The Harvard Review

The third issue of the Harvard Review, labeled "The Middle East," is disappointing. Even if each of the articles were a well-written and complete discussion of the subject with which it is concerned, the magazine as a whole would be less than adequate.

With the exception of a page of Persian poetry, all of the articles discuss economic development and the resulting political problems and opportunities. The struggle for economic progress is, of course, important in the Middle East, but the same problems are equally important in other parts of the world. Many of the special problems of the Middle East are hardly mentioned in the Review. To be sure, A. J. Meyer's discussion of competition between Israel and Egypt in extending technical and economic aid to sub-Saharan Africa touches on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it covers only a minor facet. The Review ignores Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the oil sheikdoms, and the Arab states of western North Africa, which are culturally, religiously, and politically--if not geographically--a part of the Middle East. No magazine could cover all of these countries in a single issue; the Review ignores all of them and deals with problems which, instead of being peculiar to the Middle East, are common to many underdeveloped countries--land reform, the motivation of a population indifferent to economic progress, the threat of military dictatorship as a response to the inefficiency and corruption of the civilian government.

It is unfortunate that more of the pieces do not follow the advice which Sir Hamilton Gibb offers in the lead article: that Western advisers and observers should interpret the problems of the Middle East in terms of the distinctive culture and history of the area. The only two who even attempt to do so are Thomas R. Stauffer and Nadav Safran.

Stauffer's article, accompanied by eight pages of intriguing photographs, describes the life of the Quashqai nomads of Iran and the government's intermittent efforts at forcing them to settle. He fails, however, to explain the reason for the present Shah's opposition to the nomads and sounds much too much like a travelogue. Safran, on the other hand, in the most interesting article in the issue, discusses the Histradrut, an Israeli combination trade union and industrial empire. He describes its formation, in the days before the organization of the state of Israel, as an organization to include "all workers who live by their own labor without exploiting the labor of others." It is basically a trade union combined with an association of agricultural and industrial co-operatives but has come to own a large industrial empire which is the country's largest single employer. Safran refers to conflicts between the Histradrut and the government and the inconsistency of its roles as an employer and as a trade union. He also predicts that as more and more co-operatives hire outside labor, rather than taking in additional members, they will become little more than joint-stock companies, and what was originally a socialist trade union will come to be dominated by employers. Eventually, he concludes, it will be necessary to restrict the organization to trade union functions.

The Review articles on Egypt, Iraq, and Turkey deal with situations found in many developing countries. John E. Lawrence '63 discusses Nasser's pragmatic ideology; John L. Simmons '63 describes the problems which have held up land reform in Iraq, and Richard D. Robinson describes the Turkish revolt against the Menderes government.

These articles discuss doctrines of Arab Socialism as described in the Egyptian Constitution of 1956, describe in some detail the land reform programs in Iraq before and after Kassim's revolt, and list problems which the Second Turkish Republic has faced in attempting to remedy the abuses for which it executed Menderes. Each of these articles has some merit, but none of them is either well-written or particularly searching in its analysis.

In general, the magazine is afflicted with poor writing and, one therefore assumes, sloppy editing. The articles on nomads, whose "flocks thrive and blossom," is perhaps the worst offender.

The Harvard Review has presented an impressive assortment of contributors and titles in this issue; it will better fulfill its potential when it funds more to say and learns to say it more gracefully.