For Whom the Minarets Call

    I think giving the analogy between the Spanish civil war and the Syrian civil war is a worthwhile exercise to both understand its innate contrasts, but also in giving an understanding of its crucial underlining comparisons. Though an exercise thought by some to be tedious, according to Daniel Larison, columnist in the American Conservative, I would argue that an exercise as such is worthwhile in the sense that it will allow us to better assess what political pose the Middle East will reflect in the coming years.

    The old expression still holds true, ‘there is nothing new under the sun,’ yet that being said, different contexts will always prescribe to how nature is preformed. We live in a political age fundamentally different to that of the last century which was plagued by ideology. To take a jab at Francis Fukuyama - when the Berlin Wall came down- it was not necessarily an end of history, but rather the death of dogmatic ideology. The strife which took place in Spain in the early thirties, edged on by external powers, was a conflict over opposing ideologies. In contrast to the Syrian civil war today, which too is edged on by external elements, is not so much a conflict of ideology, but rather of opposing geo-strategies.

    Let’s take a re-cap of what early 1930’s Europe looked like. There out of the ashes of the First World War, and the turmoil which plagued Eastern and Central Europe in its aftermath- arose two stable yet opposing ideological powers, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. Although different in their contexts, both powers could agree that the old decadent manors of the Liberal Democracies of the West were on their way out the door. One of these powers would have to assume this ideological power vacuum which thought to consume all of Europe. There in lied Spain.

    Spain for its most part had its own domestic strife to concern itself with. In its own state there was violent quarreling between Carlists versus Marxists, Liberals versus ultra-Catholics, not to mention those seeking more Basque autonomy which still continues today. Spain was unstable, and though it indifferent to the ideological playground being fought over between Berlin and Moscow, both powers saw this instability in Spain as an opportunity to ‘strut their stuff’. ‘Will Europe be communist, or fascist? Let’s see what will happen in Spain,’ is the sort of consciousness these powers had.

    Now let’s look at the situation today in Syria. A conflict encouraged on by external powers, is not one confined in Syria, but is a reflection of opposing geo-strategic views of the greater Middle East. The United States and Israel unable to carry out a conventional war against Iran, has decided to engage in a proxy war over Iran’s sphere of influence in the region. Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2003, Iran for the first time in centuries has found itself unchallenged militarily in its near abroad. A country with over 70 million people, and a potential economy, Tehran now stretches an influence all the way from Western Afghanistan, to the Mediterranean. This is counterintuitive to American interests in maintaining a balance of power. Henceforth, the true hidden dagger Iran has against the West, is not nuclear proliferation mainstream media is endless to veer on about, rather it is its newly acquired sphere of influence. A sphere, which according to the West, needs to go and go soon. There in lies Syria, and the intent to overthrow a regime quite friendly and increasingly more dependent on its relationship with Iran.

    Yet, some may argue that Spain’s civil war was too something geo-political in its nature. The sort of geo-strategic question of  ‘whom will influence continental Europe, Berlin or Moscow?’ But if we were to critique this through a geo-political lens we would have seen this in its aftermath. However, history shows that this Machiavellian cynical nature never took shape. The Spanish falagists who took power and who were ideologically aligned with fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were indifferent to both their military escapades to conquer Europe and the Soviet Union. Spain only ended up contributing a minuscule brigade in its assistance, nothing grandeur. As well, no conflict with Spain seizing the Gibraltar peninsula from the British ever took place either, which, geo-strategically, would have certainly ensured Berlin’s interests in halting Britain’s, and later the US’s, access into the Mediterranean sea, (later infamously becoming known as the ‘crocodile’s soft underbelly ‘of German occupied Europe.) From the onset of these two powers intervening in Spain’s civil war, both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany already regarded Spain as a weak power, both industrially and militarily, to later contribute anything strategically in their geo-political efforts. For Berlin and Moscow, the Spanish civil war was a conflict confined only to ideology, not of geo-strategy. 

     In contrast, the external support intervening in Syria’s civil war today is one not bound to any ideology. Outside powers, Russia, and Iran supporting the ruling Alawite regime, and loyal government forces, is faced off against a Western interest coalition- comprised of the US, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and soon the EU, who support and arm the ‘opposition.’ In concerns to this support, the Western coalition- although able to manipulate animosity between a Shi'ites and Sunnis against a ruling ethnic minority, the Alawites- is indifferent towards the various oppositions’ political affiliations: be they Wahabists, the Sunni backed Muslim Brotherhood, radical militant Islamists, or even secularists. This is also true in the case of Iran’s support. Iran a country who poses itself as a fervent theocratic state, is indifferent in supporting a regime that postures itself ideologically as secular and pan-Arab, Syria’s ruling Ba’th party.  This is a conflict not bound to the political spectrum, but is strictly a case of conflicting geo-strategic interests- the West looking to uproot Iran’s recently acquired sphere of influence, stretching from Shias in Iraq, Al Assad in Syria, to Hezbollah in Lebanon, whilst Iran on the other hand- wishing to maintain it.

