by Andrew Gavin Marshall
2011
from
GlobalResearch Website
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research
on Globalization (CRG).
He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the
recent book,
"The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI
Century."
He is currently working
on a forthcoming book on 'Global Government'. |
Part 1
North Africa and the Global Political Awakening
January 27, 2011
For the first time in human
history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically
conscious and politically interactive...
The resulting global political
activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity,
cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully
scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial
domination... The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the
central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political
awakening... That awakening is socially massive and politically
radicalizing...
The nearly universal access to
radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a
community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and
channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These
energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to
existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top
of which America still perches...
The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and
resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a
political time-bomb, as well... Their potential revolutionary
spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of
students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious "tertiary
level" educational institutions of developing countries.
Depending on the definition of
the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide
between 80 and 130 million "college" students.
Typically originating from the
socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of
social outrage, these millions of students are
revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large
congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a
replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico
City or in Tiananmen Square. Their physical energy and emotional
frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith,
or a hatred...
[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality:
while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever,
their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened
masses of the world is at a historic low.
To put it bluntly: in earlier
times, it was easier to control one million people than to
physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier
to kill one million people than to control one million people.[1]
-
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Former U.S. National
Security Advisor
Co-Founder of the Trilateral Commission
Member, Board of Trustees, Center for Strategic and International
Studies
An uprising in Tunisia led to the overthrow of the country’s 23-year long
dictatorship of President Ben Ali.
A new ‘transitional’ government was formed, but
the protests continued demanding a totally new government without the relics
of the previous tyranny. Protests in Algeria have continued for weeks, as
rage mounts against rising food prices, corruption and state oppression.
Protests in Jordan forced the King to call on the military to surround
cities with tanks and set up checkpoints. Tens of thousands of protesters
marched on Cairo demanding an end to the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni
Mubarak. Thousands of activists, opposition leaders and students rallied in
the capitol of Yemen against the corrupt dictatorship of President Saleh, in
power since 1978.
Saleh has been, with U.S. military assistance, attempting
to crush a rebel movement in the north and a massive secessionist movement
growing in the south, called the “Southern Movement.”
Protests in Bolivia
against rising food prices forced the populist government of Evo Morales to
backtrack on plans to cut subsidies. Chile erupted in protests as
demonstrators railed against rising fuel prices. Anti-government
demonstrations broke out in Albania, resulting in the deaths of several
protesters.
It seems as if the world is entering the beginnings of a new revolutionary
era: the era of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’ While this ‘awakening’ is
materializing in different regions, different nations and under different
circumstances, it is being largely influenced by global conditions. The
global domination by the major Western powers, principally the United
States, over the past 65 years, and more broadly, centuries, is reaching a
turning point.
The people of the world are restless, resentful, and enraged.
Change, it seems, is in the air. As the above quotes from Brzezinski
indicate, this development on the world scene is the most radical and
potentially dangerous threat to global power structures and empire. It is
not a threat simply to the nations in which the protests arise or seek
change, but perhaps to a greater degree, it is a threat to the imperial
Western powers, international institutions, multinational corporations and
banks that prop up, arm, support and profit from these oppressive regimes
around the world.
Thus, America and the West are faced with a monumental
strategic challenge: what can be done to stem the Global Political
Awakening?
Zbigniew Brzezinski
is one of the chief architects of American
foreign policy, and arguably one of the intellectual pioneers of the system
of globalization. Thus, his warnings about the 'Global Political Awakening'
are directly in reference to its nature as a threat to the prevailing global
hierarchy.
As such, we must view the 'Awakening' as the greatest hope for
humanity. Certainly, there will be mainy failures, problems, and
regressions; but the 'Awakening' has begun, it is underway, and it cannot be
so easily co-opted or controlled as many might assume.
The reflex action of the imperial powers is to further arm and support the
oppressive regimes, as well as the potential to organize a destabilization
through covert operations or open warfare (as is being done in Yemen).
The alternative is to undertake a strategy of "democratization" in which Western
NGOs, aid agencies and civil society organizations establish strong contacts
and relationships with the domestic civil society in these regions and
nations. The objective of this strategy is to organize, fund and help direct
the domestic civil society to produce a democratic system made in the image
of the West, and thus maintain continuity in the international hierarchy.
Essentially, the project of "democratization" implies creating the outward
visible constructs of a democratic state (multi-party elections, active
civil society, "independent" media, etc) and yet maintain continuity in
subservience to the
World Bank,
IMF, multinational corporations and Western
powers.
It appears that both of these strategies are being simultaneously imposed in
the Arab world: enforcing and supporting state oppression and building ties
with civil society organizations. The problem for the West, however, is that
they have not had the ability to yet establish strong and dependent ties
with civil society groups in much of the region, as ironically, the
oppressive regimes they propped up were and are unsurprisingly resistant to
such measures.
In this sense, we must not cast aside these protests and
uprisings as being instigated by the West, but rather that they emerged
organically, and the West is subsequently attempting to co-opt and control
the emerging movements.
Part 1 of this essay focuses on the emergence of these protest movements and
uprisings, placing it in the context of the Global Political Awakening. Part
2 will examine the West's strategy of "democratic imperialism" as a method
of co-opting the 'Awakening' and installing "friendly" governments.
The Tunisian Spark
A July 2009 diplomatic cable from America’s Embassy in Tunisia reported
that,
“many Tunisians are frustrated by the lack of political freedom and
angered by First Family corruption, high unemployment and regional
inequities. Extremism poses a continuing threat,” and that, “the risks to
the regime’s long-term stability are increasing.”[2]
On Friday, 14 January 2011, the U.S.-supported 23-year long dictatorship of
Tunisian president Ben Ali ended.
For several weeks prior to this, the
Tunisian people had risen in protest against rising food prices, stoked on
by an immense and growing dissatisfaction with the political repression, and
prodded by the WikiLeaks cables confirming the popular Tunisian perception
of gross corruption on the part of the ruling family. The spark, it seems,
was when a 26-year old unemployed youth set himself on fire in protest on
December 17.
With the wave of protests sparked by the death of the 26-year old who set
himself on fire on December 17, the government of Tunisia responded by
cracking down on the protesters. Estimates vary, but roughly 100 people were
killed in the clashes.
Half of Tunisia’s 10 million people are under the age
of 25, meaning that they have never known a life in Tunisia outside of
living under this one dictator. Since Independence from the French empire in
1956, Tunisia has had only two leaders: Habib Bourguiba and Ben Ali.[3]
The
Tunisian people were rising up against a great many things: an oppressive
dictatorship which has employed extensive information and internet
censorship, rising food prices and inflation, a corrupt ruling family, lack
of jobs for the educated youth, and a general sense and experience of
exploitation, subjugation and disrespect for human dignity.
Following the ouster of Ben Ali, Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi assumed
presidential power and declared a “transitional government.” Yet, this just
spurred more protests demanding his resignation and the resignation of the
entire government.
Significantly, the trade union movement had a large
mobilizing role in the protests, with a lawyers union being particularly
active during the initial protests.[4]
Protests in Tunisia
Social media and the Internet did play a large part in mobilizing people
within Tunisia for the uprising, but it was ultimately the result of direct
protests and action which led to the resignation of Ben Ali.
Thus, referring
to Tunisia as a “Twitter Revolution” is disingenuous.
Twitter, WikiLeaks, Facebook, Youtube, forums and blogs did have a part to
play.
They reflect the ability,
“to collectively transform the Arab
information environment and shatter the ability of authoritarian regimes to
control the flow of information, images, ideas and opinions.”[5]
[Editors
Note: The US based foundation Freedom House was involved in promoting and
training some Middle East North Africa Facebook and Twitter bloggers (See
also
Freedom House), M.C.]
We must also keep in mind that social media has not only become an important
source of mobilization of activism and information at the grassroots level,
but it has also become an effective means for governments and various power
structures to seek to manipulate the flow of information.
This was evident
in the 2009 protests in Iran, where social media became an important avenue
through which the Western nations were able to advance their strategy of
supporting the so-called 'Green Revolution' in destabilizing the Iranian
government. Thus, social media has presented a new form of power, neither
black nor white, in which it can be used to either advance the process of
the 'Awakening' or control its direction.
Whereas America was publicly denouncing Iran for blocking (or attempting to
block) social media in the summer of 2009, during the first several weeks of
Tunisian protests (which were largely being ignored by Western media),
America and the West were silent about censorship.[6]
Steven Cook, writing
for
the elite U.S. think tank, the
Council on Foreign Relations, commented
on the lack of attention being paid to the Tunisian protests in the early
weeks of resistance prior to the resignation of Ben Ali. He explained that
while many assume that the Arab “strongmen” regimes will simply maintain
power as they always have, this could be mistaken.
He stated that,
“it may
not be the last days of Ben Ali or Mubarak or any other Middle Eastern
strongman, but there is clearly something going on in the region.”
However,
it was the end of Ben Ali, and indeed,
“there is clearly something going on
in the region.”[7]
France’s President Sarkozy has even had to admit that,
“he had
underestimated the anger of the Tunisian people and the protest movement
that ousted President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.”
During the first few weeks
of protests in Tunisia, several French government officials were publicly
supporting the dictatorship, with the French Foreign Minister saying that
France would lend its police “knowhow” to help Ben Ali in maintaining
order.[8]
Days before the ouster of Ben Ali,
Hillary Clinton gave an interview in
which she explained how America was worried,
“about the unrest and the
instability,” and that, “we are not taking sides, but we are saying we hope
that there can be a peaceful resolution. And I hope that the Tunisian
Government can bring that about.”
Clinton further lamented,
“One of my
biggest concerns in this entire region are the many young people without
economic opportunities in their home countries.”[9]
Her concern, of course,
does not spur from any humanitarian considerations, but rather from inherent
imperial considerations:
it is simply harder to control a region of the
world erupting in activism, uprisings and revolution.
The Spark Lights a Flame
Tunisia has raised the bar for the people across the Arab world to demand
justice, democracy, accountability, economic stability, and freedom.
Just as
Tunisia’s protests were in full-swing, Algeria was experiencing mass
protests, rising up largely as a result of the increasing international food
prices, but also in reaction to many of the concerns of the Tunisian
protesters, such as democratic accountability, corruption and freedom.
A
former Algerian diplomat told Al-Jazeera in early January that,
“It is a
revolt, and probably a revolution, of an oppressed people who have, for 50
years, been waiting for housing, employment, and a proper and decent life in
a very rich country.”[10]
In mid-January, similar protests erupted in Jordan, as thousands took to the
streets to protest against rising food prices and unemployment, chanting
anti-government slogans.
