The Summer of Muslim Discontent 1

It's not the amateur film, stupid.

An Arab Spring update from James Petras' latest (21/9/12) essay (in bite-size bits):

"The so-called Arab Spring is a distant and bitter memory to those who fought and struggled for a better world, not to speak of the thousands who lost life and limb. In its place, throughout the Muslim world, a new wave of reactionaries - corrupt and servile politicians - have taken the reins of power, buttressed by the same military, secret police and judicial power which sustained the previous rulers. Death and destruction is rampant, poverty and misery has multiplied, law and order has broken down, and retrograde thugs have seized political power, where previously they were a marginal force. Living standards have plunged, cities are devastated and commerce is paralysed. And presiding over this 'Arab Winter' are the Western powers, the US and the EU, with the aid of the despotic, absolutist Gulf monarchies, their Turkish ally, and a motley army of mercenary Islamic terrorists and their would-be exile spokespeople.

"The legacy of imperial intervention in the Muslim world during the first decade of the 21st century, in terms of lives lost, people displaced, and economies destroyed in perpetual war exceeds any previous decade, including that of the 19th and 20th century colonial conquests. Much of the latest Western-generated mayhem and violence has been compressed into the period dubbed the 'Arab Spring', between 2011 and 2012. Moreover, the worst is yet to come. The Western overseers have gained strategic positions of power in some countries (Egypt), are engaged in prolonged, ruinous wars in others (Syria), and are preparing for an even bigger and more destructive intervention in Iran.

"The 'Winter of Muslim Discontent' covers an arc from Pakistan and Afghanistan in South Asia, through the Gulf region and the Middle East to North Africa. Despite being in the throes of the worst economic crises to hit the West since the 30s, the Western imperialist regimes have squeezed their peoples and mobilized personnel, arms and money to engage in simultaneous wars in five regions and two continents, aimed at overthrowing political adversaries and installing clients, even at the cost of destroying whole economies and uprooting millions.

"Let us begin with Egypt, where the Arab Spring has become a case study in the making of the New Imperial Order in the Muslim world. To attribute the mass violent rebellions across two continents and two dozen Muslim countries to a US-made film which desecrates the Prophet Muhammad is the height of superficiality. At most the film was the trigger that set off deeply-rooted hostilities resulting from two decades of US-led ravaging and destruction of the Muslim world. More particularly, the rage flows from Washington's crude intervention against the promise of the Arab Spring."

Next post in the series: Egypt: The Making of a Client State...

The Counter-Revolution Firms 3

Two of the sharpest knives in the pack dissect the ongoing counter-revolution in the Arab world:

"If not to prevent genocide, grab the oil or promote democracy (via Patriot missiles), what then is the driving force behind the Euro-US imperial intervention [in Libya]? A clue lies in the selectivity of Western military intervention: in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Qatar and Oman ruling autocrats, allied with and backed by Euro-US imperial states go about arresting, torturing and murdering unarmed urban protesters with total impunity. In Egypt and Tunisia, the US is backing a conservative junta of self-appointed civil-military elites in order to block the profound democratic and nationalist transformation of society demanded by the protesters. The 'junta' aims to push through neo-liberal economic 'reforms' through carefully vetted pro-Western 'elected' officials. While liberal critics may accuse the West of 'hypocrisy' and 'double standards' in bombing Gaddafi but not the Gulf butchers, in reality the imperial rulers consistently apply the same standards in each region: they defend strategic autocratic client regimes, which have allowed imperial states to build strategic air force and naval bases, run regional intelligence operations and set up logistical platforms for their ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as their future planned conflict with Iran. They attack Gaddafi's Libya precisely because Gaddafi had refused to actively contribute to Western military operations in Africa and the Middle East. The key point is that while Libya allows the biggest US-European multinationals to plunder its oil wealth, it did not become a strategic geopolitical-military asset of the empire. As we have written in many previous essays the driving force of US empire-building is military - and not economic. This is why billions of dollars of Western economic interests and contracts have been sacrificed in the setting up of sanctions against Iraq and Iran - with the costly result that the invasion and occupation of Iraq shut down most oil exploitation for over a decade. The Washington-led assault on Libya... is part of a more general counter-attack in response to the most recent Arab popular pro-democracy movements. The West is backing the suppression of these pro-democracy movements throughout the Gulf; it finances the pro-imperial, pro-Israel junta in Egypt and it is intervening in Tunisia to ensure that any new regime is 'correctly aligned'. It supports a despotic regime in Algeria as well as Israel's daily assaults on Gaza. In line with this policy, the West backs the uprising of ex-Gaddafites and right-wing monarchists, confident that the 'liberated' Libya will once again provide military bases for the US-European military empire-builders." (The Euro-US war on Libya: official lies & misconceptions of critics, James Petras & Robin E, Abaya, petras.lehaine.org, 25/3/11)

"You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a 'yes' vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, 'This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner'. As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to 'seduce' 3 other members to get the vote. Translation: only 9 out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President. Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.

