Schmid Did Desert Shield lead to Desert Hate? A Case Study of Anti-Americanism in Saudi Arabia

1. Auflage 2013
ISBN: 978-3-95489-524-3
Verlag: Diplom.de
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 115 Seiten

This book is a critical analysis of potential Arab/Islamic anti-Americanism in Saudi Arabia. The significance of the Gulf War of 1990/1991 and the resulting stationing of US troops inside the Saudi kingdom for the Arab/Islamic anti-Americanism will be analyzed. Hereby, this project seeks to investigate whether the reactions to the American presence in Saudi Arabia and the broader Arab/Islamic region are of anti-American nature or whether they reveal other proprieties. With the help of various Arabic and American sources the research question is approached and compared from both sides. The inclusion of Arabic sources of Saudi opposition leaders allows this book to examine which leitmotifs dominate the discourse on American soldiers in Saudi Arabia. Overall, four main reactions are identified and discussed with the means of a qualitative analysis: Foreigners and disbelievers in Saudi Arabia, opposition to the Saudi royal family, an exploitation of anti-Americanism, and a liberal movement. The resulting main themes lead to this book's thesis: an anti-American characterization of the reactions to the American troop presence during the Gulf War is a questionable simplification of the situation.

Michael Schmid, M.A., was born in 1980 in Düsseldorf, Germany. He successfully completed his Masters in North American Studies at the Free University of Berlin and the Indiana University of Bloomington in 2009 as Master of Arts. During his studies, the au

Autoren/Hrsg.

Schmid, Michael

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Did Desert Shield lead to Desert Hate? A Case Study of Anti-Americanism in Saudi Arabia;1
1.1;Abstract;3
1.2;Acknowledgements;5
1.3;Personal Note;6
1.4;A Note on Transliteration;7
1.5;Contents;9
1.6;List of Figures;9
1.7;1. Introduction;11
1.8;2. Sources and Method;13
1.9;3. The Problems of Defining Anti-Americanism;15
1.9.1;3.1 America: Hated for What it is or for What it Does?;18
1.9.2;3.2 A Clash of Civilizations?;25
1.10;4. Historical Overview;27
1.10.1;4.1 The Arab/Islamic World During the Colonial Period;27
1.10.2;4.2 Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism;29
1.10.3;4.3 US Foreign Policy in the Arab World;36
1.10.4;4.4 The Significance of Israel and Palestine;43
1.10.5;4.5 The Phenomenon of the “Mu’amarah” in the Arab World;46
1.11;5. Reactions to US Forces in Saudi Arabia;49
1.11.1;5.1 A Brief History of Saudi Arabia;50
1.11.2;5.2 Overview of the Origins and Events of the Gulf War 1990/1991;55
1.11.3;5.3 Foreigners and Disbelievers in Saudi Arabia;61
1.11.4;5.4 Opposition to the Saudi Royal Family;71
1.11.5;5.5 Al Qaida and the Concept of the “Near and Far Enemy”;81
1.11.6;5.6 The Liberals inside the Saudi Kingdom;93
1.12;6. American Self-Perception;96
1.13;7. Conclusion and Outlook;101
1.14;Abstract;108
1.15;8. Bibliography;109

