Things Have To Change In Order To Remain The Same
By Paul Craig RobertsThe hypocrisy of the US government is yet again demonstrated in full bore force. The US government invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, laid waste to much of the countries including entire villages and towns, and massacred untold numbers of civilians in order “to bring democracy” to Iraq and Afghanistan. Now after days of Egyptians in the streets demanding “Mubarak must go,” the US government remains aligned with its puppet Egyptian ruler, even suggesting that Mubarak, after running a police state for three decades, is the appropriate person to implement democracy in Egypt.
On January 30, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that “freedom and democracy” America neither seeks nor supports the ouster of the Egyptian dictator.
Israeli prime minister Netanyahu told the US and Europe that criticism of Mubarak must be curbed in order “to preserve stability in the region.”
By “stability” Netanyahu means the unimpeded ability of Israel to continue oppressing the Palestinians and stealing their country. Mubarak has been for three decades the well-paid enforcer for the US and Israel, sealing off Gaza from the outside world and preventing aid flows across the Egyptian border. Mubarak and his family have become multi-billionaires, thanks to the American taxpayer, and the US government, both Republicans and Democrats, do not want to lose their heavy investment in Mubarak.
The US government has long corrupted Arab governments by paying rulers installed by the US to represent US/Israeli interests rather than the interest of Arab peoples. Arabs put up with American-financed oppression for many years, but now are showing signs of rebellion.
The murderous American-installed dictator in Tunis was overthrown by people taking to the streets. Rebellion has spread to Egypt and there are also street protests against the US-supported rulers in Yemen and Jordan.
These uprisings might succeed in ousting puppet rulers, but will the result be anything more than the exchange of a new American puppet ruler for the old? Mubarak might go, but whoever takes his place is likely to find himself wearing the same American harness.
What dictators do is to eliminate alternative leadership. Potential leaders are either assassinated, exiled, or imprisoned. Moreover, anything short of a full-fledged revolution, such as the Iranian one, leaves in place a bureaucracy accustomed to business as usual. In addition, Egypt and the country’s military have grown accustomed to American support and will want the money to keep flowing. It is the flow of this money that ensures the purchase of the replacement government.
Because the US dollar is the world reserve currency, the US government has financial dominance and the ability to financially isolate other countries, such as Iran. To break free of America’s grip, one of two things would have to happen. Revolution would have to sweep the Arab world and result in an economic unity that could foster indigenous economic development, or the US dollar has to fail as world currency.
Arab disunity has long been the means by which the Western countries have dominated the Middle East. Without this disunity, Israel and the US could not abuse the Palestinians in the manner in which they have for decades, and without this disunity the US could not have invaded Iraq. It is unlikely that the Arabs will suddenly unite themselves.
The collapse of the dollar is more likely. Indeed, the policy of the US government to maximize both budget and trade deficits, and the policy of the Federal Reserve to monetize the budget deficit and the fraudulent paper assets of the large banks, have the dollar heading for demise.
As the supply of dollars grows, the value diminishes. Perhaps the time is not far off when rulers cease to sell out their peoples for American money.
Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.
| |
Winners and Losers From a Pharaoh's Fall
By Patrick J. BuchananAmong the biggest losers of the Egyptian uprising are, first, the Mubaraks, who are finished, and, next, the United States and Israel.
Hosni Mubarak will be out by year's end, if not the end of this month, or week. He will not run again and will not be succeeded by son Gamal, whom he had groomed and who has fled to London.
Today, the lead party in determining Egypt's future is the army. Cheered in the streets of Cairo, respected by the people, that army is not going to fire on peaceful demonstrators to keep in power a regime with one foot already in the grave.
Only if fired on by provocateurs is the army likely to clear Tahrir Square the way the Chinese army cleared Tiananmen Square.
But the army does have an immense stake in who rules, and that stake would not be well served by one-man, one-vote democracy.
Like the Turkish army, the Egyptian army sees itself as guardian of the nation. From the Egyptian military have come all four of the leaders who have ruled since the 1952 colonel's revolt that ousted King Farouk: Gens. Naguib, Sadat and Mubarak, and Col. Nasser
The military has also been for 30 years the recipient of $1.2 billion dollars a year from the United States. Its weapons come from America. Moreover, the army has a vital interest in the "cold peace" with Israel that has kept it out of war since 1973, produced the return of Sinai, and maintained Egypt's role as the leader of the moderate Arabs and major ally of the United States.
The Egyptian army is also aware of what happened to the Iranian generals when the Shah fell, and what is happening to the Turkish army as the Islamicizing regime of Prime Minister Erdogan strips that army of its role as arbiter of whether a Turkish regime stays or goes.
The Egyptian army will not yield its position readily, which is why it may tilt to the ex-generals Mubarak named Friday as vice president and prime minister.
The army's rival is the Muslim Brotherhood. The oldest Islamic movement in the Middle East, the most unified opponent of the regime, its future in a democratic Egypt, as part of a ruling coalition or major opposition party, seems assured.
And while the crowds in Cairo and Alexandria are united in what they wish to be rid of, the Muslim Brotherhood is united in knowing the kind of state and nation it wishes to establish.
Why are the United States and Israel seemingly certain losers from the fall of Mubarak? Because in any free and fair election in the Middle East, a majority will vote for rulers who will distance the country from America and sever ties to Israel.
When it comes to America and Israel, there is little doubt where the "Arab street" stands. And the freer the elections, the more the views of the Arab street will be reflected in the new Arab regime.
But why do they hate us? Is it because of who we are?
Surely, it is not our freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly or free elections for which we are hated. For this is what the demonstrators are clamoring for. Indeed, it is in the name of these freedoms that the Egyptian people are demanding that we cease standing behind Mubarak and stand with them.
No, the United States is not hated across the region because of the freedoms we enjoy or even because of the lectures on democracy we do not cease to deliver. We are hated because we are perceived as hypocrites who say one thing and do another.
The Arabs say we support despots who deny them the rights we cherish. They say we preach endlessly of human rights but imposed savage sanctions on Iraq for a dozen years before 2003 that brought premature death to half a million children. They say we use our power to invade countries that never attacked us.
They say we have provided Israel with the weapons to crush the Palestinians and steal their land, and that we practice a moral double standard. We condemn attacks on Israelis, but sit silent as Israel bombs Lebanon for five weeks and conducts a war on Gaza, killing 1,400 and wounding thousands, most of them civilians.
Any truth to all this? Or is this just Arab propaganda?
After losing Turkey as an ally, Israel has just seen Hezbollah come to power in Beirut and the Palestinian Authority stripped of its credibility by the Wikileaks exposure of its groveling to America and Israel. Now Israel faces the near certainty of a more hostile Egypt.
As for America, if we are about to be thrown out of the Middle East, it would be neither undeserved nor an unmitigated disaster.
After all, it's their world, not ours.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America
