shift in the governmental sector from worrying about political theory to taking policy action. There has been a realization that past policies have failed. Firstly, there has been a shared realization explaining that the old policies, which chose stability and security over democracy and human rights, has failed. There is a consensus that reform must be made. Additionally, experts agree that diplomatic policy toward the world has failed. There are negative feelings toward the US all around the world. Al Qaeda is no longer an isolated, centralized group. Instead it has spread around the entire world. Education, political reform, and human rights are needed as many Islamic nations do not provide appropriate opportunities for Muslims.
We need to begin implementing policies that solve the problems with US-Islamic relations. One method would be to fund Islamic scientists in order to uplift economies in the Muslim world. However, there is a lack of funding for outreach programs that is causing us to not be able to positively impact the Muslim world. I wonder what the role of the international community and other nations is to help uplift the economic status of the Muslim world. This cannot just be an American effort. This is suggesting that America must be more entangled in the affairs of other nations, and I have a problem with this hegemonic role.
Singer also made references to an upcoming “hateration” as there is a population boom in the Islamic world, causing unemployment to skyrocket, as well. This will occur while America is still looked upon negatively as the country of Abu Ghraib and Iraq. I find this extremely unfortunate. We entered Iraq with the hopes of becoming liberators that were looked upon favorably in the Arab world. It seems, instead, that we have gotten ourselves into a predicament where we will have upcoming problems what will cause even greater terrorist threats.
The next speaker, Mahmood Monshipouri, discussed the nuclear issues with Iran. He explained that sanctions tend to be ineffective when implemented as a form of positive motivation. The speaker asserted that Iran is attempting to negotiate and wants to be included in the international community. On the other hand, the US government has done very little to negotiate with the Iranian government. The US government says that it would like to speak with the people of Iran, but they continue to shut out Iranian officials. Dr. Monshipouri also feels that the nuclear threat that Iran proposes is slim to none. Iran, alone, cannot unravel the balance of power than occurred at the end of the cold war. Additionally, dropping a bomb on Israel would also kill many Muslims. However, I think that it is important to note that a main concern with the “nuclearization” of Iran is that there will be a terrorist-friendly, anti-American and Israel government that can provide terrorists with nuclear weapons so that they may use them on foreign soil (such as America). Monshipouri explains that military action will only cause Iranian people, many of whom all ready hate their government, to rally around them. He concludes that the only solution to the problem is direct Iranian-American negotiations because both countries have interests in negotiating.
The third speaker, Mumtaz Ahmad, talked about US-Pakistan relations. Dr. Ahman explained that there is a general perception in Pakistan that when the US needs Pakistan as an ally for its own purposes, it leaves the country to fend for itself when these purposes are completed. According to the professor, September 11th gave Pakistan an opportunity to separate themselves from extremism that threatened to isolate the country in the world of international relations. However, I would say that Pakistan has provided the US government with a lot more help than we have provided Pakistan. Without Pakistan, military action in the Middle East (especially Iraq) would be a much greater challenge in both the Gulf War and the current War in Iraq. It seems that September 11th provided the Pakistani policy makers with help, more than it helped the country as hole. This is surprising because Mushariff was under fire by his own people when he allied with the United States. Ahmad also explained that there is a strong anti-American feeling in Pakistan, underscoring the notion that the image of the US in the Islamic world is in complete dismay. However, Mushariff has been able to convince his people that helping the United States is the best thing for Pakistan.
The fourth speaker, Professor Stuart Kaufman, explained that the US is at a “low-intensity war” with the Muslim world. This is due to a catastrophic foreign policy that is moving in a terrible direction. Kaufman asserts that Iraq has caused the Muslim world to view America with extreme hostility, which is simultaneously giving Osama Bin Laden a larger base of support. Additionally, the speaker explains that the American government had a raciest refusal to distinguish between the real 9/11 enemy and Iraq. Personally, this failure to differentiate between the war in Iraq and the war on terror upsets me every time I see this rhetoric on the news. It is as if the Bush administration has its head in the sand and it makes them seem completely uneducated in the way of international relations. I, therefore, agree with Stuart Kaufman’s position.
