I agree wholeheartedly. Not only are many on the left (not only there
though) unable to think through the Arab Spring and its spinoffs in
reality-based terms, but they are hostage to old ways of thinking,
notably as to the role of Western powers. If there is something that has
to be completely dismissed in today’s Arab world, it is the ability of
Western powers to shape an Arab country’s politics according to their
wishes. While Arab countries do not live in a bubble and are of course
amenable to foreign influence, no longer will foreign – read Western –
powers be able to dictate the terms of leadership struggles or even
foreing policy (Libya is an odd case here). They can weigh in, but their
influence is limited as compared to the weight of public opinion and
the political forces present in the institutions of the state.
What influence did any Western power have over the Tunisian
revolution, or even the Egyptian one? The height of US influence the
last year was its ability to get its NGO workers out of Egypt, but
that’s hardly a decisive influence on an issue of substance in Egyptian
politics. The issue of Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel is probably the
one issue on which the US government has been able to exert influence,
but it is also arguably an issue that Egyptians themselves would solve
through some sort of statu quo – no Egyptian I know has any aptite for a
military stand-off with Israel to start with, although many want the
peace treaty to remain just that, and cease to be the fealty oath it
turned into under the Mubarak years.
Take the case of Iraq: sure, the US was able to invade and occupy
that country, smash its political structure, entrench sectarianism and
kill and maim well
over one hundred thousand Iraqi civilians – but the end result is a
government they do not control – if any foreign country wields decisive
influence over Iraq it is Iran – and which basically kicked US troops
out of the country. Bombing and killing the USA may continue to do in
Iraq in the future, but they are not able of directing its politics the
way they once dreamt of.
Tunisians and Egyptians gained their freedom by relying on their own
strength and commitment, rejecting any foreign involvement. While quite
some Syrian revolutionaries are now asking for foreign military
intervention – understandably so in view of the massacres committed by
régime forces – not all of them do so, and interest for such an option
seems lukewarm outside of the armchair editorialist and liberal
interventionism cottage industry. But what is undisputed is the massive
lack of domestic legitimacy that Bashar el Assad’s régime has – you
don’t need to have actually read Michel Seurat’s « L’Etat de barbarie » to recognise
that.
Not any dictator opposed – although in the case of Syria that claim
would be dubious, as he wasn’t actively opposed by any Western country
since the end of the Bush presidency (France let go of its opposition
once Syrian troops left Lebanon in 2005 and Hariri-funded Chirac left
the presidency to Sarkozy) before he started slaughtering his own
population – by Western powers is necessarily worthy of support. That
was true in Serbia in the 90′s, Iraq from 1991 to 2003, and is still
true in Syria today. Not everything that happens in Arab countries is
the result of CIA memos, Mossad plots, Foreign Office instructions or Open Society grants,
and if the State Department wants to see the back of Bashar, for all my
hostility to the successive US governments’ foreign policy, I find it
hard not to share that wish. And I remain adamantly opposed to any NATO
intervention, in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter – it
is dubious whether this military alliance still has a raison d’être, but
whatever is left only justifies defensive missions.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق