Protest like an Egyptian

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Lessons from Egypt

Barack Obama is the probably the best possible President the United States could have, but all of his genuinely good qualities don't make a damned bit of difference in terms of U.S. foreign policy. There is a very simple reason for this: He's not the boss. The real boss, of course, is all of that fucking money, all of the profits to be made, and which have to be made because that is the criteria according to which corporations — and hence the U.S. economy itself — lives or dies. Profit must be made, and it is not made exclusively, or even primarily within the U.S. but outside of it, all over the world. That is the necessity that governs U.S. foreign policy. Not morality, not justice, and not Obama. In that sphere he, like any other President, more closely resembles Stepin Fetchit. Thomas Dow, via email.

It's been getting harder and harder for anyone in the Western world to pretend we live in a genuinely democratic society. Ironically — but also tellingly — our rulers have felt in ever-less necessary to hide the fact that they hold "the people" in contempt, just as they hold in contempt the idea of democracy itself.

As a Canadian, last summer's government-sponsored riots in Toronto (see "Dominion of Fear" from last July) tore a lot of the proverbial wool from my eyes, but not all of it. I think it Tony Blair's calmy racist para-logical contortions in support of anything but democracy for the Egyptian people to bring home to me the fact our own democracy is little (if anything) more than a potempkin voting booth.

Which prompted the following, an editorial first published in this past Friday's True North Perspective. Long story short, there are two lessions for those of us in the West to learn from the courageous men and women facing down the thugs in the streets of Egypt.

First, it's not our place to manage Egyptian affairs. Even if we accept the myth of Good Intentions, the result is almost always a torturer like Mubarak.

And second, we need to take back our own democracy; the men in black body armor are at the ready any time we step out of line.

Click here for the rest (behind the fake cut).

Comments

[oportet.livejournal.com]

There are some who would want the US to mind it's own business, and not meddle in the affairs of other countries.

There are some who would want the US to pick a side; meddle, support or condemn those ruling or aspiring to rule.

Crazy as it sounds, those 2 groups overlap - full of hypocrites.

Very few can honestly say they want the US to be consistent.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I disagree. They're not hypocrits or inconsistent, they're just confused.

Most people who would prefer the U.S. just kept out of it, is because the history of U.S. foreign interference is a history of deliberate oppression and the suppression of self-determination, in order to secure and advance U.S. domestic prosperity.

The same people also recognize that the U.S. has the ability to help give people self-determination and free them from oppression, and you will often hear them express the desire that the U.S. would do so.

Unfortunately they are confused by both rhetoric coming from U.S. leadership which indicates that the U.S. has the intention of doing so, and from an almost entirely false historical narratives which deceives them into thinking the U.S. is naturally (and uniquely) inclined to work to those ends.

They all want the same thing, for people around the world to have self-determination and freedom from oppression, but they fluctuate between recognizing that the U.S. is never going to assist that cause and bearing a false hope that it will.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

but they fluctuate between recognizing that the U.S. is never going to assist that cause and bearing a false hope that it will.

the U.S. has assisted that cause in the past, and i have no doubt that it will do more of it in the future.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Indeed it has on a few specific occasions, which are in large part memorable for that reason.

I'm sure it will do so again in future (when it happens to co-incide with U.S. domestic prosperity), but in the meantime, there will continue to be dozens of cases where it does the exact opposite, because that is almost always more profitable.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

so were you being intentionally dishonest in your proclamation that, "the U.S. is never going to assist that cause"?

when it happens to co-incide with U.S. domestic prosperity

i think the dynamics in american politics have shifted, and the realists are losing. people increasingly see our long term prosperity (and security) tied to the proliferation of liberty. i don't see much appetite among the electorate for supporting dictators these days.

because that is almost always more profitable

i think we've learned that in the long term, its not.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

No, I was exaggerating, but only by a little. For every time that it does there are dozens of times where it does not.

I disagree that its not the more profitable. The fact that it would look better for the U.S. to be seen to be aiding the cause of Egyptian freedom doesn't mean that it would provide any kind of quantifiable economic benefit, compared to say, ensuring that the Suez canal remains in the hands of a friendly government. And certainly in the short-term (which is where those who are interested and have the political leverage are looking), maintaining that control is a lot more important than making Egyptians and Arabs increase their approval of the U.S. by a few percentage points.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

No, I was exaggerating, but only by a little.

in other words, you were being intentionally dishonest in your assessment.