I found the presentations very interesting and informative. I was relatively uninformed about the topics discussed, and felt that they were generally presented in an understandable fashion (and I appreciated the humor thrown in). I really enjoyed Peter Singer's presentation. He gave a good overview of the general post 9/11 U.S.-Muslim relations, as well as many of the challenges that we as a nation face in moving beyond our stereotypes and misunderstandings. I agree with him that 9/11 is a defining event in our generation, and that it has changed some of our focus in world politics. I was somewhat appalled at the 20,000 casualty statistic. It seems that in the news, the only figure reported is the death count. The number of missing soldiers is rarely seen, and the wounded, which is a very significant number, is also underreported. The American and Muslim views of each other are also rather dismaying. With these perceptions, we have little chance of making real peaceful progress. I also found the challenges presented by Singer interesting. American foreign policy did not look good, and our public diplomacy and human development seem to be lacking as well. It seems important to put a greater emphasis on diplomacy and our foreign relations, as well as basic development and education in countries that are less developed. I also thought he left us with many pertinent questions, but like everything else in this course, they seem to have complexities and no direct answers.
While all the speakers discussed relevant topics, Mahmood Monshipouri’s presentation seemed especially applicable to today’s world. I constantly see headlines about Iran’s nuclear program, and was interested to hear Monshipouri’s perspectives on the issue. The options of sanctions, diplomacy, or pre-emptive strike were not particularly heartening, since diplomacy seems shaky at best, sanctions are generally unsuccessful, and we know where pre-emptive strikes generally lead. His proposal of direct negations between America and Iran, using the pro-American sentiment held by many Iranians, seemed to be a possible solution.
I enjoyed the talk given by Mumtaz Ahmed, it made me more aware of our relationship with Pakistan, and of the prevalent anti-Americanism there. The statistics that Dr. Kaufman presented regarding U.S. favorability versus views on Bin Laden’s leadership were enlightening, and his expansion on the topics discussed by the other speakers was interesting. Dr. Khan’s discussion of Islamophobia presented many ideas and facts that I was unaware of. He also talked about anti-Americanism, and the fact that it is not as deeply entrenched in Muslim countries as is often thought. He ended on the relatively hopeful note that if we repair relations with Muslim countries, and work to eradicate negative perceptions of Muslims here, we can alter the course we are taking.
Although I was not able to attend the entire presentation, I found the part that I saw to be fascinating. I especially would have liked to see the presentation on Iran and its potential to become a nuclear power. I was told by someone who was there that Dr. Monshipouri cited an article by Barry Posen of MIT that I used in my term paper. I would have liked to hear what Dr. Monshipouri had to say about the article because I believe there is a flaw in Dr. Posen's logic. The article can be found here.
In my opinion, Dr. Posen's explanation as to why states that neighbor Iran would not be manipulated by blackmail due to the suggestion that these neighboring states would not turn their back on the US is unsupported by the current situation in the Islamic world. With Islamic support for the US under 20%, it seems very likely that many in the Islamic world would favor distancing themselves from the US.
However, concerning what I actually did get to see, I was interested by Dr. Khan's statement that soon Islam could be the religion of the West and Christianity the religion of the South. It is fascinating to consider all of the foreign policy changes,let alone domestic changes that would take place if the US were to become predominantly Muslim. For one, the Pro-Israeli stance would be rejected in favor of support for the Palestinians. In addition, relations between the West and the Middle East would improve drastically, but conflicts in Africa and other places could escalate and take the place of the Middle East as the most volatile place in the world.
Although personally, I don't think that I will live to see an Islamic West, it is an interesting idea to consider.
I found Dr. Khan’s portion of the discussion very interesting. Anti-Americanism is shaped by events in history, whereas Islamophobia is deeply embedded in America, representing a fear of the values and traditions of Islam. When looking up articles online regarding Islamophobia, I was very surprised to find how many websites deny the existence of Islamophobia while one of the issues addressed throughout the discussion was the rise of Islamophobia. One website, defining Islamophobia as “undue fear of Islam,” claims that the term is misused. The author, Daniel Pipes, supports his argument by asking, what is the proper amount of fear of Islam? However, Dr. Khan presented the statistic that over 50% of Americans believe that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence. This is clearly an “undue fear of Islam.”
Pipes also argues that the term Islamophobia lumps together fear of Islam and fear of radical Islam. However, this is misunderstanding is one of the factors at the very heart of Islamophobia. Many Americans’ perceptions of all Muslims are shaped by the actions of radical Muslims seen in the news. Not surprisingly, Pipes states, “I have been made the runner-up for a mock ‘Islamophobia Award’ in Great Britain, deemed America's ‘leading Islamophobe,’ and even called an ‘Islamophobe Incarnate.’” I also thought it was ironic that many of the reader comments on the website were perfect displays of Islamophobia, even though the people writing the comments supported Pipes’ opinion that Islamophobia is a made-up concept. For example, one girl calls Islam a cult in her comment, saying that Islam is brain-washing its followers. Feelings such as these (and less radical ones too) are unfortunately deeply embedded in the American society and will be grounds for prolonging the conflict between the Middle East and the United States. It is important for people to recognize that Islamophobia is a problem so that we can educate ourselves about the issue.
Dr. Khan’s theory that America’s fear of Islam is deeply embedded and that Muslim opinion is based on the actions of America sheds some light on what needs to be done to ease tensions between Americans and Muslims. On one hand, the U.S. government needs to improve upon its strategies and rethink its policies. Dr. Singer proposed that the government invest more in public relations in Iraq, such as increasing humanitarian aid. In addition to redistributing funding that is going towards Iraq, we must also educate the American public about Islam. If over half of Americans believe that Muslims are prone to violence, they obviously do not have a good understanding of Islam. Thus, government policies that aim to improve relations in Iraq are clearly not enough to ease American-Muslim tension; changing the views of the American public is just as important.
Website: http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/29451
I felt that the presentation was very good, each speaker brought a different light on the issues. Peter Singer gave a breakdown of things and the others touched upon these ideas as well as bringing others to the table.
Singer brought up a very interesting point in the beginning of his presentation, he stated that there are very few events that people will remember exactly what they were doing at that time. As he stated that I thought , "he is right" and I could picture exactly where I was, what I was doing, and who was with me. After this he brought up questions that many fail to consider such as, who is "they" that we are fighting and why? Many people judge the Muslim world as a whole, and this was shown in the statistics that were shown by Dr. Khan that 46% of people have a problem with Muslims and the interesting statistic that 17% of people would have no problem with a Muslim being incarcerated to prevent an attack, or as he put it pre-emptive encarceration. Singer suggested reform but there are also questions that needed to be answered in regards to who we should support and how as well as what will Islam look like in the 21st century.
Professor Monshipouri talked about democracy in the middle east. He stated that promoting democracy faces many dilemmas. He also suggested that there is not one specific way to solve the dilemmas. Each has its own way so change would have to be gradual and systematic. One of the biggest problems is the legitimacy of the regimes that are appointed. The regime that is put into place will be "de-legitimized" by the promotion of democracy and then it becomes an issue of stability vs security. Professor Kaufman also stated in his presentation that democracy is now down the barrel of a gun, and the countries are being forced to democratize. This may be the reason why the appointed regimes are considered illegitimate.
Professor Kaufman put all of his ideas ou on the table. He stated that the US was in a low intensity war with the Muslim world as a whole. He was rushed but he showed statistics and bescially concluded that the anti-american sentiment from much of the Muslim world in not embedded, they dont hate our values they just hate what we do.
Most all of the presenters said there was prolblem with our Foriegn Policy they all had their suggestions as to what should be done. I enjoyed each of the speakers.
Like everyone else, I was impressed with the forum. I thought each presentation had important points, though I was more interested in some more than others. I want to comment on a few points that stuck with me.
In Prof. Kaufman's speech he quoted Mao Zedong by saying power comes from the barrel of a gun. He then extended that to say the neocons of today seem to think that diplomacy flows from the barrel of a gun. I thought this was an excellent way to sum up the point that democracy must come from within a country.
During the Q&A Peter Singer responded to a question by making an observation. He pointed out that self-critiquing forums like the one being presented did not exist in the Muslim world, and until that freedom is available no real strides can be made.
Prof. Khan's "outlandish" claim that Muslims are in fact rational beings was an important statement. He said this sarcastically, making it comical. But the fact that the statement has to be made at all is quite frightening.
