vrijdag 28 januari 2011

Arab Regimes 9

Het is belangrijk nu niet de Nederlandse pers te volgen, maar de angelsaksische. Lees bijvoorbeeld Stephen Kinzer, een buitengewoon goed geinformeerde Amerikaanse deskundige zoals ik vorig jaar zomer toen ik hem interviewde opnieuw merkte.

Egypt Protests Shows American Foreign Policy Folly

  •  
The Egyptian military entered Cairo on Friday in order to share security duty with a police force overwhelmed by pro-democracy protests. The state attempted to impose a mandatory curfew, but demonstrators remained in the streets and, in one case, lit a police car on fire before dumping it into the Nile. The headquarters of the state’s ruling party was also set on fire, and loud gunshots and explosions were heard in the area around the building. The Egyptian government has also placed opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, who returned to the country Thursday, under house arrest. Read ElBaradei's manifest for change in Egypt.
But while popular protests erupt across the Middle East, America stands on the sidelines. Stephen Kinzer on why the U.S. should abandon its self-defeating foreign policy in the region. Plus, full coverage of the Egypt uprising.
One afternoon a couple of weeks ago, I walked into the British Foreign Office for a meeting with Middle East policy planners. “Tunisia is melting down and the Lebanese government has just fallen,” my host said as he welcomed me. “Interesting times.”
Article - Egypt Protests GAL LAUNCH

Peter Macdiarmid / AP Photo

During our meeting, one veteran British diplomat observed that since American policy toward the Middle East is frozen into immobility, change there comes only when there is a crisis. I asked where he thought the next crisis might erupt. “Egypt,” he replied.
Events have moved quickly since then. President Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali of Tunisia has been overthrown, Hezbollah has chosen the new prime minister of Lebanon, and thousands have taken to the streets in Egypt to demand an end to Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year dictatorship. The Middle East is erupting —and the U.S. is watching from the sidelines. Unable to guide the course of events, it can do little more than cheer for its sclerotic allies and hope that popular anger does not sweep them aside.

Washington sees the various local and national conflicts in the Middle East as part of a battle for regional hegemony between the U.S. and Iran. If this is true, the U.S. is losing. That is because it has stubbornly held onto Middle East policies that were shaped for the Cold War. The security environment in the region has changed dramatically since then. Iran has shown itself agile enough to align itself with rising new forces that enjoy the support of millions. The U.S., meanwhile, remains allied with countries and forces that looked strong 30 or 40 years ago but no longer are.
Iran is betting on Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shiite parties in Iraq. These are popular forces that win elections. Hezbollah emerged as the heroic champion of resistance to Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, winning the admiration of Arabs, not only for itself but also for its Iranian backers. Many Arabs also admire Hamas for its refusal to bow to Israeli power in Gaza.
Pathologies in American politics, fed by emotions that prevent cool assessment of national interest, continue to paralyze the U.S. diplomatic imagination
Pro-Iran forces have also scored major gains in Iraq. They effectively control the Iraqi government, and their most incendiary leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, recently returned to a hero’s welcome after an extended stay in Iran. By invading Iraq in 2003, and removing Saddam Hussein from power, the U.S. handed Iraq to Iran on a platter. Now Iran is completing the consolidation of its position in Baghdad.
Who does America bet on to counter these rising forces? The same friends it has been betting on for decades: Mubarak’s pharaonic regime in Egypt; Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority; the Saudi monarchy; and increasingly radical politicians in Israel. It is no wonder that Iran’s power is rising as the American-imposed order begins to crumble.
• Bruce Riedel: Don’t Fear Egypt’s Brotherhood

• Mike Giglio: Egypt Revolution—The Purity Protests
The U.S. keeps Mubarak in power—it gave his regime $1.5 billion in aid last year—mainly because he supports America’s pro-Israel policies, especially by helping Israel maintain its stranglehold on Gaza. It supports Abbas for the same reason: he is seen as willing to compromise with Israel, and therefore a desirable negotiating partner. This was confirmed, to Abbas’s great embarrassment, by Wikileaks cables that show how eager he has been to meet Israeli demands, even collaborating with Israeli security forces to arrest Palestinians he dislikes. American support for Mubarak and Abbas continues, although neither man is in power with any figment of legality; Mubarak brazenly stage-manages elections, and Abbas has ruled by decree since his term of office expired in 2009.
Intimacy with the Saudi royal family is another old habit the U.S. cannot seem to kick—even though American leaders know full well, as one of the Wikileaks cables confirms, that “Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like al-Qaeda.” The fact that the Tunisian leader fled to Saudi Arabia after being overthrown shows how fully the Saudis support the old, eroding Middle East order.
As for Israel itself, it will lose much if new Arab leaders emerge who refuse to be their silent partners. Yet Israel clings to the belief that it will be able to guarantee its long-term security with weapons alone. The U.S. encourages it in this view, sending Israelis the message that no matter how militant their rejectionist policies become, they can count on Washington’s endless support.
The U.S. has long sought to block democracy in the Arab world, fearing that it would lead to the emergence of Islamist regimes. Remarkably, however, the Tunisian revolution does not seem to be heading that way, nor have Islamist leaders tried to guide protests in Egypt. Perhaps watching the intensifying repression imposed by mullahs in Iran has led many Muslims to rethink the value of propelling clerics to power.
Even if democratic regimes in the Middle East are not fundamentalist, however, they will firmly oppose U.S. policy toward Israel. The intimate U.S.-Israel relationship guarantees that many Muslims around the world will continue to see the U.S. as an enabler of evil. Despite America’s sins in the Middle East, however, many Muslims still admire the U.S. They see its leaders as profoundly mistaken in their unconditional support of Israel, but envy what the U.S. has accomplished and want some version of American freedom and prosperity for themselves. This suggests that it is not too late for the U.S. to reset its policy toward the region in ways that would take new realities into account.
Accepting that Arabs have the right to elect their own leaders means accepting the rise of governments that do not share America’s pro-Israel militancy. This is the dilemma Washington now faces. Never has it been clearer that the U.S. needs to reassess its long-term Middle East strategy. It needs new approaches and new partners. Listening more closely to Turkey, the closest U.S. ally in the Muslim Middle East, would be a good start. A wise second step would be a reversal of policy toward Iran, from confrontation to a genuine search for compromise. Yet pathologies in American politics, fed by emotions that prevent cool assessment of national interest, continue to paralyze the U.S. diplomatic imagination. Even this month’s eruptions may not be enough to rouse Washington from its self-defeating slumber.
Stephen Kinzer is an award-winning foreign correspondent. His new book is Reset: Iran, Turkey and America's Future.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
January 27, 2011 | 10:39pm

