Blue sky in the Middle East

Ok, so he might have recently annoyed some poor banker and made his paella get a bit cold, but I think we must applaud how Russell Brand has attempted to address issues of global violence and terrorism, as well demonstrating how such issues are regularly manipulated by corporate media. In an age of Islamophobia and far-right extremism, its refreshing to hear someone calling for a more nuanced and compassionate understanding of the causes of recent terror attacks. This is vital if we are to avoid simply fuelling further hatred, further tensions, and further violence.

The tragedy that hit Pakistan on Tuesday was awful, whilst the recent hostage situation in Australia was equally shocking. Let me be clear, I am not condoning these acts. They were despicable and beyond the pale of social acceptance. However, we need to understand the complexities of politics and religious difference in the Middle East, rather than simply reacting with condemnation and urging for further air strikes in the region. We have to develop a stronger appreciation of how The West is implicated in such acts of violence (albeit not always directly). 

The UK and US have a long a history of political intervention across the Middle East, and much of the current tensions are a legacy of the border divisions drawn up after Colonial rule. British interference in Middle Eastern politics has most notably been felt as a consequence of the 1948 'Mandate for Palestine’, which led to the re-distribution of territory from the defunct Ottoman Empire. This resulted in the division of Palestine, the formation of the State of Israel, and with it, a history of Arab-Israeli conflict. It also left a rather sour taste in the mouth across the Gulf in terms of its relationship with The West (compounded by the continual financial and military aid given to Israel). Such interventions have caused long-lasting anxieties between various religions and religious sects across the region, which have been further exacerbated throughout the last century. 

During the Cold War, the Middle East became a strategic battleground between the US and Soviet Union, one that had the added benefit of providing a wealth of natural resources. During this period (and continuing today), each side has given support for political regimes that have exploited their position of power, further marginalising many of the religious communities in the region. To counter each side’s agenda, rebel fractions have also been repeatedly armed and trained by both sides. This has resulted in generations of violent blowback and retaliation, whilst simultaneously undermining the development of the Arab states.

Instability across the Middle East has had a knock-on effect and has allowed certain dangerous ideologies to take root. As suggested elsewhere, the central cause of this region-wide crisis is the failure of state authorities to be able to control their borders and their territories, to provide services to their populations and, ultimately, to forge a common political identity that could be the basis of political community. Unfortunately, this issue has been further complicated through extreme interpretations of religious texts and repeated military conflicts. I would also argue that this situation has emerged as a result of another extreme and dangerous ideology: rabid capitalism.

Russell Brand has done a great job recently at addressing how the power wielded by transnational corporations has damaged communities across the UK, and that contemporary capitalism needs to be reigned in. In a global context, however, Western capitalism is guilty of far worse evils. It has tirelessly exploited the resources and labour of developing nations, using its position as world superpower to gain access to oil reserves across the Middle East. Whilst I do not want to trivialise or reduce the various conflicts which have occurred in the region over the past 30 years (nor do I wish to verge on 'conspiracy theory’ territory), we might well deduce that recent wars in the region have been primarily motivated by a desire to expand the US military-industrial complex and secure valuable fossil fuels.

The fanatical backlash that has emerged in recent years must be seen as a result of unfettered imperialist expansion. Extremist groups are bred from this petri dish of political instability, whilst further military strikes only serve to recruit more to their cause. This is an endless bloody cycle, which serves only the shareholders of Lockheed Martin and co. In an age where children are afraid of blue skies in fear that they might get caught in a drone attack, we must ask ourselves; is it any wonder some of these children mature into extremists? History tells us that violence begets more violence. If we truly want to combat global 'terror' then we have to develop more humane and peaceful solutions.