    What is crucial to understand in this conflict, is that despite there being a different in which ends each conflict produced and will produce, in the case of Spain- ideology, in the case of Syria- geo-strategy, both the means of these conflicts are the same. These means although leading to different ends, are ends which give birth to the same overall outcome- a forecast of what to expect in the long run. Understanding the aftermath of the Spanish civil war, gives us an insight of what to expect in the aftermath of the civil war in Syria.

    As in the case of Spain’s civil war, behind the backdrop of opposing ideologies, was the opportunity for both powers to test themselves militarily for the war later to engulf all of Europe. For the Germans it gave their air force, the Luftwaffe, a practicing ground. Bombing bridges and railroads, and using tactics of ‘shock and awe’ the German air force walked out of the conflict second too none against the allied forces with developing an ingenious tactic famously known as Blitzkrieg; a tactic which later ensured most of Germany’s success in its conquest of Poland and France. For the means in the Syrian conflict today- the same holds true, it is a testing ground for both external forces.

   With the US having no appetite for another military intervention in the Middle East, yet still having crucial interests in a region that seems on the brink of chaos, the Syrian conflict is a test as to whether the Americans can subtly manipulate and overthrow a non-aligned regime without having to intervene formally. Doing so tests the tactics of leading in a manor with more subtlety, and manipulating regional players’ interests to align with theirs. Whether it’s Turkey seeking to play a later regional role in the Arab world, or Saudi Arabia and Qatar not wishing to see the expansion of Shia influence in their back yard, the Unites States is testing itself with an old form of foreign policy similar to that of Britain’s in the 19^th century regarding continental Europe. ‘Pull a string here, and pull a string there, but never get your boots dirty.’

    At the same time, this too is a testing ground for Iran and Russia who wish to keep their sphere of influence by maintaining the Alawite regime. Whether it’s Russia sending s-300 missile batteries to dissuade foreign air strikes, or Iran funding Hezbollah, or sending its Revolutionary Guard to train government loyalists- for both it is a test as to whether they can maintain their proxy, and be successful in creating an outcome unfavorable to the US which will lead the US to make concessions towards their geo-political interests. In contrast to Spain’s civil war being a practice of military tactics, to Syria’s being a practice of posture, both were tests, tests whose outcome have and will illustrate what to expect in the coming decade in the region.

     The Nazis prevailed in manipulating the outcome of Spain’s civil war. The Falangists, an off-shoot of Italy’s fascist party, prevailed, and it demonstrated that Germany offered, not just to itself, but to the world an ideology different from that of communism or liberal democracy. More importantly however, for Germany, their successful outcome of intervening in Spain spelt out to them the unwillingness of the other great powers, be they France, Britain, or the US, to intervene in the affairs of Europe. This impassivity shown by the other powers inspired Berlin later when it decided to invade Czechoslovakia, Poland, and later France. The unwillingness shown by the other great powers in the outcome of Spain’s civil war- gave a forecast to the sort of rationale other players would have in their decisions towards Europe. The same can be said about the outcome to happen in Syria.

    For the coalition led by the U.S., despite each one’s different intentions, seek the overthrow of the Alawite regime, while Iran and Russia on the other hand, seek to maintain it. Whether it stays or goes, its aftermath forecasts what to expect in the wider region. If successfully overthrown, it will spell out to the U.S. that it does have dependable allies in the region that they can work with to secure their regional interests. It will set a new precedence for contemporary American foreign policy that formal military intervention is not necessary in halting potential powers in the region, in this case Iran. As opposed to Iraq, the U.S. can influence in a more minor and subtly manor and yet still receive the same outcome without being bogged down in a military conflict.

    For the region itself, if Assad is overthrown, the instability will spread into Iraq, Lebanon and possibly Jordan, and there too America will be thrown into the same match of trying to manipulate an outcome beneficial towards its interest, (in this case the ousting of Iranian influence), while not intervening in a major manor.

    However, if Assad is to maintain his regime, and become successful with his plight against the rebels, it will spell out a fundamentally different recipe for the region, and even the world.