To me this was the most important point of the night. I agree the weapons program in Iran is an important topic, but the fact that Americans need to be told that Muslims are rational beings, the same as us (or at least what we assume we are), this is fundamental. How can we even being to discuss a nuclear weapons program in Iran if we do not have a real perception of the people or situation in which we are dealing.
I think it’s always great to hear an opinion which is contrary to what one usually hears. I did think it was unfortunate the gentleman from the state department was unable to show up, but as Dr. Khan said, he would only be using prepared statements and answers.
When the president of Iran declared Israel must be “wiped out from the map,” I thought it was pretty serious and did not realize why people did not think this was a big deal. I think it’s because of two reasons, one of which I learned at the event (1) Muslims and middle easterners don’t like Israel. I think Israel is important and think they deserve their tiny portion of land. (2) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not have as much power as I originally thought he did. The question and answer session really helped me to understand this, as multiple panelists answered this question. This was really helpful, as I thought he had much more power and control over their nuclear weapons.
Although I enjoyed Professor Kaufman’s presentation about Iraq, it seems like it was also sort of hindsight. He was trying to prove why the war in Iraq was a mistake, but to me it seems as this is sort of the general consensus. Even still, it was an interesting presentation.
I particularly enjoyed Mahmood Monshipouri's talk on the current situation with Iran, because this was the first time I'd heard someone speak at length on the subject. The only knowledge I had prior to this event was whatever I've been picking up from recent news headlines.
When discussing the need for diplomatic US-Iran negotiations, I thought he made an excellent point about the Iranian population and their attitudes toward their government. The US needs to realize that although the Iranian people might currently hold a negative view of America, they don't like their own government very much, either. We've seen how the people of Iraq have responded to our military invasion in their country, and I imagine the response would be far worse in Iran. By increasing Iranian anti-American sentiment through military action, we would be further uniting Iran, and this would allow the Iranian government more freedom and mobility in their pursuit of nuclear technology. I also thought it was interesting to hear how Iran's potential nuclear capabilites are probably not as big of a threat as they are being made out to be by the US government.
Although I missed most of Peter Singer's talk, I thought he was very well spoken in the question and answer session. I felt that he (along with the other panelists) made a good point regarding the necessity for Muslims worldwide to engage in more internal debate. If the Muslim community can freely criticise faulty governments in the Muslim world, not only would that spur progress, but it could help repair the misconceptions many Westerners have of Islam being a homogeneous, radical religion.
I really enjoyed all of the speeches in the forum, and thought that they were all very interesting. I already knew some about the topics, but each talk gave me a much deeper understanding of the issues. Also, a lot of them were from points of view that I had never heard before. One thing I thought was very interesting from Peter Singer’s talk was that most of US aid for international scientists is going to scientist from the Soviet Union era, instead of to places like the Middle East. More funding for science in the Middle East would boost development and could be very beneficial for stability there.
Another thing Peter Singer outlined was four challenges to US foreign policy resulting from terrorism. The first was a realization in the US that the old foreign policy of stability over democracy and human rights has failed and created deeply rooted problems. The second is that the US is doing a terrible job of portraying itself to the world, which presents a huge diplomacy challenge. The third was the realization that the problem is not just terrorism, but the long term problem of human development. The fourth was that political reform is needed. I thought it was interesting that he described these four challenges as shared realizations and challenges that democrats and republicans both agreed on. Both parties may agree on these challenges, which is a step in the right direction, but I doubt that solutions presented will be agreed upon by both.
I also really liked the talk on Iran since before the forum I didn’t know as much about it as I should have. Mahmood Monshipouri's observations brought light on the absurdity of some claims being brought against Iran. It is easy to judge Iran through a US perspective and think that Iran is being outwardly hostile and out-of-line by pursuing a nuclear program. However, when looked at from a different perspective it seems to make more sense. As this talk showed and as Professor Khan has said in class, with all of the threats the US makes to Iran, it would be foolish for Iran not to try and protect themselves. Not that I think Iran should develop nuclear weapons, but they are merely acting in their own interest. Monshipouri said that the more the US talks about the need for regime change in Iran, the more Iranians will feel the need to build a nuclear weapon. He also argued that both sanctions and military intervention would be the wrong choice of action. I think that the US government should take a close look at what has happened in Iraq as they plan their course of action for Iran.
