| Reprinted from the Middle East Studies
Association Bulletin, Winter 2001 (with changes in orthography to HTML standards). Copyright 2001 by the Middle East Studies Association of North America |
The Caspian Region at a Crossroad: Challenges of a New Frontier of Energy and Development, edited by Hooshang Amirahmadi. 299 pages, index. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. $59.95 (Cloth) ISBN 0-312-022-351-X Amirahmadi has compiled an excellent collection of essays on the Caspian region’s energy, development, and security. The chronological focus of most of the essays is on the recent past and the present, which makes the collection a most useful reference work for those seeking to understand the complexities of current regional developments. The contributors to this volume include lawyers, historians, and specialists in international relations and international development from such nations as Iran, Russia, Norway, and the United States. The sixteen essays they have produced are divided into five topical sections: people and resources; development and environment; pipelines and outlets; security and geo-politics; and legal perspectives, and constitute a fine addition to recent literature on this region. The Caspian Region at a Crossroad will prove valuable for scholars in such diverse fields as Middle Eastern studies, international law, and energy policy and development, as well as for policy officials and analysts. Several features of this volume are particularly noteworthy. One is the repeated call in all of its essays for cooperation in solving the Caspian region’s difficulties. Eschewing all thought of hegemony for one or more powers, the contributors remain committed to the idea of cooperation in the pursuit of common, regional interests. Hormoz Goodarz highlights this aspect in his essay on the Caspian’s environmental needs, forcefully stating the necessity of getting “regional actors to cooperate for the good of the region as a whole” (p. 143). Other authors wholeheartedly agree. A second contribution of this volume is its inclusion of a legal perspective on the Caspian region, something often slighted in other works. The three essays that comprise the book’s legal section demonstrate the importance of legal delimitation of “the territorial rights of each [regional] state” so that “a clear path to development of the Caspian’s resources” can be charted (p. 270). Ignoring the legal dimension of the region’s problems, the authors believe, would be most unwise. Finally, this volume makes clear the impossibility of studying or dealing with the Caspian region without considering the position of Iran. The centrality of Iran comes out clearly in the essay by Bradford R. McGuinn and Mohiaddin Mesbahi, which calls for “the de-ideologization and even normalization of American-Iranian relations” (p. 201), though other authors also make similar arguments about the impossibility of considering the Caspian region without Iran. The Caspian Region at a Crossroad is replete with useful information and statistics, a fact that will no doubt make it a valuable reference source for scholars in a variety of fields. It also advances the important cause of regional cooperation and offers solid advice to those who would wish to make policy for the region. Mary Ann Heiss Kent State University Nation and Religion in the Middle East, by Fred Halliday. 236 pages, index. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000. $19.95 (Paper) ISBN 1-55587-935-7 Admirers of Halliday will be reassured to learn that there is a lot of ‘nation’ and very little ‘religion’ in these articles published between 1979 and 2000. Halliday sticks to a self-described ‘modernist’ script: the state is the central actor; the time horizon is the last century or so; material conditions and power considerations shape state actions; salvation lies in the adoption of the universal values and rights of the Western liberal tradition. By contrast, Halliday castigates post-modernists who see those values and rights as discursive, contingent, and ripe for renegotiation; just as he dismisses Muslim ideologues who maintain that a religious tradition that is exclusivist by definition can give birth to egalitarian democratic institutions. This is the burden of the recently written opening chapter, “Liberal Theory and the Middle East,” a chapter that is a model of lucidity, cogency of argument, economy of expression, and freedom from jargon. Three essays concerned with nationalism, Yemen, and terrorism complete the section on “Political Theory and Nationalist Ideology.” Three more dealing with monarchy, Arab-Persian friction, and Iran and Tunisia compose a section on “Modernity and the State.” The last four, labeled “Reportages,” portray Tehran in 1979, Saudi Arabia in 1997, Turkey in 1998, and Manchester in the prewar era. “The Middle East at 2000: The Millennial Illusion” concludes the book. Most problematic are the essays on Manchester and Tehran. The former, a history of Syrian and Moroccan immigrants in that hub of the English cotton trade, has little to do with either nation or religion. The latter, the earliest written, reflects intense hostility toward an Islamic republic: “The oft-heard slogan ‘There is no Right nor Left in Islam’ and Khomeini’s appeals for Islamic unity are the conventional fare of overtly fascist regimes” (p. 161). This as opposed to a more composed opinion in the 1994 essay