Jordan’s King Abdullah II had,
“set up a special
task force in his palace that included military and intelligence officials
to try to prevent the unrest from escalating further,” which had tanks
surrounding major cities, with barriers and checkpoints established.[11]
In Yemen, the poorest nation in the Arab world, engulfed in a U.S. sponsored
war against its own people, ruled by a dictator who has been in power since
1978, thousands of people protested against the government, demanding the
dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down.
In the capitol city of Sanaa,
thousands of students, activists and opposition groups chanted slogans such
as,
“Get out get out, Ali. Join your friend Ben Ali.”[12]
Yemen has been
experiencing much turmoil in recent years, with a rebel movement in the
North fighting against the government, formed in 2004; as well as a massive
secessionist movement in the south, called the “Southern Movement,” fighting
for liberation since 2007.
As the Financial Times explained:
Many Yemen observers consider the anger and secessionist sentiment now
erupting in the south to be a greater threat to the country’s stability than
its better publicized struggle with al-Qaeda, and the deteriorating economy
is making the tension worse.
Unemployment, particularly among the young, is soaring. Even the government
statistics office in Aden puts it at nearly 40 per cent among men aged 20 to
24.[13]
Protest of the Southern Movement in Yemen
On January 21, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in
Albania, mobilized by the socialist opposition, ending with violent clashes
between the police and protesters, leading to the deaths of three
demonstrators.
The protests have been sporadic in Albania since the widely
contested 2009 elections, but took on new levels inspired by Tunisia.[14]
Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom stressed concern over the
revolutionary sentiments within the Arab world, saying that,
“I fear that we
now stand before a new and very critical phase in the Arab world.” He fears
Tunisia would “set a precedent that could be repeated in other countries,
possibly affecting directly the stability of our system.”[15]
Israel’s
leadership fears democracy in the Arab world, as they have a security
alliance with the major Arab nations, who, along with Israel itself, are
American proxy states in the region.
Israel maintains civil - if not quiet - relationships with the Arab monarchs and dictators. While the Arab states
publicly criticize Israel, behind closed doors they are forced to quietly
accept Israel’s militarism and war-mongering, lest they stand up against the
superpower, America. Yet, public opinion in the Arab world is extremely
anti-Israel, anti-American and pro-Iran.
In July of 2010, the results of a major international poll were released
regarding public opinion in the Arab world, polling from Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates.
Among some of
the notable findings:
While Obama was well received upon entering the
Presidency, with 51% expressing optimism about U.S. policy in the region in
the Spring of 2009, by Summer 2010, 16% were expressing optimism. In 2009,
29% of those polled said a nuclear-armed Iran would be positive for the
region; in 2010, that spiked to 57%, reflecting a very different stance from
that of their governments.[16]
While America, Israel and the leaders of the Arab nations claim that Iran is
the greatest threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, the Arab
people do not agree. In an open question asking which two countries pose the
greatest threat to the region, 88% responded with Israel, 77% with America,
and 10% with Iran.[17]
At the Arab economic summit shortly following the ousting of Ben Ali in
Tunisia, who was for the first time absent from the meetings, the Tunisian
uprising hung heavy in the air.
Arab League leader Amr Moussa said in his
opening remarks at the summit,
“The Tunisian revolution is not far from us,”
and that, “the Arab citizen entered an unprecedented state of anger and
frustration,” noting that "the Arab soul is broken by poverty, unemployment
and general recession.”
The significance of this ‘threat’ to the Arab
leaders cannot be understated. Out of roughly 352 million Arabs, 190 million
are under the age of 24, with nearly three-quarters of them unemployed.
Often,
“the education these young people receive doesn't do them any good
because there are no jobs in the fields they trained for.”[18]
There was even an article in the Israeli intellectual newspaper, Ha’aretz,
which posited that, “Israel may be on the eve of revolution.” Explaining,
the author wrote that:
Israeli civil society organizations have amassed considerable power over the
years; not only the so-called leftist organizations, but ones dealing with
issues like poverty, workers' rights and violence against women and
children. All of them were created in order to fill the gaps left by the
state, which for its part was all too happy to continue walking away from
problems that someone else was there to take on.
The neglect is so great
that Israel's third sector - NGOs, charities and volunteer organizations -
is among the biggest in the world. As such, it has quite a bit of power.[19]
Now the Israeli Knesset and cabinet want that power back; yet, posits the
author, they,
“have chosen to ignore the reasons these groups became
powerful,” namely:
The source of their power is the vacuum, the criminal policies of Israel's
governments over the last 40 years. The source of their power is a
government that is evading its duties to care for all of its citizens and to
end the occupation, and a Knesset that supports the government instead of
putting it in its place.[20]
The Israeli Knesset opened investigations into the funding of Israeli human
rights organizations in a political maneuver against them. However, as one
article in Ha’aretz by an Israeli professor explained, these groups actually
- inadvertently - play a role in “entrenching the occupation.”
As the author
explained:
Even if the leftist groups' intention is to ensure upholding Palestinian
rights, though, the unintentional result of their activity is preserving the
occupation. Moderating and restraining the army's activity gives it a more
human and legal facade.
Reducing the pressure of international
organizations, alongside moderating the Palestinian population's resistance
potential, enable the army to continue to maintain this control model over a
prolonged period of time.[21]
Thus, if the Israeli Knesset succeeds in getting rid of these powerful NGOs,
they sow the seeds for the pressure valve in the occupied territories to be
removed.
The potential for massive internal protests within Israel from the
left, as well as the possibility of another Intifada - uprising - in the
occupied territories themselves would seem dramatically increased. Israel
and the West have expressed how much distaste they hold for democracy in the
region.
When Gaza held a democratic election in 2006 and elected Hamas,
which was viewed as the ‘wrong’ choice by Israel and America, Israel imposed
a ruthless blockade of Gaza.
Richard Falk, the former United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights Inquiry Commission for the Palestinian
territories, wrote an article for Al Jazeera in which he explained that the
blockade:
Unlawfully restricted to subsistence levels, or below, the flow of food,
medicine, and fuel. This blockade continues to this day, leaving the entire Gazan population locked within the world's largest open-air prison, and
victimized by one of the cruelest forms of belligerent occupation in the
history of warfare.[22]
The situation in the occupied territories is made increasingly tense with
the recent leaking of the “Palestinian Papers,” which consist of two decades
of secret Israeli-Palestinian accords, revealing the weak negotiating
position of the Palestinian Authority.
The documents consist largely of
major concessions the Palestinian Authority was willing to make,
“on the
issues of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, territorial
concessions, and the recognition of Israel.”
Among the leaks, Palestinian
negotiators secretly agreed to concede nearly all of East Jerusalem to
Israel.
Further, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (favored by Israel and
America over Hamas), was personally informed by a senior Israeli official
the night before Operation Cast Lead, the December 2008 and January 2009
Israeli assault on Gaza, resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 Palestinians:
“Israeli and Palestinian officials reportedly discussed targeted
assassinations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists in Gaza.”[23]
Hamas has subsequently called on Palestinian refugees to protest over the
concessions regarding the ‘right of return’ for refugees, of which the
negotiators conceded to allowing only 100,000 of 5 million to return to
Israel.[24]
A former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt lamented that,
“The
concern will be that this might cause further problems in moving
forward.”[25]
However, while being blamed for possibly preventing the “peace
process” from moving forward, what the papers reveal is that the “peace
process” itself is a joke.
The Palestinian Authority’s power is derivative
of the power Israel allows it to have, and was propped up as a method of
dealing with an internal Palestinian elite, thus doing what all colonial
powers have done. The papers, then, reveal how the so-called Palestinian
‘Authority’ does not truly speak or work for the interests of the
Palestinian people. And while this certainly will divide the PA from Hamas,
they were already deeply divided as it was.
Certainly, this will pose
problems for the “peace process,” but that’s assuming it is a ‘peaceful’
process in the first part.
Is Egypt on the Edge of Revolution?
Unrest is even spreading to Egypt, personal playground of U.S.-supported and
armed dictator, Hosni Mubarak, in power since 1981.
Egypt is the main U.S.
ally in North Africa, and has for centuries been one of the most important
imperial jewels first for the Ottomans, then the British, and later for the
Americans. With a population of 80 million, 60% of which are under the age
of 30, who make up 90% of Egypt’s unemployed, the conditions are ripe for a
repeat in Egypt of what happened in Tunisia.[26]
On January 25, 2011, Egypt experienced its “day of wrath,” in which tens of
thousands of protesters took to the streets to protest against rising food
prices, corruption, and the oppression of living under a 30-year
dictatorship.
The demonstrations were organized through the use of social
media such as Twitter and Facebook. When the protests emerged, the
government closed access to these social media sites, just as the Tunisian
government did in the early days of the protests that led to the collapse of
the dictatorship.
As one commentator wrote in the Guardian:
Egypt is not Tunisia. It’s much bigger. Eighty million people, compared with
10 million. Geographically, politically, strategically, it's in a different
league - the Arab world's natural leader and its most populous nation. But
many of the grievances on the street are the same. Tunis and Cairo differ
only in size. If Egypt explodes, the explosion will be much bigger, too.[27]
In Egypt,
“an ad hoc coalition of students, unemployed youths, industrial
workers, intellectuals, football fans and women, connected by social media
such as Twitter and Facebook, instigated a series of fast-moving, rapidly
shifting demos across half a dozen or more Egyptian cities.”
The police
responded with violence, and three protesters were killed.
With tens of
thousands of protesters taking to the streets, Egypt saw the largest
protests in decades, if not under the entire 30-year reign of President
Mubarak. Is Egypt on the verge of revolution? It seems too soon to tell.
Egypt, it must be remembered, is the second major recipient of U.S. military
assistance in the world (following Israel), and thus, its police state and
military apparatus are far more advanced and secure than Tunisia’s. Clearly,
however, something is stirring.
As Hilary Clinton said on the night of the
protests,
“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is
looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the
Egyptian people.”[28]
In other words:
“We continue to support tyranny and
dictatorship over democracy and liberation.”
So what else is new?
Egyptian Protest, 25 January 2011
According to some estimates, as many as 50,000 protesters turned out in
Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and other Egyptian cities.[29] The protests were met
with the usual brutality: beating protesters, firing tear gas and using
water cannons to attempt to disperse the protesters.
