Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mohamed ElBaradei Hits Out at West's Support for Repressive Regimes
Exclusive: Ex-nuclear chief says west must rethink Middle East policy as speculation grows he may run for office in Egypt
Western governments risk creating a new generation of Islamist extremists if they continue to support repressive regimes in the Middle East, the former head of the UN nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, has told the Guardian.
Mohamed ElBaradei with fellow worshippers outside the El-Hussein mosque in Cairo. (Photograph: Amr Abdallah Dalsh/Reuters) In
his first English-language interview since returning to Cairo in
February, the Nobel peace prize-winner said the strategy of supporting
authoritarian rulers in an effort to combat the threat of Islamic
extremism had been a failure, with potentially disastrous consequences.
"There is a need for re-evaluation ... the idea that the only alternative to authoritarian regimes is [Osama] Bin Laden and co is a fake one, yet continuation of current policies will make that prophecy come true," he said. "I see increasing radicalisation in this area of the world, and I understand the reason. People feel repressed by their own governments, they feel unfairly treated by the outside world, they wake up in the morning and who do they see - they see people being shot and killed, all Muslims from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Darfur."
ElBaradei said he felt vindicated in his cautious approach while head of the International Atomic Energy Authority. He revealed that all his reports in the runup to the Iraq war were designed to be "immune from being abused" by governments. "I would hope that the lessons of Iraq, both in London and in the US, have started to sink in," he said.
"Sure, there are dictators, but are you ready every time you want to get rid of a dictator to sacrifice a million innocent civilians? All the indications coming out of [the Chilcot inquiry] are that Iraq was not really about weapons of mass destruction but rather about regime change, and I keep asking the same question - where do you find this regime change in international law? And if it is a violation of international law, who is accountable for that?"
ElBaradei, who has emerged as a potential challenger to the three-decade rule of Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, said western governments must withdraw the unstinting support for autocrats who were seen to be a bulwark against extremism.
"Western policy towards this part of the world has been a total failure, in my view. It has not been based on dialogue, understanding, supporting civil society and empowering people, but rather it's been based on supporting authoritarian systems as long as the oil keeps pumping."
The 67-year-old added: "If you bet on individuals, instead of the people, you are going to fail. And western policy so far has been to bet on individuals, individuals who are not supported by their people and who are being discredited every day."
The popularity in the Middle East of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, he said, should be seen as message to the west that its "policy is not reaching out to the people. The policy should be: 'We care about you, we care about your welfare, we care about your human rights.'"
On his return to Egypt, ElBaradei was greeted at Cairo airport by more than 1,000 supporters, despite a ban on political gatherings. He has not yet announced whether he will stand in next year's elections against Mubarak, a key US ally who has ruled the Arab world's largest country for 28 years.
ElBaradei said western governments needed to open their eyes to the realities of Egypt's "sham" democracy, or risk losing all credibility in the battle against extremism.
"The west talks a lot about elections in Iran, for example, but at least there were elections - yet where are the elections in the Arab world? If the west doesn't talk about that, then how can it have any credibility?
"Only if you empower the liberals, if you empower the moderate socialists, if you empower all factions of society, only then will extremists be marginalised."
George Bush made the spread of democracy in the Middle East the centrepiece of US foreign policy, but the Iraq invasion largely discredited the initiative in the region. In a landmark speech in Cairo last June Barack Obama appeared to back away from his predecessor's aspirations.
"America does not presume to know what is best for everyone," Obama said. "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."
The speech was largely welcomed in the Arab world at the time as a retreat from the neoconservative agenda, but some democracy activistsvoiced concern that it heralded the US backing away from the cause of human rights in the region.
Current Egyptian law effectively prohibits independent candidates from getting their name on the ballot paper, which has fuelled ElBaradei's demands for a "constitutional revolution" to make the poll free and fair. Analysts believe Mubarak, who is 81 and currently recovering from a gall bladder operation, is planning to engineer a succession of power to his youngest son, Gamal.
ElBaradei said he was not afraid of intimidation by Egypt's vast security apparatus, but revealed that several foreign governments had expressed concern about his safety in the country, following recent reports of his followers being arrested and tortured by police.
Speaking at his home, he said: "I hear that from so many different governments, people coming to me and saying 'you should be careful'. But I don't want to go around with bodyguards ... people who are extremely poor and deprived are coalescing around me in the streets saying 'we need change', and I want to listen."
25 Comments so far
Show AllThis is exactly the kind of story that should be front-page, top-of-the-fold, in major U.S. papers.
Why are the best, most informative articles from news sources outside the U.S.?
That's an easy one. The very people he is talking about are the very ones who own the press in this country. They make money on war, BIG TIME, and they have little if any interest in preventing it.
