Items per page: 10 | 30 | All

Western Asia

  • October 22, 2012

    “One has to say that the Arab Spring is over.”
    Salman Rushdie[i]

    In the winter of 2011, a Tunisian spark flamed into the Arab Spring, which has fanned, in one form or another, throughout the Muslim world. The flames have cremated Muammar Qaddafi and Hosni Mubarak, and currently threaten the House of Assad.[ii] Today many former Arab Spring supporters who threw fuel into the Muslim flames are not only disheartened at the violent 11 September film protests, but also feel betrayed; meanwhile, those who feared Muslim democracy would unleash greater evils are currently wagging their told-you-so fingers. Both sides are flying too near the Arab Spring fire to provide an accurate and proper analysis.

  • September 24, 2012

    Ever self-conscious about its purpose and method, the discipline of International Relations (IR) has long debated questions about its most basic relevance, such as what to study and for what purpose. This has led to several complaints about incommensurability between different approaches to the subject, and therefore a lack of progress and knowledge production. Recently, several scholars have advocated a more inclusive debate between different theories and philosophies in IR. This article attempts to evaluate the extent to which scholars, using different theoretical perspectives, can produce meaningful knowledge in IR. It will focus on the two most prominent theoretical approaches to IR; realism and liberalism, which have more in common than the more divided philosophies of science, that make up the field. Drawing on the recent debate about ”No Kill Zones” in Syria, proposed by Anne-Marie Slaughter, and criticized by Stephen Walt, the article will illustrate the limits and possibility of producing knowledge about international relations through debates between theories, which rely on incommensurable foundations. To evaluate this, it will draw on three prominent philosophers of science: Karl Popper, Max Weber, and Thomas Kuhn. This will lead to the argument that there is no possible resolution for inter-theoretical debates, like the one between Slaughter and Walt, from the application of scientific method or set guidelines, and that incommensurability remains a feature of IR. We should therefore seek to engage in inter-theoretical debates, where possible, instead of trying to settle these theoretical debates themselves. To do so, this article suggests that the traditional “bottom-up” approach to evaluating incommensurability should be replaced with a “top-down” approach, which enables such limited inter-theoretical debate, through an open conversation beginning with conclusions rather than foundations. Firstly, however, it will discuss theoretical divisions in IR, and incommensurability in general.

  • September 20, 2012

    During the summer and fall of 2009, the continuing and often violent Kurdish problem in Turkey seemed on the verge of a solution when the ruling Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi [Justice and Development Party] or AK Party (AKP) government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul announced a Kurdish Opening or Initiative (aka as the Democratic Opening/Initiative). Gul declared, “the biggest problem of Turkey is the Kurdish question” and that “there is an opportunity [to solve it] and it should not be missed.” Erdogan asked, “If Turkey had not spent its energy, budget, peace and young people on [combating] terrorism, if Turkey had not spent the last 25 years in conflict, where would we be today?” Even the insurgent Partiya Karkaren Kurdistan (PKK) or Kurdistan Workers Party, still led ultimately by its imprisoned leader Abdullah Ocalan, itself briefly took Turkey’s Kurdish Opening seriously. For a fleeting moment, optimism ran rampant. What happened?

  • August 27, 2012
  • May 29, 2012

    Today, the Arabs are rising against their despotic regimes and leaders in search for liberty and freedom. Yet, the legacy of a similar uprising – the Arab Revolt of 1916 – to expel four-century-old Ottoman rule carries many lessons for the Arab Spring. Over-reliance on foreign help and international third parties to deal with an indigenous cause eventually enabled these outside sources to shape and eventually hijack that indigenous cause. Even though the Arab countries eventually gained their independence they have been struggling with direct or indirect manifestations of colonialism, as well as domestic legitimacy and sovereignty crises. The legacy of the Arab Spring must therefore be answered with reference to the 1916 Arab revolt – and by discussing the issue of independence and sovereignty separately.