"Humanitarian imperialists will spin en masse this is a 'conspiracy', as they have been spinning the bombing of Libya prevented a hypothetical massacre in Benghazi. They will be defending the House of Saud - saying it acted to squash Iranian subversion in the Gulf; obviously R2P - 'responsibility to protect' does not apply to people in Bahrain. They will be heavily promoting post-Gaddafi Libya as a new - oily - human rights Mecca, complete with US intelligence assets, black-ops, special forces and dodgy contractors. Whatever they say won't alter the facts on the ground - the graphic results of the US-Saudi dirty dancing. Asia Times Online has already reported on who profits from the foreign intervention in Libya (see There's no business like war busines, March 30). Players include the Pentagon (via Africom), NATO, Saudi Arabia, the Arab League's Amr Moussa, and Qatar. Add to the list the al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, assorted weapons contractors, and the usual neo-liberal suspects eager to privatize everything in sight in the new Libya - even the water. And we're not even talking about the Western vultures hovering over the Libyan oil and gas industry. Exposed, above all, is the astonishing hypocrisy of the Obama administration, selling a crass geopolitical coup involving northern Africa and the Persian Gulf as a humanitarian operation. As for the fact of another US war on a Muslim nation, that's just a 'kinetic military action'. There's been widespread speculation in both the US and across the Middle East that considering the military stalemate - and short of the 'coalition of the willing' bombing the Gaddafi family to oblivion - Washington, London and Paris might settle for the control of eastern Libya; a northern African version of an oil-rich Gulf Emirate. Gaddafi would be left with a starving North Korea-style Tripolitania. But considering the latest high-value defections from the regime, plus the desired endgame ('Gaddafi must go', in President Obama's own words), Washington, London, Paris and Riyadh won't settle for nothing but the whole kebab. Including a strategic base for both Africom and NATO." (Exposed: The US-Saudi Libya deal, Pepe Escobar, atimes.com,)

The Counter-Revolution Firms 2

Further to yesterday's Angry Arab post on the tripartite (US/Saudi/Israeli) plot to knobble the Arab uprisings, here's an Israeli perspective on the latest, Syrian intifada. 'Better the devil you know...' seems to be the 'thinking':

"When Hilary Clinton said Sunday that the United States would not intervene in Syria militarily, she cited lack of international consensus.* But Washington, Israel, Turkey and Iran** all have great reasons to want Assad to remain at the helm. The Syrian president has grown closer to the US in recent years, earning his reward in the form of the return of an American ambassador to Damascus after a 6-year hiatus. He is seen as a safety valve against a violent attack by Hezbollah on Israel or against its physical takeover of Lebanon.*** He has also made known his disagreements with Iran following the controversial visit of Ahmadinejad to Lebanon. Assad's fall may open a path for Iran into Lebanon, without it having to consider Syria's position any longer." (Assad's fall could deliver Lebanon to Iran and Hezbollah, Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz, 28/3/11)

[* Funny that! Lack of international consensus is never a problem for the US when it comes to intervening in the UN diplomatically to protect Israel; ** Bar'el here says Iran wants Asad "to remain at the helm," yet goes on to say "Assad's fall may open a path for Iran into Lebanon..." ?; *** See my 1/1/11 post Clean Up Lebanon]

Now here are the Saudis weighing in:

"Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Monday to reaffirm his support for the Syrian leadership, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported on Monday. Abdel Aziz said his kingdom supports Syria in confronting 'the conspiracy targeting [the country] and aimed at harming its security and stability', the report said." (Saudi king reaffirms support for Syrian leadership, nowlebanon.com, 28/3/11)

The Counter-Revolution Firms

First the bad news, then the good, from The Angry Arab:

"I will write about how this nasty counter-revolution began. I believe that Saudi Arabia (with tacit Israeli support) decided to abort and hijack the Arab uprisings. This happened right after the fall of Mubarak when relations between Saudi Arabia and the US deteriorated due to Saudi displeasure with US behaviour (as if the US hadn't done all it could to save Mubarak!). But then the US came on board and the two are partners once again. Yesterday, I heard a most bizarre 'report' on Aljazeera: it said that a US/EU delegation is in Yemen to bring about a 'peaceful' transition to power. In Yemen, for potato's sake, where the US has been instrumental in the construction of a military-intelligence regime there. The close relationship between Prince Saud Faysal and the Egyptian Defense Minister Tantawi is the other element in this sinister plot. The US and Saudi Arabia (with Israel in the background) will basically try to guarantee that the emerging regimes are as bad as, if not worse, than the previous ones. Witness them try to bring Rif'at al-Asad [Syrian President Bashar al-Asad's uncle] and 'Abdul-Halim Khaddam [head of a so-called 'government in exile'], along with other reactionary elements from the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to power in Syria. The opposition's task right now is to oppose all regimes and their Saudi puppet replacements. The good news is this: no matter what arrangements the plotters put in place, the people are no longer afraid and the old tight security controls will be a thing of the past." (The Saudi-US counter-revolution (with Aljazeera on board, angryarab.blogspot.com, 27/3/11)

USraeli Talking Points

The USraelis have still to come up with a talking point on the Arab revolts they can all agree with. Here are 3 specimens so far:

With its if-you've-got-chutzpah-why-not-flaunt-it? approach, this one's got so much front, I reckon it'll end up front runner:

"Mr Bush and his supporters were condemned for the Iraq project... yet there is no doubt now that citizens of the Arab street, who knew no Arab democracy, have seen the troubled, difficult, but nonetheless free democracy struggling to its feet in Iraq, and decided they, too, prefer that over tyranny. Where President Barack Obama previously has been apologetic for the US interventions, he must now contemplate action. For all the pitfalls and weighty considerations to be made, he won't find guidance in the councils of the UN or the counsel of the liberal commentariat, but rather in the principles that the US has long inspired." (Editorial, Iraq democracy inspires Arabs: Bush deliberately fostered freedom in the Middle East, The Australian, 10/3/11)

Let me gloss that for you: Bush & his neocon cabal are finally vindicated. It was their project (aka shock & awe invasion; brutal military occupation; millions of deaths, maimings, woundings, displaced persons, and refugees; the unleashing of rampant sectarianism; and the impoverishment & dismemberment of a once intact, proud, and sovereign nation) which vanquished the tyrant and brought the grateful Iraqis the precious gift of US-style democracy (fries optional). And now, transfixed by the beacon of this US-bestowed, Iraqi-style democracy (where the fries are still a work in progress), millions of Arabs are now in the business of throwing off their shackles and taking their first, faltering baby steps on the path to freedom and the USraeli way. And you know what, as Kevin Rudd would say, the UN, international law, and all those who, until now, have scorned Bush and all his works, can all get nicked. So, Obama, it's time to pull your finger out and get in there and kick some Libyan arse confident in the knowledge that this is what the fabled Arab street really wants you to do, because, hey man, hasn't it worked a treat in Iraq!

Now here's an early and somewhat amateurish let's-go-with-the-flow-and-keep-our-fingers-crossed effort. Pathetic actually. I can't really see it lasting the distance:

"Australia's Jewish community is right behind Arab democrats, with the top brass issuing statements of support for Middle East countries on the brink, particularly Egypt in the wake of its revolution. Following the resignation of Egypt's long-time ruler Hosni Mubarak, a joint release by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and Zionist Federation of Australia acknowledged the courage shown by the Egyptian people and applauded the decision of Egypt's interim military rulers to honour the country's peace treaty with Israel." (Community stands behind Egyptians, The Australian Jewish News, 25/2/11)

Finally, there's this little don't-get-your-hopes-up, been-there-done-that number:

"Of course, what we would all like to see is a repetition of what happened in Eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, a united Europe', [Itamar Rabinovich, the former Israeli ambassador to the United States] said. '[But] are we witnessing the same thing in the Middle East? Not really. Because the Middle East is not ripe for democracy'. He said it was naive of the US to believe that democracy merely meant holding elections. 'This is not limited to Barack Obama. George W Bush also wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East, and he leaned very hard on Ariel Sharon to allow free elections in the Palestinian community', he said. 'And the free elections... produced the Hamas government in Gaza'." (Middle East not yet 'ripe' for democracy, The Australian Jewish News, 11/3/11)

Shucks!

