"The Arab World Is on Fire" by: Noam Chomsky, Op-Ed

According to Noam Chomsky, President Obama's reaction to the Egyptian revolution conforms to the normal US response when one of their "favored dictators" loses control. "There is a kind of a standard routine," he says referring to Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu and Suharto. "[K]eep supporting them as long as possible; then, when it becomes unsustainable—typically, say, if the army shifts sides—switch 180 degrees, claim to have been on the side of the people all along, erase the past, and then make whatever moves are possible to restore the old system under new names."

One interesting question to explore is what the Americans might do if they are unable to "restore the old system." Following Hosni Mubarak's dramatic departure the situation in the region remains uncertain, but it is clear that the events witnessed over the past month will lead to a reconfiguration of power in the Middle East. Should this reconfiguration jeopardize Western strategic interests it is likely that the US and its allies will use all means available to reassert their influence.

Mubarak's billions..  made in USA.   Thank you USA.  Great Help.

Nearly 55 years have passed since Anglo-French troops landed in Port Said and Israeli forces crossed into the Sinai peninsular to try and wrest back control of the Suez canal, newly nationalized by President Nasser. While much has changed since that time the strategic importance of the canal and the pipeline that runs beside it is undiminished. With their economies dependent on oil and gas, Western powers are determined to prevent anything that might restrict their tankers, battleships and aircraft-carriers accessing the canal. Asked this month what action the US would take should travel through the shipping channel be disrupted, General Mattis, the head of US Central Command, replied that "we would have to deal with it diplomatically, economically, militarily."

Washington policy-makers are deeply concerned at the sudden and unprecedented rise of people power that is sweeping the region. With Iran's 1979 revolution still fresh in the US collective memory, many express fears about the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, in spite of the fact that Egyptians do not want to create an Islamic state. Indeed, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 70 percent of Egyptians were concerned at the global rise of Islamic extremism. A confluence of a number of factors including a strong civil society, moderate potential leadership in the shape of Mohamed El Baradei, Ayman Nour or Amr Moussa, do not quell fears in Washington. They know that democracies are hard to predict and harder to control. Even a liberal, secular Western-looking democracy in Egypt would be not prioritize US interests in the way that Mubarak's regime has done for over 30 years, and it would doubtless be much harder in its attitude towards Israel.

USA?  The revolution will not be televized!

In January, ahead of a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mubarak to discuss the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Jordan's King Abdullah warned prophetically that the "deadlocked peace process threatens the entire region." The revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and beyond make the need for intensive direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians more pressing than ever, but rather than pushing Israel towards the negotiating table the recent geo-political shifts may force Israel to even greater militarized isolationism.

Mubarak's fall has meant the loss of a vital regional ally and Israel fears that Jordan, another key partner, could follow suit.  Despite assurances by Egypt's current military rulers that the 30 year peace treaty between the two countries would remain in place, Israel fears that a democratically elected government might abrogate the treaty and open Egypt's border with Gaza.

While Washington undoubtedly had made contingency plans in preparation for the time when aging strongmen such as Mubarak stepped down, they had clearly not been prepared for the speed, force and direction of change. They are now playing catch-up, working to ensure a new Egyptian leadership that will be both legitimate in the eyes of the Egyptian people as well as sympathetic to US interests. If this cannot be achieved and an 'unfriendly' government looks likely to take power in Cairo, the US and its allies will act - overtly or covertly – to safeguard their interests. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, the US supported insurgent groups, sponsored coups, and fought real and proxy wars in order to protect and extend its influence.

In his 2009 Cairo speech, President Obama acknowledged that tensions between the Western and Muslim worlds have "been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations." He failed to mention that, long after the fall of the Berlin Wall, many of these countries were still being treated as proxies with their leaders – including Hosni Mubarak - propped up by the West. As these leaders start to topple, the test for Obama will be the extent to which he can reign in the natural instincts of his foreign policy-makers and allow genuine democracy to take root in the Middle East's shifting sands.

Stefan Simanowitz is a journalist, writer and political analyst.

Obama and Mubarak photo show


Noam Chomsky - "The Arab World Is on Fire"
Thursday 03 February 2011 

"The Arab world is on fire," al-Jazeera reported on Jan. 27, while throughout the region, Western allies "are quickly losing their influence."

The shock wave was set in motion by the dramatic uprising in Tunisia that drove out a Western-backed dictator, with reverberations especially in Egypt, where demonstrators overwhelmed a dictator's brutal police.

Observers compared the events to the toppling of Russian domains in 1989, but there are important differences.

Crucially, no Mikhail Gorbachev exists among the great powers that support the Arab dictators. Rather, Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless it is properly tamed.

One 1989 comparison has some validity: Romania, where Washington maintained its support for Nicolae Ceausescu, the most vicious of the East European dictators, until the allegiance became untenable. Then Washington hailed his overthrow while the past was erased.

