The Results of Western Pressures on Middle Eastern Countries - Research Paper Example

? The Results of Western Pressures on Middle Eastern Countries Several factors can be attributed to the negative impact that the US government had with regards to the Middle Eastern countries that have petroleum reserves, as well as the treatment of these nations’ constituents. For one, the self-righteous attitude and dominant state of mind by the US government and its citizens blinded them in the human lives and rights that were being violated during their instigation of wars in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resistance in these areas can be attributed to the rebel groups retaliating to the violence and the unfair treatment that their governments get from the US, especially in terms of the control of valuable resources such as oil deposits. Also, the passive nature of the US government in providing sanctions with regards to its own citizens in insulting and mocking other cultures caused the deaths of one of its ambassadors to Libya. This goes to show that while the US government keeps controlling the OPEC’s in a dehumanizing way bloodshed will not stop in these countries. It would be of best interest in both parties that the US government recognize the ability of these Middle Eastern countries in settling their own disputes, educate its citizens in the human rights that the Middle Eastern populations deserve, as well as not branding all Muslims as terrorists, and adjust their policies on the OPEC’s. The Results of Western Pressures on Middle Eastern Countries The US has been known to have major control over the oil-producing countries in the Middle East since around the years a bit before and after the end of the Second World War, and this control has extended even beyond the oil refineries and into the socio-political environment of these countries. Initially taking over these petroleum-producing countries started out as a task that was handed out by former European empires such as the French and the British monarchies, due to their losing ground in seizing full control of the petroleum industries of the countries that handle and export them (Huntington, 1993, p. 31). However, when the prospect of getting hold of the world’s large suppliers of petroleum and other by-products gave the policy-makers in the US ideas of having power over them, it occurred to them that it was possible not just to take hold over the flow of the petroleum products but also manipulating the leaders in these countries in creating policies that would mostly benefit the US, but without covertly seizing hold of the countries themselves. When the US took hold of these oil refinery plants, it gave an idea to its leaders and the general public that because the country has control over these Organizations of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), they are also in control with the social and political environments in these countries, making the US their unofficial world police/peace negotiator/mediator, so far as OPEC’s are concerned. However, such views only added pressure to these countries, as well as undermining their own capacities to rule and prevent or solve conflicts within their adjacent countries and kingdoms (Forsyth, O'Boyle, & McDaniel, 2008, p. 816). In addition, through the eyes of the US citizens, the needs, ideas and traditions of the people living in these countries were deemed insignificant, making the Middle East countries seen only as a group of nations that cater to their large demand of petroleum products (Chomsky, 2004, p. 74). Dehumanizing these countries created pressure between the US and the OPEC’s, which became one of the roots of the seemingly-unending conflicts that not only affect the social and political stability in these nations, but also their moral standpoint as far as the rest of the world is concerned. The retaliation of these countries with regards to how the US maintains control over them and their natural resources became struggles that earned the reputation of Middle Eastern countries as rebels, tyrants, and even terrorists, which are in reality not able to justify the willpower of these nations to get away from the total control that the US and other western nations have over their social, political, and even spiritual environs (Azar, 2011, p. 23). Several examples of the results of the excessive control that the US had over the image of these OPEC’s are the unfair branding of these countries with highly negative and derogatory terms, as well as generalizing the Muslim populations as rebels that work strongly against them. For example, due to the September 11 attacks, instead of attributing the whole event to the Al-Qaeda Terrorist Group, no corrections were made in equating members of the Islamic faith with Islamic extremists or terrorists (Mishra, 2012). This is very much unfair to most Muslims, especially since not only do they condone such terrorist acts as highly against their faith, but also many Muslims perished in these terrorist attacks as well (Laessing & Amara, 2012). However, this was never publicized, and in turn stigmatized the members of the Muslim faith, even being accused of the proliferation of such acts of terrorism. Another example of the passive nature of the US government when it comes to providing proper information about the constituents of the Middle Eastern countries that they have control of is allowing US citizens to simply mock, humiliate, or even insult the cultures that Middle Easterners have, most especially the Islamic faith of the people (Mishra, 2012). The large anti-US rallies that killed US Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens were caused majorly by an anti-Islamic movie called Innocence of Muslims, which not only attacked the faith itself, but also insulted Islam’s most Holy Prophet Mohammad (Mishra, 2012). This was one of the most grave and offending thing that ever crossed the ardent Muslims living in the Middle East, but because of the US being passive by letting something like that leak out and spread in the internet, huge masses of violence spread out, not just in Libya, or Egypt, but also in the majorly Islamic countries from around the world. It did not help that the US took a longer time to respond to such protests, since it was the main reason why the US Ambassador to Libya, along with three other expats paid with their lives (Laessing & Amara, 2012). The combination of the self-righteous nature, unfair stance, and irresponsible use of mass media by some US citizens, as well as the passivity of the government in creating sanctions for such trampling of basic human rights of non-US citizens has been the root of such violence that caused so much violent protests in many Middle Eastern countries. This also showed that the self-righteous attitude of the US government in dealing with problems has created its distant nature with regards to the culture, tradition, as well as religions of other countries (Forsyth, O'Boyle, & McDaniel, 2008, p. 818). In addition to the passiveness of the US government in terms of giving proper treatment of OPEC’s, of not providing sanctions to its own citizens for not getting them properly familiarized with various cultures and values of other countries, not recognizing the significance of the customs and traditions of other cultures, as well as delineating the countries that oppose and support