What's new

The West Is Terrified Of Arabic Democracies

monitor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
8,570
Reaction score
7
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
“The West Is Terrified Of Arabic Democracies”
June 27, 2011

By Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is one of the major intellectuals of our time. The eighty-two-year-old American linguist, philosopher and activist is a severe critic of US foreign and economic policy. Ceyda Nurtsch talked to him about the Arabic spring in its global context

Many people claim that the Arab world is incompatible with democracy. Would you say that the recent developments falsify this thesis?

Noam Chomsky: The thesis never had any basis whatsoever. The Arab-Islamic world has a long history of democracy. It’s regularly crushed by western force. In 1953 Iran had a parliamentary system, the US and Britain overthrew it. There was a revolution in Iraq in 1958, we don’t know where it would have gone, but it could have been democratic. The US basically organized a coup.

Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh during a visit in the US in 1951, two years before the CIA’s coup d’état that ousted him In internal discussions in 1958, which have since been declassified, President Eisenhower spoke about a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world. Not from the governments, but from the people. The National Security Council’s top planning body produced a memorandum – you can pick it up on the web now – in which they explained it. They said that the perception in the Arab world is that the United States blocks democracy and development and supports harsh dictators and we do it to get control over their oil. The memorandum said, this perception is more or less accurate and that’s basically what we ought to be doing.

That means that western democracies prevented the emergence of democracies in the Arab world?

I won’t run through the details, but yes, it continues that way to the present. There are constant democratic uprisings. They are crushed by the dictators we – mainly the US, Britain, and France – support. So sure, there is no democracy because you crush it all. You could have said the same about Latin America: a long series of dictators, brutal murderers. As long as the US controls the hemisphere, or Europe before it, there is no democracy, because it gets crushed.

So you were not surprised at all by the Arab Spring?

Well, I didn’t really expect it. But there is a long background to it. Let’s take Egypt for instance. You’ll notice that the young people who organized the demonstrations on January 25th called themselves the April 6th movement. There is a reason for that. April 6th 2008 was supposed to be a major labour action in Egypt at the Mahalla textile complex, the big industrial centre: strikes, support demonstrations around the country and so on. It was all crushed by the dictatorship. Well, in the West we don’t pay any attention: as long as dictatorships control people, what do we care!

“Efforts to create democracy”: On 6 April 2008 Egyptian workers, primarily in the state-run textile industry, striked in response to low wages and rising food costs. Strikes were illegal in Egypt, and the protests were eventually crushed But in Egypt they remember, and that’s only one in a long series of militant strike actions. Some of them succeeded. There are some good studies of this. There is one American scholar, Joel Beinen – he is at Stanford – he has done a lot of work on the Egyptian labour movement. And he has recent articles and earlier ones, in which he discusses labour struggles going on for a long time: those are efforts to create democracy.

Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, claimed to cause a domino effect of freedom with his policy of the “New Middle East”. Is there a relation between the uprisings in the Arab world to the policy of George W. Bush?

The main theme of modern post-war history is the domino effect: Cuba, Brazil, Vietnam… Henry Kissinger compared it to a virus that might spread contagion. When he and Nixon were planning the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende in Chile – we have all the internal materials now – Kissinger in particular said, the Chilean virus might affect countries as far as Europe. Actually, he and Brezhnev agreed on that, they were both afraid of democracy and Kissinger said, we have to wipe out this virus. And they did, they crushed it.

Today it’s similar. Both Bush and Obama are terrified of the Arab spring. And there is a very sensible reason for that. They don’t want democracies in the Arab world. If Arab public opinion had any influence on policy, the US and Britain had been tossed out of the Middle East. That’s why they are terrified of democracies in the region.

The well-known British Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk recently stated that Obama and his policy is irrelevant for the developments in the region…

I read the article, it’s very good. Robert Fisk is a terrific journalist and he really knows the region well. I think what he means is that the activists in the April 6th movement don’t care about the United States. They have totally given up on the US. They know the United States is their enemy. In fact in public opinion in Egypt about 90 per cent think that the US is the worst threat that they face. In that sense the USA is of course not irrelevant. It’s just too powerful.

Some criticize the Arab intellectuals for being too silent, too passive. What should the role of the Arab intellectual be today?

Intellectuals have a special responsibility. We call them intellectuals because they are privileged and not because they are smarter than anyone else. But if you are privileged and you have some status and you can be articulate and so on we call you an intellectual. And it’s the same in the Arab world as anywhere else.

Source: Qantara.de
 
"The Arab-Islamic world has a long history of democracy. It’s regularly crushed by western force. In 1953 Iran had a parliamentary system, the US and Britain overthrew it. There was a revolution in Iraq in 1958, we don’t know where it would have gone, but it could have been democratic. The US basically organized a coup."

Long history? Long history which started in 1953??? What a bloody joke. 1953 is hardly history. It is history if we call our fathers as historical figures. The battle of Hattin was in 1187 and the Magna Carta was signed in 1215. Now that is history. Very understandable for an American whose history started only in 1492 when Columbus lost his bearings and thought that he had reached India.