As images and videos
started emerging out of Egypt,
“television footage showed demonstrators
chasing police down side streets. One protester climbed into a fire engine
and drove it away.”[30]
Late on the night of the protests, rumors and
unconfirmed reports were spreading that the first lady of Egypt, Suzanne
Mubarak, may have fled Egypt to London, following on the heels of
rumors
that Mubarak’s son, and presumed successor, had also fled to London.[31]
Are We Headed for a Global Revolution?
During the first phase of the global economic crisis in December of 2008,
the IMF warned governments of the prospect of “violent unrest on the
streets.”
The head of the IMF warned that,
“violent protests could break out
in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to
benefit everyone rather than a small elite.”[32]
In January of 2009, Obama’s then-Director of National Intelligence
Dennis
Blair, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the greatest threat to
the National Security of the U.S. was not terrorism, but the global economic
crisis:
I’d like to begin with the global economic crisis, because it already looms
as the most serious one in decades, if not in centuries ... Economic crises
increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they are prolonged
for a one- or two-year period... And instability can loosen the fragile hold
that many developing countries have on law and order, which can spill out in
dangerous ways into the international community.[33]
In 2007, a British Defense Ministry report was released assessing global
trends in the world over the next 30 years.
In assessing “Global
Inequality”, the report stated that over the next 30 years:
[T]he gap between rich and poor will probably increase and absolute poverty
will remain a global challenge... Disparities in wealth and advantage will
therefore become more obvious, with their associated grievances and
resentments, even among the growing numbers of people who are likely to be
materially more prosperous than their parents and grandparents.
Absolute
poverty and comparative disadvantage will fuel perceptions of injustice
among those whose expectations are not met, increasing tension and
instability, both within and between societies and resulting in expressions
of violence such as disorder, criminality, terrorism and insurgency.
They
may also lead to the resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies,
possibly linked to religious, anarchist or nihilist movements, but also to
populism and the revival of Marxism.[34]
Further, the report warned of the dangers to the established powers of a
revolution emerging from the disgruntled middle classes:
The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role
envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets
and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could
reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states.
The growing gap between
themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might
fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are
likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the
burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite.
Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite,
using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational
processes in their own class interest.[35]
We have now reached the point where the global economic crisis has continued
beyond the two-year mark.
The social repercussions are starting to be felt
- globally - as a result of the crisis and the coordinated responses to it.
Since the global economic crisis hit the ‘Third World’ the hardest, the
social and political ramifications will be felt there first. In the context
of the current record-breaking hikes in the cost of food, food riots will
spread around the world as they did in 2007 and 2008, just prior to the
outbreak of the economic crisis.
This time, however, things are much worse
economically, much more desperate socially, and much more oppressive
politically.
This rising discontent will spread from the developing world to the comfort
of our own homes in the West.
Once the harsh realization sets in that the
economy is not in ‘recovery,’ but rather in a Depression, and once our
governments in the West continue on their path of closing down the
democratic façade and continue dismantling rights and freedoms, increasing
surveillance and ‘control,’ while pushing increasingly militaristic and
war-mongering foreign policies around the world (mostly in an effort to
quell or crush the global awakening being experienced around the world), we
in the West will come to realize that ‘We are all Tunisians.’
In 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr., said in his famous speech “Beyond
Vietnam”:
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world
revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We
must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a
"person-oriented" society.
When machines and computers, profit motives and
property rights are considered more important than people, the giant
triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being
conquered.[36]
Notes
[1] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global
Political Awakening. The New York Times: December 16, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html;
“Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President,”
International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009); The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign.
The American Interest Magazine, Autumn 2005:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=56; The Choice:
Global Domination or Global Leadership. Speech at the Carnegie Council:
March 25, 2004: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4424.html;
America’s Geopolitical Dilemmas. Speech at the Canadian International
Council and Montreal Council on Foreign Relations: April 23, 2010:
http://www.onlinecic.org/resourcece/multimedia/americasgeopoliticaldilemmas
[2] Embassy Tunis, TROUBLED TUNISIA: WHAT SHOULD WE DO?, WikiLeaks
Cables, 17 July 2009:
http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/07/09TUNIS492.html
[3] Mona Eltahawy, Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution, The Washington Post, 15
January 2011:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011405084.html
[4] Eileen Byrne, Protesters make the case for peaceful change, The
Financial Times, 15 January 2011:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82293e38-20ae-11e0-a877-00144feab49a.html#axzz1C08RDtxu
[5] Marc Lynch, Tunisia and the New Arab Media Space, Foreign Policy, 15
January 2011:
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/15/tunisia_and_the_new_arab_media_space
[6] Jillian York, Activist crackdown: Tunisia vs Iran, Al-Jazeera, 9
January 2011:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111981222719974.html
[7] Steven Cook, The Last Days of Ben Ali? The Council on Foreign
Relations, 6 January 2011:
http://blogs.cfr.org/cook/2011/01/06/the-last-days-of-ben-ali/
[8] Angelique Chrisafis, Sarkozy admits France made mistakes over
Tunisia, The Guardian, 24 January 2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/nicolas-sarkozy-tunisia-protests
[9] Hillary Rodham Clinton, Interview With Taher Barake of Al Arabiya,
U.S. Department of State, 11 January 2011:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/01/154295.htm
[10] Algeria set for crisis talks, Al-Jazeera, 8 January 2011:
http://aljazeera.co.uk/news/africa/2011/01/2011187476735721.html
[11] Alexandra Sandels, JORDAN: Thousands of demonstrators protest food
prices, denounce government, Los Angeles Times Blog, 15 January 2011:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/01/jordan-protests-food-prices-muslim-brotherhood-tunisia-strike-thousands-government.html
[12] AP, Thousands demand ouster of Yemen's president, Associated Press,
22 January 2011:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g3b2emEy39Bn52Z_haypKxNPGMSw?docId=d324160638a74e84b874baeada16bb4c
[13] Abigail Fielding-Smith, North-south divide strains Yemen union, The
Financial Times, 12 January 2011:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c7c59322-1e80-11e0-87d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1C08RDtxu
[14] EurActiv, 'Jasmine' revolt wave reaches Albania, 24 January 2011:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/jasmine-revolt-wave-reaches-albania-news-501529
[15] Clemens Höges, Bernhard Zand and Helene Zuber, Arab Rulers Fear
Spread of Democracy Fever, Der Spiegel, 25 January 2011:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,741545,00.html
[16] Shibley Telhami, Results of Arab Opinion Survey Conducted June
29-July 20, 2010, 5 August 2010:
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx
[17] Shibley Telhami, A shift in Arab views of Iran, Los Angeles Times,
14 August 2010:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/opinion/la-oe-telhami-arab-opinions-20100814
[18] Clemens Höges, Bernhard Zand and Helene Zuber, Arab Rulers Fear
Spread of Democracy Fever, Der Spiegel, 25 January 2011:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,741545,00.html
[19] Merav Michaeli, Israel may be on the eve of revolution, Ha’aretz,
17 January 2011:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-may-be-on-the-eve-of-revolution-1.337445
[20] Ibid.
[21] Yagil Levy, Israeli NGOs are entrenching the occupation, Ha’aretz,
11 January 2011:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israeli-ngos-are-entrenching-the-occupation-1.336331?localLinksEnabled=false
[22] Richard Falk, Ben Ali Tunisia was model US client, Al-Jazeera, 25
January 2011:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201112314530411972.html
[23] Jack Khoury and Haaretz Service, Two decades of secret
Israeli-Palestinian accords leaked to media worldwide, Ha’arets, 23
January 2011:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/two-decades-of-secret-israeli-palestinian-accords-leaked-to-media-worldwide-1.338768
[24] Haaretz Service and The Associated Press, Hamas urges Palestinian
refugees to protest over concessions on right of return, Ha’aretz, 25
January 2011:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-urges-palestinian-refugees-to-protest-over-concessions-on-right-of-return-1.339120
[25] Alan Greenblatt, Palestinian Papers May Be Blow To Peace Process,
NPR, 24 January 2011:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133181412/palestinian-papers-may-cause-blow-to-peace-process?ps=cprs
[26] Johannes Stern, Egyptian regime fears mass protests, World
Socialist Web Site, 15 January 2011:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/egyp-j15.shtml
[27] Simon Tisdall, Egypt protests are breaking new ground, The
Guardian, 25 January 2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/25/egypt-protests
[28] Ibid.
[29] MATT BRADLEY, Rioters Jolt Egyptian Regime, The Wall Street
Journal, 26 January 2011:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104112320465414.html
[30] Catrina Stewart, Violence on the streets of Cairo as unrest grows,
The Independent, 26 January 2011:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/violence-on-the-streets-of-cairo-as-unrest-grows-2194484.html
[31] IBT, Suzanne Mubarak of Egypt has fled to Heathrow airport in
London: unconfirmed reports, International Business Times, 25 January
2011:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/104960/20110125/suzanne-mubarak-of-egypt-has-fled-to-heathrow-airport-in-london-unconfirmed-reports.htm
[32] Angela Balakrishnan, IMF chief issues stark warning on economic
crisis. The Guardian: December 18, 2008:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/16/imf-financial-crisis
[33] Stephen C. Webster, US intel chief: Economic crisis a greater
threat than terrorism. Raw Story: February 13, 2009:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_intel_chief_Economic_crisis_greater_0213.html
[34] DCDC, The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme, 2007-2036, 3rd
ed. The Ministry of Defence, January 2007: page 3
[35] Ibid, page 81.
[36] Rev. Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.
Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a
meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York
City:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html
Part 2
America’s Strategic Repression of the ‘Arab Awakening’
February 9, 2011
Overview
In Part 1 of this series, I analyzed the changing nature of the Arab world,
in experiencing an uprising as a result of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’
Ultimately, I assessed that these could potentially be the birth pangs of a
global revolution; however, the situation is more complicated than it
appears on the surface.
While the uprisings spreading across the Arab world have surprised many
observers, the same could not be said for the American foreign policy and
strategic establishment.
A popular backlash against American-supported
dictatorships and repressive regimes has been anticipated for a number of
years, with arch-hawk geopolitical strategist
Zbigniew Brzezinski
articulating a broad conception of a ‘Global Political Awakening’ taking
place, in which the masses of the world (predominantly the educated,
exploited and impoverished youth of the ‘Third World’) have become acutely
aware of their subjugation, inequality, exploitation and oppression.
This
‘Awakening’ is largely driven by the revolution in information, technology
and communication, including radio, television, but most especially the
Internet and social media.
Brzezinski had accurately identified this
‘Awakening’ as the greatest threat to elite interests regionally, but also
internationally, with America sitting on top of the global hierarchy.
