Archives: Articles

 | Monday 07 February 2011

Through his stubbornness Hosni Mubarak has managed to transform himself from a 30-year-old “loyal ally” into an 82-year-old liability. Almost all dictators cling to power as long as they can. They get use to being the boss and it becomes a way of life for them. Mubarak is no different. But clearly the love of power is not all that is going on with him.

Mr. Mubarak suffers from the same syndrome as did Louis XVI just prior to the French Revolution. Louis lived in the royal complex of Versailles. He rarely visited Paris, which was just 25 miles away, and knew almost nothing of the daily lives of his non-noble subjects. Like Louis, Hosni, too, lives in isolation from the people who go about their business beyond the walls of his presidential palace. Thus, when Mubarak says he loves Egypt and will never run away from his country, he is talking about a place as distant from that of the ordinary citizen as the moon.

A sure sign of this disconnect came with the February 3 report of an interview he gave with ABC’s Christiane Amanpour. According to the correspondent, Mubarak said he was “fed up with being president and would like to leave office now, but cannot, he says, for fear that the country would sink into chaos.” This is surely a sign that the Egypt he knows is not the Egypt commonly recognized by his people or the rest of the world. From outside the presidential palace, it is starkly clear that a sort of popular chaos is what already besets Egypt and the only way to calm it is for Mubarak to leave office and probably the country as well. The vast majority of Egyptians can see that this is so. President Obama can see this is so and has probably emphasized the fact to Mubarak. Even the King of Saudi Arabia can see what is happening and has offered Mubarak asylum in his country. So, why can’t Hosni Mubarak see it?

Along with the isolation that rulers and especially dictators experience, comes the phenomenon of “groupthink.” In his book “Victims of Groupthink” (Houghton Mifflin, 1972), Irving L. Janis shows how governing political elites create self-reinforcing, decision-making circles. In other words, in the last 30 years, Mubarak has surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and aides. These are people who have a vested interest in his regime. They constantly reinforce his worldview and second his decisions. There are no devil’s advocates here. Being a military dictator also probably drives the groupthink outlook. Generals give orders; they do not normally take them. And, all too often, it is the orders given that are meant to shape reality and not the other way around. It is assumed that whatever deviation there is between the two can be swept away by force.

Up till now, this has been the Egyptian dictator’s expectation. His choice of vice president, Omar Suleiman, is a product of Mubarak’s artificial groupthink world and, no doubt, selected to keep that world intact. Therefore, Suleiman’s initial impulse was to reflect his master’s preferences. Days and days of demonstrations by tens of thousands of Egyptians demanding Mubarak’s immediate departure were deemed impractical and disrespectful of a man who has so long “served his country.” But Suleiman, until recently head of the regime’s intelligence services, now appears to have his doubts. Making reality match Mubarak’s fantasy will almost certainly require such force as to guarantee the radicalization of the protest movement.

Most of the conservative talking heads both in the US and in Israel fear the potential of an Iranian-style outcome for Egypt. That is why everyone from Glenn Beck to Benjamin Netanyahu have called on Mubarak to get tough lest we end up with ayatollahs on the Nile. But Egypt is not like Iran, neither the Iran of 1979 nor 2011. There is no rational reason to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood will suddenly turn into the Sunni version of a Republican Guard. However, if the Egyptian government does “get tough” and ends up applying force, there is yet another scenario that presents itself and that is the recent history of Algeria. Back in 1991-1992, the Algerian military crushed the country’s Islamic political movement, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), just at the moment when it had won democratically conducted, national elections. A military dictatorship was established ,which proceeded to arrest or kill all the moderate FIS leaders (those who had “worked within the system”), thus opening up the movement to much more violent factions. Indeed, these factions were ready to be as violent as was the country’s military. The result was decades of vicious civil war.

One assumes that Suleiman knows of the Algerian experience, and one assumes that someone from the State Department has filled in Barack Obama. Maybe they are both hoping that all the Egyptian protesters will just get tired and go home now that negotiations are said to be underway. This is unlikely to happen. With thousands of protesters still in the streets the opposition is most likely telling Suleiman that their reality is much more real than that of his dictator boss. If Suleiman is wise, he will get the message and make it crystal clear to Mubarak that he has quite suddenly become a liability his nation can no longer afford. For unless Mubarak can shake off the groupthink, Egypt risks spelling liability,
A-l-g-e-r-i-a. Now that will be chaos for you.

02 February, 2011

The Cutting Edge

The toppling of dictator Ben Ali in Tunisia in the wake of mass protests and bloody street clashes has been widely recognized as signifying a major transformation in the future of politics and geopolitics for the major countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). There is little doubt that the Tunisian experience triggered the escalation of unprecedented protests in Egypt against the Mubarak regime. The question on every media pundit’s lips is, “Will events in Tunisia and Egypt have a domino effect throughout the Arab world?’

The potential fall of Hosni Mubarak is serious stuff. As The Economist points out, Egypt is “the most populous country in the Arab world”, viewed by the U.S., Britain and West as “a strategic pivot” and a “a vital ally” in the “War on Terror’. No wonder then that activists across the world are holding their breath in anticipation that one of the world’s most notorious dictators, and one of the West’s most favoured client-regimes, might be overthrown.

What is happening in Tunisia and Egypt, however, is only a manifestation of a deeper convergence of fundamental structural crises which are truly global in scale. The eruption of social and political unrest has followed the impact of deepening economic turbulence across the region, due to the inflationary impact of rocketing fuel and food prices. As of mid-January, even before Ben Ali had fled Tunis, riots were breaking out in Algeria, Morocco, Yemen and Jordan — the key grievances? Rampant unemployment, unaffordable food and consumer goods, endemic poverty, lack of basic services, and political repression.

Global Food Crisis: 2011

In many of these countries, certainly in both Tunisia and Egypt, tensions have simmered for years. The trigger, it seems, came in the form of food shortages caused by the record high global prices reported by the FAO in December 2010. The return of high food prices two to three years after the 2008 global food crisis should not be a surprise. For most of the preceding decade, world grain consumption exceeded production – correlating with agricultural land productivity declining almost by half from 1990-2007, compared to 1950-1990.

This year, global food supply chains were again “stretched to the limit” following poor harvests in Canada, Russia and Ukraine; hotter, drier weather in South America cutting soybean production; flooding in Australia, wiping out its wheat crops; not to mention the colder, stormier, snowier winters experienced in the northern hemisphere, damaging harvests.

Climate Change

So much of the current supply shortages have been inflicted by increasingly erratic weather events and natural disasters, which climate scientists have long warned are symptomatic of anthropogenic global warming. Droughts exacerbated by global warming in key food-basket regions have already led to a 10-20 per cent drop in rice yields over the last decade. By mid-century, world crop yields could fall as much as 20-40 per cent due to climate change alone.

But climate change is likely to do more than generate droughts in some regions. It is also linked to the prospect of colder weather in the eastern US, east Asia and northern Europe — as the rate of Arctic summer sea-ice is accelerating, leading to intensifying warming, the change in atmospheric pressure pushes cold Arctic air to the south. Similarly, even the floods in Australia could be linked to climate change. Scientists agree they were caused by a particularly strong El-Nino/La-Nina oscillation in the Tropical Pacific ocean-atmospheric system. But Michael McPhaden, co-author of a recent scientific study on the issue, suggests that recently stronger El-Ninos are “plausibly the result of global warming.”

Energy Depletion

The global food situation has been compounded by the over-dependence of industrial agriculture on fossil fuels, consuming ten calories of fossil fuel energy for every one calorie of food energy produced. The problem is that global conventional oil production has most likely already peaked, having been on an undulating plateau since 2005 — and forecast to steadily and inexorably decline, leading to higher prices. Although oil prices dropped after the 2008 crash due to recession, the resuscitation of economic activity has pushed up demand, leading fuel prices to creep back up to $95 a barrel.

The fuel price hikes, combining with the predatory activities of financial speculators trying to rake-in profits by investing in the commodity markets, have underpinned worldwide inflation. Just as in 2008, the worst effected have been the poorer populations of the South. Thus, the eruption of political unrest in Egypt and elsewhere cannot be fully understood without acknowledging the context of accelerating ecological, energy and economic crises — inherently interconnected problems which are symptomatic of an Empire in overstretch, a global political economy in breach of the natural limits of its environment.

Post-Peak Egypt

Indeed, Egypt is particularly vulnerable. Its oil production peaked in 1996, and since then has declined by around 26 per cent. Since the 1960s, Egypt has moved from complete food self-sufficiency to excessive dependence on imports, subsidized by oil revenues. But as Egypt’s oil revenues have steadily declined due to increasing domestic consumption of steadily declining oil, so have food subsidies, leading to surging food prices. Simultaneously, Egypt’s debt levels are horrendous — about 80.5 per cent of its GDP, far higher than most other countries in the region. Inequality is also high, intensifying over the last decade in the wake of neoliberal “structural adjustment’ reforms — widely implemented throughout the region since the 1980s with debilitating effects, including contraction of social welfare, reduction of wages, and lack of infrastructure investment. Consequently, today forty per cent of Egyptians live below the UN poverty line of less than 2 dollars a day.