    For the Russians, whose battle is not really confined to Syria, despite it being its only ally in the region, is really looking to bringing the Americans to the negotiating table. Moscow who sees the Americans with no appetite of foreign intervention in Syria knows this is a poker match they can’t loose. Russia anting up on America’s bet to stop Iran having a proxy in Syria, is more about America giving concessions to Moscow over Russia’s former sphere of influence, than it is about maintaining Al Assad’s rule. If Al Assad continues to be successful against the rebels, the Americas will be willing to negotiate more willingly on issues such as the deployment of missile interceptors in Poland (scheduled to be deployed 2018), or possible NATO entry for Georgia, if the Russians are willing to broker a deal on withdrawing their support for Al Assad. Ultimately ,if Assad is to stay, the Russians will walk out with a success in the post-soviet age, where again they can manipulate global events to gain geo-political concessions from the U.S..

    Along with the Russians benefiting, if the Alawite regime is to remain, it will become now twice as dependent on Tehran for support, being now far weaker than it was before the civil war. Ultimately this will embolden Iran’s influence in the Levant. Iran will then go forward in its attempts to secure its influence in Bahrain, and Iraq, seeing fit that it’s now at risk to the Americans who have just lost in Syria and seek to undermine them elsewhere.

    This is not a conflict which would have inspired an American like Earnest Hemingway to pick up a gun and fight, as having done so in Spain, but has inspired Arabs from Tunisia, or Libya to do exactly that. Within Syria’s own strife of heavy religiousized fighting, each side looks not to the bells with the wonder ‘for whom they toll,’ but rather to the minarets with the wonder if they ‘call to thee.’ What these two conflicts compare with is not its ends, but its means, and despite a contrast in those ends, the aftermath of these ends are to aligned in their comparison. The aftermath of Spain’s civil war illustrated how the coming decade in Europe would later unfold. The aftermath of Syria’s civil war, whether the regime stays or goes, will also give a forecast of what to expect in the coming decade in the Middle East.    

As in the case of the Spanish civil war it was a proxy war between two competing powers, and not the main event but rather a defining event of what was to come next. The proxy war between Iran and the US will wage on regardless if Al Assad remains, however, as in the case of the Spanish civil war, the outcome will answer the question of who shall have the upper hand in the next round of this fight.

"Let Them Drink Coke"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2msbfN81Gm0

 Coke-A-Cola did a famous ad back in 1971. I did not have the pleasure of being born yet, but fortunately there’s youtube where any piece of historical multimedia is available at the push of a button.

    The piece was done on top a hill in Italy, where a group comprised of different ethnicities and dressed in an assortment of cultural clothing, assembled and began singing about that wonderful crisp beverage, Coke. Interestingly enough, you’ll notice that lyrically the song has really nothing to do with a soft drink or more less any particular product. It’s a peculiar jingle, and I jingle I think quite relevant concerning theory in international relations.
    Today, the United States has all the old traits of hard power in characterizing itself as a hegemon on the international scene. Respectively, it has an economy that comprises one quarter of the world’s GDP. Its military capacity, most particularly its navy and air force, surpass any other nation’s on earth, even combined. It has plenty of natural resources for its own self-sufficiency. And it is perhaps no coincidence that on account of its physical geographic characteristics, America too enjoys a robust political system based on checks and balances, and a decentralized federation.
    Yet, despite basic principles which have been the blue print for hegemony since the conception of the nation state, these ones mentioned do not comprise the true reasons as to why the United States enjoys an unprecedented global influence. That reason lies in its dynamic culture.
    McDonald’s, Paris Hilton, Apple computers, and Nike shoes may all be held in discontent by our European predecessors who regard themselves as culturally superior in comparison to America, but what American culture has that great cuisine and cobble stone roads can’t compare with- is the sheer brilliance of American ambiguity. What is it to be an American? What does an American look like? What is the American way of life? These question are left open ended on this continent, while a ways away in Europe, these question have well defined, and very old complex definitions.
    The French know what it is to be French, and when a gentleman immigrates from Turkey to live in Paris, he will never be a Frenchman, he’ll always remain a Turk, a foreigner, an outsider i.e. “not one of us.” But in America that Turk is an American. He may be a “visible minority”, or barely speak english, but in the eyes of the state he is a citizen, and an equal.1 He is not assimilated, but rather through adopting a way of life through a subtle manor, a synthesis of cultures takes place. He is no longer a Turk living in America, but a Turkish American.
    This continent is the only place on earth where that idea is embraced by the state as a fundamental virtue; the idea being you are not born what you are, but you are who you become, and that is truly a beautiful liberal virtue. America gives the world a sanctuary, it gives the world a home
    In the technocratic age however, the world is changing. Of course there is nothing new under the sun, but different contexts leads to a difference in how nature is performed. America’s cultural superiority is not simply because it comprises an equilibrium of material and ideal values, but because of its now unprecedented reach.
    A hundred years ago, if you lived in the global south, and wanted to be exposed to the most “technologically advanced” society at that time (Great Britain), you’d a had to of lived near a port, or an important city centre, where government officials, bureaucrats, soldiers, and just foreigners in general flocked. It was there in these centres where these people were exposed to the hegemonies’ ideas; notions like the nation state, parliamentary democracy, and sovereignty. Today however, the system of connections is far more intertwined, and intense. Today if you live in the global south, turn on a T.V., a computer, go to the store, and instantly you are overwhelmed with that hegemon’s culture and more importantly, its values.
    The technological innovations made in the latter half of the 20th century have essentially turned the American dream on its head, to a point no longer where it is something innately American, but the world’s- a Global dream. This ad made back in 1971 by Coke-a-Cola both lyrically, and cinematically encapsulates this assumption. (I cannot stress that you should watch this clip, the lyrics are only half the magic)