This spurred on the development of an American strategy in the Arab world,
modeled on similar strategies pursued in recent decades in other parts of
the world, in promoting “democratization,” by developing close contacts with
‘civil society’ organizations, opposition leaders, media sources, and
student organizations.
The aim is not to promote an organic Arab democracy
‘of the people, and for the people,’ but rather to promote an evolutionary
“democratization” in which the old despots of American strategic support are
removed in favor of a neoliberal democratic system, in which the outward
visible institutions of democracy are present (multi-party elections,
private media, parliaments, constitutions, active civil society, etc).
Yet,
the power-holders within that domestic political system remain subservient
to U.S. economic and strategic interests, continuing to follow the dictates
of the IMF and World Bank, supporting America’s military hegemony in the
region, and “opening up” the Arab economies to be “integrated” into the
world economy.
Thus, “democratization” becomes an incredibly valuable
strategy for maintaining hegemony; a modern re-hash of “Let them eat cake!”
Give the people the ‘image’ of democracy and establish and maintain a
co-dependent relationship with the new elite. Thus, democracy for the people
becomes an exercise in futility, where people’s ‘participation’ becomes
about voting between rival factions of elites, who all ultimately follow the
orders of Washington.
This strategy also has its benefit for the maintenance of American power in
the region. While dictators have their uses in geopolitical strategy, they
can often become too independent of the imperial power and seek to determine
the course of their country separate from U.S. interests, and are
subsequently much more challenging to remove from power (i.e., Saddam
Hussein).
With a “democratized” system, changing ruling parties and leaders
becomes much easier, by simply calling elections and supporting opposition
parties. Bringing down a dictator is always a more precarious situation than
“changing the guard” in a liberal democratic system.
However, again, the situation in the Arab world is still more complicated
than this brief overview, and American strategic concerns must take other
potentialities into consideration. While American strategists were well
aware of the growing threat to stability in the region, and the rising
discontent among the majority of the population, the strategists tended to
identify the aim as “democratization” through evolution, not revolution. In
this sense, the uprisings across the Arab world pose a major strategic
challenge for America.
While ties have been made with civil society and
other organizations, they haven’t all necessarily had the ability to be
firmly entrenched, organized and mobilized. In short, it would appear that
America was perhaps unprepared for uprisings to take place this soon.
The
sheer scale and rapid growth of the protests and uprisings makes the
situation all the more complicated, since they are not dealing with one
nation alone, but rather an entire region (arguably one of, if not the most
strategically important region in the world), and yet they must assess and
engage the situation on a country-by-country basis.
One danger arises in a repeat in the Arab world of the trends advanced in
Latin America over the past decade: namely, the growth of populist
democracy. The protests have brought together a wide array of society - civil society, students, the poor, Islamists, opposition leaders, etc.
- and
so America, with ties to many of these sectors (overtly and covertly), must
now make many choices in regards of who to support.
Another incredibly important factor to take into consideration is military
intervention. America has firmly established ties with the militaries in
this region, and it appears evident that America is influencing military
actions in Tunisia. Often, the reflex position of imperial power is to
support the military, facilitate a coup, or employ repression. Again, this
strategy would be determined on a country-by-country basis.
With a popular
uprising, military oppression will have the likely effect of exacerbating
popular discontent and resistance, so strategic use of military influence is
required.
This also leaves us with the potential for the ‘Yemen option’: war and
destabilization. While presenting its own potential for negative
repercussions (namely, in instigating a much larger and more radical
uprising), engaging in overt or covert warfare, destabilizing countries or
regions, is not taboo in American strategic circles. In fact, this is the
strategy that has been deployed in Yemen since the emergence of the Southern
Movement in 2007, a liberation movement seeking secession from the
U.S.-supported dictatorship.
Shortly after the emergence of the Southern
Movement, al-Qaeda appeared in Yemen, prompting U.S. military intervention.
The Yemeni military, armed, trained and funded by the United States, has
been using its military might to attempt to crush the Southern Movement as
well as a rebel movement in the North.
In short, the ‘Arab Awakening’ presents possibly the greatest strategic
challenge to American hegemony in decades. The likely result will be a
congruence of multiple simultaneously employed strategies including:
“democratization,” oppression, military intervention and destabilization.
Again, it could be a mistake to assume one strategy for the whole region,
but rather to assess it on a country-by-country basis, based upon continuing
developments and progress in the ‘Awakening’.
- Russia Today -
Interview with Andrew Gavin Marshall and Adrienne Pine
Egypt riots - US playing both sides?
by
RTAmerica
January 31, 2011
from YouTube Website
The Council on Foreign Relations Strategy to “Democratize” the Arab World
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the premier U.S. foreign policy
think tank in the United States, and is one of the central institutions for
socializing American elites from all major sectors of society (media,
banking, academia, military, intelligence, diplomacy, corporations, NGOs,
civil society, etc.), where they work together to construct a consensus on
major issues related to American imperial interests around the world.
As
such, the CFR often sets the strategy for American policy, and wields
enormous influence within policy circles, where key players often and almost
always come from the rank and file of the CFR itself.
In 2005, the CFR published a Task Force Report on a new American strategy
for the Arab world entitled, “In Support of Arab Democracy: Why and How.”
The Task Force was co-chaired by Madeleine Albright and
Vin Weber.
Albright
was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for the first term of
President Bill Clinton’s administration, and was U.S. Secretary of State for
his second term. As such, she played crucial roles in the lead up and
responses to the dismantling of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide and
subsequent civil war and genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and
she also oversaw the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq.
In a 1996 interview with
60 Minutes, when asked about the sanctions resulting in the deaths of over
500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five, Albright replied,
“we think
the price is worth it.”[1]
Albright got her start at Columbia University, where she studied under
Zbigniew Brzezinski, her professor who supervised her dissertation.
Brzezinski, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. co-founded the
Trilateral Commission with banker
David Rockefeller in 1973.
When Jimmy
Carter became President in 1977, he brought with him over two dozen members
of the Trilateral Commission into his administration, including himself, but
also Brzezinski as his National Security Adviser. Brzezinski then offered
Madeline Albright a job on his National Security Council staff.[2]
Brzezinski also had several other key officials on his Council staff,
including Samuel Huntington and Robert Gates, who later became Deputy
National Security Adviser, CIA Director, and today is the Secretary of
Defense in the Obama administration.
As David Rothkopf, former National
Security Council staff member wrote in his book on the history of the NSC,
“Brzezinski’s NSC staffers are, to this day, very loyal to their former
boss.”[3]
Today, Albright serves on the board of directors of the Council on
Foreign Relations, the Board of Trustees for the Aspen Institute, as well as
chairing the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, an
organization dedicated to promoting and funding US-supported “democracy”
around the world.
Recently, she chaired a NATO committee which developed
NATO’s new “strategic concept” over the next decade.
The other co-chair of the CFR Task Force report on Arab democracy is Vin
Weber, former U.S. Congressman, who has served on the board of the CFR, and
is also a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
the premier U.S. organization dedicated to “democratic regime change” around
the world in advancing U.S. strategic interests.
Other members of the Task
Force Report include individuals with past or present affiliations to:
-
Human
Rights Watch
-
First National Bank of Chicago
-
Occidental Petroleum
-
the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
-
the World Bank
-
the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI)
-
the Brookings
Institution
-
the Hoover Institution
-
the National Endowment for Democracy
-
the U.S. State Department
-
National Security Council
-
National Intelligence
Council
-
Goldman Sachs Group
-
the American Enterprise Institute
-
AOL Time
Warner
-
the IMF [4]
It is very clear that this is a highly influential and active group of
individuals and interests which is proposing a new strategy for America in
the Arab world, which makes their recommendations not simply ‘advisory’ to
policy, but integral to policy formulation and implementation.
So what did
the CFR report have to say about democracy in the Arab world?
The report stated that,
“Washington has a chance to help shape a more
democratic Middle East. Whereas emphasis on stability was once the hallmark
of U.S. Middle East policy, democracy and freedom have become a priority.”
The report posed two central questions which it explored:
-
First, does a policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East serve U.S.
interests and foreign policy goals?
-
Second, if so, how should the United
States implement such a policy, taking into account the full range of its
interests?[5]
The answer to the first question was inevitably, “yes,” promoting democracy
serves U.S. interests and foreign policy goals in the Middle East.
The
report elaborated,
“Although democracy entails certain inherent risks, the
denial of freedom carries much more significant long-term dangers. If Arab
citizens are able to express grievances freely and peacefully, they will be
less likely to turn to more extreme measures.”[6]
However, the CFR report
was very cautious about the process of democratic change, and recognized the
potential instability and problems it could pose for American interests:
[T]he United States should promote the
development of democratic institutions and practices over the long term,
mindful that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside and that
sudden, traumatic change is neither necessary nor desirable. America’s
goal in the Middle East should be to encourage democratic evolution, not
revolution.[7]
Further, they acknowledged that democracy promotion in the Middle East
“requires a country-by-country strategy,”[8] meaning that it cannot be a
‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, ultimately making the process all the more
complicated and potentially unstable.
The process is a delicate balancing
act, where the report identified that if America’s democracy promotion is
too “superficial,” it could,
“further damage relations between the United
States and Arab populations,” or, if the United States pushes reform too
hard and too fast, “this could create instability and undermine U.S.
interests.”
Thus, explained the report, they favor,
“a view toward
evolutionary, not revolutionary, change. The dangers that accompany rapid
change will still be present, but so will the opportunity to create a new
and more balanced foundation for Arab stability, and a deeper and stronger
basis for friendship between Americans and Arabs.”[9]
In American diplomatic
language, “friendship” should be read as “dependence,” thus we understand
this strategy as aiming at promoting a more reliable dependency between
Americans and Arabs.
The report, however, acknowledged the deep divisions within U.S. policy
circles on the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, with several
viewing it as potentially too risky, fearing,
it “may place U.S. interests in
jeopardy,” or that it “could lead to ethnic conflict or the emergence of
Islamist governments opposed to the United States and the West in general.”
Further,
“if Washington pushes Arab leaders too hard on reform, contributing
to the collapse of friendly Arab governments, this would likely have a
deleterious effect on regional stability, peace, and counterterrorism
operations.”
There is also the risk that with America actively promoting
democratic change among Arab civil society and opposition groups, this could
potentially damage,
“the credibility of indigenous groups promoting
democratic reform,” or, alternatively, “Arab leaders could dig in their
heels and actively oppose U.S. policies in the region across the board.”[10]
The latter scenario could be referred to as ‘the Saddam option’, referring,
of course, to America’s once-close ally and suddenly-new enemy,
Saddam
Hussein, who was armed and supported by America.
