EGYPT !
bigron:
bigron:
A Morning's Mild Diversion, and Becoming Artists Unto Ourselves
BY Arthur Silber
Once Upon a Time... , February 14, 2011
As I do on most mornings, I listened earlier to one of Los Angeles's major talk radio stations while I fed the cats and made coffee. The hosts of this particular program are generally pleasant and easygoing in their manner, doubtless in part to avoid unnecessary provocation of all those people on LA freeways. They are also relentlessly mainstream, as they would have to be; if they were not, they wouldn't be on a major radio station in a major city. While they are not infrequently critical of particular public figures or actions of government, there is never any question that the United States is basically completely keen, and keener than any other country has ever been anywhere at any time.
One of the hosts was chatting with someone (I missed who it was) about events in Egypt. They noted that Mubarak is reputed to be worth many tens of billions of dollars. The host then added, his tone suddenly colored by outraged amazement and horror: "And he took all that wealth from his own people!"
For the host, and I'm sure for most of his listeners, this seemingly singular fact is inconceivably monstrous, as his further comments quickly confirmed. Although he didn't say it explicitly, the implication was unmistakable: "Such abhorrent behavior could never happen here in these wonderful United States!"
I enjoyed a good chuckle over that. It reminded me of one of the major lines of propaganda in the runup to the criminal war of aggression against Iraq: "Saddam slaughtered huge numbers of his own people!" This was always offered to emphasize two related points: Saddam's evil was incomprehensible to all semi-decent human beings, and evil of this kind is utterly unknown in the glorious chapters of history written by the incandescent wonder that is the United States.
Which, you must realize, is deeply and viciously dishonest. Consider two facts, disputed by no one, which were fundamental to the founding and development of the U.S.: the systematic, centuries-long slaughter of Native Americans, and the systematic, centuries-long institution of slavery, followed by a century of still legal segregation and brutalization. (And I would mention the institutionalized discrimination which continues today, including the unending brutalizations of the so-called War on Drugs, which is nothing less than the systematic deployment of State power to destroy targeted races and classes of human beings, but I fear upsetting the children.)
But, of course, the United States Government knows nothing of slaughtering "its own people." For those who direct the operations of our State and for most Americans, the denial would appear to constitute the truth -- which might lead an observer to conclude that the untold millions who were slaughtered, tortured and otherwise brutalized, and who still are today, are not genuinely "our own" and/or they are not "people." Ah, some consolation to be found there, is there not?
These monumental crimes took place on the hallowed ground of the United States itself. I have not yet mentioned the regular slaughters undertaken by the U.S. Government overseas. But I've covered all of this in detail in many articles; for further discussion, see the second section of "Obama and the Triumph of the American Myth" (the section entitled, "Torture and the American Project").
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/05/against-prosecution-iii-obama-and.html
*****
Chris Floyd is offering a series of excellent articles about Egypt. One aspect of these events is greatly inspiring and hopeful, and it is one for which I feel endless gratitude: by means of their deep understanding of and unyielding, consistent adherence to non-violence, the protesters have given the world an invaluable and desperately needed lesson in how powerful non-violence can be. Yes, it's true that the military remains in control -- a military that has received enormous funding from the United States. But Mubarak also had hugely significant funding and support from the U.S., and he's gone. That is very important. I also note that the military is at least saying that they plan to turn power over to a democratically elected government at an early date, and a number of comments from protesters indicate that the protesters themselves view Mubarak's departure as only the beginning of their work.
I repeat that, whatever valid and significant reservations might be felt about what the future may hold, it is astonishing that the protesters achieved so much and, of still greater importance, did so non-violently. I regard that as a great achievement holding enormous promise for the future, and not only in Egypt. But, then, I myself don't need to be convinced of the power of non-violent resistance; I've been writing about it for years. Non-cooperation and the withdrawal of support from a monstrous regime was the theme of, "The Honor of Being Human: Why Do You Support?" from 2007. And consider the concluding paragraphs of a piece from May of last year: http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/05/iii-life-in-shadow-of-death-and-power.html
t cannot be overemphasized that peaceful non-cooperation can be enormously effective against even the most vicious of totalitarian regimes: see here and here for some astonishing and inspiring examples of that effectiveness from fairly recent history. From the first of those links, carefully note this: "n the end almost all Danish Jews escaped unharmed."
The power of "No" is far, far greater than most people ever permit themselves to understand.
I will take this opportunity to state explicitly what is only implied in the last sentence of the above excerpt (although this meaning should have been clear to the attentive reader, especially given many related essays of mine where these connections are spelled out further).
The reason many people will not "permit themselves to understand" the power of non-cooperation is that, if they did grasp it, they would feel more strongly the necessity of resisting the operations of a murderous and evil system of government. They would start to wonder if they should seriously consider withdrawing their support from that system. In other words: they might have to do something. And if they did take action, in the form of non-cooperation and non-violent resistance, they would have to take on the associated costs. Until their lives become inescapably, unbearably oppressive and painful, most people are entirely unwilling to do this. In this sense, the Egyptian protesters are several decades further along this particular path when compared to most Americans, for example.
(See "Passing on the Sense of Wonder" for more on this point, including this passage:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/04/passing-on-sense-of-wonder.html
I am enormously struck by the unnecessary and indefensible narrowness of action that most people, including almost all progressive bloggers (and certainly all national Democrats), view as feasible or "realistic." I will be discussing this in detail in a new essay ... For the moment, I will simply observe that almost all people think only within the severely circumscribed limits of what others have already determined to be "acceptable" behavior. In connection with progressive writers especially, the irony is exceptionally heavy: these are people who endlessly rail against "conventional wisdom" and "inside the Beltway thinking," while they themselves vehemently reject the merest suggestion that anyone should break the accepted rules in any significant way, or refuse to play the game as it has always been played. In part, this is why my suggestions in "Dispatch from Germany" were almost universally ignored: I purposely insisted that the bounds of what is "acceptable" be expanded, and that the rules of the game be changed. For most people, this is unthinkable. They say such ideas are not "realistic"; what they mean is that they are not willing to take the necessary risks.)
MORE
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2011/02/mornings-mild-diversion-and-becoming.html
bigron:
The Fall of Mubarak and the Bankruptcy of Western Empires
By Rosa L. Blanc
Decolonial Translation team, February 14, 2011
After three decades of military and economic support for the Mubarak dictatorship, and of sending billions of dollars annually to sustain it, the first declarations of western leaders following the fall of Mubarak have been to sell us the idea that it was their "liberal democratic principles" that have prevailed, attempting to capitalize on the Arab revolution in order to now appear as the ones who have at all times supported democratic reforms in Egypt. If you listen to their rhetoric, you would think they are revolutionaries from Tahrir Square. No public excuse or self-critique before the Egyptian people for having supported the atrocities, sacking of resources, torture, assassinations, and the neoliberal economic destruction that the West has exercised throughout the Mubarak dictatorship. Now the wolves disguise themselves as sheep. The same leaders that up to a few days ago were trying to instill fear about "political Islam" to justify support for the dictator Mubarak, today appear as if they were anti-Mubarakians all their lives. If we allow ourselves to be taken by their speeches, it would look as if at all moments the western imperialists have been supporting popular-democratic revolution in Tunisia and Egypt. The only western leader that showed the real face of the west, without hypocrisy or dissimulation, during this entire process has been the zionist leadership through Netanyahu, who unabashedly called for support of Middle East dictators. Let us not confuse ourselves: Netanyahu is the true face of the West in the Middle East. While the western leaders make declarations with the hypocrisy that characterizes them, they work tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure that the demands of the Egyptian and Tunisian people are cut short in reforms that do not touch the substance of neocolonial domination and exploitation in the region. In the case of Egypt, the western/zionist interests seek to ensure the continued functioning of the Suez Canal, the exportation of gas and petroleum and the strangling of Palestinians in Gaza. To ensure their control, they have left Suleiman as President of Egypt, an agent of the CIA that was up to a few days ago Minister of death and tortures for the Mubarak dictatorship, and the same military officials of the dictatorship that work for the zionist/imperialist interests. Suleiman himself said, just a few days ago before the fall of Mubarak, that the Egyptian people are not ready for democracy.