I disagree that its not the more profitable.

only if you ignore the long and short term costs associated with funding dictators.

provide any kind of quantifiable economic benefit

only if you ignore the role that marketing and perception play in economics.

ensuring that the Suez canal remains in the hands of a friendly government.

thats assuming we have to support a dictator to keep the Suez canal in the hands of a friendly government.

maintaining that control is a lot more important than making Egyptians and Arabs increase their approval of the U.S. by a few percentage points.

probably to the old guard. not so much anymore.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

in other words, you were being intentionally dishonest in your assessment

No. I exaggerated, unintentionally. In hindsight, the word "never" was indeed overstating the case, as you yourself pointed out. But as I pointed out, only by a little.

thats assuming we have to support a dictator to keep the Suez canal in the hands of a friendly government.

Well the thing about dictators and economics is that predictability is key. Dictators tend to be reliable and if not, well, they can be replaced. Democratic governments, on the other hand, are a entirely different kettle of fish. Replace 1 guy and you still have to contend with dozens or even hundreds of others. And any democratic government is always liable to have politicians who aren't willing to comply with U.S. desires, if they think it isn't in Egyptian interests. And thats a problem.

As for the rest, personally I think we can safely sit back and watch what happens. What is the current administration doing?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

The fact that it would be the right thing to do (if you're going to do anything), you'll note, doesn't even enter into the equation.

The electorate probably do want it, but how do you see them having any leverage on the outcome?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

The fact that it would be the right thing to do (if you're going to do anything), you'll note, doesn't even enter into the equation

actually, it is the equation.

but how do you see them having any leverage on the outcome?

oh i don't know, the political process?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Uh-huh and which party would they vote for?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If this is a reference to Germany and Japan those were very special circumstances. The Occupation of Japan is IMHO the only redeeming side to MacArthur's military career as there's nobody else in the US High Command who could have done what he did there. With Germany the US was only one of three occupying powers in the West and part of Berlin, and was not the full guarantor until the 1950s. And by the 1950s the Warsaw Pact did wonders to ensure the Germans weren't inclined to try to rehabilitate Hitler.

In both defeated Axis powers the de-Axification did not go nearly as far as it should. It was never to the extent as in Austria where a full-fledged war criminal held a major political position, but it was not near enough to what it should have been (of course Soviet East Germany wasn't that much of an improvement either but then the Soviets were already totalitarian so it was simply co-opting existing networks).

Ignoring the role that fear of the Soviet Union played in the recreation of Germany and Japan after WWII ignores a big part of what made those recreations as successful as they were. Fear, like foreknowledge of being hanged in a fortnight, concentrates the mind wonderfully on the task at hand.

And thus arose triumphalism

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Ignoring the role that fear of the Soviet Union played in the recreation of Germany and Japan after WWII ignores a big part of what made those recreations as successful as they were.

Nicely put. I think this goes a long way towards explaining why the post-Soviet era saw a major rise in repression in the west, rather than an expansion of liberty. Our military-industrial masters suddenly believed there was nothing left to stop their avarice.

Which ignored one major reality:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Namely that the Soviet Union collapsed because of internal weaknesses due to WWII, not due to anything the Western powers did. But yes, I do think this is a big part of the reason as to why, as movements like Islamism are far less a threat than something like the old Soviet Union with its superpower army and the second-largest economy in the world.

In the absence of such a threat, however, the major thing that US leaders, at least, forgot was that the internal weaknesses due to WWII were a military-industrial complex that became a sacred cow in the Soviet budget which led to the complete disintegration of the USSR. Which means for the Western powers.....

Re: Which ignored one major reality:

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

... unfortunately, I can take only limited comfort from the implications of your elipsis. Living in a border colony, while the implosion of the American empire might (might!) be a good thing in the long run, the resulting chaos might make things pretty sticky for me and mine.

Even leaving aside naked self-interest, I think an orderly transition to a sustainable, democratic international order would see a lot fewer "collateral" victims than would a sudden collapse.

But the prospects grow more bleak with every day our rulers live in triumphalist denial.

There is one big difference, however with Canada vis-a-vis ex-SSRs:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Canada is both bigger than the United States and an energy exporter with a military that though smaller than the USA's is at minimum equal to it if not better than it. Even when the USSR disintegrated the RSFR was too big and too consolidated not to overshadow the rest.

Canada would be pretty well-suited to ride out the political turmoil in the United States if it came to that. And I'd note that it would be a good thing for Canada in the long run, but nobody human at least *lives* in the long run. Which is where the rub comes in.

And I agree that not realizing that denial is not just a river in Egypt is going to bite the USA in the ass hard. It's ignored some problems for over 30 years now, and there will come a point when just like with the USSR that becomes impossible and the reforms are too little, too late, and make shit worse than it already is.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

"the U.S. has the ability to help give people self-determination and free them from oppression"

I don't get this. Self-determination, as I understand it, is a country's ability to operate free from outside influences. If the US frees people from oppression, assuming the oppression is domestic as is usually the case, it is not respecting their sovereignty. Likewise, if the US respects a country's sovereignty, respecting their self-determination, it should work with its recognized government.

I don't see that the US can provide both. Either we interfere and promote our values or we don't try to force our values on others. There are of course those who will criticize the US either way, they are referred to as the peanut gallery.

You're right not to get it

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

I don't get this. Self-determination, as I understand it, is a country's ability to operate free from outside influences.

I think you don't get it because it doesn't make any sense. mrsilence is attacking straw men he doesn't bother to even name, thus making his point impervious to counter-attack.

In my opinion, the U.S. could in theory be a force for good in the modern world, but mostly by putting a halt to active support for despots, and equally, by putting a halt to demonizing those countries which don't do Washington's bidding. A very strong case could be (and has been, by others) made for the idea that Iran's mullah's would have fallen a long time ago if they couldn't point to U.S. hostility towards Iran (not to mention two and a half neighbouring countries invaded and occupied over the past decade or so) as a reason for carrying on.

Re: You're right not to get it

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I really don't know which strawmen you're referring to (I think you may actually be referring to the poster I replied to), but in any case, you contradict yourself when you first say that what I said "doesn't make any sense"only to then turn around and say "the U.S. could in theory be a force for good in the modern world, but mostly by putting a halt to active support for despots

How is this not helping to give people self-determination and free them from oppression? And even you admit that such passive measures are only "mostly" what the U.S. could do.

There are certainly other active steps the U.S. could take, which would not necessarily lessen freedom, as mikeyxw suggests it would.

To make a somewhat puerile analogy, when the police protect your civil rights from being violated by another fellow citizen, are they limiting your freedom? Protecting the weak from the strong, without overriding the perogatives of the weak, has always been considered a valid and just behaviour for the strong to engage in.

It's not going to actually happen, but it could in theory. And that is the dangling bait that deceives those who wish it would.

Re: You're right not to get it

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

You're right, I'm guilty of a sloppy reading of your comment. I'm also guilty of sloppy writing, so mea culpa, twice.

That said, dealing in these kind of theoretical generalities is just asking fort this kind of confusion.

In content, I don't think that withdrawing active support for despots is an "active" way to help to "give" other peoples self-determination.

If i recall correctly, this thread begun with someone's claim that various, un-named people want the U.S. to impose democracy on the one hand, while insisting that isn't possible on the other.

Oh hell, I'm tired of talking about people who aren't even involved in the discussion.

Re: You're right not to get it

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Darn, I was thinking how interesting it was reading a Canadian and an Aussie, arguing over what the U.S. should do :D

The Straw Man Cometh

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Very good. If I were teaching a first year philosophy class, I'd use this as a magnificent example of a straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Note that (a) I didn't say any of the things you "refute" and (b) you don't identify anyone who does hold the contradictory positions you so manfully challenge.

Also, you get bonus points for throwing in an irrelevant ad hominem insult ("hypocrites", in case that's not perfectly obvious) for good measure.

But good show, sir, good show! You've certainly given "they" and "some" and "them" — those hypocrites! — a well-deserved thrashing!

MANFULLY COMMENT! RARR!

[oportet.livejournal.com]

You're saying the people I refer to don't exist?

Re: MANFULLY COMMENT! RARR!

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

I'm saying that if you're going to attack something or someone, it's helpful if you point to specific examples. Otherwise, your words are nothing but distracting wind, not arguments.

Try this: Tell us who you're talking about, provide a direct quote from them to back up what you say "they" have said, and then explain how it relates to the original post.

Re: MANFULLY COMMENT! RARR!

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Ah, one of those citation people. I didn't think that was needed since it was a general observation, but if you really disagree with it I will find some examples.

If you do agree though - that there are people out there who think we should get out of certain countries and stop trying to run their governments, but also think we should pick a side in Egypt - then I won't need to find any.