#davidignatius

Members of Congress are reportedly seeking to block funding for the current headquarters of the Space Command in Colorado and force the space military branch to move to Alabama. Read more…

A Response to David Ignatius’ “Technology and Nonviolence Keep Arab Hopes Alive” in the Daily Star (Lebanon) on August, 12, 2013: http://dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2013/Aug-12/226972-technology-and-nonviolence-keep-arab-hopes-alive.ashx#axzz2bfX8EvzH

  Does Money buy freedom? That’s the logic sold by David Ignatius in his most recent column in the Daily Star (Lebanon). Unfortunately, money does not buy freedom, nor does Ignatius’ fealty to American-centric foreign policy strategies, under the guise of “deeper currents” in the region, reconcile with reality.

Ignatius suffers from the pervasive American-centric Middle East myopia in that he views the region through the reductive prism of economics and solutionism, both bereft of international or domestic politics. As with his brethren - Thomas Friedman or Roger Owen - Ignatius collapses the region, as if each of the individual nations – and the diverse range of identities therein – fit neatly into a simplistic and reductive matrix suitable for a powerpoint. Accordingly, the wealthy natural gas exporter, Qatar, is virtually the same as Egypt. This simplified view of the region may seem appealing, but merely eschews the mosaic of diverse domestic politics and range of actors and factors at play.  

Technology as Panacea

Ignatius’ most ignominious claim neglects any semblance of mobilization of Egyptians for political change. He posits “the forces that are undermining dictatorial rule are embedded in technology”. Such outrageous Administration talking points should not given credence in any public forum, much less a journalist in the Washington Post. 

First, was Ignatius not following the mass mobilization of protesters for change in Tahrir Square in January and February 2011 or, more recently, June 30 of this year? Or what about the protesters in Bahrain who were targeted by security forces for pictures to show their participation in the Bahrain protests? No, the mass mobilization of people - not Facebook profiles or thousands of tweets - are the actual drivers of change. 

Second, to what precise “technology” does Ignatius refer? Phones? Computers? The Abacus? He may clarify in some way shape or form, otherwise, his point may be lost in oblique language, but this may be the point. I will return to this later.

Problematic rhetoric of “technology” aside, the audacity of attribution for the mass mobilization to Facebook, other social network sites, or even the world wide web smacks of a very selective reading of the wave of protests in 2011 or even more recently. Certainly, pages, such as “We Are all Khaled Said” brought international attention to the January 25 protests in Egypt, however, sleek packaging of “Facebook” or “Twitter” revolutions speaks more to imagination than reality.

Rather, the revolts around the region included a diverse array of actors not limited to the oft-cited tech-savvy youth. The demographics of the January 25, 2011 Tahrir protests were notoriously opaque. To claim otherwise, is to gloss over reality. Labor unions, syndicates, impoverished peri-urban dwellers, Muslim Brotherhood, all rubbed shoulders in Tahrir and other protests around the nation in late January and early February 2011, and this trend was replicated in Jordan and Bahrain, among other nations. Nuance is all too often the first casualty for the sake of a reductive narrative to contextualize the protests, and Ignatius claims reinforce these simplistic narratives. 

Moreover, if the “technology” to which Ignatius refers is indeed the world wide web and social networking sites, then such tools may not be the panacea to which he claims. These tools were leveraged by security forces to identify and target protesters in Egypt, Syria, and Bahrain since 2011 and in Iran in 2009. 

On the other hand, Ignatius' claims to "technology" may refer to a wholly separate topic, economics. His apparent interlocutor for the region, a former Washington Post colleague and venture capitalist, Christopher Schroeder, guides Ignatius through the promise of “technology” in the region. These two take readers on a journey through regional websites and applications myopically viewed through the prism equivalent American organizations. Ignatius writes: “altibbi.com…an Arab version of WebMD; souq.com…with over 8 million customers…namshi.com…like Zappos”.  Of course, such “bazaars” are merely a portion of the impressive array pervasive and revolutionary “technology” plied in the Middle East. Or maybe these are the investments of his venture capitalist interlocutor.

Ignatius ascribes similar importance to an array of others involved with "technology" in the region. He writes of a Saudi woman, who designed and marketed a line of Ipod accessories, a Syrian creator of a “computer animation venture”, and the Kuwaiti who created a mobile game application.” While these clearly left a mark on the two journeymen, the suggestion they impacted politics is simply comedic. According to this logic, Angry Birds, other games, or even new apps are the change makers in domestic politics, rather than the individuals braving tear gas and and bullets on the streets. 

Nonviolent Civil War?

Ignatius further demonstrates his willful blindness of regional politics and developments of the past two and a half years. This cluelessness is manifest in his claims to what will foster the “political culture of tolerance and rule of law” in the region: nonviolent resistance.  