That is a standard pattern: Ferdinand Marcos, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Chun Doo Hwan, Suharto and many other useful gangsters. It may be under way in the case of Hosni Mubarak, along with routine efforts to try to ensure that a successor regime will not veer far from the approved path.

The current hope appears to be Mubarak loyalist Gen. Omar Suleiman, just named Egypt's vice president. Suleiman, the longtime head of the intelligence services, is despised by the rebelling public almost as much as the dictator himself.

A common refrain among pundits is that fear of radical Islam requires (reluctant) opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. While not without some merit, the formulation is misleading. The general threat has always been independence. In the Arab world, the U.S. and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.

A familiar example is Saudi Arabia, the ideological center of radical Islam (and of Islamic terror). Another in a long list is Zia ul-Haq, the most brutal of Pakistan's dictators and President Reagan's favorite, who carried out a program of radical Islamization (with Saudi funding).

"The traditional argument put forward in and out of the Arab world is that there is nothing wrong, everything is under control," says Marwan Muasher, former Jordanian official and now director of Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment. "With this line of thinking, entrenched forces argue that opponents and outsiders calling for reform are exaggerating the conditions on the ground."

Therefore the public can be dismissed. The doctrine traces far back and generalizes worldwide, to U.S. home territory as well. In the event of unrest, tactical shifts may be necessary, but always with an eye to reasserting control.


egyptian sphinx Che Guevara  artwork

The vibrant democracy movement in Tunisia was directed against "a police state, with little freedom of expression or association, and serious human rights problems," ruled by a dictator whose family was hated for their venality. This was the assessment by U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec in a July 2009 cable released by WikiLeaks.

Therefore to some observers the WikiLeaks "documents should create a comforting feeling among the American public that officials aren't asleep at the switch" – indeed, that the cables are so supportive of U.S. policies that it is almost as if Obama is leaking them himself (or so Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The National Interest.)




"America should give Assange a medal," says a headline in the Financial Times. Chief foreign-policy analyst Gideon Rachman writes that "America's foreign policy comes across as principled, intelligent and pragmatic … the public position taken by the U.S. on any given issue is usually the private position as well."

In this view, WikiLeaks undermines the "conspiracy theorists" who question the noble motives that Washington regularly proclaims.

Independent journalism is important. Click here to get Truthout stories sent to your email.

Godec's cable supports these judgments – at least if we look no further. If we do, as foreign policy analyst Stephen Zunes reports in Foreign Policy in Focus, we find that, with Godec's information in hand, Washington provided $12 million in military aid to Tunisia. As it happens, Tunisia was one of only five foreign beneficiaries: Israel (routinely); the two Middle East dictatorships Egypt and Jordan; and Colombia, which has long had the worst human-rights record and the most U.S. military aid in the hemisphere.



Heilbrunn's Exhibit A is Arab support for U.S. policies targeting Iran, revealed by leaked cables. Rachman too seizes on this example, as did the media generally, hailing these encouraging revelations. The reactions illustrate how profound is the contempt for democracy in the educated culture.

Unmentioned is what the population thinks – easily discovered. According to polls released by the Brookings Institution in August, some Arabs agree with Washington and Western commentators that Iran is a threat: 10 percent. In contrast, they regard the U.S. and Israel as the major threats (77 percent; 88 percent).

Arab opinion is so hostile to Washington's policies that a majority (57 percent) think regional security would be enhanced if Iran had nuclear weapons. Still, "there is nothing wrong, everything is under control" (as Marwan Muasher describes the prevailing fantasy). The dictators support us. Their subjects can be ignored – unless they break their chains, and then policy must be adjusted.

Other leaks also appear to lend support to the enthusiastic judgments about Washington's nobility. In July 2009, Hugo Llorens, U.S. ambassador to Honduras, informed Washington of an embassy investigation of "legal and constitutional issues surrounding the June 28 forced removal of President Manuel 'Mel' Zelaya."

The embassy concluded that "there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch." Very admirable, except that President Obama proceeded to break with almost all of Latin America and Europe by supporting the coup regime and dismissing subsequent atrocities.

Perhaps the most remarkable WikiLeaks revelations have to do with Pakistan, reviewed by foreign policy analyst Fred Branfman in Truthdig.

The cables reveal that the U.S. embassy is well aware that Washington's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan not only intensifies rampant anti-Americanism but also "risks destabilizing the Pakistani state" and even raises a threat of the ultimate nightmare: that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists.

Again, the revelations "should create a comforting feeling … that officials are not asleep at the switch" (Heilbrunn's words) – while Washington marches stalwartly toward disaster.




(Noam Chomsky's most recent book, with co-author Ilan Pappe, is "Gaza in Crisis." Chomsky is emeritus professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.)

Stumble It!