comparing Iran and Tunisia: The measure of Khomeini’s achievement should not be understated: the regime has survived for two decades and after Khomeini’s death saw a quick and smooth transition to the successor leadership. It retains considerable support from its own population, has permitted a greater degree of political pluralism than any other modern revolution, and its impact upon Muslims the world over continues (p. 141). Halliday maintains that modernity offers the sole avenue for bettering Middle Eastern lives and instituting liberal political institutions. Islamic alternatives are “obscurantist rubbish” (p. 166) and “a mishmash of ideas” (p. 183) promoted by “dangerous looking bearded young men” (p. 182). Though Western liberal values count as a universal good, the Islamic heritage is simply a grabbag for opportunists and demagogues. Since “nothing more than two centuries old should be of relevance to either history or legitimation” (p. 56)―including, presumably the American and French revolutions―there is simply no need to think seriously about religion. “The context of the 1960s and 1970s, in which [his] perspective was formed” (p. 219) paid no heed to religion. Halliday is true to that perspective. Richard W. Bulliet Columbia University Unipolarity and the Middle East, by Birthe Hansen. 245 pages, endnotes, references, index. New York, NY: St Martin's Press, 2001. $59.95 (Cloth) ISBN 0-312-21521-5 Increasingly, students of the Middle East have attempted to add a theoretical dimension, particularly from the International Relations (IR) field, to enhance our understanding and explanations for patterns of behavior in this region. Adding to such scholarship is Hansen’s Unipolarity and the Middle East, an attempt to apply neorealist theory to explain post-Cold War regional developments. Hansen’s central thesis is that the end of the Cold War brought about structural change which impacted the patterns of conflict and cooperation in the Middle East. Specifically, the move from a bipolar system to a unipolar one (with the US serving as the dominant power) has had, in her view, a dramatic effect on regional relations. To demonstrate this, Hansen aims to construct a theoretical model for unipolarity (supplementing Waltz’s neorealist theory and focus on bipolarity) and apply this model to explain the international relations of the Middle East from 1989 to 1998. The first four chapters of the book develop the unipolar model, where Hansen draws on central neorealist tenets such as anarchy, self-help, and structuralism to theorize how unipolarity might affect regional politics. In this regard, she develops a number of expectations about unipolarity, such as the tendency of regional parties to “flock” around the unipole since it is difficult to work against it when it is the “single option” available. The remainder of the book addresses the empirical developments in the 1990s which her theory seeks to explain, providing good summaries of various regional developments. Case study chapters cover issues such as the unification of Yemen, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the development of the international coalition against Iraq, the Gulf War, and the various tracks of the Arab-Israeli peace process. She also includes a case on the end of the Lebanese Civil War and a short chapter on the Western Saharan Cease-fire. The book’s last chapters conclude by highlighting the major patterns of conflict and cooperation in the region and the new security challenges to come. Thus, Unipolarity and the Middle East attempts to speak to both the IR theory community as well as students of the Middle East. Hansen provides a convincing account of the change brought about by the shift from bipolarity to unipolarity in a region like the Middle East, which was so deeply embedded in Cold War rivalry. She argues persuasively that, without the end of the Cold War, major regional developments such as the international response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the emergence of an Arab-Israeli peace process would not have materialized. It is less clear, however, how the structural condition of unipolarity impacts the region over time as compared to other factors which neorealists tend to ignore, such as the particular nature of US hegemony, domestic politics, non-state actors, international norms, globalization, and the role of leadership, both in the region and in the US. Moreover, when considering the areas Hansen covers, regional politics increasingly seem to reveal less regional adaptation to systemic constraints than attempts by regional parties to go back to their old ways, regardless of whether there is one superpower or two. Dalia Dassa Kaye The George Washington University “Pariah States” & Sanctions in the Middle East: Iraq, Libya, Sudan, by Tim Niblock. (The Middle East in the International System) 241 pages, notes, bibliography, index. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001. $49.95 (Cloth) ISBN 1-55587-962-4 The conclusion of the Lockerbie Trial, together with dialogue related to the renewal of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in the United States, has stimulated renewed debate as to the impact of bilateral and multilateral sanctions. Unfortunately, the dialogue in this regard has too often been emotionally charged, ill-informed, and counter-productive if not simply polemical. To evaluate the impact of sanctions regimes, they should be rationally assessed relative to the policy goals they are intended to achieve. This is precisely the approach taken by Niblock in “Pariah States” and Sanctions in the Middle East. The author examines the rationale, impact, and effects of the sanctions imposed by the UN in the 1990s on the governments and people of Iraq, Libya, and Sudan. Niblock concludes that the international order has yet to find a satisfactory means to address states accused of transgressing international law. The imposition of economic sanctions by the UN on Iraq beginning in the early 1990s and on Libya from 1992 to 1999, for example, damaged the stability of the international order as well as injuring the social, economic, and political institutions of the target states. In addition, the imposition of sanctions regimes had a negative impact on the credibility of the UN as a global organization dedicated to supporting the interests of those suffering from poverty and oppression. On the contrary, the use of sanctions by the UN contributed to the impression, widely held in and out of the Arab world, of a global order managed exclusively in the interests of a narrow range of Western powers. In consequence, the author argues, the imposition of sanctions by the UN could well frustrate future attempts to use the organization to promote legitimate and worthwhile international aims like the promotion of human rights and the resolution of interstate conflict. In the concluding chapter, Niblock suggests that multilateral sanctions in the three case studies examined have made one positive contribution to the international order and five negative ones. On the positive side, multilateral sanctions can help to contain a regime that otherwise might be disruptive, assuming neighboring states are prepared to respect the sanctions regime. On the negative side, the case studies of Iraq, Libya, and Sudan suggest that sanctions do not necessarily achieve the immediate objectives of the UN. In some cases, multilateral economic sanctions have tended to strengthen the regimes in power; and in others, they have had an adverse effect on the social bases necessary for increased democratization. Economic sanctions can also undermine the political stability of states with negative repercussions for the stability of the regional and global order. Finally, multilateral sanctions often delay the development of the frameworks for enhanced regional cooperation that can underpin regional stability. “Pariah States” & Sanctions in the Middle East is the most perceptive, honest, and thought-provoking analysis of multilateral sanctions published in recent years. It offers a cogent, well-documented, and convincing treatment of an important subject, and its observations are generally applicable to sanctions regimes beyond the three examined in this study. The book should be of interest to students of international law, politics, and economics as well as specialists in Africa and the Middle East. It should be required reading for those international bureaucrats, politicians, and diplomats actively involved in the management of existing sanctions regimes or contemplating the creation of others. Ronald Bruce St John Independent Scholar Contemporary Turkish Politics: Challenges to Democratic Consolidation, by Ergün Özbudun. 164 pages, bibliography, index. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000. $49.95 (Cloth) ISBN 1-55587-735-4 Özbudun’s study provides a comprehensive and penetrating overview of the Turkish experience with democracy since 1945. His central claim is that although there is little reason to fear that authoritarianism will return, there is every reason to assume that Turkey will remain for sometime, to use a concept popularized by Guillermo O’Donnell, only a delegative democracy. Özbudun identifies the role of the military, the deinstitutionalization and volatility of the party system, and the constitutional dilemmas posed by Kurdish separatism and the rise of Political Islam as challenges to the process of democratic consolidation in Turkey. Major emphasis is placed on the pervasive lack of accountability as a critical weakness of Turkish democracy. The book is rich in terms of its historical perspective as well as differents facets of Turkish democracy. Contemporary Turkish Politics also differs from many other studies in the sense that it is based on an explictly comparative framework. There are frequent references to similar experiences, notably in Latin America, Southern Europe, and the post-Communist Eastern Europe, and a concerted effort is made to compare and contrast the Turkish case with those experiences. A closer investigation, however, reveals that in spite of its strengths the book contains two key omissions. The first of these omissions concerns the absence of a detailed analysis involving the impact of the external environment and the interplay of domestic politics and external forces. Özbudun’s analysis is primarily confined to the domestic sphere. Particularly significant in this context is the role played by the European Union in Turkey’s democratization process. The impact of the EU on Turkish politics is clearly evident following the announcement of full candidate status at the EU’s Helsinki Summit in December 1999, a process which tends to make one more optimistic concerning the prospects of democratic consolidation in Turkey. To give an example, the