But once he started to
become too autonomous of American power, America turned on him and cast him
as a “new Hitler.” The case of Saddam Hussein also shows that when a
dictator “digs in his heels,” it can often take a very long time to be rid
of him.
So while clearly there are a number of potentially disastrous consequences
for U.S. interests in promoting democracy in the Arab world, the CFR made
their position clear:
While transitions to democracy can lead to instability in the short term,
the Task Force finds that a policy geared toward maintaining the
authoritarian status quo in the Middle East poses greater risks to U.S.
interests and foreign policy goals...
If Arabs are allowed to participate
freely and peacefully in the political process, they are less likely to turn
to radical measures. If they understand that the United States supports
their exercise of liberty, they are less likely to sustain hostile attitudes
toward the United States...
The overwhelming empirical evidence clearly
indicates that the best kind of stability is democratic stability.[11]
One pivotal area through which the CFR report advocated implementing the
“democratization” of the Arab world was through the Middle East Partnership
Initiative (MEPI), established in 2002 by the
Bush administration,
“with the
express purpose of coordinating and managing the U.S. government’s reform
agenda in the area of economics, politics, education, and women’s issues.”
Much of this work had previously been done through the
United States Agency
for International Development (USAID); however,
“while USAID’s work has
focused to some extent on creating constituencies within Arab governments
for change, the rationale for MEPI was to work with independent and
indigenous NGOs and civil-society groups, as well as with governments.”[12]
Another avenue was the Broader Middle East Initiative (also known as the
Partnership for Progress), which emerged from a 2004 G8 summit, of which a
main priority was the,
“Forum for the Future,” which is “designed to foster
communication on reform-related issues.”
It held sessions that brought
together civil society activists, business leaders, emphasizing economic
development and job growth.
The Partnership for Progress also established
the “Democracy Assistance Dialogue,” which brings together development
institutions in the Middle East, foundations, international financial
institutions (the
World Bank and
IMF),
“to coordinate the use of resources
to support political and economic change.”[13]
In other words, it is a
process through which America is seeking to ensure that democratic
“transition” in the Arab world maintains American and Western political and
economic hegemony.
In effect, a change of ‘structure’ without a change of
‘substance,’ where the image of the state alters, but the power and purpose
remains the same.
However, further problems for the democratization strategy were presented in
the unwillingness of European nations to support it or take it seriously. As
the Task Force report explained,
“European reluctance undermines the
potential efficacy of pursuing reform.”
The report further explained the
importance of having Europe as a partner in the project:
Despite a history of European colonial domination, the perception of Europe
in the Arab world is better than that of the United States. Consequently, it
may be helpful for the European Union to take the lead in promoting human
rights in the Arab world.[14]
The Task Force recommended that it would be best if funding for Arab civil
society organizations did not come directly from U.S. government
institutions, but rather funneled through U.S. democracy-promotion groups
like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), as,
“many Middle eastern
NGOs are reluctant to accept direct transfers from an arm of the U.S.
government, fearing that this would taint these organizations in the eyes of
their constituencies.”[15]
In the conclusion, the report stated that:
Although a policy predicated on political, economic, and social change in
the Arab world may present some short-term risks to Washington’s interests,
these risks are worth taking.
The long-run benefits of a more democratic and
economically developed Middle East outweigh the potential challenges
Washington might confront in the foreseeable future.[16]
We must acknowledge, however, that this strategy is not aimed at promoting
democracy for the sake of democracy and freedom, but rather that it is
acknowledging the reality that is the ‘Global Political Awakening,’ and
taking efforts to address and manipulate this ‘Awakening’ in such a way that
serves U.S. interests.
Thus, it amounts to a scenario akin to saying, “Let
them eat cake!”.
If the Arab world screams out for democracy and freedom,
give them the American-sponsored brand of democracy and freedom, and
therefore America is able to undermine and co-opt the ever-increasing
desires and forces for change in the region.
As a result - if successful - it would have the effect of pacifying resistance to America’s hegemony in
the region, legitimizing the new puppet governments as “democratic” and
“representative” of the people, thus creating a more stable and secure
environment for American interests.
In short, this is a coordinated strategy
to confront, manipulate and pacify the emergence of the Global Political
Awakening in the Arab world; an assault against the ‘Arab Awakening.’
In my last essay on the subject, I identified these protests as an organic
growth, a rallying cry for freedom from the Arab world which must not be
simply discarded as a covert U.S. plot to install new regimes.
However, the
situation requires a much more nuanced and detailed examination, not to
frame it in either a black or white context, but rather seek to explain the
realities, challenges and opportunities of the ‘Awakening’ and the
‘uprisings’.
Conceptualizing the ‘Arab Awakening’
For years, arch-hawk American imperial geostrategist
Zbigniew Brzezinski, an
intellectual architect of ‘globalization’, has been warning elites across
the Western world, and in particular in America, of the emergence and
pressing reality of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’
He explains the
‘Awakening’ as essentially the greatest historical challenge to not only
American, but global power structures and interests.
He explained that,
“For
the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically
activated, politically conscious and politically interactive.”
Further,
“the
worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in
the phenomenon of global political awakening... That awakening is socially
massive and politically radicalizing.”
As Brzezinski emphasizes,
“These
energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing
states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America
still perches.”
Brzezinski and others (as evidenced by the Council on
Foreign Relations report) are intent upon developing strategies for
‘managing’ and ‘pacifying’ this ‘Awakening’ in such a way that maintains and
secures American imperial interests and global power structures.
Thus, the
need to ‘control’ the Awakening is the most prescient problem in American
foreign policy.
However, as Brzezinski elaborated, it is not a challenge
that can be dealt with easily:
[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the
lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to
impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a
historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control
one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is
infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million
people.[17]
In a 2008 article in the New York Times, Brzezinski emphasized a
multi-faceted strategy for dealing with this ‘threat’ to elite structures
and interests, explaining that,
“the monumental task facing the new
president is to regain U.S. global legitimacy by spearheading a collective
effort for a more inclusive system of global management.”
Thus, Brzezinski’s
strategy rests on better securing and institutionally expanding the process
of ‘globalization’ into the evolution of ‘global governance,’ or as he
termed it, “global management.”
Brzezinski unveiled a four-point strategy of
response:
“unify, enlarge, engage and pacify.” [18]
The response to ‘unify’ refers “to the effort to re-establish a shared sense
of purpose between America and Europe,” a point that the CFR report
acknowledged.
To ‘enlarge’ refers to,
“a deliberate effort to nurture a wider
coalition committed to the principle of interdependence and prepared to play
a significant role in promoting more effective global management.”[19]
He
identified the G8 as having “outlived its function,” and proposed a widening
of it, which ultimately manifested itself in 2009 in the form of the G20.
The G20 has subsequently become,
“the prime group for global economic
governance at the level of ministers, governors and heads of state or
government.”[20]
Herman von Rompuy, the President of the European Union,
referred to 2009 as,
“the first year of global governance.”[21]
So, these
elites are intent upon advancing “global management,” which is the exact
strategy Brzezinski also identifies as being the “solution” to managing the
‘Global Political Awakening.’
The next point in Brzezinski’s strategy - ‘engage’ - refers to,
“the
cultivation of top officials through informal talks among key powers,
specifically the U.S., the European Triad, China, Japan, Russia and possibly
India,” in particular between the United States and China, as, “without
China, many of the problems we face collectively cannot be laid to rest.”
In
the final point - ‘pacify’ - Brzezinski referred to the requirements of,
“a
deliberate U.S. effort to avoid becoming bogged down in the vast area
ranging from Suez to India.”
In particular, he advised moving forward on the
Israel-Palestine issue, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Brzezinski
explained that,
“in this dynamically changing world, the crisis of American
leadership could become the crisis of global stability.”
Thus, from
Brzezinski’s point of view,
“The only alternative to a constructive American
role is global chaos.” [22]
So, “control” is key to this strategy, with “global management” being the
ultimate solution.
However, as Brzezinski himself identified, which is
important to keep in mind when assessing the nature, spread and mobilization
of the ‘Awakening’:
“To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to
control one million people than to physically kill one million people;
today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control
one million people.”[23]
Thus, while attempting to engineer, co-opt and
‘control’ the ‘Awakening,’ it is important to acknowledge that the United
States is playing with fire, and while attempting to light a controlled fire
to manipulate as it so chooses, the fire can spread and get out of hand.
In
such a situation, the “lethality” of America’s “military might” could
potentially be employed.
He said it himself,
“the only alternative to a
constructive American role is global chaos.”[24]
The age-old imperial tactic
of divide and conquer is never off the table of options. If it cannot be
“managed transition” then it often becomes “managed chaos.” Where
‘diplomacy’ fails to overcome barriers, war destroys them (and everything
else in the process).
Now turning our attention to the ‘Arab Awakening’ and uprisings, we must
examine the range of strategies that are and could be employed.
The
preferred route for American power is “democratization,” but the scope,
velocity and rapidity of recent developments in the Arab world present an
incredibly unstable situation for American strategy.
While ties with civil
society and opposition groups have been or are in the process of being well
established (varying on a country-by-country basis), the rapidity and
confluence of these uprisings taking place has American power stretched
thin.
Engineering, co-opting and controlling revolutionary movements or
“democratic regime change” is not a new tactic in the American strategic
circles; however, it has in the past been largely relegated to specific
pockets and nations, often with significant time in between in order to
allow for a more delicate, coordinated and controlled undertaking.
This was
the case with the U.S.-sponsored ‘colour revolutions’ throughout Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, starting with,
-
Serbia in 2000
-
Georgia in 2003
-
Ukraine in 2004
-
Kyrgyzstan in 2005,
...where America’s premier democracy
promotion organizations (the National Endowment for Democracy, the National
Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, USAID, Freedom
House, the Albert Einstein Institute, as well as major American
philanthropic foundations) were able to more securely establish themselves
and their strategies for “democratic regime change.”
Further, all the
incidents of democratic “regime change” listed above took place in the
context of a contested election within the country, giving the organizations
and foundations involved a precise timeline for managing the process of
organization and mobilization.
This required a focused and nuanced approach
which remains absent from the current context in the Middle East and North
Africa. (See
Color-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War
III)
Further, a similar strategy was undertaken in Iran for the summer of 2009,
in which the ‘Green Movement’ arose in response to the contested
Presidential elections.