Due to such vulnerabilities, Egypt, as with many of the MENA countries, now lies on the fault-lines of the convergence of global ecological, energy and economic crises — and thus, on the frontlines of deepening global system failure. The Empire is uncrumbling. The guarded official statements put out by the Obama administration only illustrate the disingenuous impotence of the U.S. position.

Imperial Surrogate

While Vice-President Joe Biden insisted that Mubarak is not a dictator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama lamely condemned “violence” and voiced moral support for the right to protest. The slightly muted response is understandable. For the last 30 years, the U.S. has supported Mubarak’s brutal reign with economic and military assistance — currently providing $1.3 billion a year in Foreign Military Financing (FMF). The U.S. Congressional Research Service reports that additionally:

“Egypt benefits from certain aid provisions that are available to only a few other countries. Since 2000, Egypt’s FMF funds have been deposited in an interest bearing account in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and have remained there until they are obligated… Egypt is allowed to set aside FMF funds for current year payments only, rather than set aside the full amount needed to meet the full cost of multi-year purchases. Cash flow financing allows Egypt to negotiate major arms purchases with U.S. defense suppliers.”

The U.S. also happens to be Egypt’s largest bilateral trading partner. It is “one of the largest single markets worldwide for American wheat and corn and is a significant importer of other agricultural commodities, machinery, and equipment.” The U.S. is also the second largest foreign investor in the country, “primarily in the oil and gas sector.”

Perhaps Biden’s denial of Mubarak’s dictatorial qualities are not that difficult to understand. Since the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat in 1981, Egypt has officially been in a continuous “state of emergency,” which under a 1958 law permits Mubarak to oversee measures unnervingly similar to the USA Patriot Act — indefinite detention; torture; secret courts; special authority for police interventions; complete absence of privacy; and so on, ad nauseum. Not to mention the fact that inequality in the U.S. is actually higher than in Egypt.

Friends of the Family

Yet ultimately, the U.S. administration cannot absolve itself. Successive State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Egypt, while still conservative, catalogue the litany of routine police-state repression inflicted on the civilian population over the last decade by Mubarak’s security forces. When asked about the shocking findings of the 2009 report, Clinton herself downplayed the implications, describing Mubarak and his wife as “friends of my family.” So it is not that we do not know. It is that we did not care until the terror became so unbearable, that it exploded onto the streets of Cairo.

Egypt is central among a network of repressive Arab regimes which the British and Americans have actively supported since the early twentieth century to sustain control of cheap oil “at all costs”, as Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd noted in 1956, as well as to protect Israel. Declassified British Foreign Office files reviewed by historian Mark Curtis show that the Gulf sheikhdoms were largely created by Britain to “retain our influence,” while police and military assistance would help “counter hostile influence and propaganda within the countries themselves” — particularly from “ultra-nationalist maladies”. The real danger, warned the Foreign Office in 1957, was of dictators “losing their authority to reformist or revolutionary movements which might reject the connexion with the United Kingdom.”

Protracted Collapse

No wonder then that the chief fear of Western intelligence agencies and corporate risk consultants is not that mass resistance might fail to generate vibrant and viable democracies, but simply the prospect of a regional “contagion” that could destabilize “Saudi oil fields.” Such conventional analyses, of course, entirely miss the point: The American Empire, and the global political economy it has spawned, is unravelling — not because of some far-flung external danger, but under the weight of its own internal contradictions. It is unsustainable — already in overshoot of the earth’s natural systems, exhausting its own resource base, alienating the vast majority of the human and planetary population.

The solution in Tunisia, in Egypt, in the entire Middle East, and beyond, does not lay merely in aspirations for democracy. Hope can only spring from a fundamental re-evaluation of the entire structure of our civilization in its current form. If we do not use the opportunities presented by these crises to push for fundamental structural change, then the “contagion” will engulf us all.

Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London. He is author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010), which inspired the forthcoming documentary film, The Crisis of Civilization (2011).

Author’s Website: www.nafeez.blogspot.com

Author’s Bio: Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is the author of ‘A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization’ [Pluto Press (UK) and Palgrave Macmillan (USA)]. Nafeez is a bestselling author and international security analyst specialising in the study of mass violence. He is Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London, and has taught international relations, contemporary history, empire and globalization at Department of International Relations, Sussex University School of Global Studies, and Brunel University’s Politics & History Unit. Nafeez’s research on international terrorism has been used by the 9/11 Commission; the US Army Air University’s “Causes of War’ collection (2007); the UK Ministry of Defence’s Joint Services Command & Staff College Research Guide on Counter-Terrorism and the GWOT (2008); Chatham House’s Middle East Programme; among others. He testified in US Congress about his research on al-Qaeda in 2005, advised the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 2009, and also gave evidence before and advised the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into the government’s ‘Preventing Violent Extremism’ programme. His other books are The London Bombings (2006); The War on Truth (2005); Behind the War on Terror (2003) and The War on Freedom (2002). The latter was a finalist for the Naples Prize, Italy’s most prestigious literary award, in 2003.

02 February, 2011

Countercurrents.org

Recently a number of huge public commemorations have taken place in Hong Kong. Thousands of Chinese have participated to honor and commemorate the poet, the Member of Parliament and the democracy activist Szeto Wah who died on January 2, 2011. A large number of Chinese dissidents have been trying to go to Hong Kong to attend the commemoration. But sadly, many have been rejected in the airport, as a direct consequence of China’s growing influence in Hong Kong, despite of China’s promise of regional autonomy.

*Besides of Szeto Wah’s regional influence, his work has also influenced European art- and grassroot movements. As President of ‘Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China’ Szeto Wah received the Danish artist Jens Galschiot’s 8 meter tall sculpture ‘The Pillar of Shame’, which was placed in Hong Kong in 1997 as a permanent memorial to the Tiananmen massacre in Beijing 1989. Today the sculpture has also become a symbol of the Chinese threat to freedom of speech and human rights in Hong Kong, after China’s takeover of Hong Kong in 1997.

*The erection of the sculpture has caused so much anger in Beijing, that the Danish artist has been black listed in China and has several times been rejected entrance into Hong Kong despite of the agreement on visa free travel for Europeans. For this reason Jens Galschiot cannot participate in the commemoration of Szeto Wah. Being a brilliant poet

* Szeto Wah was the one who gave Chinese names to both ‘The Pillar of Shame’ and its creator Jens Galschiot.

*On the funeral day on January 29th, Jens Galschiot and his son Lasse Galschiot declare:

”We had the honor of working with Szeto Wah on several occasions. We experienced his skills as he mastered the symbolic language and used creativity to generate debate and interest in the fight for a more humanistic society.

-For example he knew how to use western art, in shape of ‘The Pillar of Shame’. Thereby internationalizing the struggle for a democratic Hong Kong, and maintain that Beijing does not have the right to restrict freedom of expression in Hong Kong. In 2008 we were denied entrance into Hong Kong, as we were taking part in the art happening ‘TheColorOrange’ which would focus on the human rights situation during the Olympics in China in 2008. But Szeto Wah was able to turn defeat into victory as he and other democracy advocates painted ‘The Pillar of Shame’ orange themselves – thereby bringing attention to the lack of freedom of speech in the country.

-We will remember Szeto Wah as a friend and a comrade in the struggle for a more humanistic world.

-The fight is far from won. But all sorts of advocates for a more humane world will commemorate Szeto Wah with honor and respect. And his visions and use of symbolic language will be an eternal source of inspiration for us to continue the fight.”

-Szeto Wah’s memorial will be a source of inspiration for future generations of democracy activists.

-*Jens Galschiot, sculptor Denmark and  Lasse Galschiot Markus, organizer and communications officer

*Contact/info/photos on Jens Galschiot: www.aidoh.dk , phone +45 6618 4058, aidoh@aidoh.dk and

Lasse Galschiot Markus +45 6170 3083

*We have collected a large number of links and photos about Szeto Wah at: http://www.aidoh.dk/Szeto

*Info: About the art happening TheColorOrange carried out in connection to the Olympics in Beijing, http://www.thecolororange.net/uk/

*Info: About the sculpture The Pillar of Shame,  http://www.aidoh.dk/HK-Pillar

*Info: AboutThe Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China      http://www.alliance.org.hk/english/index.html

*Info: About the Tiananmen massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

*Info and documentation: About the Tiananmen massacre: http://www.aidoh.dk/4June89

02 February, 2011

Uruknet.info

The worms of the earth are finally turning across the Middle East and while the outcome of events within Tunisia, Jordan and Egypt have yet to be determined, the roots of these protests and revolutions lie in one common factor, which is the shared experiences of millions of people in an already turbulent region.

A joint study by the Arab League and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) indicated that in most Arab countries young people constitute 50 per cent of the unemployed – the highest rate in the world, while official figures place unemployment in the Arab world at 15 per cent but many economists believe the real rate is far higher than government statistics suggest.

According to the same report, rates of poverty remain high – “reaching up to 40 per cent on average, which means that nearly 140 million Arabs continue to live under the poverty line”, with worse news being, the region seeing no decrease in rates of poverty in the last 20 years.

While Arab countries like Jordan have been working to create an open-market economy that would see a greater flow of foreign capital into a resource-barren country, already dependent on U.S. aid, the foreign debt is estimated at around $15 billion, about double the amount reported three years ago, while the economy saw a record deficit of $2 billion this year, with inflation rising to 6.1 percent just last month alone.

Like in Egypt and Tunisia, in Jordan rampant unemployment and poverty is estimated between 12 and 25 percent, with local residents complaining that “The government buys cars and spends lavishly on its parties and travel, while many Jordanians are jobless or can barely put food on their tables to feed their hungry children,” said one civil servant and father of three, who earns $395 a month.

It was not until the global economic crisis that the Arab world started to witness the recovery of popular opposition – first materialising in Egypt in 2007 and 2008, where strikes and protests were the first indications of a return to organised protests against political repression and poverty inducing policies.

These movements, while in the past have either gained concessions or been unsuccessful, they did lay the foundations which brought the students and workers together to challenge the apathy and disdain of the ruling elites.

According to Firas Al-Atraqchi, a lecturer at the American University in Cairo, “In an unprecedented show of civil disobedience and open revolt, young Egyptians have clearly and forcibly delivered a message that is still resonating in the Middle East and North Africa: Authoritarian rule in the region is over”.

The protesters have been dismantling archaic forms of government, in which the ruler is considered beyond reproach and where economic policies are determined by his self-preserving allies. They are demanding equality in the distribution of wealth, an end to state corruption, greater employment opportunities and a curb to rampant inflation.

Yet when street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi poured flammable liquid over his body and set himself on fire in Tunisia, his act of protest cemented a revolt that would ultimately end President Ben Ali’s 23-year-rule and send the region into flames.

Bouazizi was only 10 years old when he became the main provider for his family, selling fresh produce in the local market. He stayed in high school long enough to sit his baccalaureate exam, but did not graduate. He never attended university, contrary to what many news organisations have reported but as his mother stated to Al-Jazeera; “He didn’t expect to study, because we didn’t have the money”.

He later applied to join the army but was refused, as were other successive job applications and with his family dependant on him, there were few other options than to continue working at the market and nearly everyday, he was bullied by local police officers, “Since he was a child, they were mistreating him”, even claimed one close friend.

Apparently the abuse took many forms, mostly petty bureaucratic bullying that millions of Arabs know all too well, with incidents including Police confiscating his produce, fines for running a stall without a permit and even six months before his death, police fined him 400 dinars ($280) – the equivalent of two months earnings.

So while people may debate the rights and wrongs of what is taking place on their TV screens, the sound of the young angry Arabs who are leading this regional revolution, conjures up in my mind one poem by Maya Angelou, who wrote:

“Out of the huts of history’s shame

I rise

Up from a past that’s rooted in pain

I rise

I’m a black ocean, leaping and wide,

Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.

Leaving behind nights of terror and fear

I rise

Into a daybreak that’s wondrously clear

I rise

Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,

I am the dream and the hope of the slave.

I rise

I rise

I rise.”

Hussein Al-alak is a journalist, campaigner and chairman of Iraq Solidarity UK.

03 January, 2011

Democracynow.org

In recent weeks, popular uprisings in the Arab world have led to the ouster of Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the imminent end of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s regime, a new Jordanian government, and a pledge by Yemen’s longtime dictator to leave office at the end of his term. We speak to MIT Professor Noam Chomsky about what this means for the future of the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy in the region. When asked about President Obama’s remarks last night on Mubarak, Chomsky said: “Obama very carefully didn’t say anything… He’s doing what U.S. leaders regularly do. As I said, there is a playbook: whenever a favored dictator is in trouble, try to sustain him, hold on; if at some point it becomes impossible, switch sides.” We continued the interview with Chomsky for 50 minutes after the live show. [includes rush transcript]

AMY GOODMAN: For analysis of the Egyptian uprising and its implications for the Middle East and beyond, we’re joined now by the world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, author of over a hundred books, including his latest, Hopes and Prospects.

Noam, welcome to Democracy Now! Your analysis of what’s happening now in Egypt and what it means for the Middle East?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, first of all, what’s happening is absolutely spectacular. The courage and determination and commitment of the demonstrators is remarkable. And whatever happens, these are moments that won’t be forgotten and are sure to have long-term consequences, as the fact that they overwhelmed the police, took Tahrir Square, are staying there in the face of organized pro-Mubarak mobs, organized by the government to try to either drive them out or to set up a situation in which the army will claim to have to move in to restore order and then to maybe install some kind of military rule, whatever. It’s very hard to predict what’s going to happen. But the events have been truly spectacular. And, of course, it’s all over the Middle East. In Yemen, in Jordan, just about everywhere, there are the major consequences.

The United States, so far, is essentially following the usual playbook. I mean, there have been many times when some favored dictator has lost control or is in danger of losing control. There’s a kind of a standard routine—Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, strongly supported by the United States and Britain, Suharto: keep supporting them as long as possible; then, when it becomes unsustainable—typically, say, if the army shifts sides—switch 180 degrees, claim to have been on the side of the people all along, erase the past, and then make whatever moves are possible to restore the old system under new names. That succeeds or fails depending on the circumstances.

And I presume that’s what’s happening now. They’re waiting to see whether Mubarak can hang on, as it appears he’s intending to do, and as long as he can, say, “Well, we have to support law and order, regular constitutional change,” and so on. If he cannot hang on, if the army, say, turns against him, then we’ll see the usual routine played out. Actually, the only leader who has been really forthright and is becoming the most—maybe already is—the most popular figure in the region is the Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan, who’s been very straight and outspoken.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam, I wanted to play for you what President Obama had to say yesterday.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We have spoken out on behalf of the need for change. After his speech tonight, I spoke directly to President Mubarak. He recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable and that a change must take place. Indeed, all of us who are privileged to serve in positions of political power do so at the will of our people. Through thousands of years, Egypt has known many moments of transformation. The voices of the Egyptian people tell us that this is one of those moments, this is one of those times. Now, it is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt’s leaders. Only the Egyptian people can do that. What is clear, and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak, is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.

AMY GOODMAN: That was President Obama speaking yesterday in the White House. Noam Chomsky, your response to what President Obama said, the disappointment of many that he didn’t demand that Mubarak leave immediately? More importantly, the role of the United States, why the U.S. would have any say here, when it comes to how much it has supported the regime?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, Obama very carefully didn’t say anything. Mubarak would agree that there should be an orderly transition, but to what? A new cabinet, some minor rearrangement of the constitutional order—it’s empty. So he’s doing what U.S. leaders regularly do. As I said, there is a playbook: whenever a favored dictator is in trouble, try to sustain him, hold on; if at some point it becomes impossible, switch sides.

The U.S. has an overwhelmingly powerful role there. Egypt is the second-largest recipient over a long period of U.S. military and economic aid. Israel is first. Obama himself has been highly supportive of Mubarak. It’s worth remembering that on his way to that famous speech in Cairo, which was supposed to be a conciliatory speech towards the Arab world, he was asked by the press—I think it was the BBC—whether he was going to say anything about what they called Mubarak’s authoritarian government. And Obama said, no, he wouldn’t. He said, “I don’t like to use labels for folks. Mubarak is a good man. He has done good things. He has maintained stability. We will continue to support him. He is a friend.” And so on. This is one of the most brutal dictators of the region, and how anyone could have taken Obama’s comments about human rights seriously after that is a bit of a mystery. But the support has been very powerful in diplomatic dimensions. Military—the planes flying over Tahrir Square are, of course, U.S. planes. The U.S. is the—has been the strongest, most solid, most important supporter of the regime. It’s not like Tunisia, where the main supporter was France. They’re the primary guilty party there. But in Egypt, it’s clearly the United States, and of course Israel. Israel is—of all the countries in the region, Israel, and I suppose Saudi Arabia, have been the most outspoken and supportive of the Mubarak regime. In fact, Israeli leaders were angry, at least expressed anger, that Obama hadn’t taken a stronger stand in support of their friend Mubarak.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about what this means for the Middle East, Noam Chomsky. I mean, we’re talking about the massive protests that have taken place in Jordan, to the point where King Abdullah has now dismissed his cabinet, appointed a new prime minister. In Yemen there are major protests. There is a major protest called for Syria. What are the implications of this, the uprising from Tunisia to Egypt now?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, this is the most remarkable regional uprising that I can remember. I mean, it’s sometimes compared with Eastern Europe, but that’s not much of a comparison. For one thing, in this case, there’s no counterpart to Gorbachev among the—in the United States or other great powers supporting the dictatorships. That’s a huge difference. Another is that in the case of Eastern Europe, the United States and its allies followed the timeworn principle that democracy is fine, at least up to a point, if it accords with strategic and economic objectives, so therefore acceptable in enemy domains, but not in our own. That’s a well-established principle, and of course that sharply differentiates these two cases. In fact, about the only moderately reasonable comparison would be to Romania, where Ceausescu, the most vicious of the dictators of the region, was very strongly supported by the United States right up ’til the end. And then, when he—the last days, when he was overthrown and killed, the first Bush administration followed the usual rules: postured about being on the side of the people, opposed to dictatorship, tried to arrange for a continuation of close relations.