What he says is only partially true, the west has been interfering and tinkering with other nations. But so called Arab democracies did not receive any special attention in any way. Most of America's unwanted interference was focused on Latin America and East Asia. The Arabs always made too much noise and therefore drew attention towards themselves. They are still doing it.
 
Well, the Arab Spring is anti-Al-Qaeda, & then, the West will have less reasons to interfere if the Arab Democracy/Spring prevails in these countries. But the US also wants to support the Arab Spring in many ways, to counter Iran's Shia influence in the region. Just look at the events of the pressure tactics against the Syrian leader, as well as the apathy against the attacks on the Bahraini Shia majority trying to depose the Bahrain monarchy.

Iran was getting a lot of influence in Syria, & through the Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Iran already has a lot of influence in Iraq, & the US & the West cannot afford Iran's influence to prevail any further in the region. So they are supportive of the Arab Spring in that sense.
 
You are excused

Excuse me ending with a question mark means entirely different.

Anyway for the benefit of the lesser privileged let me expatiate on my post - Care to please explain the statement, Muslims invented democracy for I think its something to the contrary ?
 
Well, the Arab Spring is anti-Al-Qaeda, & then, the West will have less reasons to interfere if the Arab Democracy/Spring prevails in these countries. But the US also wants to support the Arab Spring in many ways, to counter Iran's Shia influence in the region. Just look at the events of the pressure tactics against the Syrian leader, as well as the apathy against the attacks on the Bahraini Shia majority trying to depose the Bahrain monarchy.

Iran was getting a lot of influence in Syria, & through the Hezbollah, Lebanon. Iran already has a lot of influence in Iraq, & the US & the West cannot afford Iran's influence to prevail any further in the region. So they are supportive of the Arab Spring in that sense.

Iran and Turkey are the only Muslim nations that can challenge Israel and therefore USA. America's interests are not sectarian, they are not anti Shia or Pro Sunni. They are simply American interests. Turkey is a NATO member. Iran is challenging the US. Syrian regime has been propped up by Iran. It is also undemocratic and unpopular and very repressive. Bahrain is different, the uprising in Bahrain threatens Saudi Arabia and also the US base at Manama. Saudi Arabia is the last Muslim supporter of USA since Egypt is now gone. So...........
 
Iran and Turkey are the only Muslim nations that can challenge Israel and therefore USA. America's interests are not sectarian, they are not anti Shia or Pro Sunni. They are simply American interests. Turkey is a NATO member. Iran is challenging the US. Syrian regime has been propped up by Iran. It is also undemocratic and unpopular and very repressive. Bahrain is different, the uprising in Bahrain threatens Saudi Arabia and also the US base at Manama. Saudi Arabia is the last Muslim supporter of USA since Egypt is now gone. So...........

What you are essentially saying is what I said already in my post. Saudi Arabia is the bastion for Sunnism, & is strongly & diametrically opposed to Iran, the bastion for Shiism. The US has strong ties with Saudi Arabia, & through them, huge involvement in most of the Muslim world, as there are far more Sunnis than there Shias. Iran is challenging the US, & is promoting its religious ideology in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain. The US as well as Saudi Arabia feel threatened by that, & the Arab Spring is a means to curtail Iran's "progress" in the region. If Saudi Arabia loses its influence in the region, the US loses its influence in the region. Saudi Arabia cannot lose its status for being the bastion for most of the Muslim world, & Iran is jeopardizing it with its "diametrically opposed" religious ideology.
 
267709_2077930620949_1025517435_2408089_6309068_n.jpg
 
What you are essentially saying is what I said already in my post. Saudi Arabia is the bastion for Sunnism, & is strongly & diametrically opposed to Iran, the bastion for Shiism. The US has strong ties with Saudi Arabia, & through them, huge involvement in most of the Muslim world, as there are far more Sunnis than there Shias. Iran is challenging the US, & is promoting its religious ideology in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain. The US as well as Saudi Arabia feel threatened by that, & the Arab Spring is a means to curtail Iran's "progress" in the region. If Saudi Arabia loses its influence in the region, the US loses its influence in the region. Saudi Arabia cannot lose its status for being the bastion for most of the Muslim world, & Iran is jeopardizing it with its "diametrically opposed" religious ideology.

Hey you may be right. But i do not look at it from the sectarian angle. After all Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a Shia himself and a good friend of the US. It was only after he was sent packing by the Ayatollahs that there was a turn around in the US policy towards Iran. If anything, the west is wary of radical Islam. Maybe because they do not understand it. But, my friend, remember the famous quote, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." The US has been making overtures towards Iran lately. Do not be surprised if you see drastic changes happening. After all who was the greatest threat to Iran after Iraq and Israel? Was it not Egypt? We all know what happened o Iraq. The middle East is quick sand, read the signs carefully.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom