Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Our Dance with Arab Dictators
When we allow ourselves to be pushed into thinking about a people and a region as a monolith, sans diversity and differences, we view them only in stark stereotypes. We allow racist notions to become respectable.
Thus “the Arab street,” a contemptuous phrase the media dare not use for public opinion elsewhere. There is no “Canadian street.” No “American street.” No “British street.” No “French street.” But Arab public opinion, emanating in the street — emotional and irrational — is to be dismissed.
Similarly, we are told that all Arabs/Muslims are hard-wired to mistreat women. Like blacks being prone to violence and Catholics to abusing boys.
And in the middle of this glorious Arab spring, we are instructed to keep our enthusiasm in check and ponder instead that democracy may not be part of the Arab DNA.
These crude formulations do serve a purpose. They keep the focus of Arab troubles exclusively on Arabs, as though we have had no part in the mess.
For decades, Arabs have been denied democracy mostly by client regimes of the United States and Europe that financed and trained the dictators’ security set-ups. The mandate of these dreaded outfits has been to keep “the street” quiet, lest it resonate with what we did not want to hear.
Of the 22 members of the Arab League (18 really, if you ignore Comoros, Mauritania, Djibouti and Somalia), eight are monarchies — Jordan, Morocco and the six members of the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council. They are all American/western allies. They are described by our politicians and pundits as “moderate.” But they are tyrannies, in varying degrees. Six of them use torture.
There are eight other autocratic states — Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan and the Palestinian Authority. Six and a half (Mahmoud Abbas being only half the PA) have been western allies. Most maintain torture chambers, which the U.S. has rented for anti-terror interrogations.
All seven have had entrenched dictatorships, five of them western allies at some point or another (Hosni Mubarak, 30 years; Moammar Gadhafi, 42 years; Abdullah Saleh, 33 years; Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, 23 years; Abdelaziz Bouteflika, 12 years). Saddam Hussein also belonged in that club until he invaded Kuwait in 1991.
Our friends are all corrupt. The monarchs treat the state treasury as their own and won’t divulge the dividing line between state and personal funds. Others have found ways to monetize power and amass fortunes (Mubarak $5 billion; Gadhafi $10 billion; Ben Ali $8 billion). We winked and nodded, as though the deal was that we’d enrich them for services rendered.
The West helped deny democracy to the Arabs in order to protect oil and ensure security for Israel.
When George W. Bush decided in 2003 to change that policy — “stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty” — he opted for war to bring democracy to Iraq. He adopted the same model, retroactively, in Afghanistan. And when Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, Condoleezza Rice called it “the birth pangs of the new Middle East.”
The Arab masses are giving us an alternate model: a non-violent grassroots demand for pluralistic and transparent democracy. They are promoting it with nothing more than raw courage, only to run into the guns, bullets, tanks and tear gas supplied, in most cases, by the West.
These brave reformers are not unaware of our role in their plight. Yet they are not blaming us or Israel. It’s a sign either of their generosity of spirit or their more immediate concerns of surviving another day.
Their uprisings — each shaped by the particular circumstances of their nations and the depth of depravity of their respective rulers — have exposed the moral and even strategic bankruptcy of the western approach. Oil is available to us, yes, but at usurious rates. And Israel does not have long-term security.
A more democratic order would no more restrict the flow of oil than trade is hindered between democracies. Rather, the opposite dictum would apply: that democracy is good for business. Similarly, democracy promotes stability and peace.
Rather than being held hostage by their puppets, the U.S. and its allies must use their clout to back pro-democracy forces. The West clearly cannot military intervene everywhere. However, waging war in the name of humanitarian intervention in Libya but turning a blind eye to Bahrain and Yemen is too self-serving to ignore.
The Arab Awakening is as much about us as it is about them.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



33 Comments so far
Show AllThe "U.S. and its allies must use their clout to back pro-democracy forces" but "cannot military intervene everywhere."
I'm not sure how this government could back pro-democracy forces except by military intervention, which to me is always a bad idea. But what can be done? Make supportive public statements? Drop food and medicine to "rebel forces" from airplanes, which would then be available to be shot down?
What to do, what to do.
Parachuting in magnetic ribbons for motor-vehicles and pallets of regular ribbon spools ought to do the trick!
[What to do, what to do.]
Why is 'nothing', never an answer? Really, if we stopped selling dictators the weapons, and stopped supporting the corporations that demand enslavement for all and the profit from everything... oh, right... never mind.
We could back reformers by giving them money. Then they could hire mercenaries to fight Gaddafi's mercenaries.
Perhaps they could hire Xe LLC, the former Blackwater. That's a facetious suggestion. I do wonder if paid mercenaries would freedom fight with the same spirit and fervor as citizens who have finally been motivated to come out about their hatred of their leaders.
Whoa ! You mean we had something to do with this. Nothing is good enough for you guys. We are on a humanitarian mission to rescue Arabs from their oppressors and instead of being thankful you point out our hypocrisy. We should just get out of there and let them stew. Good and Evil clearly means nothing to you !
Apparently the delivery boy goofed up and served me a healthy dose of liberal angst, instead of the usual mendocino purple. Even liberals have bloodlust you know, they love a good bombing run as much as any other schmuck. Especially when they get to pat each other on their backs/behinds when the outcome is instantaneously gratifying in say Libya ... Syria, Jordan, Yemen and Qatar be damned. So wtf are you on today ??
Unfortunately this white boy aint white. And sarcasm is lost on you. Smoke some shit ... it might help.
Wow !! I go away for a few months and CD is brimming with idiots ... presumably of all races. Lets see ... just because you are Native American you automatically claim moral superiority ... while attempting to smack me down despite not knowing who or what i am ! This is precisely why you should never hide behind the color of your skin, it makes you a prejudiced little twit. Besides, your post(garbage) has nothing to do with what Siddiqui is saying.
Ignore her whining about race.
She seems to think that the entire world is her / native Americans vs "gringos". Anyone who does not agree with her is a "gringo" shill / sockpuppet.
Thanks .... i should have known better before rising to the bait !!
LOL.
Despite what you think, you aren't the only poster in this site who isn't white. Some of us just don't make a big deal about it.
You get banned because you love to make ad hominem attacks, not because you are not white. I've never been banned.
This appears to be sarcasm to me - that a couple of others have missed. No?
I think so too, that he/she was being sarcastic.
This article gets to the heart of the situation, which I hear barely mentioned in reports about the region. The West and Europe contributed mightily in this in their drive for stability, gladly selling all kinds of weaponry to these authoritarians. The youthful populations of these countries, who did benefit from education and healthcare but were not given much an opportunity for employment and success are as one commentator put it, "wired, empowered, and underserved" . The example of Tunisia was a spark that inspired the "Arab Spring"; we are into uncharted waters here.
"The Arab masses are giving us an alternate model: a non-violent grassroots demand for pluralistic and transparent democracy. They are promoting it with nothing more than raw courage, only to run into the guns, bullets, tanks and tear gas supplied, in most cases, by the West."
Despite this being known, it is not their focus, they are looking forward. They are engaged, they know each other are engaged, and their courage is astounding. I hope they survive the West's latest intervention.
Haroon (and some CD posters) need not be worried about what the Western media are saying about the "Arab Spring" or the "Arab Street" --- but need to understand with much more depth what the ruling-elite global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE, which controls our country (and others) by hiding behind the facade of its bought and owned TWO-Party "Vichy" sham of faux-democratic government, has actually planned, and is now executing that plan for all "Gap" oil territories.
This is what I sent to the NYT regarding the amazing hint at disclosure that Bob Woodward made this morning on the Boeing sponsored NBC 'show' "Meet the Press":
NYT Caucus “Breakfast Menu” re Woodward outing the plan:
This morning on "Meet the Press" the inside intelligence community (CIA) connected, Bob Woodward, gave the very first hint in any MSM context of the real situation and plans behind the Libya military intervention by the US (and aligned global empire powers).
