I find the current developments in the Middle East quite striking, and believe as well as hope that they are signs of a conflagration that will seriously damage the positions of the corrupt leadership in those countries. Currently, Bahrain, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Algeria and Iraq are all seeing riots, and let us not forget the changes that have come to Egypt and Tunisia already as far as regime is concerned. While there most certainly is the chance this will all be repressed successfully and violently, or that it might peter out leaving the structure still standing, my opinion is this might be something much greater. There is precedent of this thorough and rapid change before; in the founding of Islam, where the followers of Mohammed fought against the pagan kings that ruled them. Indeed, wikipedia, that most vaunted of all sources, cites Andrey Korotayev stating: (we) find that most sociopolitical systems of the Arabs reacted to the socioecological crisis by getting rid of the rigid supratribal political structures (kingdoms and chiefdoms) which started posing a real threat to their very survival. Quite startling, isn't it? History is repeating itself. While I may very well be wrong, my opinion is that the "nature" of the Arabian people is such, accompanied by the many wrongs that have been visited upon them, reacts strongly in the presence of bravery. Pride in their nearby neighbors in Tunisia sparked off Egypt's uprising. The success, or at least remarkable stolidness, of the Egyptian protestors must be considered in the light of Tunisia; will their example similarly light off another country? Or will Egypt, with its size and significance in the region, touch off a much more thorough turnover of leadership in the region?
There are two parallels here; first, repressive leadership existed both under the conditions that formed Islam and the conditions currently in place in the Middle East. Second, the pan-Arabic solidarity. However, in the latter case for those who are afraid of a new Caliphate (hahaha!), there are major differences that means this new generation of pan-Arabism... like the Arab nationalism in the 1950s and 60s under Nasser, are more secular in nature than religious. It is an ideology based on basic human rights. As Juan Cole describes, along with others who are knowledgeable about the Muslim Brotherhood, the Brotherhood is not the majority of Egyptians, and in any case is very moderate. (Fear not the Boogeyman, Pepe Escobar on the Muslim Brotherhood) The Shiites Iran would have to rely on for a new Islamic empire are a minority in several of the countries that are revolting. As has been seen in Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites have much different agendas. And with even Iran itself undergoing revolutionary shockwaves (Iran's post-Islamist generation), our big bad foe in the Middle East, Iran, could fall just like the great Soviet Union did, like a thief in the night.
Now, I'm not sure it will go that far, but as conjecture, it is possible, and boy would it make U.S. look silly standing out there in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Yemen and Pakistan). The problem is the reactionary choices the U.S. administration may likely take. There could be no worse result for U.S. security than for the United States government to be found complicit in assisting the regimes of the Middle East in repressing this popular movement. The only cases where the heads of the regimes have been toppled are Egypt and Tunisia; it could stay that way, for a while. But the United States no longer has the resources to commit to toppling the burgeoning populist movements throughout the Middle East should they succeed; it can merely support the regimes in repressing the movements, either through "neutrality" on the issue, in essence soft-talking police brutality except where it benefits us, or providing direct aid to forces involved in the repression. (Read the article to find the evidence on the Egyptian military being in possession of US "tactical deployment material", in essence, US hardware being kept in US depots)
A populist turnover of the Middle East would throw the world economic system into turmoil, but pretending to be the champion of peace, liberty and freedom while being involved in four unofficial wars in the span of the last decade, actively restricting the civil rights of the majority while elevating the powers of the minority while being involved in aid to repressive regimes around the world is a case of cognitive dissonance that cannot be reconciled. We, as citizens of the United States, must decide whether we support this uprising of the people, or back away from our ideals in the name of "stability". If we choose the latter, we had best hope the corrupt governments of the Middle East hold, because their successors will not look on us kindly.
I know which side I stand with.
Zbogom,
The Dragon of San Marcos
No comments:
Post a Comment