But this is completely different. Where it’s going to lead, nobody knows. I mean, the problems that the protesters are trying to address are extremely deep-seated, and they’re not going to be solved easily. There is a tremendous poverty, repression, a lack of not just democracy, but serious development. Egypt and other countries of the region have just been through a neoliberal period, which has led to growth on paper, but with the usual consequences: high concentration of extreme wealth and privilege, tremendous impoverishment and dismay for most of the population. And that’s not easily changed. We should also remember that, as far as the United States is concerned, what’s happening is a very old story. As far back as the 1950s, President Eisenhower was—

AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds in the segment, Noam.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Pardon?

AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds left in the segment.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Oh.

AMY GOODMAN: Make your point on Eisenhower.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, shall I go on?

AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds. If you could—we’ll save that for our web exclusive right afterwards. We’ve been speaking with Noam Chomsky. You can go to our website at democracynow.org, and we’ll play more of our interview with him tomorrow on Democracy Now

04 February, 2011

JuanCole.com

It should be remembered that Egypt’s elite of multi-millionaires has benefited enormously from its set of corrupt bargains with the US and Israel and from the maintenance of a martial law regime that deflects labor demands and pesky human rights critiques. It is no wonder that to defend his billions and those of his cronies, Hosni Mubarak was perfectly willing to order thousands of his security thugs into the Tahrir Square to beat up and expel the demonstrators, leaving 7 dead and over 800 wounded, 200 of them just on Thursday morning

Tahrir Square

It might seem surprising that Mubarak was so willing to defy the Obama administration’s clear hint that he sould quickly transition out of power. In fact, Mubarak’s slap in the face of President Obama will not be punished and it is nothing new. It shows again American toothlessness and weakness in the Middle East, and will encourage the enemies of the US to treat it with similar disdain.

The tail has long wagged the dog in American Middle East policy. The rotten order of the modern Middle East has been based on wily local elites stealing their way to billions while they took all the aid they could from the United States, even as they bit the hand that fed them. First the justification was the putative threat of International Communism (which however actually only managed to gather up for itself the dust of Hadramawt in South Yemen and the mangy goats milling around broken-down Afghan villages). More recently the cover story has been the supposed threat of radical Islam, which is a tiny fringe phenomenon in most of the Middle East that in some large part was sowed by US support for the extremists in the Cold War as a foil to the phantom of International Communism. And then there is the set of myths around Israel, that it is necessary for the well-being of the world’s Jews, that it is an asset to US security, that it is a great ethical enterprise– all of which are patently false.

On such altars are the labor activists, youthful idealists, human rights workers, and democracy proponents in Egypt being sacrificed with the silver dagger of filthy lucre.

Mubarak is taking his cues for impudence from the far rightwing government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, which began the Middle Eastern custom of humiliating President Barack Obama with impunity. Obama came into office pledging finally to move smartly to a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Netanyahu government did not have the slightest intention of allowing a Palestinian state to come into existence. Israel was founded on the primal sin of expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes in what is now Israel, and then conniving at keeping them stateless, helpless and weak ever after. Those who fled the machine guns of the Irgun terrorist group to the West Bank and Gaza, where they dwelt in squalid refugee camps, were dismayed to see the Israelis come after them in 1967 and occupy them and further dispossess them. This slow genocide against a people that had been recognized as a Class A Mandate by the League of Nations and scheduled once upon a time for independent statehood is among the worst ongoing crimes of one people against another in the world. Many governments are greedy to rule over people reluctant to be so ruled. But no other government but Israel keeps millions of people stateless while stealing their land and resources or maintaining them in a state of economic blockade and food insecurity.

The Rotten Status Quo

The policy of the United States has been for the most part to accommodate this Israeli policy and to collaborate in the maltreatment of the Palestinians. Those states and groups that refuse to acquiesce in this egregious policy of epochal injustice are targeted by the US Congress for sanctions and branded terrorists and aggressors. As a sop to all the hundreds of millions of critics of the serial rape of the Palestinians, the US at most occasionally makes noises about achieving a “state” for them, which, however, would have no real sovereignty over its borders, its land, its air or its water. The price of such a eunuch state would be for the Palestinians to renounce their birthright and acquiesce in their expropriation and reduction to the flotsam of the earth.

And the Netanyahu government even disdained the tepid proposals of the Obama administration, for such an emasculated Palestinian “state”, which had to be willing to recognize Israel as a “Jewish” state, thus implicitly denaturalizing the 20% of the population that is Palestinian Christians and Muslims.

Because Israel’s enterprise in denying Palestinian statehood is so unnatural and so, at its fundament, immoral, it can only be pursued by the exercise of main force and by the infusion of billions of dollars a year into a poverty-stricken region. The US has in one way or another transferred over $100 billion to Israel so as to ensure it can remain a tenuous fortress on the edge of the Mediterranean, serving some US interests while keeping the millions of Palestinians in thrall.

US military aid to Israel allowed that country to prevail over Egypt in 1967 and 1973, and forced the Egyptian elite to seek an exit from ruinous wars. Anwar El Sadat decided ultimately to betray the hapless Palestinians and seek a separate peace. For removing all pressure on Israel by the biggest Arab nation with the best Arab military, Egypt has been rewarded with roughly $2 billion in US aid every year, not to mention favorable terms for importation of sophisticated weaponry and other perquisites. This move allowed the Israelis to invade and occupy part of Lebanon in 1982-2000, and then to launch massively destructive wars on virtually defenseless Lebanese and Gaza Palestinians more recently. Cairo under Mubarak is as opposed to Shiite Hizbullah in Lebanon and fundamentalist Hamas in Gaza as is Tel Aviv. The regime of Hosni Mubarak appears to have taken some sort of bribe to send substantial natural gas supplies to Israel at a deep discount. It has joined in the blockade against the civilians of Gaza. It acts as Israel’s handmaid in oppressing the Palestinians, and is bribed to do so by the US.

The US-backed military dictatorship in Egypt has become, amusingly enough, a Bonapartist state. It exercises power on behalf of both a state elite and a new wealthy business class, some members of which gained their wealth from government connections and corruption. The Egypt of the Separate Peace, the Egypt of tourism and joint military exercises with the United States, is also an Egypt ruled by the few for the benefit of the few.

The whole system is rotten, deeply dependent on exploiting the little people, on taking bribes from the sole superpower to pursue self-defeating or greedy policies virtually no one wants or would vote for in the region.

So the Palestinians objected to Obama’s plan to start back up direct negotiations with the Israelis in 2009, on the grounds that the Israelis were rapidly colonizing the Palestinian West Bank and were taking off the table the very territory over which negotiations were supposedly being conducted. Even the corrupt and timid Mahmoud Abbas, whose term as president has actually ended but who stayed on in the absence of new elections, demanded an end to new Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory (including lands unilaterally annexed to the Israeli district of Jerusalem in contravention of international law).

The Obama administration thought it had an agreement from Netanyahu to freeze settlements, and sent Joe Biden out to inaugurate the new peace promise. But when Biden came to Israel, he was humiliated by an Israeli announcement that it would build a new colony outside Jerusalem on land that Palestinians claimed. Then when the ‘settlement freeze’ in the West Bank proper came to an end during negotiations, Netanyahu announced that it would not be extended.

In other words, Netanyahu has since early 2009 taken billions in American money but told the US government to jump in a lake. The Obama administration did nothing, nothing whatsoever to punish this outrageous behavior.

So it can come as no surprise that Obama, Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been humiliated by Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. They told him to transition out of power. Instead, he on Wednesday and Thursday initiated the Massacre of Liberation Square, which has wounded nearly 1,000 people, most of them peaceful protesters.

