Syria and the "do something" brigade

Back to my old hobby horse ... talking to the radio.

I was listening to Newstalk this morning, the Sunday Show with Coleman. Have to say I was disappointed with the discussion on Syria.  Same old cliches and fake problem framing that we have seen on similar issues for 10 years. As usual the 'experts' separate everybody into those who "want to do something" and those who don't. The giveaway was that Eamonn Delaney was mentioned as someone in the "want to do something" camp, criticising the Minister for Foreign Affairs for not urging 'stronger' action on Syria.  Delaney has form.  He is a neo-con, a fan of the US, a supporter of the disastrous invasion of Iraq.  Doing something always seems to involve US and UK aerial bombardment.  Instead of the Syrian government killing Syrian children, it'll be us,but it will be ok because it will be 'unintentional'.

For the record I would like something done, but I suspect in every other respect I would be in the opposite camp to Delaney and his ilk. It would be good if a discussion on this topic would show some intelligence and look outside the ignore them / military operations choice. To take a simple example.  There are millions of Syrian refugees in camps just outside the borders of Syria. Their situation is desperate.  Western aid agencies are already in there begging for more money. There are no diplomatic or military problems with sending aid there immediately.  Here we have a way to address the problem that is: immediate; will directly help civilians; will not upset the powers and could help de-escalate the war.  This aspect was not addressed on the show and has never been addressed on any discussion that I have listened to. 

Why?  Could it be that the "want to do something" brigade have no real interest in ordinary civilians?  Could it be that reducing civilian suffering does not suit them at all?  Could it be that any solution not involving the removal of the Assad government (friends of Hesbollah and Iran) is not on the agenda?

I suspect it is one or all of the above.

Israeli drone strike confirms status of Egypt as puppet state

The military coup in Egypt already showed which way things were going, with the continuation of US military aid, and the earlier closing of the Gaza border. The coup has reset Egypt into it's traditional ally as the US puppet and assistant to Israel, alongside Saudi Arabia.

The latest news of the Israeli drone strike on Egyptian soil only confirms that situation. Drone strikes have become the favourite technique of the US and Israel, but for obvious reasons have been restricted to certain countries.  Drones can be used freely in warzones like Afghanistan and failed states like Somalia.  They have even been extended to the likes Pakistan and the Yemen which are functioning states but effectively US puppets; unable to maintain the integrity of their own airspace.

Now we see Egypt, the heartland of the Arab world, sometimes its standard bearer, its greatest military power, ceding control of its airspace to a drone from Israel, the great conqueror of the Arabs. Is this what the Arab spring was for; is this why Tamarod collected 20 plus million signatories complaining that "Egypt is following in the footsteps of the US"?

Egypt is now definitely a second class state, incapable of maintaining itself; never mind leading the Arab world. That is exactly why the coup happened and exactly why the US and Europe are quietly content with the situation. I wonder do the Tamarod and their allies hand their heads in shame, ... or are they quietly pleased with this new state of affairs?

Tamarod, puppets of the Egyptian military

The Tamarod movement were instrumental in preparing the ground for the recent military coup in Egypt. Their mass protests gave the military overthrow of the elected government the cloak of respectability it needed and very much suits the leadership in the West which is quietly pleased with the return of the old order in Egypt.

But how is it that a protest movement associated with the Arab spring is allied with the military, the bastion of the old order and yet claims to be a part of the Arab Spring?   A BBC profile of the Tamarod lists the main complaints on their famous petition.  It makes for curious reading.  One complaint is that "the poor have no place in society", yet it was obvious from the frequent TV footage of Tamarod protests that they were that they were dominated by the urban middle classes with their western t-shirts and sunglasses.  Contrast that with the pro-Morsi protestors with their Arab working class attire. Another complaint was the lack of justice for people killed by security forces.  Now the Tamarod openly boast about their alliance with the military! Not only did they explicitly support the military murder of over fifty pro-Morsi civilians recently, but about their own followers killed by the military in the earlier Egyptian revolution; all forgotten now?

Unsurprisingly, the English-speaking media cannot explain this conundrum since they are totally brain-washed. Fortunately a piece (in English) in the German media provides a very informative description of the rise of the Tamarod. Two items from that piece stood out for me. First was the support from "anti-Islamist" businesses that "pumped a lot of money into the initiative".  The money is a fact.  You can the anti-Islamist with a pinch of salt.  More likely anti-change. Who ever heard of a street protest movement in the West that claims to support the poor getting buckets of money from big business? Secondly, the military backed the Tamarod right form the start, making a mockery of their huge petition looking for justice for victims of the military.

The problem with Egypt is not Islamism, it is not the military, it is a rotten middle class. They shamelessly ape all the worst parts of western culture (including a syncophantic attitude to the US and hostility to religion) without adopting any of the healthy parts (tolerance of dissent, dislike of military in politics). They are too tied in to the old corrupt power structures so have little to gain from any genuine revolution. In this sense Egypt is still the center and the leader of the Arab world.  Until the Arabs middle classes start to act in the interest of the entire nation the Arab spring is doomed to fail.  More ominously so long as the middle class is so selfish and rudderless the way is clear for Al Qaeda to hoover up support from the poor and the occasional disenchanted middle class individuals.

Egypt, the West and Democracy

"You forgot that democracy (...) is allowed for those who belong to the Islamists to benefit from its fruits only on one condition — you be a slave for the West's ideology, action, policy and economy,"

This is a quote from the leader of Al-Qaida, admonishing the Muslim Brotherhood for thinking they could appease the US and still bring in Islamic rule. You can disagree with his general logic but the factual basis for the quote looks pretty solid. Not only has the US and the rest of the West supported the coup (albeit in an underhanded and mealy-mouthed fashion) but they have form.  A few years ago we heard constant lectures from the US and the EU on the need for democracy among the Palestinians as a condition for peace talks with Israel.  Then when the Palestinians elected Hamas in fair elections the CIA sponsored a military coup in Gaza which failed.  That was followed by a successful coup in the West Bank; which was immediately supported by the US and the EU.

The message is clear.  The West wants democracy in the Arab world, but only if the 'right' leaders are elected. Hence the lack of enthusiasm for the Syrian rebels.

He also criticises  Egypt's secular camp which has abandoned democracy and the peaceful transfer of power, resorting instead to the "Americanized military".

Again he is 100% on the money. And this is actually a more serious problem.  The earlier point, that the leadership of the West is utterly hypocritical about the Middle East is old news.  They only care about the supply of oil and the security of Israel.  The Arab world will never get off it's knees so long as it relies on the good intentions of the great powers.  That has always been true for every people in every time. The USA achieved independence not because of the great Powers but due to self-reliance, as did the Irish, as did the Vietnamese, as did the old Eastern Europe. So long as the Arab world contains the old rotten middle class, connected to the army, desirous of the status quo and deferential to US interests, there will be no change.  And Al Qaida is part of this problem. So long as anti-western nationalism is tied up with militant Islam it is easy to split the urban westernised middle-class from the Arab poor.  But if a leader of the stature of Nasser, an Arab nationalist with support from secular and Islamic groups, were to appear, with genuine popular support, then (as before with Nasser) we would see real change. Change which would be "of the people, by the people, for the people".