Who could argue nonviolent resistance is the preferred method of popular mobilization? Very few. Nonviolent resistance is a consistent trope plied by the Obama Administration in the wake of the 2011 uprisings, however, situations evolve. This is not to suggest Egyptians, Tunisians, or anyone else around the region should take up arms, but to suggest Syrians simply need to embrace nonviolence is highly problematic, given the Syrian regime is mired in a civil war with an array of forces. Syrian activist embrace of nonviolence would lead to an even worse bloodbath. Similarly, infighting between Libyan militias does not offer a viable backdrop for nonviolent resistance.  

Ignatius couches the support for nonviolent resistance based on the research of Erica Chenoweth and Maria J Stephen. Their aggregate study of the nonviolence resistance movements between 1900 and 2006 Ignatius' justification. According to Ignatius, the findings indicate nonviolent resistance “succeeded” in 53 percent of the uprisings. But does an aggregate picture of nonviolent resistance over a span of 106 years offer a framework for the developments in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, or Syria? 

The findings simply beg more questions. How did the researchers define nonviolent resistance? Moreover, would the Egypt uprising or that found in Syria fit within that category?  Certainly, there were situations in which violence seeped into any uprising. Furthermore, how did the authors define success? For example, did the Egypt uprising of 2011 meet the criteria for “success”, according to the authors? Certainly, in light of recent developments, the “revolution” is ongoing. Comparability among mass mobilizations seems utterly reductive, given the range of factors not accounted for in "success" or "failure". 

Ignatius' suggestion for the Syrian and Libyan “change agents” simply need to embrace nonviolence demonstrates his ignorance. This idea of nonviolent resistance probably seems viable from a comfortable hotel in Dubai or from Suburban Maryland, but such suggestions are inconsistent with the political developments of the past two years. Regardless of labeling – civil war, popular uprising, or humanitarian crisis – the situations in Libya and Syria are militarized. Here, Ignatius' suggestion merely undercuts his credibility as an authoritative voice on Syria, Libya, or the wider region.   

Petition Democracy

Yet Ignatius is not finished. He ascribes legitimacy to the Egyptian Tamarod movement, at the core of the popular mobilization on June 30, 2013. According to Ignatius, the Tamarod movement’s collection of 22 million Egyptian signatures on a petition legitimated the ouster of then-President Mohammed Morsi. This figure is apparently “two-thirds more than voted for him in the first place”, and therefore “reminds us that open, diverse civic movement” of Tamarod may prepare the nation for democracy better than the “closed, conspiratorial Muslim Brotherhood.”

First, how many signatures are needed to legitimate a coup? For Ignatius, the 22 million Egyptian signatures are uncontested and credible. By this logic, elections are not needed. Rather, petitions – similar to those needed for participate in high school elections – are simply needed to replace a President in office. Is this a principle to be applied unanimously in nations across the region, or around the world? 

Second, Ignatius apparently blindly accepts the signature total without contestation. The petition figures were deeply contested. Importantly, these petitions lack “legal weight” and have not been "independently authenticated.” In other words, the claim of 22 million Egyptian signatures is without proof or verification, but according to Ignatius, is suitable grounds to justify a coup d’etat. Accordingly, if the Libertarian party cobbled together a petition, then how many signatures would be needed to depose the President of the United States? I would be curious to hear Ignatius’ figure.

Lazy Journalism

Ignatius’ claims are rife with blatant assumptions, misconceptions of the region, and or are otherwise lazy. Simplistic views – clearly framed by US foreign policy tropes and objectives – offer little novelty, and cannot be taken seriously. 

Ignatius’ column – and so many more like his – serve as weathervanes. He, like his baby boomer compatriots Friedman and Owen, are like artifacts of a former age. These authors are reminders of the extent of political change in places, such as Egypt and Tunisia, but more specifically, with how little Washington-based reporters, venture capitalists, and perhaps those in Washington have to offer for a conversation of Middle East politics. 

Now, more than ever, nuance and context is needed, and this will not come from the likes of Ignatius or his brethren. Specificity is shorn from each of Ignatius’ claims, and therefore he lacks the basic credibility as a political commentator. Specifics and empirical evidence is needed rather than the sweeping claims of panacea to “fix” all of the "problems" of the region.

What the nations of the Middle East need does not come from the likes of Ignatius, but rather are indigenous to each society and/or nation. Intervention, interference, or dictates from the US or other nations is inescapable, but a heavy foreign hand only undermines the viability of indigenous movements and activities.  

Yes, the US and other nations should scale back a footprint in Egypt and the region to save face. Contradictions in claims of support for democracy, but simultaneous stalwart support for dictatorial regimes in the Gulf undermine credibility. And the journalists entrenched in the American-centric view of international politics, particularly of the Middle East, needs a reality check.