Tuesday, February 1, 2011

The Mideast Burns

by Eric Margolis

When I wrote my latest book on the way America dominates the Mideast, I chose the title, American Raj, because this modern US imperium so closely resembled the famed Indian Raj – the way the British Empire ruled India.

As I predicted in this book, and in a column last April, Egypt was headed for a major explosion. America’s Mideast Raj is now on fire. Whether it survives or not remains to be seen.

One cannot escape a sense that we may be looking at a Mideast version of the 1989 uprisings across Eastern Europe that brought down its Communist regimes and then the Soviet Union. Americans should be uneasy seeing crowds of Egyptians pleading for freedom and justice watched over by US-supplied tanks.

There are indeed certainly strong similarities between the old Soviet East Bloc and the spreading intifada across the police states of America’s Mideast Raj. Corrupt, repressive governments; rapacious oligarchies; high youth unemployment and economic stagnation; widespread feelings of fear, frustration, hopelessness and fury.

Read more

7 comments:

  1. Margolis:


    <span>Somewhere in the ranks of Egypt’s armed forces must be a group of officers like Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser and his Young Officers who seized power in 1952 to end foreign control of Egypt. Nasser, adored by most Egyptians was the first authentic native-born leader in 2,000 years. Look for a resurgence of Nasserism.</span>

    Good grief, for all the good he did, the fact remains that Nasser was a human rights violator himself...on a large scale. He imprisoned thousands of Egyptians for having the nerve to oppose him. He prevented democratic progress with oppression and one party rule. The press was used as a propaganda arm of the government. He interferred with the affairs of other Arab countries. I guess all is forgiven though, if you are an anti-imperialist.
    If the Egyptians go this route again, they will simply be right back where they started.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nasser was a human rights violater? Yes. He was a dictator of sorts? Maybe. This cannot be denied but at the same time what he, on the national and internaytional stage, stood for cannot be denied and in retrospective in comparison to all those leaders in the Arab world who followed him he stands out as an authentic nationalist and a pan Arab who's vision was so inspiring to millions of people not found by any stretch of the imagination in any other!
    Also, was Churchil the great man we are supposed to think he was? Was de Gaulle? Should I go on listing their achievements?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You will note that I prefaced my statement with, "for all the good he did" and I do believe he did accomplish a great deal in some ways. Perhaps he was what was needed at that time, at that place, but for all his charisma and instilling of pride, where was Egypt after he died? Had he laid the foundations for a democracy?  The people deserve something better than that now.

    We know Churchill was deeply flawed. Loads of books and analysis about him. When the people of Britain decided they wanted a change, though, all they had to do was go to the ballot box and he was voted out of office and Churchill conceded. That is a gift Nasser had the power to give to his people and future generations. He was in office long enough to at least lay the foundations for a democracy. He was so widely adored for goodnes sake, he probably would have won against any opponent. He never gave his people the chance. He did not trust them enough to believe they could handle it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agreed that the man's dream wasn't about establishing a democracy but a non-aligned, free, pan Arab unity for all the Arabs. This is the big picture and personally I've never been a Nasserist even when some of my friends were but as I said, in retrospect, I believe he was the greatest Arab leader we ever had. Very very flawed and in this I share As'ad Abu Khalil's opinion on him but let's give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. BTW, who crushed his dreams but the the joint effort of the US/Israel and their supporters and lackeys in the region?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agreed, but it is the 21st century now and even though the US backed Mubarak with 1.5 billion dollars a year, the Egyptian people are proving that it IS possible to stand up to a dictator.
    My problem was with Margolis' thinking that Nasserism is the possible answer to Egypt's problems today. That is really sort of insulting. What the Egyptian people have done so far, is awe inspiring. They should be very proud. Based on what I have seen and heard, I doubt very much if the people are calling for another paternalistic  leader!

    ReplyDelete
  6. <span>vza  
    I believe that Nasserism now is as valid a plateform (for starters) as any other, however flawed. Everything needs to be pulled back and put in the right order. Independance from the US influence. A review, if not a revocation, of the "peace" treaty with Israel for reasons evident enough; Israel did not follow up, as stipulated in the said treaty, on the Palestinian issue. It's a breech that should be exploited by the new order in Egypt. Another move should target Arab unity as a goal, one way or another. It's my dream that the countries of the region realise that it's in their future to come together as one unit and not going into it separetely and thus falling victims to whom ever willing to exploit their weekness. It's better than a dream. It's a vision!.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's of upmost necessity that those countries in the region who tied their politics to those of Israel to pull back and impose on Israel a de facto unity of purpose. Israel with the primordial support of the US had a drean run so far. It's over and this dark Chapter needs to end.

    ReplyDelete