them, the Middle Eastern countries were not seen as the regionalized sectors that they are, but are instead lumped together as a singular term, which is the Middle East (Huntington, 1993, p. 35). Again, this is another example of the excessive control of the government on how its citizens see countries whose natural resources they have great power over. This removes the identity of the people in these countries as persons that also have human rights that need to be recognized, but instead the people are just lumped together along with the rebel groups that also terrorize these same people. It was thus observed that before the US troops were pulled out of these warring nations, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, aside from the members of the resistance forces, many other civilians were also greatly affected, and many were even killed (Azar, 2011, p. 69). All such violence did not give any credit to the upholding of the human rights of these victims, and instead they were only seen as bystanders that were supposed to have free will in choosing to evacuate the kill zones or not. If the US was indeed looking out for the wellbeing of these countries, in the first place bloodshed should not have been the first mode of action. Instead of settling for peaceful negotiations, the US government sees these as a chance to show not just their power but also their influence as to how the world would see these countries that dared to oppose it. The rebel groups that were originally aiming to fight for their rights in their own land become branded as terrorists, even though in the beginning they were only aggravated and chose to use violence to prove their point (Azar, 2011, p. 114). Also, the chaos that ensues in these areas allowed the US to justify the control over them, especially when many lives are at stake. Such harsh measures were being done just to keep the war-torn OPEC countries in line, as well as to show the world that anyone who dares oppose the US government would experience such hardships as well (Chomsky, 2004, p. 201). While this idea of using violence in gaining control over the social, economic, and political system in nations seems to be a great concern for most small and underdeveloped countries, it is interesting to note that the US only chooses to use violence towards countries that have considerable amounts of natural resources that they could control. In the case of OPEC’s, the oil reserves are the main thing that keeps these wars, and once their petroleum becomes consumed, there would be lesser reasons for them to remain under the control of the US government. It can be observed that despite other areas in the world that could have needed additional assistances from developed countries such as the African continent, there were not much US interventions there, not as much as how they intervened in the wars and clashes in the Middle East. One sound reason for this is because there are much more high-value natural resources in the Middle East, which are their petroleum reserves (Chomsky, 2004, p. 91). That itself garners the area a high value, which is why the US is not fazed by spending a lot into their warfare just to keep the chaos and the division in those areas, so as for them to remain under control of the flow of petroleum products and the pricing per barrel in the international market. Such seemingly selfish motives speaks volumes, which goes to show that unless a country has infinite resources that the US government can control, it would be hard to solicit large financial and military assistance from them. This not only keeps the violence within the affected countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan in the Middle East, but also this causes the large fluctuation of oil prices within the US itself, and the rest of the countries that purchase bulk amounts of petroleum products (Spiegel & Pervin, 1995, p. 292). In hindsight, due to the perception of Middle Easterners in the US as a country that has no vested interest in their natural resources, this gave hold for the former to create bonds with the leaders of OPEC’s, which in turn caused them to become dependent for the US with regards to the technology as well as military assistance against other rebelling nations. Unfortunately, this made the US stronger in getting hold of the petroleum reserves and market by forcing the policy makers of OPEC’s to create laws and policies that would mostly benefit the US (Spiegel & Pervin, 1995, p. 295). This causes rifts among policy-makers and leaders within these countries, which in turn causes uprisings and disenchantment among each country’s constituents. The best mode of action for the US government is to change its attitude when dealing with these countries, instead of acting as the police of the world, understanding the cultures and belief systems as well as creating fair trade among these Middle Eastern nations would not only increase their awareness of how their war-like attitude caused the upheavals, but also the discontentment of the Muslim populations in these areas. In addition, it would be of best interest in both the Middle Eastern nations and the US government that the latter recognize the ability of these Middle Eastern countries in settling their own disputes, educating its citizens in the cultures, traditions, and human rights that the Middle Eastern populations have and deserve to have, not branding all Muslims as terrorists or any other cultural groups that they are not fully aware of, and adjusting their policies on the OPEC’s ( (Huntington, 1993, p. 34; (Lewis, 2001, p., 158; Shichor, 2000, p. 77). If these suggested actions go unnoticed, as long as the US government keeps controlling the OPEC’s in a dehumanizing way bloodshed will continue to happen not just in these countries, but in other countries that the US might have hidden agendas with. References Azar, K. (2011). American Foreign Policy & Its Link To Terrorism In The Middle East (1st ed.). Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse. Chomsky, N. (2004). Middle East Illusions: Including Peace in the Middle East? Reflections on Justice and Nationhood (1st ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Forsyth, D., O'Boyle, E. J., & McDaniel, D. (2008). East meets west: a meta-analytic investigation of cultural variations in idealism and relativism. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 813-833. Huntington, S. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49. Laessing, U., & Amara, T. (2012). Anti-American fury sweeps Middle East over film - Reuters. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-film-protests-idUSBRE88D0O320120914 Lewis, B. (2001). What Went Wrong?:Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mishra, P. (2012, September 23). America’s Inevitable Retreat From the Middle East - NYTimes.com. Retrieved from The New York Times Web site: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/opinion/americas-inevitable-retreat-from-the-middle-east.html?pagewanted=all Shichor, Y. (2000). Mountains out of molehills: arms transfers in sino-middle eastern relations. Middle East Review of International Affairs, 4(3), 68-79. Spiegel, S., & Pervin, D. (1995). Practical Peacemaking in the Middle East, Volume 2: The Environment, Water, Refugees, and Economic Cooperation and Development. Los Angeles, CA: Regents of the University of California. Read More