Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Apology to Readers
The Maine Campus regrets to inform readers that instances of plagiarism have been identified in several political columns written by Pardis Delijani. Thirteen of her 15 columns contained varying amounts of lifting from national and international news sources. The writer declared these instances to be unintentional.
A reader brought to the newspaper’s attention one occasion of plagiarism in a Delijani article published in February 2011, and an investigation by staff members of The Maine Campus revealed others.
Delijani has been removed from her paid columnist position but plans to contribute to our opinion pages on state and local issues. Senior political science student Ben Goodman will replace her in the Monday political columnist spot.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Influenced by the Tunisian revolt, the Egyptian revolution has resurrected a new sense of pan-Arabism based on the struggle for social justice and freedom.
The overwhelming support for the Egyptian revolutionaries across the Arab world reflects a sense of unity in the rejection of authoritarian leaders, corruption and the rule of a small, financial and political elite.
Arab protests in solidarity with the Egyptian people also suggest there is a strong yearning for the revival of Egypt as a pan-Arab unifier and leader. Photographs of former Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, have been touted in Cairo and across Arab capitals by people who were not even alive during his lifetime.
But this is not an exact replica of the pan-Arab nationalism of those days. Back then, pan-Arabism was a direct response to Western domination and the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel.
Today, it is a reaction to the absence of democratic freedoms and the inequitable distribution of wealth across the Arab world. That is not to say, however, that there is no anti-imperialist element within these revolts.
The world is now witnessing the emergence of a movement for democracy that transcends narrow nationalism or even pan-Arab nationalism, which embraces universal human values that echo from every corner of the world.
Few people remember where the true roots of government rebellion began in the Middle East. The summer of 2009 introduced peaceful demonstrations against the Iranian government as a result of the aftermath of the Iranian presidential elections.
On Feb. 15, the day after anti-government demonstrators defied a government ban on protests, hard-line Iranian lawmakers called for the execution of three leading reformist and opposition figures: Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and former president Mohammad Khatami.
The fervor of the Iranian people dissipated when the government used acts of violence, including public hangings, to extinguish the rebellion.
This is only one of the reasons why the Iranian people have struggled to gain momentum in the change for a new government. Revolts in countries such as Tunisia and Egypt have become fairly successful due to the fact that the leaders did not attempt to resist the population, in which many Arab leaders view this to be a cowardice move.
Like other Arab leaders, the Iranian government has too much pride to freely hand over power to a revolt saturated in youth angst. The pride and stubbornness to compromise with the people comes from the mindset of Iranians that is of great debate in the field of political psychology.
Obama had more leverage in Egypt, where Mubarak had American support and billions of dollars in U.S. aid since emerging from the military three decades ago to lead the country after his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated. There was no such support or funding in Iran, where the 1979 revolution toppled the U.S.-backed shah and ushered in an Islamist government hostile to most U.S. interests.
Obama’s cautionary remarks in respect to the recent Iranian demonstrations stems from the same fear that appeared to guide his response in June 2009 — that a clear U.S. call for regime change in Iran would allow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to cast the protest movement as a creation of Western governments and Israel.
“Each country is different, each country has its own traditions, and America can’t dictate what happens in these societies,” Obama said, adding that his administration would lend “moral support to those seeking better lives.”
He pointed to the lack of anti-American sentiment that appeared in Tahrir Square during Egypt’s uprising as evidence that allowing demonstrators to take the lead — without instructions or goals announced from Washington — was the correct course of action to take.
But this raises the question that if over time the Middle East becomes a more democratic region, allying itself together from the revival of pan-Arabism, does the United States have anything to fear?
Maybe not, but what is clear is the desire for the Middle Eastern people to coincide regardless of Sunni or Shiite background. It is only a matter of time before the Iranian government chokes on their own pride and is forced into concessions with the demands of the Iranian people.
As history has shown, the union of nationalism stemming from the suppression of Great Powers has caused immense infliction.
Along these lines, one must provoke the seemingly outlandish question — is the United States better off supporting a pan-Arab union, or would the country be better off with a region that is in a quarrel with itself?
Pardis Delijani is a third-year international affairs student. Her columns will appear every Monday.
Bangor Daily News