Comments (10)
Collapse Replies

sort by date:

Jim McDermott

It's a fact that the rigidity of US foreign policy (particularly successive administrations' willingness to subordinate US interests to those of Tel Aviv) has had the opposite effect of the very purpose of foreign policy per se - to strengthen a nation's position and profile in a particular region. You keep a few unattractive regimes in place at fabulous expense to the US taxpayer, earn (justly or otherwise) the enmity of their citizens and ensure that when regime change occurs it will be on anyone's terms but your own.

A suspicious mind might wonder if the Kremlin's been formulating US policy and faxing it across to the State Department

|


|


|
(1)
3:55 am, Jan 28, 2011

milkman57

Reading between the lines...Kinzer thinks we should drop Israel and hop on the Hamas bandwagon. The Arabs are only using the same strategy that works so well for republicans here in the states. Find a boogie man to blame all your troubles on. For republicans it's gays, immigrants, minorities, guns, religion etc, for Arabs it's the jews. Hate is always a good political strategy, that's why it works so well.

|


|


1:08 pm, Jan 28, 2011

Liz Sanderson

Reading your sharing of your first hand knowledge of these events, Stephen Kinzer, lights a hopeful beacon in the shadows of mid-America. Thanks.

|


|


9:19 am, Jan 28, 2011

enghou

(http://tinyurl.com/28vtsaz) US is afraid of losing an important ally, but if it continues to support leaders who are deemed to be not serving their people's interests well, the next government that replace them will be staunch anti-American, pushing it more to the side of Iran.

|


|


9:20 am, Jan 28, 2011

marygard

We may be an ally, but what can we do? Egypt's politics cannot be made our problem. I know al about access to the Suez Canal, but, seriously, isn't our vaunted military might enough to assure safe passage?
I think it would be safer than boots on the ground in Egypt.

|


|


9:29 am, Jan 28, 2011

Apaw-1

The "unwashed masses" around the world are revolting. The elite in the US (politicians, corporationist) have to pay attention otherwise their heads will roll, too. Americans know that Washington is broken and they are demoralized that anything can be done to fix it. Hopefully, they will revolt just like people in England, France, Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, etc.

|


|


9:53 am, Jan 28, 2011

purenordic

the foreign policy of the united states has been a disaster, especially since the end of wwii. now it is coming home to roost. we back the s.o.bs because their our s.o.bs with the result of raising the enmity of the people. it's time we start practicing what we preach around the world. we can never field an army big enough to subdue the entire earth.

oh, and george bush fans, how about making iraq a suburb of iran? pretty smart, eh? after all our love bombing and strafing, their hearts belong to ayatollah. there's a surprise!

and if republican'ts really want a balanced budget, how about bringing the troops home from iraq and afghanistan...now? i know, but how could their military-industrial contractor friends fund their re-election campaigns? as long as the cash is cushioning their coffers, deficit spending is ok. right, reactionaries?

|


|


10:14 am, Jan 28, 2011

rdcroog

Unfortunately, the last President to invoke American values in foreign policy (instead of cozying up to dictators) was Jimmy Carter and we all know how well that worked.
These revolts are symptomatic of regimes that have utterly failed to deliver anything of value to the bulk of their people--including especially their middle classes. Only a few at the top of the heap seem to have benefitted.
I hope we will now use our influence ----assuming we still have any---to counsel peaceful transition to more responsive regimes.
And we can't continue to judge everything in this complex region by the simple test of what's acceptable to whatever party is now in power in Israel---especially when the Israelis themselves are hotly divided on their own future. The monolithic, simplistic assumptions of the past were never a true reflection of the situation.

|


|


11:19 am, Jan 28, 2011

Eddie Thundercloud

I find that water cannons can be quite useful! When I am visiting foreign countries(in my mind) and feel constipated due to the jet lag and different water content....I stroll down to the local demonstration, bare my buttocks and moon the cannon operators.This always elicits a violent response and I receive a severe water enema.Shazam...my constipation is relieved and I am also bidet clean.

|


|


11:32 am, Jan 28, 2011

Olsoljer

If we withdraw our troops from that whole region, they will kill each other off until a big dog takes over. If that big dog is not friendly to us, THEN we take him out. We are wasting time, money and lives in a region that has been at war for thousands of years. To hell with all of them.

|


|


12:32 pm, Jan 28, 2011
Leave a comment
Please log in to leave comments.

Geen opmerkingen:

Peter Flik en Chuck Berry-Promised Land

mijn unieke collega Peter Flik, die de vrijzinnig protestantse radio omroep de VPRO maakte is niet meer. ik koester duizenden herinneringen ...