This was, in fact, an attempt at a highly
coordinated and organized effort on the part of a covert American strategy
of “democratization” to install a U.S.-friendly (i.e., ‘client’) regime in
Iran. The strategy was developed in 2006, largely organized covertly by
the
CIA, at a cost of approximately $400 million, and involved the State
Department coordinating efforts with social media such as Twitter,
Facebook
and Youtube.
However, as posterity shows, the strategy did not ultimately
succeed in imposing “regime change.”
At the time, Zbigniew Brzezinski
explained that the strategy would require,
“patience, intelligent
manipulation, moral support, but no political interference.”
A New World War for a New World Order
So we can see that even with $400 million and a highly coordinated attempt
at “intelligent manipulation,” the strategy did not succeed.
However, it
must be acknowledged that the U.S. could not overtly fund opposition and
civil society organizations in Iran as it could in Eastern Europe. In the
Arab world, while America has and continues to engage with opposition groups
and civil society organizations, these efforts have been consistently
thwarted and hampered by the domestic Arab regimes, which are well aware of
the threat to their own power this could pose.
Managing such a strategy in
countries run by authoritarian regimes that are very suspicious of civil
society and opposition groups presents an incredibly challenging scenario
for American strategy. Further, authoritarian regimes generally do not hold
elections, unless it is simply a sham election in which the leader wins by a
margin of 97%, presenting a difficult scenario in which to mobilize
opposition forces.
Moreover, the ‘colour revolutions’ throughout Eastern
Europe were largely organized through a strategy of bringing together all
the opposition groups to stand behind one leader, to make the effort much
more coordinated and cohesive.
No such strategy seems to have emerged in the
Arab world, and has appeared as a patched-up effort of attempting to promote
particular opposition figures, but nothing that is evidently well-organized
and pre-planned. While many opposition groups are working closely together
to oppose the regimes, they are not necessarily being mobilized around any
clear and absolute leaders, thus presenting the potential for a power vacuum
to open up, making the situation all the more dangerous for American
interests.
Another major problem inherent in this strategy in the Arab world is the
role being played by the domestic militaries.
The militaries within the
authoritarian Arab regimes are largely supported, funded, trained and armed
by America, and have become powerful political, social and economic actors
in their own right (more so in Egypt than Tunisia).
Thus, America must
balance the process of supporting civil society and opposition groups with
that of continuing to support and secure the military structures. If the
militaries feel that their position is insecure or threatened, they may
simply overtake the entire process and engineer a coup, which is ultimately
counter-productive to the American strategy in the region, especially since
it is widely known that America is the principle sponsor of these military
structures.
This implies that America must undertake a delicate balancing
act between the military, civil society and opposition groups in
coordinating the removal of the entrenched despots.
This strategy seems to
be materializing itself in the form of constructing “transitional
governments,” which the militaries in both Tunisia and Egypt are supporting.
The situation is intensely complicated and conflicting, presenting America
with one of its greatest challenges in recent history. While the obvious
intent and even the means of organizing “democratic regime change” in the
Arab world are present, I believe the rapidity in which the protest
movements and uprisings have emerged could have taken America somewhat
off-guard.
No doubt, from the beginnings of the Tunisian protests in
December of 2010, America was paying detailed attention to the situation,
attempting to influence the outcome. However, Western media coverage of the
first four weeks of protests was minimal, if not altogether absent. This is
an important point to address.
For all the other organized efforts at “democratic regime change” and
“colour revolutions,” Western media played a critical role. From the moments
protests began in these countries, Western media outlets were covering the
events extensively, espousing the righteousness of the aims of
“democratization” and “freedom,” in full and active support of the
demonstrators.
This was absent in Tunisia, until of course, the President
fled to Saudi Arabia, when suddenly Western media cynically proclaimed a
monumental achievement for democracy, and started warning the rest of the
Arab world of the potential for this to spread to their countries (thus,
applying public pressure to promote “reforms” in line with their strategy of
“evolution, not revolution.”).
This could imply that America was trying to
quietly manage the protests in Tunisia, which did not arise in a
pre-coordinated and previously established timeline, but rather sprung up as
a rapid response to a suicide of a young man in a personal protest against
the government. The spark was lit, and America advanced on Tunisia in an
attempt to control its growth and direction.
Meanwhile, however, sparks
ignited across many nations in the Arab world, including,
-
Algeria
-
Egypt
-
Morocco
-
Jordan
-
Yemen
Subsequently, America took advantage of these sparks to ignite the process
in a direction it would seek to control.
For the first few days and even
weeks of protests in many of the other nations, appearing by and large to be
organic reactions to events in Tunisia and within their own countries, a
more coordinated response was undertaken, with the massive organized
protests emerging suddenly.
Yet, America is potentially stretching itself
very thin, possibly risking as much or more than it has to gain. Like a
cornered animal, America is simultaneously incredibly vulnerable and
incredibly dangerous.
Remembering Brzezinski’s words regarding the problem
of ‘control’ is an important factor to take into consideration:
“in earlier
times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill
one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million
people than to control one million people.”[25]
This could potentially be
referred to as the ‘Yemen Option,’ in which the strategy entails an effort
to promote destabilization, military intervention, covert and overt warfare.
In such a scenario, it is essential for America to maintain and, in fact,
strengthen its contacts and relationships with domestic military structures.
So, clearly the situation is not and should not be addressed in a
black-and-white analysis. It is intensely complicated, multi-faceted and
potentially disastrous. No outcome is preordained or absolute: thus, while
acknowledging and examining the evidence for America’s deep involvement in
the evolution and direction of the protests and opposition, we must keep
this analysis within the context of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’
I
argued in Part 1 above, of this essay that it does, in fact, seem as if we are
seeing the emergence of a global revolution; yet, this is likely a process
that will stretch out certainly over the next one, if not several, decades.
We cannot simply dismiss these protests as American machinations and covert
operations, but rather as an effort for America to control the ‘Awakening’.
As the
Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report emphasized,
“America’s
goal in the Middle East should be to encourage democratic evolution, not
revolution.”[26]
It seems as if this strategy either changed in the
intermittent years, or America has been thrown out of its incremental
strategy of “evolution” and into the strategy of being forced to respond to
and seek to direct “revolution.”
This makes the situation all the more
dangerous for American interests. Thus, we cannot dismiss the uprisings as
entirely “orchestrated,” but instead understand them in the context of the
‘Global Awakening.’
Taking the position that everything is organized from on high in the
corridors of power is a flawed analysis. Alternatively, taking the position
that America was caught entirely unaware of this situation is naïve and the
evidence does not support this assessment. However, we must not see this as
an either-or development, but rather a congruence of over-lapping and
inter-twining developments.
Society, after all, while being directed from
above, must react to the responses and developments from below; and thus,
society itself and the direction it takes is a highly complex interaction of
different, opposing, and conflicting social processes. The claim that the
uprisings are the lone result of American strategy neglects the reasons
behind the development of this strategy in the first place.
The
“democratization” strategy did not emerge due to any humanitarian qualms on
the part of the U.S. elite for the people living under authoritarian
regimes, but rather that the strategy was developed in response to the
emergence and growth of the ‘Arab Awakening’ itself. Indeed, in this
context, this does mark the beginnings of a global revolution (which has
been a long time coming); however, it also marks the active American
strategy to control the process and development of the ‘revolution.’
Historically, revolutions are never the product of a one-sided development.
That is, revolutions predominantly do not come about through the actions of
one segment of society, often polarized as either an elite-driven or
people-driven revolution, but rather they come about through a complex
interaction and balancing of various social groups. The context and
conditions for a revolution often do not emerge without the awareness of the
upper classes, therefore, the upper social strata always or often seek to
mitigate, control, repress, influence or co-opt and control the process of
revolution.
In this context, we cannot dismiss revolutions simply as a
top-down or bottom-up process, but rather a mitigation and interaction
between the two approaches.
American strategic objectives are aimed at ultimately repressing and
co-opting the organic revolutionary uprisings in the Arab world. For the
past six years or so, America has been developing and starting to implement
a strategy to manage to ‘Arab Awakening’ by promoting “democratization” in a
process of “evolution, not revolution.”
However, the evolution was evidently
not fast enough for the people living under the Arab regimes, and revolution
is in the air. America, naturally, is desperately attempting to manage the
situation and repress a true revolution from spreading across the region,
instead promoting an “orderly transition” as Hillary Clinton and President
Obama have stressed.
Thus, America has been extensively involved in the
processes of organizing and establishing “transitional governments” or
“unity governments.” If the revolution took its own course, and sought true
change, populist democracy and ultimate freedom, it would ultimately be
forced to challenge the role and influence of America and the West in the
region.
As such, military “aid” would need to end (a prospect the domestic
militaries are not willing to accept), American influence over and contact
with civil society and opposition groups would need to be openly challenged
and discussed, the IMF and World Bank would need to be kicked out,
international debts would need to be declared “odious” and cancelled, and
the people would have to control their own country and become active,
engaged and informed citizens.
The true revolution will have to be not
simply political, but,
-
economic
-
social
-
cultural
-
psychological
-
intellectual
-
and ultimately, global
The protesters must challenge not simply their despotic governments, but
must ultimately remove American and Western control over their nations.
They
must also be very cautious of opposition groups and proposed leaders who are
thrust to the front lines and into the government, as they are likely
co-opted. The true new leaders should come from the people, and should earn
their leadership, not simply be crowned as ‘leaders.’
The best possible
short-to-medium-term scenario would be to see the emergence of Arab populist
democracies, reflecting the trend seen across Latin America (although, not
necessarily imposing the same ideologies).
The trouble with this scenario is
that it is also the most unlikely. If there is one thing that American power
despises, it is populist democracy.
Since the beginnings of the Cold War
until present day, America has actively,
-
overthrown
-
orchestrated coups
-
imposed dictatorships
-
crushed, invaded and occupied
-
bombed and
destabilized or implemented “democratic regime change”,
...in populist
democracies.
Democratic governments that are accountable to the people and
seek to help the poor and oppressed make themselves quick enemies of
American power.
Over the past 60 years, America has repressed or supported
the repression of democracies, liberation struggles and attempts at autonomy
all over the world:
-
Iran in 1953
-
Guatemala in 1954
-
Haiti in 1959
-
the
Congo in 1960
-
Ecuador in 1961
-
Algeria
-
Peru
-
the Dominican Republic
-
Cuba
-
Laos
-
Cambodia
-
Vietnam
-
Chile
-
Argentina
-
Afghanistan
-
Indonesia
-
South
Africa
-
Palestine
-
Iraq
-
Venezuela
-
Lebanon
-
Yemen,
...and on and on and on.
