Unfolding World - International Affairs and Development

The Islamic World

American media seems to love the terms "The Islamic World" and "The Muslim World". I'm not fond of either. What is the "Islamic World" exactly? Is it the Middle East? Is it Turkey? Is it deep Southeast Asia? Is it Western Asia like Pakistan and Afghanistan? Is it African countries like Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Sudan or Somalia? Is it many of the former Soviet republics and several current Russian territories? Does it include mixed countries like India, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines - or even France, Britain and the United States? After all, my best friend is Muslim. Isn't this his world too? But if we stick to the predominantly Islamic countries, what makes them a unified Islamic World? Aside from religious holidays, prayer and common belief, is there a common denominator? Is Islam itself a culture? I think usually, the press used "Islamic World" primarily to refer to the Arab countries, and often Iran. Maybe even Pakistan and Afghanistan - which have been in news and American consciousness more in the past ten years. Even within the "Arab World", I'm not so sure there's a cultural unity. After all, the PLO tried to depose King Hussein of Jordan and later the PLO and Syria stripped Lebanon of its sovereignty. The Hashemites of Jordan have always been odd-man out among Arab states - largely leaning Westward. And Egypt has little love for the Saudis or Jordan. And then there's Iran. Middle East heavyweight. Completely not Arab. Persian Shiites, not Arab Sunis. And historically at odds with the Arab nations. Persians I know look down on Arabs. To them, how can a group of wandering tribes turned nation-states stand in the same league as the rich, powerful, and cultured Persian Empire? Their histories, outlooks and even religious practices are so different. But to American eyes both Arab and Iranian are so foreign and threatening. So we lump them together. And what of Indonesians, Malays, and Southern Thais? Are they too part of an alliance with the Middle East? Are they the same as Arabs? My thought is that the average Southern Thai Muslim is as Thai as the rest. In a "Clash of Cultures" they would remain loyal to the Thai King - which means they remain tied firmly to America, Europe and ASEAN. Does the average Sumatran or Lombokian in Indonesia even know what an Iranian is or can they point to the United Arab Emirates on a map? And then there's the real conundrum - Turkey. Member of NATO, applying to the EU, bridge between East and West, friendly to Israel, site of US military bases. Turks, not Arabs. Former home of the Byzantine Empire. Host to Kurds, Armenians and many other cultures. Are they also "The Islamic World" ? I suppose my point is simple and clear today. Our American media uses a broad brush, hype, and propaganda to turn us ignorantly against one another. The media reduced diverse and rich peoples into a singular entity - and a threat. Do we have reason to worry about threats from certain Islamic countries and even radical groups? Absolutely. But let's not go back to the Crusades by calling it a religious war. Religion is the thinly veiled rallying cry for a wealthy sovereign to enlist the poor, and uneducated to fight for his wealth and security. Let's not forget that Iran and Turkey provided the US air space to help Israel in the 1973 War, when Germany, whose defense we provide,would not. Let's not lump Turks, Ethiopians and Sulawesis in with Syrians. Let's not hold people suspect for their faith alone. Let's hold our media, and therefore ourselves as educated and intelligent American citizens, accountable.

What's in a Nationality?

Lee Kwan Yew, Singapore's first prime minister and a founding father of the Republic of Singapore, has said that America's greatest asset is it's ability to attract and absorb top talent from around the world.

It's true. America is a land of immigrants. And we, perhaps uniquely in all the world, turn people into Americans. We retain the talent because people shed their pasts to become part of the society. Like a black hole, the desire to be American pulls them in forever.

Singapore wants this too - or it says it does. The attracting and keeping talent part at least.

But that part where it doesn't matter where you came from - that's where Singapore hesitates. Even though Singapore is made up of three major ethnic groups (and perhaps five to seven more if you count each Chinese subculture - Teochew, Cantonese, Hokkien, etc), Singapore prefers its immigrants to be Chinese and Indian - because they fit in better.

Despite Singapore's desperate need for both skilled professionals as well as blue collar workers, it narrows its scope because - in the end - not any ethnicity can become Singaporean.

This - at least in theory - contrasts the US.

And then there's Japan - where nationality and ethnicity are one. Only a Japanese can be Japanese. Japan has no major immigrant groups, nor does it plan to. And a Japanese may live abroad, but somehow will always remain detached in a way. They remain at heart Japanese.