Just as Netanyahu takes Washington’s billions but then pisses all over American policy objectives with regard to erecting a Palestinian State Lite, so Mubarak has stuffed tens of billions of dollars from Washington into his government’s pockets but has humiliated and endangered the United States.

When Netanyahu steals Palestinian property or deprives Gaza Palestinians of their livelihoods, and when Mubarak uses American military aid to crush a popular demonstration, they underline to the peoples of the Middle East that their corrupt and unacceptable situation is underwritten by Washington. That message generates fury at the United States.

As long as the president and the Congress are willing to lie down and serve as doormats for America’s supposed allies in the Middle East– out of a conviction of the usefulness of their clients and the inexpensiveness of putting them on retainer– there will be anti-Americanism and security threats that force us to subject ourselves to humiliating patdowns and scans at the airport and an erosion of our civil liberties every day. We are only one step away of being treated, with “protest zones” and “Patriot Acts” just as badly as the peaceful Egyptian protesters have been.

4 February, 2011

Countercurrents.org

It’s might be a special Middle East domino, pieces that fall one by one, all rigidly American and western allies, that have long been nurtured into a special relationship based on mutual interests. However, it might be too simplistic to believe that falls are inevitable but it is of no doubt, however, changes in the political map of the Middle East is imminent and 2011 could well be remembered as the year of winds of change.

The impending Sudanese split between north and south into two states is turning out to be miniscule compared to the regime removal in Tunisia of Zain Alabidine Ben Ali. Egypt is about to follow next in the domino game with the current regime facing increasing pressure to leave, with calls for President Husni Mubarak to abdicate from office.

The United States and Europe previously in disbelief, later apprehension are now in sober acceptance that their long-term ally Husni Mubarak is on shaky grounds and that his position as president is no longer tenable. As they did in the past, they don’t want to continue to back the wrong horse as they did with the Shah in Iran in the face of the mass demonstrations that finally lead to his downfall in 1978.

As repeated by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama himself there must be an “orderly transition” and the establishment of a real democratic system in Egypt and such must may be made “quickly” and not in September 2011, a reference to what Mubarak early said about not fighting presidential elections set for that month.

Everyone is bracing themselves for the second piece of the domino to fall and appear to be accepting it well in the light of the dramatic strategic changes that could follow in a post-Mubarak era.

Also, Obama is appearing to be giving up so quickly on an American erstwhile ally who has far outstayed his welcome in office in spite of the converging of interests over the decades since 1981 when Mubarak first took office.

The US president might be hoping that if he sides with the Egyptian people now, the United States can still salvage some of her relations in a post-Mubarak scenario, given her traditional social, political and economic relations with the regime. It is now time to switch sides.

In reality the Egyptian uprising so-called, crisis or revolution, is creating a global strategic situation with many of the world powers holding their breath and heart beats because of the far-reaching consequences a post-Mubarak Egypt would have on the political and security dimensions, alliances and blocs on the local, regional and international levels.

Locally nationalists, liberals, leftists and Islamists could be in line for the formation of the next government in Egypt under a post-Mubarak administration that would involve the first time free elections rather than fixtures, fixing, and manipulations of the system and ballot boxes. This would be in spite of the fact Americans, Europeans and Israelis are not making it a secret about fearing a government dominated by Islamists, which would certainly have an effect on the geo-strategic relations of the area.

But the revolution taking place, the protests, demonstrations and rallies, are being lead by young people, internet buffs, experts at online connectivity who have been quickly joined by the middle classes and professionals.

It is not being seen as an uprising lead by political parties and political movements those that have existed in one way or another under this regime like the Wafd and the Muslim Brotherhoods who have build a mass following despite being made illegal in the 1950s.

On the regional level, a new administration could very well alter the traditional regional alliances and interests. Egypt has long been seen within the Saudi Arabia-Jordan axis, and under a new government it might tilt towards Syria, that is if indeed rule there remains within the confines of the Baath political party. The coming period is fluid, murky, and probably very unstable where conjectural analysis is difficult to make.

What is being said is that the regime is fighting its last breath trying to make concessions, but trying to stay in power through extending its hands to the opposition. Mubarak, has for instance appointed a first ever first vice president in tough security chief Omar Sulieman to try and establish a dialogue with the opposition.

On the international level, and in a post-system change, there could certainly be more room for the return of Russia into the Middle East orbit, harking back to the old days of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s when the then Soviet Union had a strong presence in Egypt.

The Egyptian door could become more ajar to China as a new and potential ally, no doubt as a business and economic market, and even as a sphere of political influence. However, China is still not rocking the boat too much, trying to shield its own population from seeing the mass demonstrations in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and other Egyptian cities lest their own would start demanding change.

Israel is worried because of the potential loss of a strategic partner in Husni Mubarak. Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is in deep tension. As far as Israel is concerned, and despite the fact that there exists at best a frosty normalization between the two countries, Cairo is at present, neutralized through the peace treaty signed between the two countries in 1979. Under a new Egyptian domino fall, such cold relations could hot up again because Egyptians have never accepted normalization with Israel.

The rest of the Arab world is in a flux of excitement and trepidation, there is a new sense of political change from its western shores of Africa to the Arabian Gulf where everyone is watching, meditating, speculating whether a New Middle Eastern order is being built. To dampen the impact, Kuwait for instance recently paid each of its citizens, young and old, 1000 Kuwait Dinars (around $3000) in token of their appreciation to them in a farfetched scenario that Kuwaitis might rise against their political system.

But the people of Algeria, Jordan, Yemen and Syria have not been so lucky, taking the brunt of international hikes on their local economies, resulting in soaring prices, and high unemployment. Many have been lending muted support, even pleasure with many albeit outside the region asking which piece of the domino would fall next in the Middle East.

It is argued all of the initial four could be candidates for the next political upheaval and problems as they all experienced demonstrations and mass rallies in protest at raising food prices, and low wages in their home countries.

For some reason however, international commentators are putting their bets in Jordan to fall despite its globalized nature, political pluralism and parliamentary representation. The monarch, King Abdullah has finally heeded calls led by the opposition and the Islamic Action Front and removed Prime Minister Samir Al Rifai and his government.

However, the opposition, have stressed that their call for political reform does not, in no way, mean regime change as it is the case in Egypt. There demonstrations have started from the hundreds of thousands to around a million in one day, and with levels of violence coming from pro-Mubarak demonstrators who are feared to be government agents sent on the streets.

It is from seeing these demonstrators from afar that prompted Yemeni President to come on the scene and say he will not be re-standing in the next presidential elections in 2013. He would also suspend legislation that would make him president for life and he wouldn’t be grooming his son to take over, something which Mubarak was doing with his son Jamal from as early as 1999.

Judging from the level of demonstrations that have been taking place in Yemen almost on a daily basis—one estimated at 5000 in the capital Sanaa—and those in the country. Saleh may have offered his last statement as a token in hope the public would not step up pressure against him and back off from demand for his removal being openly made on the streets.

In between choosing Jordan and Yemen, it should be plain to see it is the latter that is expected as the next domino piece to fall because of level opposition the Yemeni president is facing internally, and from the Houthi sect in the north of the country. Their demands lie between a complete split from the Yemeni state to greater equality with their other Yemeni brethrens and the rest of the country.

For the United States, it’s simply a strategic equation. Although, and it is no doubt, Yemen has been important in fighting Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaada, and has strategic worth on the Red Sea, the priorities have always been to the geographical north. It is to Saudi Arabia and Jordan with the latter serving a very important part of the link and domino as bulwark against radicalism in the midst of Israel to the east, the Palestinians, Hizbollah and Syria further to the north as well as bloody, chaotic Iraq to the east.

Literally overnight, the Arab world has become nightmare scenario for the American administration, and that is maybe why they are paying particular attention to Jordan, a traditional all of the West and the United States, and who like Egypt, has been buttressed with much American aid.

And so, Jordan is definitely not a kingdom that is seen as an entity going to fall because of its geography, politics, stability and security, and the United States will make sure it will not fall or be nowhere near in falling because of the unique nature of its strategic role in the region.

As well, and on the contrary, if Egypt does fall, the United States would likely double its efforts to make sure Jordan will remain stable and secure. Any other way would mean American policy has failed miserably in the region and that would shatter the image of its hegemony in the global system, and give rise to the reemergence of multipolarity as opposed to its current unipolar dominance gained since the end of the Cold War and of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

04 February, 2011

Countercurrents.org

The line from Gilbert & Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore relates well to what’s going on in Egypt, perhaps elsewhere in the region as well, saying: “Things are seldom as they seem. Skim milk masquerades as cream.”