Lecture by Kenneth Pollack, May 17, 2006 "Global Agenda"
As I settled into my comfy third row seat in Mitchell Hall last night, it suddenly occurred to me that it was unusually quiet for a Wednesday night Global Agenda lecture – and I had a third row seat. I looked around to discover that I was one of three people in the venue under the age of 65. No, it wasn’t an AARP event; I was joined by the seniors of Newark to hear Kenneth Pollack speak, and it just happened to be on the last day of classes at UD. Pollack is director of the Saban Center for Middle East Studies at the Brookings Institution. He’s a Middle East expert and I had been waiting all semester to hear him speak (I’m serious – see previous posts!). Pollack’s poise and knowledge exceeded my expectations. I’d like to share a part of his lecture that I found fascinating.
Addressing the threats “below the radar” in the Middle East, Pollack pointed out that China’s increasing influence in the Persian Gulf is especially salient for the future of U.S. relations in the region. Pollack says that China, being overprotective of its own domestic politics, is happy to politely ignore the internal functioning of Middle Eastern states, as it “locks in” long range oil trade agreements with these countries to feed its booming economy. This allows corruption and underdevelopment to flourish, much as it has during the past fifty years while the U.S. looked the other way at oppressive autocratic governments in return for a constant supply of oil. According to Pollack, the rise of China as a contender against the U.S. for Middle Eastern oil foreshadows the bipolar world of the Cold War – only in this case, China and the U.S. have the exact same interests, unlike the Soviets’ efforts to thwart all American enterprises throughout the region and the world. This key caveat makes it imperative that the United States open its diplomatic relations with China and regard it as an cooperator instead of a competitor. The dual influence of China and the United States could be a powerful mechanism for change in the Middle East to encourage regimes to deliver for their people in exchange for market demand from the two largest oil consumers in the world.
In thinking about the lesser–mentioned issues in the Middle East, China would not be the first topic to come to mind. Pollack’s insight into the nature of this rising giant is very valuable, and his recommendation for cooperation is sensible. It’s good to know that Pollack’s opinions often weigh in quite strongly in federal policymaking (he even claimed that President Bush “stole” his strategy of reform for Iraq – and he was only partially joking). I hope this lecture series invites Kenneth Pollack back next year.
The presentation on Tuesday night on the state of US-Islamic World Relations proved to be very interesting and highly insightful. The two presentations that I thought were most fascinating were the presentations give by Peter Singer, a senior fellow and director at the Brookings Institute, and our own highly esteemed Muqtedar Khan.
Singer spoke about the schism in ideas between the state and religion. He touched upon how the attack of 9/11 and the United States response has cause a new prism shaped by tension between the citizens of the U.S. and Muslims. Singer elaborated on the fact by telling a crowd how the negative perceptions of the Western world have infiltrated the popular culture of the Middle East. Movies involving military conflict now seem to have the Americans as the bad people. This reminds me of older U.S. cinema where whenever America was at war, it was against the Russians or Germans. However, the most interesting point raised by Singer was his revelation that choosing stability/security over democracy and human rights has failed. This point is worthy of because this country wants to defend human rights and spread democracy, yet on the other hand, supports authoritarian governments that have American economic and political interests. It is time to choose one or the other.