Look at who it is who owns the media and THEN ask that question.
WJM: Good answer. Kill your MSM news as it is usually about something totally irrelevant,propaganda for the MIC; murders,robbery's, petty criminals; and either brainwashes you are dumbs you down. The MSM, for the most part; especially cable news, like Fox, is the Madame Whorehouse that hires mostly pressitutes. Goebbels would be proud because so many America sheeple do not realize what they are being subjected to. They replace important stories with unimportant stories. When O Reilly and Glenn Beck are the #1 and #2 most watched cable news shows, that tells you all you need to know!
Yes indeed, but Operation Mockingbird still continues.
'WE'LL KNOW OUR DISINFORMATION PROGRAM IS COMPLETE WHEN EVERYTHING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BELIEVES IS FALSE': William Casey, Director of Central Intelligence: An observation by the late Director at his first staff meeting in 1981.
Juicy quote. Have you a citation?
Joe
His advice will be ignored. You can bet on that.
"I see increasing radicalisation in this area of the world, and I understand the reason. People feel repressed by their own governments ..."
The increasing radicalization may possibly be more prevalent in Mr ElBaradei's area of the world, but the causative repression of the people's will certainly is not. Nor is its most influential global source.
As John F. Kennedy famously said in bygone era: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." The bottle is so tightly corked now that the inevitability looks likely to be a truly cataclysmic explosion.
The article begins, "Western governments risk creating a new generation of Islamist extremists if they continue to support repressive regimes in the Middle East, the former head of the UN nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, has told the Guardian."
Which repressive regime, which just happens to threaten the region with hundreds of nuclear weapons, was entirely unmentioned in the article? --Israel.
Then: "ElBaradei said he felt vindicated in his cautious approach while head of the International Atomic Energy Authority. He revealed that all his reports in the runup to the Iraq war were designed to be 'immune from being abused' by governments."
"All his reports"--and those of his fellow fence-straddler, Hans Blix--were indeed abused most horribly in the aggression perpetrated by the US and UK against the people of the Middle East, Iraq in particular.
ElBaradai and fellow fence-straddlers are again ignoring the insultingly obvious: Israel's nuclear weaponry, an instrument of Zionist land-theft, is the principal cause of nuclear weapons proliferation in the region. This drives the world to unparalleled catastrophe. Israel is enabled by the lonstanding US/Israeli imperialist alliance for domination of the Middle East. (The US and UK facilitated Israel's illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons in the first place.) The US allies with repressive Muslim regimes, most notably Egypt, in furtherance of its imperial hegemony. In allying with the US, repressive Muslim regimes are entering second-hand into alliance with Israel, the assassin of Palestine.(Ever wonder how Israel gets its oil needs met?) Therefore ElBaradei, who wants to join the Egyptian ruling elite, says nothing of the above, lest he disturb the status quo and evoke the wrath of Uncle Sham. Recall Egypt's "separate peace" with Israel, which facilitated further Israeli aggression against weaker Muslims; a.k.a. "divide and rule." In tiptoeing around Uncle Sham and Uncle Sham's demon spawn (Zionism), ElBaradei is doing his allotted part to ensure disaster for all.
In a word, ElBaradei's political ambition once again trumps the plain, humanistic facts of a terminal condition. ElBaradei is a fraud. In touting himself as the man to rescue Egypt from the bin Laden bogeyman, ElBaradei is reading from Uncle Sham's talking points.
Good points, duff, though I think you go a bit too far. Baradei, don't forget, is above all a diplomat, and cannot help but be diplomatic in his characterization of events. And he is right to say that American and Western policy only inspires the extremists. What he leaves out is the fact that this is exactly what the US wants, since it is used to justify the imperial takeover of these lands and resources, and also serves as justification for Israel's continued depredations.
My gripe is with the writer of the article, who says, for example:
"George Bush made the spread of democracy in the Middle East the centrepiece of US foreign policy, but the Iraq invasion largely discredited the initiative in the region."
This is utter twaddle. Does Mr Shenker not know this? Who's he trying to fool?
I think what you fail to realize is that El-Baradei's tenure at the IAEA didn't have any jurisdiction within the Israeli nuclear pogrom because Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and so not obligated to open its doors to international nuclear observers. Furthermore, Israel's official policy on its nuclear program is that of explicit ambiguity, never ruling them out, yet never indicating the possibility of possessing them.
Though given the plight of Mordechai Vanunu, and the question dodging by numerous American and European officials, it seems a far gone conclusion that they do possess them.