Woodward stated in open/non-secure dialog on the "Roundtable" that this situation "the big picture" runs all across "a five thousand mile area from Mauritania to Afghanistan" (actually to Pakistan/India board, and the Chinese boarder) this entire "what Savannah is calling the Arab Spring ... and which might be unrest or revolution is happening and the intelligence community doesn't know what's going on".
[Video of Woodward's comments on MTP Roundtable, see 3:40 to 4:25 on recording]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/#42294062
Woodward has read and is CLEARLY hinting about Thomas Barnett's 2004 Naval War College and intelligence community "hot read" book "The Pentagon's New Map" --- in which Barnett calls this 5000 mile area the "Gap countries", and which is the plan, strategy, and now real operational story of the "Old Core" powers walking across this entire "crescent of unrest" (and oil prizes) including N. Africa, the entire Middle East, throughout SW Asia to the Chinese and Indian boarders to insure hegemony (ie. empire) control against any "New Core" alliances (read BRIC).
Naturally, David Gregory either doesn't have the slightest clue what Woodward is hinting about as the story behind the cover-story, or he has been told to shut-up and not raise any questions.
The real question in my mind is why Woodward took this very public venue to broadcast his strong hint to anyone (particularly including foreign intelligence services) to lay down this marker.
While there has been no candor and disclosure from the leading US media --- some of whom, like the Times, have military intelligence sources who have all read and comprehend the significance of "The Pentagon's New Map" --- nobody in the ruling-elite planning community is saying even 'word one' about this massive plan hiding in plain sight.
Hopefully, the Times will print all the news that's fit to print on this issue before too long.
Alan MacDonald
Liberty/democracy over violent empire -- People's Party 2012
I have thought that during Watergate and since, Bob Woodward has been a CIA disinformation channel. I never bought that demented old guy they trotted out to claim to be "Deep Throat" though he couldn't remember anything.
It's creepy to think there is a "plan for hegemony" over the whole oil producing segment of the planet. Just thinking about the complexity of such a plan and how many things could go wrong . . . contemplation of that keeps me paranoid and pessimistic
Barnett also called countries in Northeast Latin America, and also countries in South East Asia, "gap" countries.
But that doesn't fit your theory does it? So don't mention it then.
I, for one, don't have a theory just crackpot speculations, but this is a free speech forum where we can mention anything we feel like mentioning.
My "don't mention it then", was not an attempt to censor him. Rather, it was pointing out that he conveniently left out the rest of Barnett's argument, because if he included Barnett's argument in its entirety, his theory would be significantly weakened. In other words, he is being disingenous, picking and choosing.
I'm glad I haven't eaten my lunch yet after reading this whopper of a paragraph.
"When George W. Bush decided in 2003 to change that policy — “stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty” — he opted for war to bring democracy to Iraq. He adopted the same model, retroactively, in Afghanistan. And when Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, Condoleezza Rice called it “the birth pangs of the new Middle East.”"
Good f'ng grief!
If they haven't already, this author, Haroon Siddiqui and Thomas Friedman should plan some neo-liberal mental masturbation sessions with each other. Wining and dining each other while they rewrite history.
I don't think that's entirely fair. All the author did was quote the delusional bush the lesser and condy the killer, he didn't advocate that they had anything right, nor did he imply that their solutions to the 'problem' of 'democracy' in the mid East were useful at all. Friedman still thinks that any war is a good one, I've never seen Siddiqui write anything to compare to tommy's bile.
To be entirely fair, you need to reread what the author wrote.
I'll say what he said to illustrate the point.
"George W. Bush opted for war to bring democracy to Iraq, and then did so retroactively in Afghanistan."
I just said, what the author said, in not so many words. The only unfairness here is to the truth that those bloody massacres had zip, zero, nada to do with bringing Democracy to anyone.