Visceral street anger is real. What’s orchestrating it, however, is suspect, especially its likely Washington impresario, implementing long-planned regime change for new faces continuing old policies, leaving deep-rooted hardships unaddressed. The script is familiar.

In his book “Freedom Next Time,” John Pilger discussed Nelson Mandela’s betrayal in post-apartheid South Africa, embracing what he called “Thatcherism,” telling Pilger:

“You can put any label on it you like; you can call it Thatcherite, but for this country, privatization is the fundamental policy.”

In 1990, two weeks before freed from prison, he was quoted saying:

“The nationalization of the mines, banks and monopoly industries is the policy of the ANC (and changing) our views….is inconceivable. Black economic empowerment is a goal we fully support and encourage, but in our situation state control of certain sectors of the economy is unavoidable.”

In 1955, that view became ANC Freedom Charter policy. Its liberation struggle wasn’t just political but also economic. White mine workers earned 10 times more than blacks, and large industrialists used security forces to enforce order by disappearing dissenters.

Post-apartheid, a new way was possible, Mandela poised to lead it by rejecting market orthodoxy for economic justice. In 1994, ANC candidates won overwhelmingly. Nonetheless, despite transitioning peacefully, betrayal, not progressive change followed. Black South Africans became predatory capitalist hostages. They still are, worse off now than under apartheid.

Even The New York Times noticed, writer Celia Dugger headlining on September 26, 2010: “Wage Laws Squeeze South Africa’s Poor,” saying:

“In the 16 years since the end of apartheid, South Africa has followed the prescriptions of the West, opening its market-based economy to trade, while keeping inflation and public debt in check (by following IMF diktats). It has won praise for its efforts,” but at a price. “For over a decade, the jobless rate been among the highest in the world,” exacerbated by the global economic crisis, “wiping out more than a million jobs.”

Overall, the toll included:

— double the number of people impoverished on less than $1 a day from two to four million;

— unemployment doubling to 48% from 1991 – 2002, currently even higher;

— two million South Africans losing their homes while the government built only 1.8 million others;

— in the first decade of ANC rule, nearly one million South Africans lost farms; as a result, shack dwellers grew by 50%;

— in 2006, 25% of South Africans lived in them with no running water or electricity;

— the HIV/AIDS infection rate is about 20%; ANC officials deny its severity and do little to help; as a result, average life expectancy is lower than in 1990;

— 40% of schools have no electricity;

— 25% of people have no clean water, and most with it can’t afford the cost;

— 60% have inadequate sanitation, and 40% no telephones.

Post-apartheid came at a high price with political empowerment traded for economic betrayal, and no planned relief for millions of suffering South Africans, victims of predatory capitalism.

Post-Communist Russia

The Berlin Wall’s fall should have been triumphant for millions. Instead it was tragic for Russia and post-Soviet states like Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and others.

In March 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, promising political and social change, but wasn’t around long enough to lead it. He liberalized the country, introduced elections, and favored (then) Scandinavian-style social democracy, combining free market capitalism with strong social safety net protections. He envisioned “a socialist beacon for all mankind,” an egalitarian society, but never got the chance to build it.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, he was out. Boris Yeltsin replaced him, supporting harsh Chicago School orthodoxy, masquerading as “reform.” Former apparatchiks profited along with a new oligarch “nouveaux billionaire” class, strip-mining Russia’s wealth, then shipping it offshore to tax havens.

Predatory capitalism devastated ordinary Russians, enriching a select few at their expense. The toll included:

— 80% of farmers bankrupt;

— about 70,000 state factories closed, causing an epidemic of unemployment;

— 74 million Russians (half the population) impoverished; for 37 million of them conditions were desperate, and the country’s underclass remained permanent;

— alcohol, painkilling and hard drug used soared;

— since 1995, HIV/AIDS increased 20-fold;

— suicides also rose, and violent crime more than fourfold; and

— Russia’s population declined by around 700,000 a year before leveling off; unfettered capitalism killed 10% of it – a startling condemnation of how capitalist excess harms so many, including in other post-Soviet states.

Free Market Repression in Haiti

Except briefly in 1804 after revolutionary liberation turned slaves into citizens and during Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s tenure as president, Haitians suffered harsh predatory capitalist exploitation, making it the region’s poorest nation and one of the poorest globally. Even before the devastating January 2010 earthquake, followed by greater than ever depravation and raging cholera, its burdens included:

— imperial control as a de facto US colony;

— its ruling elite having dominant social and economic control; six families controllig the economy, media, universities, commerce and trade;

— the region’s most unequal wealth distribution and one the most unequal globally;

— 1% of Haitians controlling half the country’s wealth;

— in contrast, over 80% enduring harrowing poverty;

— three-fourths of the population living on less than $2 a day and over half (56%) less than $1 a day;

— 5% of the population owning 75% of the arable land;

— rampant unemployment and underemployment; two-thirds or more of workers with no reliable jobs, and most with them earn below-subsistance pay;

— structural adjustments decimating the rural economy, forcing displaced peasants to cities for non-existent jobs;

— public sector employment the lowest in the region at less than .7%;

— life expectancy only 53 years; the highest hemispheric death rare, and infant mortality is double the regional average at 76 per 1000;

— the World Bank placing Haiti in its bottom rankings based on deficient sanitation, poor nutrition, high malnutrition, and inadequate health services;

— over half its people food insecure and half its children undersized from malnutrition;

— more than half with no access to clean drinking water;

— its bottom hemispheric ranking in health care spending with only 25 doctors and 11 nurses per 100,000 population and most rural areas with no access;

— the highest HIV-AIDS incidence outside sub-Sararan Africa;

— the region’s lowest sweatshop wages for Haitians lucky enough to have work;

— called “the Republic of NGOs,” most exploit Haitians brutally for profit; and

— its longstanding “restavec” system, entrapping hundreds of thousands of children in forced bondage;

Overall, America maintains imperial dominance, controlling Haiti’s resources, its economy and politics. It exploits Haitians ruthlessly, strip-mines the country for profits, and installs new regimes no different from old ones.

The same story repeats globally, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, plagued by war, occupation, torture, oppression, appalling poverty and unemployment, no security, clean water, enough food, shelter, medical care or other essential services. US “liberation” brought millions of deaths, disease, hunger, depravation, and grievous unaddressed human suffering. Moreover, privation levels keep rising as well at home because Washington refuses to address them.

A Final Comment

Post-WW II decolonization produced neocolonial regimes, Cold War politics, the Non-Aligned Movement, emergent nationalism, ethnic conflicts, and American imperial dominance, distinguished by its:

— abhorrence of democracy;

— support for neocolonial strongmen, mostly police state dictatorships serving Western interests; and

— use of direct or proxy belligerence for world capitalist enforcement, keeping the world safe for big money.

Old orders passed. New ones emerged. Everything changed but stayed the same, more than ever dominated by finance capital and monopoly corporations, controlling governments for their own self-interest at the expense of harshly exploited workers globally. As a result, today’s world is characterized by instability, declining living standards, police state harshness, and enormous human suffering, especially in areas like the Middle East.

Across the region, people want it ended, pitting revolutionary populism against imperial harshness offering pretense, not change. As a result, expect new faces continuing old policies, yielding nothing unless sustained mass outrage persists. That’s today’s reality, resolution still in doubt, but odds always favor the strong.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

04 February, 2011

Killinghope.org

A cautionary tale

In July of 1975 I went to Portugal because in April of the previous year a bloodless military coup had brought down the US-supported 48-year fascist regime of Portugal, the world’s only remaining colonial power. This was followed by a program centered on nationalization of major industries, workers control, a minimum wage, land reform, and other progressive measures. Military officers in a Western nation who spoke like socialists was science fiction to my American mind, but it had become a reality in Portugal. The center of Lisbon was crowded from morning till evening with people discussing the changes and putting up flyers on bulletin boards. The visual symbol of the Portuguese “revolution” had become the picture of a child sticking a rose into the muzzle of a rifle held by a friendly soldier, and I got caught up in demonstrations and parades featuring people, including myself, standing on tanks and throwing roses, with the crowds cheering the soldiers. It was pretty heady stuff, and I dearly wanted to believe, but I and most people I spoke to there had little doubt that the United States could not let such a breath of fresh air last very long. The overthrow of the Chilean government less than two years earlier had raised the world’s collective political consciousness, as well as the level of skepticism and paranoia on the left.

