Hot, Flat, and Friedman

 

Like much of the developed world, I've read several Thomas Friedman books and many of his editorials for the New York Times. This is actually quite remarkable, because most of the time I would say I have only a mediocre at best opinion of the man's writings. This is largely due to the sheer number of stupid questions from intelligent people asking about my opinions on From Beirut to Jerusalem, and how I feel about that book and his attitude towards the Middle East in general.

Don't get me wrong, I think Friedman is an excellent writer, and probably does the best editorials on the widest range of subjects that I've ever read. His books regularly discuss the most complex issues of the day, and remarkably are still easy to read and understand. I generally read his works in order to assess where mainstream America is or is going to be soon on major issues including trade, globalization, environmentalism, and Middle Eastern Politics.

However, that's not why I read his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded. I got is as a gift from a friend, and didn't have much going on. I can now say, that Friedman's transition from reporter to self-proclaimed national cheerleader is complete. Once you accept this, and the fact that Friedman regularly simplifies complex ideas for mass consumption, and that he often casually takes ownership of these ideas, it's a great book and I highly recommend it. Let me explain:

Friedman is open and honest about the book being an outline for why a green revolution is necessary and how to go about creating one. I think he fully succeeds in this, namely in his opposition to passive environmentalism and poor policies by the US government. It has excellent advice on how to change America's policies to favor green development.

Friedman casually coins new terms that already exist: A good example of this is Friedman's "First Law of Petropolitics": This states that "as the price of oil goes up, the pace of freedom goes down". While I think there is an important message here, it is by no means a law, and Friedman is by no means the person who originally came up with it. It also is not unique to oil. This law is basically a corollary to the idea of "Rentier States". A staple of Middle Eastern politics, it basically flips the American rally cry of "No taxation without representation" on its head and says OK, we'll give you health care, schools, sometimes houses, and business advantages, and you let us do what we want." My beef with Friedman isn't that I think he's wrong, it is that he "created" a theory that already exists in a better form.

Finally, Bahrain: I have lived in this country. It's nice, and I'm sure the ruling family is very nice as well. When Friedman spoke ravingly about the enlightened Royal Family of Bahrain and their strides towards democracy, however, I took offence. Check out Freedom House's assessment of Bahrain. In short it describes the 100% government owned press, the discrimination of the majority Shiite population by the Sunni ruling family, and my favorite part: the regular crackdown of civil protests (Shiite of course) by the majority foreign security forces. Yup. That's right, they have a mercenary police force and yet the Shiites aren't able to get even low ranking government jobs.

In short, Friedman annoys me at times in this book, particularly his assessment of Petropolitics and Bahrain. However, I would still recommend this book to a friend. It's packed with information that is generally correct about the complexities of the world regarding global warming and the changes that America needs to make right now. His ability to explain and simplify is truly a gift, if one that needs a little more tweaking.

Getting Good News in the Arab World

When major decisions reflecting policy changes in America are made, coverage is global. You can choose between any of the four major networks, any number of news channels, or pick up one of the thousands of newspapers that abound in the US either in print or online. Economic problems receive perhaps even more attention, as the current global crisis dominates news coverage.

Yet here in the Arab world, the quantity and quality of news coverage is remarkably lacking. I suppose this shouldn't be very surprising given the lack of political and social rights in general, but it's important to consider particularly because the amount if economic activity that occurs here and its relation to the West. A good example of this eerie silence is the growing crisis (or non-crisis) in Dubai.

After reading this article from the New York Times highlighting the potential crash that is hitting Dubai, I decided to look around and see what else was there. Of the various articles I read from the Huffington Post, Bloomberg, and NPR, I got a couple new pieces of information, but nothing that gave me any official government commentary or new hard facts of exactly how much has changed or what losses individual businesses have taken. NPR had a disputed quote from the chief of police regarding cars left at the airport, but that's it. How can such a potentially huge headline lack the hard facts to support it?

The reason is probably my greatest frustration with the Middle East: information, particularly bad news, is hidden and protected at almost all costs. Note the new fines for journalists reporting on the economic crisis for Dubai. Rather than fix the problem, simply pretend that it isn't there. Newspapers on the ground certainly don't help. In the last three years that I've been in the Middle East, I can count the number of critical newspaper articles with tangible facts that I've read or even heard about on one hand. Most newspapers have the same appearance in the Gulf: half a page of advertisements, generally for McDonalds, and then glossy pictures of the latest meetings that some dignitary or leader attended. In Cairo and Saudi Arabia, most people read only the Op-Ed section of the paper, which often created elaborate theories for why certain bad things were happening, and blaming said events on Israel, America, or any other country that tensions might currently exist with.

These rumors, which are also often repeated or recreated on News related talk shows on the Arabic Satellite News Channels, are often times more trusted then official reporting on events. This used to confuse and annoy me, but the reason for this is there is no credible source for information here. The BBC or some other Western News agency will do good work here sometimes, but its fleeting and never followed up on. Official sources won't comment, or worse, will blatantly distribute misinformation to kill a critical story. People have no choice but to fill in the gaps of information with their own creative theories as to how bad the crisis in Dubai is because nobody is talking about it.

