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

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

You may want to read the forum rules if you don't want this to be deleted soon.

It's got a thesis, baby ...

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

As per the subject line, I've got a thesis (well, two, if you're counting) for debate and personal opinions (also up for debate) coming out every one of my orifices.

If you've got a specific objections, maybe you should say so.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

See, the problem with this is that support of brutal regimes for strategic end has been the Great Power practice with Egypt since the 1880s. Even in the age of trans-oceanic air travel the Suez Canal is too vital a trade route for the Great Powers to take their chances with democratic governments in Egypt. Of course like most peoples with an ounce of self-respect the Egyptians hate this and the governments that sponsor it......

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I believe this is his own writing, and nothing in the rules prohibits cross-posting, AFAIK.

Re: It's got a thesis, baby ...

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I can't necessarily force the issue, but placing the full post here as opposed to half of it and expecting us to go to your site for the rest will probably do a lot to keep the focus on your theory as opposed to your choice on posting.

Re: It's got a thesis, baby ...

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

I understand why you don't like the way I've done it, but frankly, a lot of posts here are just brief responses to a third party's analysis of this, that or the other thing. At least I'm posting a link to original work, whatever you might think of its merits.

Re: It's got a thesis, baby ...

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you want the rest of us to miss the plot, that's your call, then.

Colour me romantic

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

See, the problem with this is that support of brutal regimes for strategic end has been the Great Power practice with Egypt since the 1880s.

Of course, I know that. For whatever it's worth, I'm trying to do my little bit to convince others that we need to hold our "leaders" up to our own self-proclaimed ideals.

It's time to stop asking ourselves whether "the Arabs" are ready for democracy and to start asking ourselves whether we are.

Call me cynical:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

But when all the New World societies are built on genocide and the liberal democracies used genocidal means in those empires to get themselves to be the richest countries in the world my answer to that is a "No, we very much are not willing to be truly democratic." The mindset that led the Great Powers to do what they did very much can be turned on the people at home. Only idiots fail to recognize that possibility.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

There's a rule that prohibits spam. Putting half a post, then forcing people to go to your website to finish reading it is spam IMHO. Not to mention that his own site has advertising on it, so it could be argued that this hasn't been posted for the benefit of the community and discussion, but to get people to go to their site, hence getting their site views up, resulting in money to the OP.

Re: Call me cynical:

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Only idiots fail to recognize that possibility.

And that's how you make friends and influence people. We agree with each other. Why do you go to such efforts to make me your enemy?

I'm not going to any such lengths:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I was agreeing with and emphasizing your point, not disagreeing with it.

Re: I'm not going to any such lengths:

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Whoops. *goes back to re-read*

Ahem. Getting too used to being treated as a punching bag. My apologies.

Re: I'm not going to any such lengths:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And my rhetorical style is intense to the degree that it can come across like an attack when it isn't one. My apologies in turn.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

So edgy.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

That's a good point. I didn't visit the site, myself. And even if I did, AdBlock.

[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.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"Profit must be made"

- OP

[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.

[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?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

The spice must flow.