Khan was the last speaker, and spoke mostly upon what is really tearing this country apart. To be quite honest, Khan's assessment was quite profound. It is not anti-Americanism that is tearing this country apart, as many would like to believe. Look at the state of the country on 9/12/2001. Everyone was united under the American flag. What is really weakening the country is what he calls “Islamophobia”, and this country’s fear of Muslims. We tend to think that they hate our values and the way we operate over here in the West. However, it is not our values that they hate; they hate what we do. Our fear of Islam is leading to our adverse actions, which in turn leads to their retaliation. We have to understand that their hatred is not deeply embodied.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think that my two favorite speakers at the forum were Stuart Kaufman and Professor Khan because they did not try to beat around the bush; they just laid it out and said it like they thought it was. In class, Professor Khan said that Singer said what Stewart said, just “less polite.” Stuart started off by saying that the US is in a state of “low-intensity war” with the Muslim world, a statement that some would say is exaggerated or bold, but I think has truth to it especially if you look at the issue from an Islamic point of view. Stuart showed very interesting statistics about perceptions of the US in the Middle East. For example, in Egypt only 2% of people polled had a favorable view of the US. While they did not particularly surprise me, it is still distressing to see the very negative view with which most of the world views the US. Stuart also gave a brief overview of the history of US foreign policy in the Middle East that highlighted important events. Hearing all of those events in a timeline really put the state of US-Islamic Relations, the topic of the forum, into a helpful context. People in the US get upset by the misperceptions that Middle Easterners hold against us. Although there are definite misconceptions, there is also a lot of truth to the views they hold. How could they not resent us?
I think Professor Khan’s points about Muslims responding to us in a rational way are very important. The vast majority of people in the Islamic world are not extremists and we should not stereotype them as such; if we help them, they will like us. If we are arrogant and interfere in their affairs with negative results, they will not like us. An example of this is that the US has relatively high approval ratings in Indonesia since we helped them after the tsunami. I thought it was interesting that in general, foreigners tend to separate US citizens from US government. However, even that is losing legitimacy because of the war in Iraq and Bush’s reelection. When I was in Ecuador over winter session, our professor told us that people there also make a distinction between the citizens and the government; they hate the government but they are very welcoming and accepting of the people. However, it seemed like every single person we talked to could not understand how Bush was reelected, and that reflected negatively on us. The US government and citizens need to take a serious look at how they portray themselves and choose their actions abroad. This should involve devoting more funds to diplomacy, the third “pillar” of US policy on terror.
I have to admit that while Professor Stuart Kaufman seemed the most popular of the speakers, I did not appreciate his presentation.
Peter Singer was very organized in his speech, and while perhaps a bit dry, his comments were thoughtful and straightforward and he provided commentary and suggestions on how to fix the problems he brought forth.
Mahmood Monshipouri and Mumtaz Ahmad provided unique insight into our relations with Iran and Pakistan respectively. I enjoyed their discussions because it put historical perspective on the events that are currently going on.
Professor Kaufman, however, did none of these things. He was more interested in getting laugh. Not to say being engaging and funny isn't important, but it should not be done at the expense of a useful presentation. I did not find what he had to say very educational... it sounded more like a rant that he created with the intention of getting hoots and applause from the very liberal student body. His views were not, in my opinion, very thought-provoking. When a panel is supposed to be thought-provoking and educational (granted critical as well), making cracks about our government's incompetence with the sole intention of making people laugh (instead of learn) is like using God to get elected to the presidency.
On the other hand, Professor Khan's take on Islamophobia was very interesting, and certainly a perspective I've never heard before. I appreciated his use of statistics and understanding of both Muslim and American culture, and definitely got a lot out of his presentation.
Oh, and unlike Kaufman, he was funny without bothering me as well.
On “Gloomy Look at US-Muslim Relations”
I sense a great lack of optimism throughout this entire piece. I wasn’t able to attend the forum, but judging from how the review called it “gloomy”, I get the feeling it was a lot of unsettling news. The next thing that caught me off guard was how the subtitle says that “academics, policy analysts offer solutions” and then Stuart Kaufman says he has no answers and that he just feels depressed. I would be pissed if that guy was part of the Brookings Institute think tank. I congratulate Peter Singer for at least coming up with some solutions. I feel like there is an all around lack of solution-analysis and an overwhelming abundance of problem-analysis. Even Singer’s solutions seem like they are only thought through half way. Monshipouri basically offered up as a solution that we should talk to Iran and not intimidate them. Come on broseph. Answers like that just don’t seem thorough enough to be plausible. Is Khan’s solution just giving Muslim countries money?
If anything, I feel much more thought needs to be put into practical solutions. The best solution almost seems to be the creation of foreign policy prozac so that everything will stop appearing so pessimistic and gloomy. It is a good thing that forums like this are taking place, but it would be better if the government would really take into account the advice, no matter how slight, given by the panelists.
Post a Comment
<< Home