Overview:
Public Policy and Administrative Issues in the Middle East:
Examining Iraq
and Beyond
Phillip M.
Nufrio, Editor
This symposium seeks to
develop a new framework for understanding the September 11 “attacks” and
ensuing government public policy in Iraq and the Middle East. When the “call
for papers” went out we challenged the public policy and administration
community to interpret the reasons and public policy implications related to
the September 11 “attacks”. Not since Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” have
the fields of public policy and administration experienced a dynamic
environment of change. Policy change (e.g. swift military action in
Afghanistan and Iraq, significant changes in foreign alliances (Pakistan) and
implementation of the U.S. Patriot Act) and administrative change (e.g. the
massive reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security) have occurred
at unprecedented speed.
To this end we need to
understand the real Pre and Post September 11 administration and public
policies? How can we assess the current and future courses of U.S. action in
Iraq and the Middle East? As Sharrif points out in his essay, there is a need
to derive “real meanings” from these events. This symposium makes such an
attempt. There are many diverse, yet conflicting views presented in these
essays.
The symposium begins with
Alkatry’s analysis of the history and the political/cultural dynamics
surrounding the Middle East. He documents the on-going tension between “East
and West” in the Middle East during the 20th century.
Soon after the fall of the
Ottoman Empire, Great Britain and France began “carving up” state boundaries
while installing non-democratic regimes (e.g. Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon and
Syria). Within this same time period Great Britain could not resolve the
Jewish-Arab conflict over the disputed lands in Palestine. According to
Alkatry “meddling” and “broken promises” in the Middle East has created a
steadfast betrayal and mis-trust felt by Arab peoples. He believes U.S.
policy (beginning in the 1950s) has only exacerbated this betrayal and
mistrust. If Alkatry is correct in his assessment, Public Administration must
find ways to remove the systematic and behavioral barriers, which heighten
these conflicts.
Ali and Camp offer a
different historical explanation. They document centuries of armed conflict
within the region and between the three major religions. According to Ali and
Camp, the Christian, Judaism and Muslim religions have engages in “jihad,
impairing constructive dialogue among civilizations.
This symposium also
examines the different root causes of the September 11 attacks. For example
Ali and Camp examine the derivation and meaning of “jihad”. They analyze
“jihad” in light of Bin Ladin’s actions. Nufrio, on the other hand, uses
numerous Post September materials to explain the causes of this hideous
attack. He explains the political, economic and “clash of culture” causes of
the attacks. Alkatry cites identical reasons in his essay.
Following the September 11
attacks, George W. Bush declared an immediate war on terrorism. Within weeks,
the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban regime that actively
supported Bin Laden. As the “war on terrorism” grew, U.S. policy soon
extended beyond Afghanistan. In the March 2003, U.S. forces invaded and
toppled the regime of Sadaam Hussein. According to Nufrio, the Iraqi invasion
speaks clearly to the Bush Administration’s goal of “stabilizing” the Middle
east via democratic principles? In light of the controversy surrounding the
real existence of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) we now must ask: would
the Bush Administration have obtained domestic and allied support if the goal
of “stability through democracy” replaced the WMD argument?
In contrast to Nufrio,
Shariff defines U.S. policy as one of “domination” in language, action, and
temperament. The “dominant view” links terrorism to religion. It also
supports swift military action against terrorism. Ali and Camp warn that this
view does affect public perception of events and public policy (it “adds
another layer of beliefs about the Muslim world”). Shariff criticizes U.S.
policy makers for not seeking a greater understanding of terrorist
motivation. In contrast, Ali and Camp see current U.S. policy as an
“instrument of religion”. The goal of U.S. policy is to establish a new world
order, and Middle East domination. According to Ali and Camp this policy will
only fuel “jihad”, placing the region into a state of “perpetual” conflict.
Nufrio
sees economic conditions at the
center of Muslim unrest in the Middle East. Public Administration must ask:
how can economic conditions change in the Middle East? and, Can globalization
play a role in its future? Shariff says that globalization is misunderstood
in the Middle East. Lind and Otenyo say Iraq cannot ignore its role in the
growing global economic community. They warn that the policy assumptions in
building a post-war Iraq (as done in Japan) may be naive. According to Lind
and Otenyo , the presence of numerous Muslim factions in Iraq requires a
different approach. They also question whether the U.S. can transfer
western management systems on a predominately Muslim culture. Nufrio, on the
other hand, says that the road to economic stability in the Middle East must
extend beyond Iraq. The oil rich countries of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must
find ways to help their poorer regional neighbors. Given this issue, public
administration must help identify the barriers to intra-state economic
cooperation.
Regarding public administration’s role in this
post-September 11 era, Shariff criticizes public administration for turning
this “dramatic national event with monumental consequences into minutia of
administrative details”. Public administration (PA) places too much emphasis
on “implementation” during the post-September 11 period. According to Shariff,
PA must seek “deeper meanings” on policy. It must question the “dominant
view” and important civil rights issues.
Lind and Otenyo raise important public
administration questions in building post-war Iraq. Public administration
concepts are not readily transferable to Muslim based societies. In contrast,
Vigoda-Gadot believes that “collaboration theory” can help build modern Middle
East societies. Vigoda-Gadot believes that citizen trust and cooperation can
foster such development. He also believes these approaches may cross
religious and cultural borders in the Middle East.
Alkartry, Nufrio, Vigoda-Gadot, Lind and Otenyo address the search for policy
solutions in the Middle East. Alkartry warns U.S. policy makers of the
difficulty in slowing the rapid growth of political Islam. Policy makers must
recognize that political Islam is inseparable from politics and religion.
Lind and Otenyo say Iraq cannot ignore its role in the growing global economic
community. There is a need for greater third party involvement (e.g. the
Agency for International Development) in post-war Iraq. Finally Nufrio and
Vigoda-Gadot offer hope for greater collaboration between East and West.
Nufrio says that the West must find ways to work collaboratively with moderate
political Islam. Vigoda-Gadot believes that such relationships can be forged
around concrete initiatives (e.g. urban renewal) using principles and
strategies of collaboration.
Philip M. Nufrio, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Public Administration
School
of
Public Affairs and Administration
Metropolitan
College of New York
pmnufrio@yahoo.com
I would like to thank Pauline
Frederick Hicks, Lisa Mahajan and Joseph Santora for their diligent and
punctual service during the blind peer panel process. This symposium is
dedicated in memory to Captain Patrick J. Brown of the New York City Fire
Department. Captain gave his life to his country and city on September 11,
2001.