Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbrower | Hacker News Reader

The Economist rather notably omitted the seeds of the current state sowed in the Sykes Picot agreement, which made a hash of things just as the old local power structure was in collapse. Rather than create a stable start for the region as the beginning of its development, the UK -- probably with The Economist's supporting conventional wisdom -- made it all the worse.

Sow. Reap. Repeat.

View on HN

Yup. That and the continual Western presence in the region constantly builds up pressure. It's hard to feel free with an ever present security force, a constant string of corrupt political leaders who use religion to their advantage, and when international allegiances are murky at best. A great book on the subject is "Lawrence in Arabia" by Scott Anderson.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/04/2012417...

I don't like saying it, but I can't take this Economist article seriously if it doesn't even bring up some of the most important events of the last 100 years in the region. Yes, times are different; the region used to be very successful, promoting education and equality of all types. But it's no mystery as to why those changes came about, and why the region won't easily revert to what it used to be.

Cough, the Sykes Picot was from 1916.

It sounds more like the standard way a dictator blame everyone else -- except their corrupt practices and oppression -- to explain why his country is a POS.

Hell, even the traditional scapegoat is officially used, with reprints of Zion's protocols and outright anti semitism in officially sanctioned media.

I.e. the same as we had in the west a few decades to centuries ago. (See kings, dictators, et al.)

Edit: Also, the article do touch the Western influence after the centuries of Turkish oppression, without using "Sykes Picot": "In much of the Arab world the colonial powers continued to control or influence events until the 1960s. Arab countries have not yet succeeded in fostering the institutional prerequisites of democracy—the give-and-take of parliamentary discourse, protection for minorities, the emancipation of women, a free press, independent courts and universities and trade unions."

Edit 2: That was quick down votes. :-)

Edit 3: I never argued that it wasn't a mixed picture -- England was early -- and that some were less primitive than my home country, rayiner.

> I.e. the same as we had in the west a few decades to centuries ago. (See kings, dictators, et al.)

Yes and no. In 1215, the feudal barons of England rose up against the English king, and forced him, under the threat of violent rebellion . . . to sign a contract: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta.

Ostensibly medieval western kings were divine-right monarchs, but that characterization gives short shrift to the deep commitment to secular law. We think of western democracy as something that happened between the late 1700's and early 1800's, but it goes much further back.

It is hard to get rid of dictator once he has the power.

Edit: Just for the record, I did not downvoted you.

I don't disagree, of course. All countries started out with dictators and juntas. (We called them kings in the Western world.) There should be a second movers advantage. Most of the clan cultures are gone at least, right?

Edit: Hmm... OK watwut -- the dictators have second movers advantage too? It seems to me that the reason evil juntas get fewer is that without an open society (which is hard without democracy) a country won't get above a certain economic level. The "Resource curse" counteract that and won't end in the Middle East until oil isn't critical.

It took violent revolutions and wars to get there. Then again, the government had to be dysfunctional a lot and weak to get to the revolution. The one with power has the advantage, there is no second mover advantage.

And do not forget that some of current dictators have and traditionally had Western support which makes opposition against them even harder.

Edit: the second mover has to wait until the dictator gets weak (for whatever reason - it may be caused by outside threat) and power vacuum opens up. Interested parties then fight for power. I would not call any of that "advantage".

additionally it has never been harder to revolt, military technology is far more advanced these days.

No, I don't think the clan (or tribe) cultures are gone - at least, not if you mean a culture where the clan or tribe is important.

First thing I did was search the page for the name "Sykes," and his absence made it obvious that this was to be yet more of the unaware Oxbridge noodling for which the Economist is famous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com