Western leaders are terrified of a truly democratic process where the people freely exercise their right to self-determination because it can lead to many other changes. If we want to anticipate what will be the struggle in Egypt and Tunisia in the coming months, let’s look at the Palestinian experience. The victory of Hamas in free democratic elections is the closest example that we have of the hypocrisy of the "pro-democracy" discourse of the imperialists and Zionists. After Hamas cleanly won the elections, the zionists and imperialists launched a genocidal war with the complicity of all the western leaders that today appear on the news speaking of "liberty" and "democratic principles" upon the fall of Mubarak. The Palestinian experience is in the memory of not only the peoples of the Middle East, but also zionist and imperialist leaders. As such, the coming months will be decisive. The struggle will be between the popular movement that seeks to democratize their societies and have truly free elections, and the internal allies of the imperialists/zionists that will seek to cut short the right to self-determination of the Egyptian people by looking to eliminate or hinder free elections. Let there be no doubt that Suleiman and other corrupt neocolonial officials will follow one of two paths to create obstacles for the democratization of Egyptian society:
a) The continual postponement of free elections
b) Undermine the elections beforehand by stating whom the candidates will be and which parties will be able to participate freely in the electoral process.
The factors that can change the equation are the following plausible scenarios:
1-The people—What if the popular mobilization does not stop until achieving a radical democratization of society? The fall of Mubarak would be in this case the first step among others in the coming days and months. Will the unity of the people and of the popular mobilizations continue without rest until achieving their objectives?
2-The military—What if the internal struggles of the military gets intensified in the coming months? To this day, this is the same military of the dictatorship and its officials have received millions of dollars annually for their operations. Will there be changes or fractions of the military that, influenced by the popular revolution, take side with the people?
3-The contagion effect—What if the victories of the Tunisian and Egyptian popular movements influence the rest of the region? If after the fall of Ben Ali and Mubarak there are other popular uprisings in other countries of the Middle East, the relation of forces in the entire Middle East can take a fundamental turn, giving a breath of fresh air and opening possibilities for the revolutionary mobilizations in Egypt and Tunisia. Will other countries of the Middle East catch the contagion of the revolutionary process in Egypt and Tunisia?
4-The imperialist front—What if the imperialist start having conflicts among themselves about how to proceed with the fall of Mubarak? The imperialists and zionists will conspire to manipulate the process, but there exists internal conflicts among them as well. Will there be contradictions among the imperialist themselves that can be taken advantage of by the popular movements?
MORE
http://uruknet.info/?p=m74995&hd=&size=1&l=e
bigron:
NASSER’S GHOST
by Eric S. Margolis
February 14, 2011
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/nassers-ghost_1.aspx
"The king is dead!," as the French say, "long live the king!" Will this be the case in Egypt, where one monarch, the ousted Husni Mubarak, will be replaced by another general or military junta led by Field Marshall Mohammed Tantawi?
So far, this is what Egyptians are getting. The new military junta just proclaimed it would support the rigged Israeli-Egyptian peace deal signed by Anwar Sadat, and hold elections sometime in the future. This is not what Egyptians want or deserve.
As one option of what may develop, let’s look back to the 1947-48 Arab-Israeli war. A group of young Egyptian army officers fighting in Sinai found themselves surrounded by Israeli forces in the Falluja Pocket.
Egypt’s soldiers had fought bravely to defend the Palestinians, but their equipment was rotten and their senior generals corrupt.
Funds to buy tanks and artillery were stolen by high-ranking generals. Hand grenades and rifles hurriedly bought in Italy were sabotaged by Jewish agents. Grenades exploded as soon as their pins were pulled; rifles fired backwards, into their user’s face.
The besieged Egyptian officers, none above the rank of colonel, vowed to clean up their nation’s widespread corruption and oust its royal regime. In 1952, they struck, exiling the British puppet, King Farouk, and proclaiming a new dawn for Egypt.
I met poor, sad King Farouk in Geneva in 1958. He spoke to me of his love for Egypt and even praised the leader of the coup that overthrew him, Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Col. Nasser and his fellow officers -that included a would-be actor, Anwar Sadat - were the first native Egyptians to rule Egypt since the days of Alexander the Great. The fiery, charismatic Nasser electrified Egypt (literally and figuratively) and turned it into a leader of the Third World. Egypt resumed its traditional role as political, military, cultural and intellectual pacesetter for the Arab world.
This pivotal role just as quickly ended when first Anwar Sadat, then Gen. Husni Mubarak, assumed power. Both were handpicked by the Americans, Sadat reportedly as early as 1952. Under their rule, Egypt became a backwater, losing its former authority, influence, and image.
President Nasser was adored by most Egyptians for his simple life, love of country, his craggy looks and powerful masculinity. My mother, a journalist and Mideast specialist, interviewed both Nasser and Sadat. Always sharp-tongued and direct, she told me Nasser was "a real man, with guts and a true heart." She dismissed Sadat as a "clown."
