Middle Eastern countries exist in a tense balance between modernism and fundamentalism, Western thought versus traditional Muslim ideals.  The conflict has flared internally through the Islamization of education and culture; and it has manifested itself externally through terrorism and diplomatic strains with the West.  The volatile situation in the Middle East provides a unique case study on the effects of colonialism in a reactionary culture.  In the following paper, I will provide an overview of education in the Middle East pre- and post-colonialism; and discuss the role of the outside world in further development in the region. 

History of Education 

Before I begin a section entitled the history of education, I must emphasize the enormity of the task.  First, the Middle East region includes 22 countries from West Africa to the Indian Ocean: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.  National differences include population size, GDP, form of government, and level of civil liberty, to name a few.  Nevertheless, I evaluate the region as a whole because of shared Islamic religion and culture: factors which have impacted education and foreign relations through time. 

Islam’s influence on the role and pursuit of education in the Middle East began in the 7^th century when Muhammad encouraged his followers to “seek knowledge.”[1]  Seen as a way to become closer to God or to achieve bliss (sa’ada), education began in the mosques and then spread to institutions called madrasas.  Madrasas became the “major center of organized learning”[2]  in the ninth century and the “source through which all forms of knowledge were legitimized.”[3]  Citizens learned language and literature in the madrasas to aid their study of the Koran.  Nevertheless, the institutions’ ability to enlighten and empower individuals was limited.  According to Aziz Talbani (1996), “Approved forms of knowledge were to be acquired only to the extent necessary for survival, while research and inquiry should be forsaken.”[4] Thus, students were encouraged to be passive and obedient learners, rather than inquisitive and independent; and teachers had limited control over the breadth or depth of their curricula. [5] 

By the twelfth century, restrictive attitudes toward education had caused innovation to stagnate; and the Muslim world, which had once contributed much in science and mathematics, began to fall farther behind. [6]  Religious leaders continued to use a pedagogical approach of authoritative acceptance of knowledge in the centuries that followed to instill “an ethos of conformism and respect for authorities” in citizens.[7]

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Europe colonized the Middle East and introduced Western culture, technology, and ideals to the region.  As leaders were embarrassed and stripped of their power, new values like “individualism, secularism, rationalism, and consumerism” threatened to corrupt the Muslim peoples. [8]  The madrasas responded, in turn, by assuming a new role in society: “produce religious scholars trained to defend religion and protect traditional values.”[9]  The positioning of madrasas in opposition to colonial powers would be the first of many clashes between modernism and traditionalism in the Middle East. 

In the 1950s, a series of world events and revolutionary acts brought an end to the colonial period.   Middle Eastern states were at a crossroads: would they return to their roots with traditionalism or open themselves to development and modernity?  Despite calls for religious fundamentalism and an Islamic state, Pakistan’s first government following independence was composed of Muslims educated in the West.  The leaders spread Western ideas of democracy and secularism and held control until the military overthrow of the Bhutto regime in 1977.  By the 1970s, religious fundamentalism was on the rise in the Middle East, particularly in Pakistan, because of “increased unemployment among the educated, massive poverty, urban migration, and the failure of modernist leaders’ economic policies.”[10] 

Following the military takeover in Pakistan, government leaders turned to “Islamization” to reinstate national pride and identity and “make Islam a relevant source of power and social control.”[11]  Meanwhile, other countries in the region followed suit.  The Pakistani government wrote new textbooks and school curricula (infused with Islamist values), required children to read the Koran, and girls to wear head scarves in school.  After being subjugated by Western countries, leaders in Pakistan and throughout the Middle East used education as a way to “legitimize” their power and “establish, expand, and sustain a particular notion of truth.”[12]  For the most part, this notion of truth was fundamentalist Islam; and it placed females back in subservient roles and reduced or eliminated support for civil societies.  It expounded on reactionary feelings toward the West and inculcated youth with the prospect of jihad.  While the extent to which “Islamization” took place varied across countries, it occurred throughout the Middle East. The duration of this paper addresses the role of education in conflict nations, whether the Western world has a duty to intervene, and what form such intervention should take.

Education in Conflict Nations

Western countries depend on the Middle East for oil, have an entangling alliance with Israel, and approach the region with a sense of altruistic imperialism: the duty to empower subjugated people by bringing democracy to the Middle East.  Middle Eastern countries want the United States and allies to cease political and cultural interference in the region, particularly with regard to Israel.  I will argue that Middle Eastern governments feel victimized by Western involvement, school curricula can perpetuate this feeling within society, and, given the need for continued dependence, countries should evaluate their role in education to establish peace.

A microcosmic example of tensions between the Middle East and the Western world can be seen between Palestine and Israel.  While the sense of regional victimization relates to colonialism and continued foreign interference, victimization in Palestine and Israel concerns the taking of land and the Holocaust, respectively.  According to Agustin Velloso (1998) in an article in International Review of Education, “If one perceives the group to which one belongs as a victim of ‘the others’ then it is only a short step to believing that one is justified in fighting those others.”[13]  Such has been the case for rationalizing and perpetuating violence.  While some have hoped to bring peace through education, failed efforts demonstrate the complexity of internal and external reform.