Washington and multinational corporate officials who were on the board of directors of the planet were indeed concerned. Besides anything else, Portugal was a member of NATO. Destabilization became the order of the day: covert actions; attacks in the US press; subverting trade unions; subsidizing opposition media; economic sabotage through international credit and commerce; heavy financing of selected candidates in elections; a US cut-off of Portugal from certain military and nuclear information commonly available to NATO members; NATO naval and air exercises off the Portuguese coast, with 19 NATO warships moored in Lisbon’s harbor, regarded by most Portuguese as an attempt to intimidate the provisional government. In 1976 the “Socialist” Party (scarcely further left and no less anti-communist than the US Democratic Party) came to power, heavily financed by the CIA, the Agency also arranging for Western European social-democratic parties to help foot the bill. The Portuguese revolution was dead, stillborn. 1

The events in Egypt cannot help but remind me of Portugal. Here, there, and everywhere, now and before, the United States of America, as always, is petrified of anything genuinely progressive or socialist, or even too democratic, for that carries the danger of allowing god-knows what kind of non-America-believer taking office. Honduras 2009, Haiti 2004, Venezuela 2002, Ecuador 2000, Bulgaria 1990, Nicaragua 1990 … dozens more … anything, anyone, if there’s a choice, even a dictator, a torturer, is better.

We are so good even our enemies believe our lies

I’ve devoted a lot of time and effort to the question of how to reach the American mind concerning US foreign policy. To a large extent what this comes down to is trying to counterbalance the lifetime of indoctrination someone raised in the United States receives. It comes in news stories every day.

On January 27, the Washington Post ran a story about the State Department personnel who were held hostage at the American embassy in Tehran, Iran for some 14 months, 1979-81. The former hostages were preparing to hold a 30th anniversary remembrance the next day.

“It was wrong on every conceivable count,” said L. Bruce Laingen, who was the charge d’affaires. “It was absolutely wrong. … That is my most vivid memory today.” Former political officer John W. Limbert agrees, saying that he “would take any opportunity” to tell his captors “what a terrible thing they had done by their own criteria.”

What criteria, I wonder, did the man think his Iranian captors were guided by? In 1953, the United States had overthrown the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh, resulting, as planned, in the return to power from exile of the Shah. This led to 26 years of rule by oppression including routine torture as the Shah was safeguarded continuously by US military support. Is this not reason enough for Iranians to be bitterly angry at the United States? What was Mr. Limbert thinking? What do Americans who read or hear such comments think? They read or hear distorted news reports pertaining to America’s present or historical role in the world every day, and like in the Washington Post article cited here — there’s no correction by the reporter, no questions asked, no challenge put forth to the idea of America the Noble, America the perpetual victim of the Bad Guys.

Atheist: “Blasphemy is a victimless crime.”

Salman Taseer was murdered in Pakistan a few weeks ago. He was the governor of Punjab province and a member of the secular Pakistan People’s Party. The man who killed him, Mumtaz Qadri, was lauded by some as a hero, showering rose petals on him. Photos taken at the scene show him smiling.

Taseer had dared to speak out against Pakistan’s stringent anti-blasphemy law, calling for leniency for a Christian mother sentenced to death under the blasphemy ban. A national group of 500 religious scholars praised the assassin and issued a warning to those who mourned Taseer. “One who supports a blasphemer is also a blasphemer,” the group said in a statement, which warned journalists, politicians and intellectuals to “learn” from the killing. “What Qadri did has made every Muslim proud.”2

Nice, really nice, very civilized. It’s no wonder that decent, god-fearing Americans believe that this kind of thinking and behavior justify Washington’s multiple wars; that this is what the United States is fighting against — Islamic fanatics, homicidal maniacs, who kill their own countrymen over some esoteric piece of religious dogma, who want to kill Americans over some other imagined holy sin, because we’re “infidels” or “blasphemers”. How can we reason with such people? Where is the common humanity the naive pacifists and anti-war activists would like us to honor?

But war can be seen as America’s religion — most recently Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and many more in the past — all non-believers in Washington’s Church of Our Lady of Eternal Invasion, Sacred Bombing, and Immaculate Torture, all condemned to death for blasphemy, as each day the United States unleashes blessed robotic death machines called Predators flying over their lands to send “Hellfire” (sic) missiles screaming into wedding parties, funerals, homes, not knowing who the victims are, not caring who the victims are, thousands of them by now, as long as Washington can claim each time –- whether correctly or not — that amongst their number was a prominent blasphemer, call him Taliban, or al Qaeda, or insurgent, or militant. How can we reason with such people, the ones in the CIA who operate these drone bombers? What is the difference between them and Mumtaz Qadri? Qadri was smiling in satisfaction after carrying out his holy mission. The CIA man sits comfortably in a room in Nevada and plays his holy video game, then goes out to a satisfying dinner while his victims lay dying. Mumtaz Qadri believes passionately in something called Paradise. The CIA man believes passionately in something called American Exceptionalism.

As do the great majority of Americans. Our drone operator is not necessarily an “extremist”. Sam Smith, the publisher of the marvelously readable newsletter, the Progressive Review, recently wrote: “One of the greatest myths draped over this land is that the so-called wing nuts mainly come from the far right and left. And that there is, however, a wise and moderate establishment that will save us from their madness. In fact, the real wing nuts are to be found in the middle. … having captured both public office and major media, [they] spread disaster, death and decay with impunity. Take, for example, the 60,000 some American troops killed in pointless wars beginning with Vietnam. Now count the number of political assassinations, hate murders, terrorist acts and so forth. There is simply no comparison. Yet every war that we have fought in modern times has been the direct choice of the American establishment, those who pompously describe themselves as moderates, centrists, or bipartisan.” 3

Extending the comparison: In 2008 a young American named Sharif Mobley moved to Yemen to study Arabic and religion. American officials maintain that his purpose was actually to join a terror group. They “see Mobley as one of a growing cadre of native-born Americans who are drawn to violent jihad.” 4 Can one not say as well that the many young native-born Americans who voluntarily join the military to fight in one of America’s many foreign wars “are drawn to violent jihad”?

Items of interest from a journal I’ve kept for 40 years

(Some written by me, most by others; for those lacking a source you can send me an email.)

>> “The biggest crimes of our generation — torture, warrantless wiretapping, and extraordinary rendition — would not have come to light but for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. For the hand-wringing “but we can’t willy-nilly reveal classified information” crowd, do you think Abu Ghraib wasn’t classified?” – Jesselyn Radack

>> “The principal beneficiary of America’s foreign assistance programs has always been the United States.” – US Agency for International Development, “Direct Economic Benefits of U.S. Assistance Programs” (1999); i.e., most of the money is paid directly to US corporations.

>> In 1963, the Kennedy administration was faced with a steadily disintegrating situation in Vietnam. At a turbulent cabinet meeting, Attorney General Robert Kennedy asked: If the situation is so dire, why not withdraw? Historian Arthur Schlesinger, present at the meeting, noted how “the question hovered for a moment, then died away.” It was “a hopelessly alien thought in a field of unexplored assumptions and entrenched convictions.”

>> I watched 21 Marines in full dress uniform with rifles, fire a 21-gun salute to the President. It was then that I realized how far America’s military had deteriorated. Every one of them missed the bastard.

>> Soviet expansion was self-defense, not imperialism like with the United States. The Soviets, in World War I and II, lost about 40 million people because the West had used Eastern Europe as a highway to invade Russia. It should not be surprising that after WW2 the Russians were determined to close down that highway.

>> In March 2010 Secretary of “Defense” Robert Gates complained that “the general [European] public and the political class” are so opposed to war they are an “impediment” to peace.

>> The major problem in establishing both the United States and Israel as nations was what to do with the indigenous people. Same solution. Kill ’em. Without legality. Without mercy.

>> From the film “The Battle of Algiers”:

Journalist: M. Ben M’Hidi, don’t you think it’s a bit cowardly to use women’s baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M’Hidi: And doesn’t it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

>> … the seamless transition from the Cold War to a perpetual Global War on Terrorism

>> One of the reasons some countries allow US bases is because the leaders are worried about being overthrown in a coup and they think that the presence of the US military might discourage such action, or that if a coup breaks out the US can help to put it down. There’s also the large payments made to the government by the US and the prestige factor. Small countries can have inferiority complexes and, as absurd as it may seem to the likes of you and I, having an American base in the country can seem to be a feather in their cap; one of the same reasons they join NATO. Another reason for a base: the US can have intelligence information embarrassing to the country’s leader. This is known as blackmail.

>> George Washington referred to the new American republic as the “infant empire”

>> Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

>> “He [Obama] is trying to say: ‘Do not hate us … but we will continue to kill you’.” – Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s second-in-command

>> “Since both the US and France lost in Vietnam, then the ‘fight for our freedom’ must have been unsuccessful, and we must be under the occupation of the North Vietnamese Army. Next time you’re out on the street and you see a passing NVA patrol, please wave and tell them Tim says hello.” – Tim Moriarty

>> The American Museum of History, on the Mall in Washington, DC: One of the popular exhibitions in recent years was “The Price of Freedom: Americans at War”. This included a tribute to the “exceptional Americans [who] saved a million lives” in Vietnam, where they were “determined to stop communist expansion”. In Iraq, other true hearts “employed air strikes of unprecedented precision”.