How this question relates to El-Baradei's statement on the Middle East being ruled by western-backed potentates is slightly incoherent. El-Baradei is discussing Muslim leaders, and in particular making a veiled attack at Hosni Mubarak's pseudo-democracy by potentially building up a platform to which he could make a legitimate attempt at securing an election that could work in his favour. Egypt has many many domestic issues that need to be addressed. Mubarak's reign should be questioned, and his security apparatus needs to be dismantled. That goes for all of the muslim potentates in the region who enjoy a tenure free from interference as long as their government is subservient and duly supported by the West. The Israeli question is merely another degree of complexity throw into the Middle East process.
forestpeddler: You defend ElBaradei as (only) "discussing Muslim leaders," while the first paragraph of the article, which I quoted and now quote again, referred to "repressive regimes in the Middle East." ElBaradei may want to exempt Israel, but the description plainly fits the Jewish state.
Context is key. The article makes it plain that ElBaradei is selling himself (to the US, which is always listening) as a reliable neocolonial alternative to the "repressive" Muslim regimes decried--exactly along the line of the noises recently made by the US Gen. Petraeus, who complained that Israeli failure to follow the script of the (bogus) Peace Process was bad PR for US imperialism in the region; and, by implication, bad PR for US efforts to gain Muslim support for its road to war against the nonexistent Iranian nuclear threat. The first point of my post was that in leaving uncriticized the imperialist framework, ElBaradei's claim upon progressive sympathies is revealed as fraudulent.
My second charge of fraud pertained to ElBaradei's touting of his "cautious" approach to WMD in Iraq--a fence-straddling exercise that balanced US false charges of WMD with true Iraqi denials. I remember distinctly that in the period of incitement to the March, 2003, US invasion, ElBaradei and his colleague, Blix, maintained the impression that there might be some credibility to US charges; when in fact, as Ritter has pointed out, the US already by the mid-nineties was aware from Iraqi defectors that Iraq had neither WMD nor WMD programs. Whether ElBaradei was aware of this or not, he certainly was aware that there was not one shred of credible evidence for the US charges. --You may excuse ElBaradei's balancing act as "diplomacy," but the results condemn his course as a lethal exercise in fraud. (Compare to the US corporate media's deception of the public by maintaining even-handedness between true and false claims on the big issues of the day.)
Your first paragraph, which retails Zionism's don't-ask-don't-tell cover for its nuclear arsenal, is not worthy of an adult reply. (Ionizing radiation does not respect "diplomatic" compartmentalization, as the world will learn soon enough.)
Your last para speaks of ". . . all of the muslim potentates in the region who enjoy a tenure free from interference as long as their government is subservient and duly supported by the West. The Israeli question is merely another degree of complexity throw into the Middle East process." Alas, so narrow is your vision that you do not realize that (a) ElBaradei is seeking the US imprimatur by maintaining subservience to "the West"; which (b) always, repeat, always involves the "Israel question" as an intrinsic part of the imperial problematic--not just "another degree of complexity" from which you may "diplomatically" abstract.
"Western policy towards this part of the world has been a total failure, in my view. It has not been based on dialogue, understanding, supporting civil society and empowering people, but rather it's been based on supporting authoritarian systems as long as the oil keeps pumping."
Such rare candor from a guy who might run for leader of a country that's a client state of the U.S. I hope he doesn't fly in small airplanes.
I don't want to one up Elbaradei sitting safe at home when his followers are being taken down.... I think he has already gone to the point where he is lucky to be alive like MLK was lucky to fight as long as he did.
... and drones are currently killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia and United States is not at war with any of those countries ...
Maybe you should take someone to the ICC?
If the governments in any of these countries weren't happy with the drones, they'd be doing something about them. Our killing these leaders just saves the countries the trouble of doing it themselves. We are propping up these lunatics and killing their opposition benefits them more than it does us.
soloduff---
Normally I admire your postings but this is one time when I disagree. You write, in part:
"ElBaradai and fellow fence-straddlers are again ignoring the insultingly obvious: Israel's nuclear weaponry, an instrument of Zionist land-theft, is the principal cause of nuclear weapons proliferation in the region."
They are not "ignoring" Israel's nuclear weaponry, it just isn't relevant in the context of this particular story, which concerns repressive Arab regimes.
Among the fence straddlers you count Hans Blix, without taking into account both his and ElBaradei's previous official U.N. positions, which required mediation among strongly opposing national interests. And actually, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Hans Blix was probably the world's most important truth-teller, exposing the disinformation campaign by the U.S. as no one else did (with the possible exception of Scott Ritter).
Of all the people in the world, ElBaradei knows the nuclear threat Israel poses.
-30-
Bingo. Israel's weapons are old news anyway, been in place since the early 70s at least. The issue in this article is US support for dictators to stop Islam and that won't work.