Internally, Palestinian officials have struggled to create a curriculum which reflects national history and nationalist goals.  Since 1967, the Israeli government has censored Palestinian textbooks and rid them of anti-Israeli sentiments.  In response, teachers have socialized children through rhymes and other means. [14]  After the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 1994, Palestinians gained more control over what their children were taught.  Then, the questions became,

What Palestine do we teach?  Is it the historic Palestine with its complete geography, or the Palestine that is likely to emerge on the basis of possible agreements with Israel?  How do we view Israel?  Is it merely an ordinary neighbor, or is it a state that has arisen on the ruins of most of Palestine? (Dr. Ali Jarbawi of the first Curriculum Development Team)[15]  

In addition to internal deliberation, Palestinian officials have been exposed to external scrutiny: In 1998, an Israeli organization called the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) accused the Palestinian government of publishing textbooks that “demonized Israel and used terminology associated with war and violence.”[16]  Though a researcher at George Washington University disproved these claims, the U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, “came under pressure from lawmakers ‘to use her good offices to make sure that UNESCO and the World Bank stop funding the publication of textbooks by the PA.’”[17]

This microcosmic example demonstrates the issues associated with educational aid: Whose history do you teach?  Whose goals do you represent?  Whose money do you require?  An additional issue comes from the fact that curricula produced externally, no matter how positive or progressive, does not have as lasting an impact as that which is produced internally.[18]  Just as children learn more by doing tasks than having parents help, conflict and post-conflict nations take more ownership over independently produced reforms.[19]  This brings us to the final issue of this paper: if foreign intervention created the conflict and has the potential to complicate reform, what role should it play in education and development in the Middle East?

Solutions from the Outside World

Two types of involvement include foreign aid and joint ventures.  I excluded non-intervention because existing trade relationships and the impacts of globalization make isolation virtually impossible.  These solutions are each already in effect to different extents in the region. 

Foreign Aid

Foreign aid was touched on briefly in the case of Palestine-Israel: UNESCO and the World Bank provided money for Palestine’s textbooks and, thus, had a say in their content.  UNESCO and the World Bank are examples of multilateral organizations, which allocate money on behalf of member countries.  Sometimes loans and grants must be repaid, while other times they serve as charity.  Countries can also donate money independently through bilateral organizations, which are country by country lending relationships.  Last but not least, private sector organizations, in the forms of nongovernmental organizations and for-profit organizations, can also fund development projects.[20]  

Foreign aid became “institutionalized” following World War II with the U.S. enactment of the Marshall Plan and the formation of agencies like the World Bank.[21]  The basis for foreign aid is to provide money for investment, which in turn, creates income and jobs and helps a country become economically independent.  While such a framework rebuilt Europe, it has generated less success in developing nations.  As a result, countries have begun to reduce and re-evaluate their foreign aid.  Heyneman reports (2005) that “between 1996 and 1997, Sweden reduced its foreign aid by 5.9%; Germany by 11%; the United States by 35%; and Italy by 45%.”[22]  Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to provide $11.4 billion, “the largest single source of foreign aid.”[23]

Due to the failures of foreign aid in the developing world, large amounts of research have been done in this area.  A particular study looks at the effects of U.S. and British aid to Pakistan since 1950.  It cites discontinuous aid and ulterior motives as sources of contention between the countries.  An example of discontinuous aid can be seen as follows:

In 1989, USAID and the government of Pakistan signed an agreement of aid programme for the improvement of primary education in the [North-West Frontier Province].  The Primary Education Development Programme was initiated for a period of 10 years and was to be funded by a grant of US$ 280 million.  The programme included the quantitative and qualitative improvement of primary education in the province.  In the middle of the programme, the US government withdrew its support on political grounds that Pakistan had engaged in developing nuclear weapons.”[24] 

Of the 940 primary schools that were pledged to be built in the North-West Frontier, only 42 were constructed.[25]  Ironically, the U.S. removed all sanctions on the country in 2001 when Pakistan joined the U.S. War on Terror.  An anonymous person involved with the program commented as follows:

The United States and the Government of Pakistan were both guilty of imposing and accepting undue conditionalities associated with the project.  Apart from other conditions, it was agreed that the actual control of the project would be in the hands of USAID.  A new curriculum for basic education was introduced under which the subject of Islamic Studies was replaced by Social Studies.  The new books contained a secular approach to human rights, rather than the Islamic ideology of family, social security and a welfare system, and, the Muslim history of the region.[26]

U.S. efforts to modify curricula in the North-West Frontier mirror those of Israel and the CMIP to change curricula in Palestine.  In both cases, external forces want to impose “legitimate knowledge” by ignoring local culture and values.  By sanitizing curricula of Islamic culture, the U.S. victimizes, terrorizes, and colonizes, just as the European powers did in the imperial age.

According to Ahsan (2005), local intellectuals credit U.S. interest in the region with a desire to Westernize the Mujahideen youths of the province.  The Mujahideen are known to be “very conservative in their religious practices, cultural values and beliefs;” and with arms remaining from when they fought Soviet forces in Afghanistan, they could be a threat to U.S. national security.[27]  The proposed project in the North-West Frontier demonstrates the protective self-interest of foreign aid, along with the tenuous nature of such deals.  Because developing nations rely on foreign money, aid providers have a strong influence on the nations’ affairs.