>> “The United States became the target of terrorists on 9/11 not because of the country’s freedom and democracy, but because U.S. Middle East policy has had nothing to do with freedom and democracy.” – Stephen Zunes

>> The Wikileaks documents raise issues of national embarrassment, not national security.

>> Orange, Rose and Green Revolutions in other countries require coordinated US government intervention aimed at creating what has been called “genetically modified” grassroots movements.

>> Mikhail Gorbachev: “I feel betrayed by the West. The opportunity we seized on behalf of peace has been lost. The whole idea of a new world order has been completely abandoned.” (Interview in 2000.)

>> George Bernard Shaw used three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Naziism. He argued that if a person was intelligent, and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi. — (I suggest that the reader make any substitution for the word “Nazi” s/he deems appropriate.)

>> “The whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century is being deployed to enable wealth to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power.” – Aneurin Bevan, Labour Party (UK) minister, 1897-1960

>> “Which adversary has a navy justifying our expenditure of $90 billion for 30 Virginia-class submarines, and which enemy air force justifies our plans for about 340 F-22 fighter planes at a cost of $63 billion? This is pork and waste writ large, making the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ look like child’s play.” – Letter in the Washington Post, 2009

>> So many foreign leaders keep silent in the face of US crimes, even when they’re the victim, that we’ve gotten used to that. So Hugo Chávez’s outbursts can seem weird and dangerous.

A talk by William Blum

Saturday, April 2, 7:00 pm

University of Pittsburgh at Titusville, PA

504 East Main Street

Broadhurst Auditorium

Titusville is about 2 hours by car from Pittsburgh and 2 1/2 hours from Cleveland.

For further information: 888-878-0462

Or email Mary Ann Caton at caton@pitt.edu

Notes

1. William Blum, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”, pages 187, 228 for sources ↩

2. Washington Post, January 5, 2011↩

3. Progressive Review, January 27, 2011 ↩

4. Washington Post, September 5, 2010 ↩

William Blum is the author of:

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2

Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower

West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir

Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 [at] aol.com with “add” in the subject line. I’d like your name and city in the message, but that’s optional. I ask for your city only in case I’ll be speaking in your area.

(Or put “remove” in the subject line to do the opposite.)

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I’d appreciate it if the website were mentioned.

 Monday 7 Feb 2011

After almost two weeks of mass protests in Egypt, some intellectuals, activists and parties hold talks with the government, while the majority of protesters refuse to leave Tahrir square before president Mubarak steps down

As some Egyptian opposition groups joined talks on Sunday with the government toward overhauling the country’s political system and responding to the demands of the 25 Janurary Revolution, thousands of protesters who have maintained their daily demonstratons and overnight occupation of Tahrir square for the past two weeks insist on Mubarak’s resignation as a precondition to any negotiations. Many of them believe the opposition movements don’t represent them. Although the government has been changed, protesters are still camping in Tahrir square refusing to go anywhere until the regime and its head are brought down.

“We are here because nothing has been changed; they change cards, they change faces, but the regime is still the same. A good example is the ex-minister of trade Rachid Mohamed Rachid. They offered him a position in the new government, and when he refused they put him on the black list and confiscated his money,” said Shaimaa Shalash, an interior designer who has been camping in Tahrir square for the past ten days. Rachid was in Dubai when the decision was made.

A great many of the protesters in Tahrir square would agree with Shalash that their demands haven’t been met yet and that the decisions that have been taken are meaningless. They also believe that the officials are still very arrogant in their speeches, from Mubarak, who reads from a paper and doesn’t look people in their eyes, to Omar Suleiman, his newly appointed vice president who threatened the protestors that if they don’t go home “it won’t be good”, to Ahmed Shafiq, the newly-appointed prime minister.

“[Shafiq] went on TV with a big smile saying he will send food and candies to Tahrir. He is making fun of us. He is being very arrogant. It is the same regime that belittles the people and despises them,” adds Shalash, who insists she won’t go home before the protestors’ demands are met.

Although Shalash rejects negotiations with what she believes is an unwanted regime, opposition representatives are currently holding talks with the prime minister and the vice president.

Gamal Fahmi, a member of the journalists’ syndicate council, agrees with Shalash that protestors in Tahrir sqauare are not going to leave unless their demands are met. “Mubarak is stripping down the regime piece by piece, that’s why we should continue to put pressure on them to get what we want,” says Fahmi, who doesn’t mind that some opposition parties are negotiating with the regime. “Even if they don’t represent us, at least they will tell the authorities what is happening here. People here are creating their own mechanisms, one day there are a million protesters, the second day they are on a warrior break,” adds Fahmi, who describes the general scene at Tahrir square as spectacular.

Fahmi, like many of the protesters in Tahrir, doesn’t have a clear agenda as to what to next and admits there is “no catalogue for revolution”. “It will create its own mechanisms, online and offline,” adds Fahmi.

Dina Shokri, a freelance photographer, who is looking clearly exhausted from the sleepless nights at Tahrir is also undaunted. She believes the regime’s tactics until today defy logic. “The only logical scenario is that Mubarak resigns. He is playing a time game, but it is not in his favour. We have more time than him as a matter of fact,” says Shokri, who also doesn’t mind the negotiations and says some people representating her views are attending the negotiations but they haven’t reached any of their demands yet. “The regime has to leave, emergency law has to end, and the rigged parliament has to be dissolved, both the upper and lower houses, nothing of that was achieved,” adds Shokri.

But unlike Shokri, Fahmi and Shalash, Omar El-Kafrawi, who studies engineering, does mind the negotiations and believes no one represents him and no one should speak for him. He asserts that he is staying in Tahrir until all demands are met. These include the removal of the regime, establishing a national unity government that amends the constitution, establishing a new modern secular state, dissolving the parliament, an immediate end to emergency law, and putting those responsible for killing protesters on trial.

“We want freedom, integrity, and justice. We the young people were brutally beaten and killed by the police last week, and the opposition parties were not there. Now after the massacres are over they want to jump on our movement,” says El-Kafrawi, asserting that he has no political affiliation and that all parties have their own agendas and are working for their own benefits while independents like him are working for Egypt’s benefit.

El-Kafrawi, who aspires to be Egypt’s president in 2050 when he believes there will be democracy and free elections, accuses Egyptian TV of brainwashing people and prefers it shuts down because “this is the money of tax payers, they waste it – no one watch their lies.”

Mohamed Khaled, 31, who works in marketing, does not insist on Mubarak’s resignation if he stays on only as a figure without political or legislative power. “He can delegate to Omar Suleiman, who would need to change the constitution, end emergency law, dissolve the parliament, and assure freedom of political parties and the press,” says Khaled. Some agree with him that it is not only Mubarak that needs to be removed, but the regime itself, which consolidates all political and legislative power in the hands of one person.

Most of the protesters Ahram Online spoke to in Tahrir say they dream of a modern democratic state. “All that we have been offered is a bunch of promises. We don’t have anything tangible yet. For thirty years we have seen lying and rigging. If only he removes the emergency law, and dissolves the parliament, we may believe him that he will leave in September and change the constitution, but we don’t believe him,” adds Khaled.

Mohammed Hafez, who teaches Arabic in Germany and has come back to participate in the demonstrations, is ready to compromise. “We won’t get all of our demands. Mubarak doesn’t seem to be leaving, but we need to make sure we get the rest of our demands that insure his regime goes, and we have a new democratic secular state with a new constitution, and a new parliament and fair elections,” says Hafez, who is eager to form a representative list of people for a national unity government – mostly lawyers, judges and journalists, some Copts and Muslim Brotherhood members, as well as ElBaradei and Ahmed Zewil. “These people represent us, understand politics and can take us to a safe democracy,” adds Hafez, who says he won’t go back to Germany or to work before achieving democracy.

Although protestors in Tahrir square appear to agree on one demand – the removal of the regime – they may differ on whether to negotiate or not, and if so, how. “This is one of the main drawbacks of the revolution. Usually people think about what they want and then they start a revolution, but now it is the other way around. We have created the revolution first and then in the next transitional period, we will be allowed to see politics, and decide what to join and what to do,” says Mohammed Kalfat, a translator who participated in the sit in.

Wondering what’s next, Salma Said, a cultural manager and activist who has participated in the sit-in since day one, says Mubarak has to resign first, then we need to work on the grassroots level. “We should write down our list of demands and the actual time frame, and work on together to reach consensus on it, everyone in Tahrir. Then we send our list to the vice president or Amr Moussa,” adds Said, who tried reaching a consensus with her fellow Tahrir protesters but couldn’t deliver her message. “They told me I will cause confusion,” says Said.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/5112.aspx