As you note Blix, Ritter, and ElBaradei are all three strong honest people for the most part.
OleManRiver: for reply, see below 4/2/10 10:47 am post.
ElBaradei is correct, but there's a problem.
US government and corporations cannot have a policy of human rights in the region while commanding who does and does not use the resources of the region.
Once again, this is less miscalculation than mayhem.
If the incumbent President Mubarek is a "Key ally" of the U.S., that would be reason enough for me to vote for ElBaradei (if I was eligible to vote in their election)
All Obama and U. S. diplomats do is say what they think those in Arab countries want to hear with regard to peace and harmony, while they are at the same time kissing the ass of Israel's Netanyahu, the biggest troublemaker in the region
Within the past two weeks, I'm seen the Israeli Ambassador to the U. S. and their defense minister as guests on the Charlie Rose show, and boy, do they pile it high.
There's an amount of truth in the article. But truth is a dangerous weapon- especially when by expressing it, one has the intentional or unintentional motive of distraction from grater truths. In a word- these are half-truths. We can talk about success/failure/democratization/blah blah blah ad nauseum! We can even talk about the 'real' threat in the middle East- Israel. Yes, there is truth in this threat. But the greatest truth is the insatiable lust for wealth and power. Period! If anyone on this site can guide me to a comprehensive and concise (as opposed to Chomsky-esque in-depth analyses) list of all of the puppet dictators and friend/then foe CIA-funded 'terrorists' I would appreciate it. I have no doubt that Uncle Sam has been BY FAR the greatest supporter of authoritarian, corrupt, governments in the entire history of this planet. It's brand of democracy is so utterly imperialist and fascist that it boggles the mind- of the few in this country who still have one. Not to say the Uncle Sam is the only one. European, middle East, African, Asian,... ALL countries have their self-serving leaders who would sell their daughter for personal gain. But the USA? It's in a league of its own- head and shoulders above the rest. The reason? Because it branded the term democracy; a term that is the antithesis of its actions. A classic propaganda ploy. Would that its European allies begin to delineate the instances in which the USA has propped up dictatorships, trained goon squads, thereby decimating the masses of poor, it would be a good start. Would that pink elephants could fly!
If only the ex-nuclear chief will step forward now and demand, populist style, that the racist Zionist settler-state Israel cease and desist in its siege of Gaza, he'll be unbeatable in next year's presidential election. Why? Because Egypt's selling-out to Israeli-U.S. interests is wildly unpopular among the Egyptian people. It's unlikely, however, that the Mugarak government would allow him to run a populist campaign.
The worst old school dictator left is Mubarak.
Supported by the US/Israel, this "president for life"'
like the late shah of Iran, wants to install his degenerate son as the "new" president.
On the American teat, and driving "sheet-wall",(that's what it's called) supplied by US TAXPAYERS for Israel, to further
create the biggest concentration "camp" ever known.
El Baradei is a brave man to face these perpetrators of crimes against humanity.
I'm not sure a Guardian correspondent named Shenker can
be trusted in this area. Perhaps he'd have more cred in sports reportage.
"yourstruly" writes:
"If only the ex-nuclear chief will step forward now and demand, populist style, that the racist Zionist settler-state Israel cease and desist in its siege of Gaza, he'll be unbeatable in next year's presidential election. Why? Because Egypt's selling-out to Israeli-U.S. interests is wildly unpopular among the Egyptian people."
While an admirable thought, it is frought!
ElBaradei represents a secular third way for Egypt (even if he is a practicing Muslim). Mubarak has other resistance, importantly the Muslim Brotherhood, which he has essentially outlawed. He would have a much harder time outlawing ElBaradei, but think of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan's last election...
In addition, there may be required protocols between the Egyptian and Israeli governments after Carter's Peace Treaty.
What ElBaradei could attack, without ever mentioning Israel, is the massive underground wall that Egypt is building at its border with Gaza (built with American contractor help) that is intended to prevent tunnels between the two entities. The WALL suppresses trade and
helps further deprive Gazans of necessities.
Also, it might help if Gaza renamed itself Warsaw Ghetto II ! Not that the Israelis have any shame left, but it's worth a try.
-30-
i fear for this brave man's safety. true, he should, perhaps, speak more adamantly against israeli fascists and such, but look at where he is in his life, old and vulnerable, but brave enough to return home to speak out against the reactionary governments that the united states supports. his home is an autocratic state hardly worthy of the glowing characterizations rendered it by every american president. he may be no sayyid qutr, but he is worthy of his peace prize, unlike the bomber jacket wearing neo-tom we now have in our white house.