Lyrics like: I'd like to buy the world a home
And furnish it with love


or


I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to buy the world a Coke
And keep it company
That's the real thing.


What the world wants today
Coca-Cola (background)
Is the real thing


This “teaching the world to sing”, or “furnishing the world with love” being sung by a diverse bunch who wish to exaggerate their culture through their ensemble is really an over embellished market interested representation that is indirectly spreading America’s ambiguous values around the world. It is important to note however, that this projection is not done intentionally, nor formally by the state, but rather through individuals acting in their own rational interests, beyond the levels of the state. In this case, a private company whose interest is to increase its market to a global scale back in the 1970’s.
It is also worth highlighting that this ad also undermines the assumptions of the state, in that this was one of the early commercialized showings of a common bought Western product now moving beyond the confines of just one market in one state to the entire world market. The idea being that it is no longer just Americans who drink coke- People drink coke. (A subtle gesture deconstructing the concept of nationality, while under the guise of commercializing an iconic Western product.)


    I was watching one of Rick Steve’s PBS travel shows while he was backpacking in Iran. One of the particular undervalued aspects of Iran exposed by Steve in the documentary was how Western in fact a country was at its micro level, despite all its anti-Western antagonism pandered on by its ruling elite. In downtown Tehran, under their impious loosely worn veils, are women dressed in blue jeans, talking about the latest episode of Sex and the City, and drinking Coke-A-Cola. Friedman stated that the world is now flat, that barriers of isolation which once kept communities factionalized and hostile, have become less relevant due to the increased intertwining of interests concerning their mutual economic well being, (all heavily based on the efficiency of technology). But the ridding of barriers which once decreased the speed of communication, allows for a hegemon’s culture (one comprised of values as opposed to ethnicity) to find itself in an easier position of subtle but significant influence.
    Alexis de Tocqueville famously noted that increased interaction leads to emulation. I cannot help but notice that the world is becoming more American. Maybe it’s because the world’s flat, or the magnitude of the US economy, but I think there is something to appreciate in that the current hegemon’s culture is one for the promotion of the human rationale, liberty as an individual, to own what one has earned, and most importantly, free from any devotion to a strictly defined identify (most particularly an ethnic one which has constrained so many states).
    Nevertheless, today the United States has found itself in a perpetual amount of problems concerning its international relations. According to renowned political scientist and former US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brezenski, the most important concern and unprecedented aspect in contemporary International relations is the developing world which has recently become politically awakened over the latter part of the last century. And with these new consciousness has come deep rifts of resentment due to historical narratives which are filled with Western exploitation. The West has now found itself between a rock and a hard place; finding itself more isolated on the international scene, and with their eyes on a future that seems bleak.
    Like the awakened and upset underclasses in 18th Century France, who banged on the gates of Versailles and demanded bread and rights, the new emerging world of the global south has found itself with a similar but more crucial hunger and demand. The demand for accountable governments, economic growth, and societal stability, fundamentals founded in, and taken for granted for in the West. So as the emerging world finds itself banging on the doors of the old, and demanding the treasures it houses inside, and while the West ponders time and again “Oh What is to be done?” I say to them with an ironic twist: “Let them drink coke!”