The situation is a dangerous and difficult one for the protesters, just as
the struggle for freedom and democracy is and has always been.
There is a
large constituency which have an interest in preventing the emergence of a
populist democracy, including many of the pro-democracy organizations and
opposition leaders themselves, the great nations of the world - East and
West - the World Bank and IMF, international corporations and banks,
neighboring Arab regimes, Israel, and of course, America.
It is a
monumental challenge, but it would be a great disservice to cast aside the
protests as controlled and totally co-opted. If that were the case, they
would have ceased with the formation of transition and unity governments,
which of course they have not.
While the outcome is ultimately unknown, what
is clear is that a spark has been lit in the Arab world as the ‘Global
Political Awakening’ marches on, and this will be a very difficult flame to
control.
Notes
[1] Rahul Mahakan, “We Think the Price is Worth It,” Fairness and Accuracy
in Reporting, November/December 2001: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
[2] David Rothkopf, Running the World: The Inside Story of the National
Security Council and the Architects of American Power (PublicAffairs, 2006),
page 17
[3] Ibid, pages 174-175
[4] Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber, In Support of Arab Democracy: Why and
How. (Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report, 2005), pages 49-54
[5] Ibid, page 3.
[6] Ibid, pages 3-4.
[7] Ibid, page 4.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid, pages 11-12.
[10] Ibid, page 12.
[11] Ibid, page 13.
[12] Ibid, pages 36-37.
[13] Ibid, pages 38-39.
[14] Ibid, page 39/
[15] Ibid, page 40.
[16] Ibid, page 43.
[17] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York
Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html;
“Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President,” International
Affairs, 85: 1, (2009); The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign. The American
Interest Magazine, Autumn 2005: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=56;
The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Speech at the Carnegie
Council: March 25, 2004: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4424.html;
America’s Geopolitical Dilemmas. Speech at the Canadian International
Council and Montreal Council on Foreign Relations: April 23, 2010: http://www.onlinecic.org/resourcece/multimedia/americasgeopoliticaldilemmas
[18] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York
Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html
[19] Ibid.
[20] Jean-Claude Trichet, Global Governance Today, Keynote address by Mr
Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, at the Council
on Foreign Relations, New York, 26 April 2010: http://www.bis.org/review/r100428b.pdf
[21] Herman Von Rompuy, Speech Upon Accepting the EU Presidency, BBC News,
22 November 2009:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzm_R3YBgPg
[22] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York
Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html
[23] Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US
President,” International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009), page 54
[24] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York
Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html
[25] Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US
President,” International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009), page 54
[26] Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber,
In Support of Arab Democracy - Why and How. (Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report, 2005), page 4
Part 3
Will Tunisia Transition from Tyranny into Democratic Despotism?
February 14, 2011
It has been a month since President and dictator
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali
fled Tunisia, sparking the civil disobedience and protests that have since
resulted in the fall of one of the Arab world’s strongest and most
long-lasting dictators, Hosni Mubarak.
Yet, where does Tunisia stand today,
and where is it headed in the future?
In Part 1 (well above) of this series, I asked the question, “Are we witnessing the start
of a global revolution?” I concluded that we are seeing the emergence of a
powerful phase in what will be a long road to world revolution, spurred on
largely by what is referred to as the ‘Global Political Awakening.’
The
‘Awakening’ is driven by the information and communications revolutions, in
which people around the world, and in particular in the ‘Third World’ have
become increasingly aware of their lack of freedom, economic exploitation,
oppression and disrespect. Specifically, the educated youth are the driving
force, and the quest for human dignity is the driving impetus.
In Part 2 (above) of this series, I analyzed how American imperial strategy has
changed in the past several years to support democratization in the Arab
world, not out of any humanitarian qualms regarding supporting oppressive
and ruthless tyrants, but out of strategic interest in securing long-term
control and hegemony over the region.
The strategy of “democratization” is a
method of controlling and managing the process and problems inherent in the
Global Political Awakening. However, American strategists and think tanks
made it clear that they preferred a strategy of democratization supporting
“evolution, not revolution.”
Thus, when the uprisings and revolutions began,
America’s imperial strategists were quick to react in order to attempt to
control the situation.
The aim, then, is to mitigate and manage the process of change, promoting
the idea of “unity” or “transition governments,” so that America may manage
the transition into a democratic system that is safe for Western interests,
and will produce a political elite subservient to America and Western
financial institutions like the
World Bank and
IMF.
This part of the series,
“North Africa and the Global Political Awakening,” is a brief examination of
the strategy undertaken in Tunisia to pre-empt and subsequently manage the
uprising that took place, and where this could likely lead.
America Anticipated Trouble in Tunisia
According to the
Wikileaks diplomatic cables on Tunisia, the issue of
succession in Tunisia from the Ben Ali regime were being discussed by the
American Embassy in 2006.
However, at the time, the Ambassador noted that,
“none of the options suggest Tunisia will become more democratic, but the
US-Tunisian bilateral relationship is likely to remain unaffected by the
departure of Ben Ali.”
It was discussed that if the President became
“temporarily incapacitated” (largely referring to his struggle with cancer),
then,
“he could turn over a measure of presidential authority to Prime
Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi.”
The Ambassador noted that average Tunisians
generally view Ghannouchi,
“with respect and he is well-liked in comparison
to other GOT [Government of Tunisia]” and party officials.[1]
Ghannouchi was
subsequently the person who stepped in as interim President once Ben Ali
fled in 2011, but with very little support among the people, who demanded he
resign as well.
In a 2008 cable regarding a meeting with President Ben Ali, it was
ironically noted that Ben Ali felt that the situation in Egypt was
“explosive” and that,
“sooner or later the
Muslim Brotherhood would take
over. He added that Yemen and Saudi Arabia are also facing real problems,”
emphasizing that the whole region in general is “explosive.”[2]
In July of 2009, a diplomatic cable from the American Embassy in Tunis noted
that Tunisia is “troubled,” and that,
“many Tunisians are frustrated by the
lack of political freedom and angered by First Family corruption, high
unemployment and regional inequities.”
The Ambassador noted that while
America seeks to enhance ties with Tunisia commercially and militarily,
there are also major setbacks, as,
“we have been blocked, in part, by a
Foreign Ministry that seeks to control all our contacts in the government
and many other organizations.”
America had successfully accomplished a
number of goals, such as,
“increasing substantially US assistance to the
military,” and “strengthening commercial ties,” yet, “we have also had too
many failures.”
Tunisia had declined USAID to engage in regional programs
“to assist young people,” as well as having “reduced the number of Fulbright
scholarship students,” which was a specific strategic suggestion made by the
Council on Foreign Relations report in 2005 in supporting ‘democratization’
of the Arab world.
Further, the Ambassador noted, the Tunisian government
“makes it difficult” for the Embassy to maintain contact “with a wide swath
of Tunisian society,” adding that government-owned papers,
“often attack
Tunisian civil society activists who participate in Embassy activities,
portraying them as traitors.”
The government also made it very apparent that
it disapproves of Embassy contact with opposition figures,
“as well as civil
society activists who criticize the regime.”[3]
In posing the question of - “what should we do?” - the Ambassador explained
that America had,
“an interest in keeping the Tunisian military professional
and neutral,” as well as “fostering greater political openness.”
The
Ambassador emphasized the need,
“to maintain contacts with the few opposition
parties and civil society groups critical of the regime.”
Further, the
Ambassador stressed the need to mobilize the Europeans to help in pushing
for ‘reform,’ as,
“key countries such as France and Italy have shied from
putting pressure on the GOT.”
The Ambassador noted that ultimately,
“serious
change here will have to await Ben Ali’s departure.”[4]
Many U.S. democracy promotion organizations had established ties to Tunisian
civil society organizations and opposition leaders over the past few years,
including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Freedom House, and the
National Democratic Institute (NDI).[5]
‘Democratizing’ Tunisia
As we see from the course of events in Tunisia, America’s strategy of
democracy promotion has not necessarily gone according to plan.
As the CFR
Task Force stressed in 2005,
“America’s goal in the Middle East should be to
encourage democratic evolution, not revolution.”[6]
This was apparent in the
uprising catching America somewhat off guard.
Following the self-immolation
of Mohamed Bouazizi on 17 December 2010, Tunisia erupted in protests,
inspired by
food price hikes, dissatisfaction with corruption, lack of
freedoms, and unemployment. The protests were met with police brutality, and
were receiving little if any coverage in international media. A hallmark of
a U.S.-sponsored democratic “regime change” is to have Western media play a
powerful role from the moment the protests erupt, yet the Western media did
not pay attention until President Ben Ali fled on 14 January 2011.
Prime
Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi then took over as acting president, handing the
position of acting president over to parliamentary speaker Fouad Mebazaa the
following day.
Fouad Mebazaa then asked the Prime Minister to form a,
“unity
government,” saying that a “national unity government in the country's best
interests.”[7]
Immediately after Ben Ali fled, the Tunisian military was deployed into the
streets to “maintain order” in the face of riots and looting that broke out.
Many blamed the riots and looting on militias which,
“are part of the ministry of the interior,
or police members, and they are coordinated by
heads of police and intelligence in Tunisia.”[8]
Within days, the formation of a unity government was announced, vowing “to
work towards democracy,” which resulted in several opposition leaders
joining:
“Ahmed Ibrahim, head of the Ettajdid party, Najib Chebbi, founder
of the opposition PDP party, and Mustafa Ben Jaafar, head of the Union of
Freedom and Labour, are all expected to get senior appointments.”
Ibrahim
was quoted as saying,
“The main thing for us right now is to stop all this
disorder. We are in agreement on several principles concerning the new
government.”[9]
Najib Chebbi, leader of the opposition PDP party and member
of the,
“unity government,” is a lawyer who “has long been seen by Western
diplomats as the most credible figure in the opposition.”[10]
The “unity
government” announced that it planned to hold elections within 6 months.
However, the public in the streets were not satisfied with the creation of a
“unity government” containing many remnants of the Ben Ali regime, with some
activists claiming,
“The new government is a sham. It's an insult to the
revolution that claimed lives and blood.”[11]
The military played a powerful
role in the Tunisian uprising, most especially by refusing to fire on
protesters, which led to Ben Ali fleeing the following day.
Two days
following Ben Ali’s departure, an Egyptian newspaper reported that Army
Chief Rachid Ammar was in immediate contact with the American Embassy in
Tunis, according to an officer in the Tunisian National Guard, and that the
U.S. Embassy gave instructions to Ammar,
“to take charge of Tunisian affairs
if the situation gets out of control.”[12]
In fact, army chief Rachid Ammar vowed to “defend the revolution.”