controversial issue concerning the cultural rights of the Kurds is now widely discussed in the Turkish state and society, a process which has clearly been influenced by the powerful impetus provided by potential EU membership. Furthermore, there is evidence that political Islam in Turkey is moving in a moderate direction, with Refah’s successor the Virtue Party adopting an explicitly pro-European stance. This change may be considered as yet another illustration of the powerful impact of the EU on Turkey’s domestic politics. The second omission concerns the relative neglect of socio-economic or structural processes in Turkey’s democratization process. Özbudun explicitly states that “none of the breakdowns of democracy in Turkey seems to be the inevitable outcome of deep-seated structural or sociological causes. In all cases, the behavior of leaders of political parties looms large as a factor leading to breakdown” (p. 43). This approach tends to underplay the role of pervasive income inequality, for example, as a key constraint on democratic consolidation. In many cases, what superficially appear to be displays of identity politics such as political Islam are closely linked to pervasive poverty and inequality and the inability of successive governments to adequately deal with these problems. These are clearly issues which future studies need to consider. Özbudun makes a major contribution in terms of identifying some of the principal challenges to democratic consolidation in emerging democratic polities. Contemporary Turkish Politics is apt to be of broader interest to students of comparative politics. As a study of the Turkish democratization process, it is likely to be established as a major source of reference. Ziya Önis Koc University Stories of Democracy, Politics and Society in Contemporary Kuwait, by Mary Ann Tetreault. 309 pages, tables, notes, bibliography, index. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2000. $28.50 (Paper) ISBN 0-231-11489-3 Like Ismael and Crystal,[61] but with a less political-economic and more political-theoretical argument, Tetreault provides a fascinating and insightful analysis of political life and institutions in Kuwait. Tetreault manages simultaneously to be both appreciative and critical of this unique political system. Her commitment to telling the complex and subtle truth(s) as she understands it from many, mutually incompatible, sources is rare and rich. Throughout the book, but especially in chapters three (about the history of Kuwait and how Kuwaitis conceive that history) and five (about the Iraqi occupation), she presents ‘stories’ told by Kuwaitis of different backgrounds in a mercifully unannoying post-modernist style. The reader, left with no single, simple-minded idea of the politics or the society of Kuwait, still finishes the book feeling satisfied with this three-dimensional portrayal. Tetreault presents political theory effectively and then uses the Kuwaiti case to critically reflect back on it. She treats abstract conceptions of, and relations between, citizens and states. Ranging broadly from the ancient Athenian city-state, to the Puritan movement in England in the seventeenth century, to the meaning of ‘modernity’ in the developing countries today, the author gives us a sense of Kuwait’s place in the movement of history. She illustrates insights such as the idea that democracy is “not an end in itself, but rather a means for realizing what citizens together define as a good society” (p. 6), and that a “social contract,” when it is applied consciously and explicitly, as in Kuwait, constrains the dictatorial inclinations of the rulers. The author does not take as given a priori the Western, especially US, definition of ‘democracy’ as the model for all other societies. Rather, she asks what ‘democracy’ means (or could mean) in a lively polity like Kuwait, and then turns that around to challenge Western preconceptions. Tetreault’s presentation of disparate viewpoints in dynamic disequilibrium has the quality of an academic thriller in which the denouement is never reached, because the outcome is still being determined by the characters. Through detailed, sometimes blow-by-blow, descriptions of Kuwaiti politics in the 1990s, we see the obvious: that inequalities are rife and that the ruling family is indeed powerful. Yet we also see that princely power is not absolute, criticism of the ruling family is widespread and frequent, and inequalities are constantly being challenged along new dimensions. Despite monarchy, Kuwait has a highly politicized citizenry with a tradition of building social movements that contest the concentration of power and demand change. The author does not elaborate on the logical implicit comparison to regimes such as Saudi Arabia, where no overt political life is allowed, and no constitution or parliament may even be considered. And what about the other principalities of the Gulf where such ideas are at least raised, with temerity, by the citizens but crushed unceremoniously by the rulers? Kuwait is indeed an interesting and vital polity, but why it is more so than its neighbors is a question yet to be tackled. Karen Pfeifer Smith College |
| [61] Jacqueline S. Ismael, Kuwait: Dependency and Class in a Rentier State (University Press of Florida, 1993); and Jill Crystal, Oil and Politics in the Gulf: Rulers and Merchants in Kuwait and Qatar (Cambridge University Press, 1995). |
|
|