In Africa, most countries are little more than remnants of colonial administrative zones drawn mostly by the British and French. People's identities are still more with their tribes than with their nationalities.

Does the average Botswanan see him/herself as a Botswanan - or a Tswanan, Kalangan or AbaThwa?

What is a People? What's in a Nationity, really? As we reach the later Nation-State period, where do our identifies and loyalties lie?

As a Jew, this question pops up for me every now and then.

My grandfather fought in World War II, as did his brothers. My grandmother's brother died in a VA hospital. One of my cousins served two tours in the Marines. Just like everyone else, we're American and willing to die for our country.

But then, once in awhile the subject comes up - what if things here changed? What if we had a new McCarthyism? What if this country fell apart somehow? What if people turned on each other?

It's such a troubling question. When your ethnic and national identities diverge, what do you do? Who are you first and foremost? Do you stay and fight for your place in your country, or know you're different and leave? Given that perhaps more than any other ethnicity - there are Jews everywhere. You can always find a place with others of your ethnicity.

This question isn't unique to Jews.

Overeseas Chinese form a huge part of the world's population. Many Thais joke they have a Chinese Parliament. Many businesses close in Thailand during Chinese New Year because many of Bangkok's elite are of Chinese heritage. The same can be found throughout Southeast Asia and even in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.

Africa, as I mentioned, is filled with modern nation-states made up of tribes, with tribal leaders and identities.

Sikhs can be found in every corner of the globe, including former British African and Asian posessions.

And even Canada has an entire province that wants to break free on the basis of ethnicity - caucasian as they are. Quebec even wanted to rejoin France until France made it unequivocably clear it wouldn't take Quebec back - even if it did secede. After all DeGaulle did stir them up by saying "Vive le Quebec libre!"

As our world changes, will this question of ethnicity versus nationality become moot? If the EU concept continues to gain strength will being French or Spanish be more of an ethnicity than a nationality?

Is it possible we will all be Sikhs, Jews, and Overeas Chinese? Always knowing who we are no matter where we are or which land is ours?

Will the decay of the nation-state eventually mean a Swede can be as Singaporean as a Tamil?

What is success? What is ideal? Will we lose the beauty of cultures being separate and unique? Or will we eventually meld into something stronger and more universal?

I wonder if the Singaporean Sikhs know...

My iPhone and the Fate of the World

  For the past three days I've been admiring my new iPhone. What a great piece of technology - doing what most great new technologies do - empower us. At least in theory.

For certain, the iPhone brings more options and abilities to a person's fingertips. Anywhere, anytime. And for Americans - and much of the Post-Industrial First World - it's another offering laid at the feet of the great god, Efficiency.

Whatever one's view of Efficiency and whether or not you're one of his minions (and it's hard to live in America and not become one), the iPhone and so many of our new technologies are "Good". They empower us as individuals - and that fits right in with Freedom and Liberty.

And not only does it liberate us from landlines and cables, but it also brings us a world full of information into a little device we can keep in our pockets. I can look up anything, contact anyone, hear from anyone - anytime, anywhere so long as my battery holds charge and I'm in an AT&T service area.

It's hard to argue with the wonder of that.

As I was talking with my father - who is a Populist at heart - this morning, he also exalted technology and it's ability to give us all a forum. He has a book he can self-publish and even make accessible on the Internet thanks to technology. Publishers no longer are the gatekeepers of what we can read and know. Case in point - this blog.

And then it struck me. The Question.

"Do you ever think the technology will get so far ahead of society that we'll crash?"

There's nothing new about this question - movies explore it all the time. The Matrix series is based on it. But you know, those are movies.

My father, good man that he is, towed the American line. "Technology is what's going to save us. It's going to pull us along. It saves lives and brings cures to people who would have died from diseases all around the world."

True.

The thing about technology is that it reflects the values of the people who create it. And in most cases, the creators reflect the values of their societies.

But what happens when one set of values is not only more inclusive than another, but, by its nature gets in everyone else's face?

American values say that what's Good should be shared with the world. America is the shining city on the hill - and access to truth, knowledge and communication can be nothing but desirable. So, we sell it everywhere.