Ammar was
speaking to protesters on the 24 of January, as protesters were demanding
the unity government resign.
He warned protesters,
“Our revolution, your
revolution, the revolution of the young, risks being lost... There are
forces that are calling for a void, a power vacuum. The void brings terror,
which brings dictatorship.”[13]
In other words, the military was aiming to
support the “unity government,” and to use its reputation with the people to
get them to support it as well.
Coincidentally, the U.S. Assistant Secretary
of State for Near Eastern Affairs (the U.S. Middle east envoy) Jeffrey Feltman, traveled to Tunisia the same day that General Ammar spoke to the
crowds, supposedly in order to,
“convey U.S. support to the Tunisian people,”
and assess “how the United States can help” with the ‘transition.’
Feltman said,
“the Obama administration could be helpful in providing support and
preparations for Tunisia’s upcoming elections through American
nongovernmental organizations that have helped other countries that did not
have prior histories of allowing a free and fair process.”
State Department
spokesman P.J. Crowley stated that the unity government is,
“trying to be
responsive,” and that, “this is a government that is trying hard to respond
to the aspirations of its people.”[14]
In other words, American officials are deeply involved in attempting to
legitimize the Tunisian “unity government,” in order to hold elections in
six months, when the U.S. can ensure that they control the outcome.
Thus,
the U.S. is interested in holding back the revolution, likely pressuring
General Ammar to try to reason with the protesters, as well as support the
unity government itself.
As US envoy Feltman stated,
“What's going to give
any government real credibility... are elections,” and that, “To get to
credible elections after having a system that so restricted the role of
civil society and political parties... is going to take some time and
effort.”
In other words, America is attempting to stem the ‘revolution’ and
maintain and manage the ‘evolution’ into a democratic government which they
would ultimately control, just as suggested by the CFR Task Force Report.
As
one Tunisian protester proclaimed,
“Somebody is stealing our
revolution.”[15]
Feltman’s acknowledging of the need to build a more
effective civil society before the elections provides support for the
revelations in the diplomatic cables that the Tunisian government of Ben Ali
was severely hampering American efforts to foster Tunisian civil society
groups.
Thus, I don’t think it is appropriate to see the Tunisian uprising
as “engineered in America,” since America was ultimately caught unprepared.
Zalmay Khalilzad, a former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan and the UN
under the George Bush administration, as well as a board member of the
“democracy promotion” organization the National Endowment for Democracy
(which funded and supported the ‘colour revolutions’ in Eastern Europe and
Central Asia), wrote an article in the Financial Times, editorializing that
the uprising in Tunisia shows the potential for new media to empower
disaffected citizens, as well as demonstrating,
“the rise of a new political
class: young people who stand for neither secular tyranny nor Islamist
radicalism.”
While heaping rhetorical praise upon a victory for ‘democracy,’ Khalilzad suggested articulating “a new freedom agenda for the region”:
The west should also openly pressure other authoritarian regimes to
liberalize, acting as a midwife for democratic reform.
In countries in which
Islamist movements are better organized than liberal ones, the west should
focus on developing moderate civil society groups, parties and institutions
rather than calling for snap elections. Most importantly, our distribution
of foreign aid should reflect and advance these priorities.
Regimes and
reformers throughout the region are taking note of events in Tunisia. The US
and Europe must act quickly.[16]
So what are these "democracy promotion" organizations?
Three prominent ones
are,
One of the previous chairmen of Freedom House was R. James Woolsey, former
Director of
the CIA.[17]
The current chairman is William H. Taft IV, former
U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, and former
chief legal adviser to the State Department.
Member of the Board of Trustees
of Freedom House include individuals past or presently associated with:
-
the
U.S. Department of State
-
the Council on Foreign Relations
-
Citigroup
-
Warburg Pincus
-
AFL-CIO
-
Morgan Stanley
-
the Brookings Institution
-
Visa
-
USAID
-
the Associated Press [18]
The Chairman of the board of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) is
Madeleine Albright.
Another notable member of the board is James Wolfensohn,
former President of the
World Bank, and former member of the board of
directors of the
Rockefeller Foundation and the Population Council.[19]
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), was founded by Ronald Reagan in
1983 with the aim of “promoting democracy,” registered as a private
organization, nearly all its funding comes from the U.S. Congress.
One of
the founders of the NED, Allen Weinstein, once stated that,
“A lot of what
we [the NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”[20]
Notable members of the board include:
-
Kenneth Duberstein, CEO of the
Duberstein Group, and member of the boards of Boeing, Fannie Mae, and the
Council on Foreign Relations
-
Francis Fukuyama, author of “The End of
History”; William Galston, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
-
Zalmay Khalilzad, Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan, the United
Nations, and former Defense Department official
-
Larry A. Liebenow, former
Chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and has served on the board of the
Council of the Americas (founded by David Rockefeller, who remains as
Honorary Chairman)
-
Ambassador Princeton Lyman, senior fellow at the Council
on Foreign Relations, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Africa,
former Ambassador to Nigeria, former Ambassador to South Africa, former
director of USAID
-
Moisés Naím, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, former director of the Central Bank of Venezuela,
former executive director of the World Bank, and is a member of the boards
of Population Action International and the International Crisis Group
-
Vin Weber, on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, and co-chair
with Madeleine Albright on the CFR Task Force Report on reform in the Arab
world.[21]
One month after Ben Ali’s departure, Tunisians are left with more political
freedoms, yet there is still grave concern over the path of change taking
place,
“with Tunisia’s old guard still strong and interim authorities often
overwhelmed - many said they fear promised changes may be swept aside.”
One
opposition group leader in Tunisia has stated that,
“There is no clear
political will to break from the past. The government’s decisions have come
with delays that have damaged its legitimacy and provoked a crisis of
confidence.”
Thus, “some fear the revolution will be confiscated, its
potential wasted behind a smokescreen of reforms.”[22]
Yet one thing has
clearly changed in Tunisia, the development of a feeling and taste for
freedom.
Once that wondrous inherently human taste for freedom is felt, it
is incredibly difficult to suppress, and becomes far less tolerant of any
methods aimed at control.
This is both a very hopeful and deeply precarious situation. Change always
is. The real question is whether or not this ‘transition’ will bring about
true freedom and true democracy, or if it will retain "neoliberal freedom
and democracy", which amounts to a kind of democratic despotism, in which
democracy becomes simply about voting between rival factions of elites who
all serve the same foreign imperial interests.
-
Could Tunisia potentially witness a populist democracy, like those that have
spread across Latin America?
-
Or will it succumb to the American brand of
democracy?
Time, it seems, will only be able to answer that question.
As
always, the odds are against the people, but again, as events over the past
30 days have shown the world, the people can always defy the odds.
Notes
[1] Embassy Tunis, SUCCESSION IN TUNISIA:
FINDING A SUCCESSOR OR FEET FIRST?, Wikileaks Cables, 9 January 2006:
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2006/01/06TUNIS55.html
[2] Embassy Tunis, PRESIDENT BEN ALI MEETS WITH A/S WELCH: PROGRESS
ON COUNTER-TERRORISM COOPERATION, REGIONAL CHALLENGES, Wikileaks Cables,
3 March 2008: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/03/08TUNIS193.html
[3] Embassy Tunis, TROUBLED TUNISIA: WHAT SHOULD WE DO?, WikiLeaks
Cables, 17 July 2009:
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/07/09TUNIS492.html
[4] Embassy Tunis, TROUBLED TUNISIA: WHAT SHOULD WE DO?, WikiLeaks
Cables, 17 July 2009:
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/07/09TUNIS492.html
[5] NED, Tunisia, National Endowment for Democracy:
http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/middle-east-and-northern-africa/tunisia;
FH, New Generation of Advocates: Empowering Civil Society in Middle East
and North Africa, Freedom House:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=66&program=83;
NDI, Tunisia, National Democratic Institute: http://www.ndi.org/tunisia
[6] Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber, In Support of Arab Democracy: Why
and How. (Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report, 2005), page 4
[7] ELAINE GANLEY and BOUAZZA BEN BOUAZZA, Tunisia's interim president
backs a unity govt, AP, 16 January 2011:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20110115/D9KOQT000.html
[8] Al-Jazeera and agencies, Army on streets amid Tunisia unrest,
Al-Jazeera, 15 January 2011:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/01/2011115135844457245.html
[9] Kim Sengupta, Political vacuum filled by chaotic in-fighting, The
Independent, 17 January 2011:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/political-vacuum-filled-by-chaotic-infighting-2186293.html
[10] Agencies, Ben Ali's possible successors, Al-Jazeera, 15 January
2011:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/tunisia/2011/01/20111151464566226.html
[11] AJ, Tunisia's new government in trouble, Al-Jazeera, 18 January
2011:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/01/2011118194731826312.html
[12] ALM, Tunisian officer: Washington tells dismissed chief of staff to
'take charge', Al-Masry Al-Youm, 16 January 2011:
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/tunisian-officer-washington-tells-dismissed-chief-staff-take-charge
[13] AJ, Tunisia cabinet to be reshuffled, Al-Jazeera, 24 January 2011:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/01/2011124163051778391.html
[14] Stephen Kaufman, U.S. Supports Tunisia’s Political Transition,
America.gov, 24 January 2011:
http://www.america.gov/st/democracyhr-english/2011/January/20110124162333nehpets0.8809168.html?CP.rss=true
[15] Borzou Daragahi, Key diplomat says U.S. approves of Tunisia revolt,
Los Angeles Times, 25 January 2011:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/25/world/la-fg-tunisia-envoy-20110126
[16] Zalmay Khalilzad, Democracy in Tunisia is just the start, The
Financial Times, 19 January 2011:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/552d3632-2405-11e0-bef0-00144feab49a.html#axzz1C08RDtxu
[17] Press Release, Freedom House Announces New Chairman, James Woolsey,
Freedom House, 13 January 2003:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=124
[18] FH, Board of Trustees, Freedom House:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=10
[19] NDI, Board of Directors, National Dmeocratic Institute:
http://www.ndi.org/board_of_directors
[20] William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower,
2000, p. 180
[21] NED, Board of Directors, the National Endowment for Democracy:
http://www.ned.org/about/board
[22] Deborah Pasmantier and Sonia Bakaric, Freedom and worry a month
after Tunisia uprising, Montreal Gazette, 13 February 2011:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/TUNISIA+MONTH+LATER/4274347/story.html