For You, O Israel

Looks like the democratic aspirations of millions throughout the Middle East will just have to be put on hold because a certain entity, which has the Land of the Free and Home of the Not-So-Brave firmly by the balls (see my last post), reckons they simply cannot be trusted to vote the right way:

"After weeks of internal debate [!] on how to respond to uprisings in the Arab world, the Obama administration is settling on a Middle East strategy: help keep longtime allies who are willing to reform in power, even if that means the full democratic demands of their newly emboldened citizens might have to wait. Instead of pushing for immediate regime change as it did in varying degrees [!!] in Egypt and now Libya - the US is urging protesters from Bahrain to Morocco to work with existing rulers toward what some officials and diplomats are now calling 'regime alteration'. The approach has emerged amid furious lobbying of the administration by Arab governments, who were alarmed that President Barack Obama had abandoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and worried that, if the US did the same to the beleaguered king of Bahrain, a chain of revolts could sweep them from power, too, and further upend the region's stability... Israel was also making its voice heard [!!!]. As Mr Mubarak's grip on power slipped away in Egypt, Israeli officials lobbied Washington to move cautiously and reassure Mideast allies that they were not being abandoned. Israeli leaders have made clear that they fear extremist forces could try to exploit new-found freedoms and undercut Israel's security, diplomats said." (US wavers on 'regime change', Entous & Barnes, The Wall Street Journal, 5/3/11)

And don't for a moment think that Egypt, which has already sent its Israel-friendly pharaoh packing, is going to be spared regime alteration:

"A senior Israeli official [Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon] is suggesting the Muslim Brotherhood should be banned from standing in Egyptian elections because it is an extremist organization." (Israel seeks ban on Brotherhood in Egypt, dailytimes.com.pk, 1/3/11)

A Day In the Life of The Herald

February 22, 2011

In one and the same editorial, Democracy genie out of the bottle (22/2/11), the Sydney Morning Herald refers to "Gulf fiefdoms," some of which, like Bahrain, are "home to large numbers of Shiites under Iran's influence," while agreeing with foreign minister Rudd that "blaming protest on external interference is a 'tried but predictable script' in the Middle East."

In fact, as the Herald itself had reported only days earlier: "The US has repeatedly dismissed claims by the Bahraini government that Shiite unrest in the Persian Gulf island state is backed by Iran. Us diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show the accusation made by the government - which is facing street protests demanding political reforms from an opposition inspired by the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings - is not backed by hard evidence." (Cables show no sign of Iranian meddling, 17/2/11)

And how's this for an anodyne description of the entirely dependent (for arms, money and diplomatic backing) relationship between the dominant imperial power and its client collaborator regimes, as James petras calls them: "America has relied on regimes now facing popular uprisings." (Democracy genie)

Was 'propped up' deemed too harsh or is the author just plain clueless?

Then there's stuff and nonsense from Herald pundit Gerard Henderson who complains that "[t]he [global BDS] campaign does not distinguish between Israel's pre- and post-1967 borders..." (Don won't, but Libs can stop left)

For Christ's sake, does Israel? Give us a break!

Still, the cake must surely go to yesterday's Herald for an op-ed by Mirko Bagaric, Not having a whale of a time behind farm fence. Introduced in a footnote as "the author of a coming book Humanising Animals - Civilising People, funded by a grant from Voiceless, the animal protection institute," Bagaric wrote:

"Suffering is suffering. It is always ugly. It is always unwelcome. It always needs to be stopped. There are no exceptions. A person with the capacity but not the inclination to cease suffering is morally incomplete... Mahatma Gandi noted: 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated'. What he did not observe was that there is normally a direct correlation between human prosperity and animal welfare."

Fine words! And who could possibly disagree?

Except that the same Mirko Bagaric, footnoted as "professor of law and head of the Deakin Law School," wrote a piece for The Age back in 2005 called A case for torture. In it he wrote:

"The belief that torture is always wrong is... misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators... Torture is permissable where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person." (17/5/05)

That kind of doo-doo, of course, was what was circulating in the heyday of Dubya's so-called War on Terror, and provided the rationale for what was going on in Mubarak's prisons, to cite but one example. It might've helped if Bagaric had sorted this contradiction out in the first few paragraphs of his piece, but maybe he just assumed readers had forgotten. Not only, therefore, is his credibility in question, but so too is that of the opinion editor for failing to host a more deserving voice.

We Are All Tunisians

"New TV's reporter, Ibrahim Dsouki, wrote this on Facebook: 'Ali Abdullah Salih says: Yemen is not Egypt or Tunisia. Qadhafi says: Libya is not Egypt or Tunisia. Mubarak said: Egypt is not Tunisia. You fools: the entire Arab world is Tunisia!'" (angryarab.blogspot.com, 21/2/11)

Even China is Tunisia: "Several top Chinese rights activists have disappeared into police custody as a web campaign urged angry citizens to mark the Middle East's 'Jasmine Revolution' with protests, campaigners say... Authorities have sought to restrict media reports on the recent political turmoil that began in Tunisia as the 'Jasmine Revolution' and spread to Egypt and across the Middle East." (Activists disappear as Beijing cracks down on copycat protests, AFP/AP, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/2/11)