Back to my iPhone. Apple is selling it around the world. It's even rolling it out in phases - 20 or so countries to start and if yours isn't one of them, don't worry, they're working on it. My friend in Israel happily informed that Israeli programmers just cracked the code on a Hebrew version of the iPhone platform, so now it shouldn't be long before Apple brings it to Israel.

Embedded in the iPhone is more than the language platform and operating system - it's a set of values. That communication, access to information and ideas - and having it anywhere and everywhere is Good.

For Israelis, that's probably true. Most of Europe and parts of Asia will agree. The Supreme Court of Cultural Opinion will rule it "Good". And people will stand in line for them like a Krispy Kreme on opening day.

But what happens when the iPhone hits somewhere that doesn't think all this is so Good? What happens where Efficiency is considered an evil idol of heathens?

Maybe more fairly, what happens where the values of the society haven't yet - and may never - come to the conclusion that all this individual empowerment is Good?

Sometimes it's like planting a virus into a society. It causes a debate, a change - maybe one that wouldn't have happened otherwise. It's a little like handing guns to people who have never seen them and wouldn't have invented them. And we all know how successful that was....

Maybe some people will laugh and walk away. I would speculate that the average Laotian would think it's very interesting, but rather silly - and that they have more important things to do than to play with a little hand-held device.

But for others, the ideas themselves may begin debates and changes. Saudi Arabia, a society with factions and debates perhaps more volatile than the world would like to admit - may find the iPhone another step on the road to civil war. While the wealthy ruling class enjoys Western education and absorbs ideas from around the world, poor fundamentalists begin to think their leaders have been seduced by the White Devil. The iPhone is just one more way we infiltrate and erode their culture and values.

And it kinda' is.

After all, in the Missionary nature of American style Democracy and Freedom we take the fundamental assumption that we'll change the world, not by force, but by trade and the exportation of our ideas.

And maybe even more simply and subtly, what the very idea of the iPhone is that it empowers you as an Individual. But what about more community and family oriented societies - places where you are part of something bigger - and it's that something bigger that holds it all together? For places like France, Thailand, even Singapore - the iPhone may just be another step in societal degeneration. In effect, the iPhone makes them a little less French, Thai and Singaporean - and a little more individual in the World.

Now, you don't have to ask your grandfather, father, priest, monk, professor, teacher, community leader - you ask Google, a demi-god serving Efficiency.

The iPhone might have toppled Lee Kwan Yew if it had been invented 30 years earlier!

But would Singapore have been better? As much as some people would disagree - I say no. Sometimes, a leader - a father - the head of a community, even if flawed, is what keeps it together. Singapore is alive today because of social cohesion - not individuality. Its future may be different than its past - but it made it this far because of old social values - common among all three of Singapore's main Asian ethnicities. Lee Kwan Yew, among other things, knew how to help people see what they had in common - not what made them different.

But the iPhone has no perspective. In the iPhone's world all ideas are Good. It's there to bring them to you - and you make the decision. Depending on the user, the iPhone can help you see why people all have so much in common. It can help you see how we all want to kill each other. It can help you plot an act of mass destruction. It can help you bring your friends together for drinks Friday night.

The makers of the iPhone imagined the friends getting together for drinks Friday night a lot more than the acts of mass destruction. But it's there, isn't it?

The individual receives tons of ideas and information. The individual has to decipher, make decisions and decide what to do with it.

World War I was one of the most ghastly events in history. It often gets overshadowed by its sequel, World War II due to the mass murdering and larger theater of war. But World War I was a milestone - the beginning of modern war. And even more so, one of the clearest examples of technology that had gotten ahead of its users.

Science at the turn of the century was a pride of America and Europe. We were advancing at unprecedented rates - with cures, communications, automation and transportation that changed us forever. Science reflected our better values. It was Good. 

Governments of the time used those scientific advancements to create automated weapons, motorized vehicles, chemical weapons. Efficiency was supposed to have blessed them and made war quick and decisive. Instead, people were tricked. Horrors and human tragedy of unprecedented proportions burst forth. The term "basket case" was coined from the number of soldiers who lost all their limbs. And after four years of using practices that caused us to define and ban war crimes and create the Geneva Convention - the war ended inconclusively.

Could it be that once again, the technology is getting ahead of people's values?

Could it be that my iPhone, in the wrong hands, is creating schisms in other societies? And where could those schisms lead? Could my iPhone - which is just trying its very best to help me out - inadvertently escort us to a new World War I?