The great irony of the culture of limited information here is that it completely undermines the credibility of these countries and cities, which will further exasperate any economic crisis. Instead of being a beacon of Arab and Western development that is surviving the global economic crisis, Dubai looks like a secretive and unstable country that is unsafe to invest in. There are probably very few people in the world who understand exactly what the economic climate in Dubai is like right now, but the best thing they could do for all parties right now is explain what is happening right now honestly so that it could be fixed in order to protect the massive development and progress that has already occurred in Dubai and the wider Gulf region.

Saudi Reforms

Cabinet picks resigned, bankers got a serious pay restriction, and the stimulus bill got rewritten, protested, and then passed in the US House and Senate. These news items all received massive attention, and as well they should have. However in the Middle East, two articles unrelated to these other major headlines blew my mind and yet received little if any coverage on the major international English News channels

On Valentine's day, yes, V day, something very important happened in Saudi Arabia. While religious police were cracking down on potential romantic gifts, King Abdullah, a romantic at heart at the tender age of 84, changed the future of development in Saudi Arabia and really the entire world. According to this article, King Abduallah has modernized his country's education system and moderated their religious police, notorious for their enforcement of sexual segregation and other conservative interpretations of Islamic law. The education minister is now a moderate, whose deputy minister is now a woman. As a former resident of Saudi Arabia, a country where women are not allowed to even drive, this is truly amazing.

Yet the most important aspect of Saudi's reforms came in the religious courts, where for the first time since the creation of Saudi Arabia in the 1920's and 30's, all four branches of traditional Islamic jurisprudence will now be represented. Before this reform, only the most conservative branch of Islamic jurisprudence, Hanbali, was present. This resulted in Saudi Arabia pushing its own unique and modern view of Islamic law on the rest of the world through the importance of the Two Holy Cities and equally as much through massive amounts of oil revenues. Wahabi Islam, considered by even some Hanbali scholars to be too extreme, does not recognize alternative interpretations of Islam as valid. The official recognition of the diverse opinions by Islamic scholars will undermine al Qaeda, Wahabis, and other militant extremists who refuse to recognize the tradition of respect for contradictory interpretations of Islamic Law.

King Abdullah has been involved with encouraging interreligious dialogue for the past couple years now, and I didn't buy it until now. I think this guy may be serious in trying to undo the damage that celebrated intolerance has wrought on the world since the enshrinement of Wahabi Islam as their official state religion. If these reforms in women's rights, education, and Islamic jurisprudence stick for the next couple years, then the world will truly be a better place. Perhaps even Saudi Arabia will be able to develop past its only major source of income, oil revenues.

dogs

Exploring the mountains and wadis (valleys) of Oman is an excellent way to spend time and learn about traditional Omani culture. The natural environment is unlike anything I have ever seen before, and despite having lived near the mountains and traveled extensively through them, they still offer stunning views. A further benefit is the ability to talk to Omanis that are more traditional than conservative. This may seem counterintuitive, but after talking to numerous locals from very small and isolated mountain villages, I think it's true.

Contrary to popular belief, the Arab world has not always been this conservative. Across the board, it is probably more conservative in its approach to Islam now than it has ever been. Comparing Rustaq and any of the mountain villages is a good barometer of that fact. In the isolated villages and rural homes, Omani women do not where the black abaya, hijab, or niqab (cloak, headscarf, or face veil). They wear colored floral patterns of a similar cloak and headscarf, but never a face covering or any black colors. This is in stark contrast to the markets of Rustaq, Nakhal, or other regional cities in the area. The women are all modestly dressed, covered in a conservative fashion, yet village women who are often uneducated or unfamiliar with even the regional cities would appear to be far less conservative than their semi-urban counterparts.

A different but also telling example of this traditional vs. conservative reality is the pet. In the cities, it is extremely rare to find people keeping animals that are not exclusively for food or transport. Goats, sheep, chickens, donkeys, and camels are plentiful and seen as a symbol of wealth, but cats and dogs are chased and seen as dirty. Dogs are even mentioned in Islamic texts as being unclean animals. I have a friend with a dog who cannot take it outside without being extremely careful to avoid local Omanis in the city where we work.

In the small wadi towns this is very different. At numerous villages, I have seen both cats and dogs living in close proximity to the houses and interacting with the people in a very friendly way. Furthermore, I even spoke with one Omani who kept a dog as a pet. He named his dog Diwan, after the bureaucracy in Muscat. The dog was healthy, friendly, and the Omani regularly pet him during our conversation. He said that indeed dogs are dirty animals according to Islam, yet so long as you wash your hands three times before eating or praying, it isn't a problem. In my opinion, this is a far more moderate and thought-out interpretation of Islam compared to the mainstream view that dogs are dirty and not to be touched.

In short, I think there is a wealth of information about the resurgence of Islam in the modern world, but all too often reporters and Westerners call this a resurgence of tradition when really it is a new brand of modern conservative values.