I lived in Egypt in 1957 and remember ecstatic crowds chanting, "Ya Gamal! Ya Gamal." A year earlier, Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal and withstood attacks by Israel, Britain and France. To Egyptians, he was simply the "rais," the boss.
Nasser made many grave errors. His great heart finally burst from over-work and chain-smoking. Sadat was quickly engineered into power by Washington. The same process occurred after Sadat was assassinated.
MORE
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/nassers-ghost_1.aspx
bigron:
February 15, 2011
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02152011.html
Civic Institutions Essential for Egypt's Revolution
18 Days That Shook Egypt
By RALPH NADER
Colman McCarthy, a former Washington Post writer and founder of the Center for Teaching Peace, must be very happy with the news from Egypt. For twenty-five years, McCarthy has been persuading high schools and colleges to adopt peace studies in their curriculum (for more information, contact him at cmccarthy@starpower.net). Now he has another example of a largely non-violent revolution—led by young people of all backgrounds—successfully ousting a dictatorial regime.
The moral power of non-violence against tyrants is ridiculed by the militaristic mind. Tell that to Ghandi and Mandela and to U.S. civil rights leaders. Those who say these are exceptions due to the relative lower brutality of what they were up against should read the history. Those entrenched regimes were plenty brutal over the years. But when non-violent protests became organized and disciplined enough to reach critical mass, brutality only strengthened and enlarged the uprisings.
Hosni Mubarak's inadvertent gift to the January 25 Revolution was that he united the protestors beyond class, religious and ideological lines. His regular oppression over the years led to the April 6, 2008 Youth movement, and organized labor strikes at textile mills. An auspicious spark came with the Tunisian upheaval of December.
The shaming jolt of immolations in Egypt to overcome widespread fear and reticence to join with others in those frightening early rallies in Cairo's Tahrir Square can scarcely be exaggerated.
The 18 days that shook Egypt will make for fascinating study. The self-discipline and power of mutual self-respect with others locked arm-in-arm tested the regime and the protestors.
First came the security police with tear gas, rubber bullets, concussion grenades and water cannons. The resisters held. Then three days later, the police were pulled back and replaced by the respected and familiar Army (Egypt has a draft). The soldiers mostly kept a kind of neutral order, but some soldiers showed their support for the demonstrators by allowing them to decorate the tanks with flowers and freedom signs.
February 2 and 3 brought the ominous pro-Mubarak plain-clothesmen into the Square. That drew new resolve among the crowds that vastly outnumbered what they saw as the government's thugs. The protestors held. From then on, bolstered by demonstrations in Alexandria—Egypt's second largest city—Suez and other Metropolitan centers, the momentum swung decisively in favor of the rebels whose ranks swelled with each day.
Certainly, Al-Jazeera television countered the state-run television to inform the people, almost by the minute about what was transpiring in the streets. Certainly the Internet kept the protestors in touch with one another, though the government briefly shut it down along with the mobile phone networks.
But far from most cameras, residents organized Cairo's vast neighborhoods to defend and supply themselves. They were the real glue, the real depth that convinced the regime that it was all over.
The fall of Mubarak led to the assumption of power by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces which suspended the disliked constitution, dissolved the rubber-stamp Parliament, and announced "free and fair" elections with multi-party candidates in six months. They pledged to remove the despised "emergency law," allowing arrests without charges or trial, and promised immunity for the protestors whom they described as "honest people who refused the corruption and demanded reforms."
Now comes the hard part. Three "cultures" are presently the best organized—the military, commercial and religious groups. Least established is the civic culture that is now, in its revelry and formative stage, the toast of the nation.
But it is the civic—political culture at the urban neighborhood and village levels that will shape the future democratic processes and structures to avert falling back into a military-oligarchic concentration of power—one backed by the same old U.S. support for authoritarian stability over democracy. "Much of the old regime remains" wrote author of Middle-East revolutionary movements, David Porter.
As the New York Times columnist—Nicholas D. Kristof, wrote from Cairo where he once was a university student: "We tie ourselves in knots when we act as if democracy is good for the United States and Israel but not for the Arab world. For far too long, we've treated the Arab world as just an oil field."
The peril for the protestors in the critical next six months is how to keep the momentum of unity going behind a broad universal agenda that would lead to the election without opening up rending sectarian divisions.
MORE
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02152011.html
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page