Leseproben

Text Sample: Chapter 4., Historical Overview: 4.1, The Arab/Islamic World During the Colonial Period: The relationship between the United States and the Arab/Islamic countries cannot be fully understood without contextualizing them into the period of Western colonial rule in the region. The experiences of that pivotal time shaped many of the opinions and sentiments the Arab Muslim population has not only of the Western powers involved, but also of the United States. It is important to discuss the early twentieth century in the region because it marks the beginnings of certain attitudes and perceptions towards contemporary Western nations. Especially crucial in this context is the issue of the future of Palestine which became a symbol of Arab powerlessness (Ohnmacht) in the face of Western imperialism to the present day. From the death of the Prophet Muhammad in AD 632 until the installation of the Ottoman Empire in 1517 the Islamic Caliphate had been ruled by Arab Muslim successors, so called Caliphs. The Turkish rule of the Arab Islamic region lasted for centuries until Mustafa Kemal Ataturk established the Republic of Turkey in 1924. Relevant here is the period before the Ottoman Empire dissolved into many nation states. In 1914, the Ottoman Empire signed a treaty with Germany which led to its entering World War I against Russia and also the United Kingdom. Driven by the traditional Ottoman fear of the Russian Empire, the Ottomans decided to enter into the alliance with Germany which ultimately brought down the empire that had ruled the Orient for such a long time. A closer look at the developments of 1916 and 1917 reveals how forces within and outside of the Ottoman Empire were planning to terminate the Ottoman ruling of the region. Ottoman dominance of the region, though based on Islamic legitimacy, was scrutinized increasingly in many Arab parts of the empire because it was seen as a largely non-Arab kingdom. The Hashemite family, headed by Hussein ibn Ali, descended directly from the Prophet Muhammad and consequently had great legitimacy among Muslims. The Hashemite clan had been appointed by the Ottomans as the Sharif of Mecca in 1908 and became very influential as it presided over Syria until 1920, Saudi Arabia until 1924, Iraq until the 1950s and to this day remains the royal family of Jordan. The British attempted to bolster their grip on this geo-strategically important part of the world and seemed to recognize the significance of the Hashemites in this region because they contacted Sharif Hussein of Mecca and initiated a series of exchanges between the United Kingdom's High Commissioner in Egypt and the Sharif. Both parties seemed to have been aware of their mutual interest of weakening the Ottoman Empire and therefore agreed to a deal which included Hussein's promise of an Arab revolt against Ottoman rule and a British promise ,to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs'. At approximately the same time, a second agreement was fostered, this time between the British and the French. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, named after the British diplomat Mark Sykes and the French diplomat François G. Picot, did not echo any of the words of the previous deal of Arab independence and effectively divided the Arab world into British and French colonial territories. It was the publication of the latter agreement which sparked a lot of anger at Britain and France. This led to a complete misrepresentation of the following events. The revolution that was promised by Sharif Hussein began, only to be crushed by the Ottomans since Hussein's army was by no means as strong as he had suggested to the British. The defeat of his army forced the British forces to step in and finish the revolution for him. Afterwards, Sharif Hussein declared himself King of Arabia and expected to rule one unified Arab country. In fact, the opposite happened. Sharif Hussein only reigned over parts of Hijaz, which was a Western part of present day Saudi Arabia. Greater Syria and Iraq became British and French colonial territories and Saudi Arabia soon would become autonomous under the ruling of the Al-Saud family in 1924. This episode of Arab history is full of misunderstandings and misinterpretations which are responsible for the ever present awareness of the conspiracy (al Mu'amarah ) by Western powers. Quite a few dissident groups in the Arab world draw on this particular example of a plot by the Western imperialists to divide and conquer the Arab region. In their view, the Sykes-Picot Agreement shows the real face of the West and how Western powers cannot be trusted regardless of what they say. All the West cares about is economic interests and territorial expansion. Even though all the evidence suggests that, if anything, the Arab revolt was a dual British-Arabic fraud, this so-called conspiracy has strong resonance among contemporary dissidents and anti-American voices. The recriminatory character of the Mu'amarah concept gives explanatory meaning to the misery and poverty of the masses in the Arab communities. Placing the blame on foreign imperialism and exploitation was and is more attractive to many of the disadvantaged and their rulers than a close examination of the mistakes and actions committed by locals. Sharif Hussein played a double game, receiving support from the British for his fight against the Turks while at the same time receiving support from the Turks for his fight against the British. To Hussein, getting the long-desired power and influence over the Arab world was more important than being the noble leader the word sharif implies or what the Arab dissidents made him in retrospect. On the other hand, the British clearly were less interested in Arab independence than in conquering more territories. At the same time, Britain remained intentionally vague when they formulated their initial pledge to honor Arab independence. They had a different idea of what was considered the Arab world than Sharif Hussein. Additionally, their agreement never led to an official and legally binding agreement which makes the whole situation look less like a conspiracy and more like a game of deception on both sides. Since the phenomenon of the Mu'amarah will be discussed more thoroughly later on, focus now will be on the two important trains of thought in the Arab world: Pan- Arabism and Pan-Islamism.