I stand by my post.
'The West helped deny democracy to the Arabs in order to protect oil and ensure security for Israel.
When George W. Bush decided in 2003 to change that policy — “stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty” — he opted for war to bring democracy to Iraq. He adopted the same model, retroactively, in Afghanistan. And when Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, Condoleezza Rice called it “the birth pangs of the new Middle East.”
The Arab masses are giving us an alternate model: a non-violent grassroots demand for pluralistic and transparent democracy. '
That's the whole quote where he referred to the claims that bush the lesser made. He wasn't claiming that bush was at all right, nor was he saying that bush was being truthful when he made that claim. He just pointed out that the way bush said democracy would come to the Mideast isn't the way that any form of democracy could come to the Mideast.
I understand the context that you point out. I don't think you are hearing the voice of the author. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I honestly don't understand your blind spot to what I'm saying, about the author's OWN WORDS, IN CONTEXT.
The voice of this author, on this particular topic, echoes misinformation pushed by neo-cons, neo-liberals, and re-writers of history.
Again his voice, with his own words…
Siddiqui describes what was generally existing policy… "'The West helped deny democracy to the Arabs in order to protect oil and ensure security for Israel."
Then Siddiqui states in HIS words…
"When George W. Bush decided in 2003 to change THAT policy — “stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty” — he opted for war to bring democracy to Iraq."
“stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty” was how Bush characterized it, as Siddiqui points to "that" policy of Bush. However, that is incidental to Siddiqui's own words in that passage which are…
"When George W. Bush decided in 2003 to change that policy…he opted for war to bring democracy to Iraq." THAT IS THE AUTHORS ASSERTION, which mirrors the assertion of many a neocon who have sought to apologize for that bloody massacre, otherwise known as a resource war.
Then he further buttresses HIS OWN characterization that Bush "opted for war to bring democracy to Iraq" by his following passage that you quote…
"The Arab masses are giving us an alternate model: a non-violent grassroots demand for pluralistic and transparent democracy. "
No one would deny that the Arab masses are indeed seeking genuine pluralistic and transparent democracy. But Siddiqui, asserts that these were the goals of the Bush Administration through war.
He said it, I didn't make it up or misinterpret it.
He is simply wrong on that. Period.
Hmmmm. "Corrupt"--is that anything like Obama taking big donations from banksters and insurers, then bailing them out with $11 trillion of taxpayer money, protecting them from prosecution for the largest financial frauds in history, and refusing to meaningfully regulate them, thus setting the stage for another, larger collapse in the near future, and allowing them to use fraud in foreclosing on citizens' homes? "Tyranny"--is that anything like a president who arrogates to himself the unconstitutional power to indefinitely detain without trial or even execute anyone he chooses, based on the advice of such notorious incompetents as the FBI and CIA? Or to unconstitutionally spy upon citizens without a warrant or even probable cause? Or to torture whistleblowers?
So, are the Arabs really so different from us in their tolerance for bad leadership?
Excellent piece except for the last paragraph.
The ME uprisings are as much about the US as they are about the dictators they sponsor/support. One thing continues to resonate from revolution to revolution: the peoples of the ME want to regain their dignity and their pride. They are tired of Western meddling and repression and by Galee, they're taking it back. Very brave people indeed. Not so much the barbarians (or is it savages?) that the real monsters make them out to be, eh?
presidential hopefuls want to win election. this is undertadable. it is also understandable, to them, that they will have to bow to israel so that the israeli operatives in the States don't muster their muscles to defeat them. but that is not enough. most of them will have to journey to israel where deals are made, sort of barter. what do you want from me so that you will appoint me to the WH. bush jr. was given the royal tour by non other than sharon in a helicopter. the most recent hopeful is pallin.and it seems that there is an auction going on there . the winner not only sell his soul to the israelis but his country's most revered loyalty. his loyalty will be signed as a trator to his old country , the US, and a new allegiance to his new one, israel.