Tearing Down the Myths

We are currently witnessing extraordinary scenes across the Middle East as people are rising up to demand an end to decades-old, Western-backed despotic regimes from Tunis to Cairo, and the revolt now shows signs of spreading into Jordan and Yemen as well. These revolts give renewed hope to peoples everywhere who yearn for freedom, democracy and economic justice.

There are no doubt a range of factors involved, but a proximal stimulus would appear to be simple economics. As people's living circumstances become more desperate, then they can be moved to take more forceful steps to try and change the status-quo. What might appear to be a desperate act to one with some food on his table becomes a necessary act for one whose children are starving. As an example, it appears that in Egypt a significant percentage of the population routinely subsists on something like the equivalent of $2 a day. Given such precarious economic circumstances a sudden increase in food prices, as has been occurring across much of the world, can be devastating. More succinctly, poverty and repression cannot be tolerated indefinitely.

As usual, the depiction of events unfolding in Egypt have been greatly distorted by the filter of the US media. Indeed, by far the best coverage I've seen on the Middle East rebellions so far has been that of Al Jazeera (I'm speaking specifically of the English language edition, since I can't comment on the Arabic version). While Al Jazeera English is apparently widely available in Canada and Western Europe it presently has little distribution on US cable networks. Somehow this doesn't seem surprising given the US media's increasing concentration in fewer and larger multinational corporations, and their general subservience to US government interests. For first rate coverage, then also check out the reporting from Sharif Abdel Kouddous at Democracy Now! who is on the ground in Egypt with an eye-witness and first-hand perspective on events.

As we watch these events unfold and see their refraction through the prism of US media outlets we can begin to see cracks in a number of longstanding myths on which US economic dominance and control in the Middle East and beyond is founded. One of my favorites is the notion of "regional stability." We hear this term endlessly from US media pundits. As in the following illustrative example: US Media Hack #1, "The US can't afford to lose the support of a pro-Western, stable Egyptian government," or, US Media Hack #2, "the toppling of Mubarak would just sow regional instability." So lets look a bit more closely at what this notion of stability actual implies.

Here's how the game works;

1) when a regional government is supportive of US government interests, that is, behaves as a good client and generally "knows how to follow orders," then, by definition, such a regime is "stable."

2) It is virtually irrelevant whether the government in question is democratic, autocratic, monarchical, tyrannical, plutocratic, oligarchic, theocratic, or any suitable combination thereof, by axiom 1) it is still a "stable" government. And just so that "stable" doesn't appear to be too overused, one can also substitute "moderate."

Note that by US government interests above I mean those of the economic elites--largely corporate interests and their patrons--within the US that for the most part influence and control the US foreign policy agenda. Also bear in mind that these interests are not necessarily the same as, and often are directly opposed to, those of the vast majority of the American people.

Now, what is the actual nature of many of these "stable" US client regimes? Well, it would take a book to cover all of them, but looking at the most recent "dominoes" to teeter in the Middle East should be sufficient. You would be hard-pressed to find any serious commentator arguing that either Tunisia or Egypt be considered as democratic states. Rather, these regimes were/are best described as autocratic, repressive oligarchies, in which a small ruling elite has enriched themselves through corruption at the expense of the vast majority of their citizens. They also routinely employed violent suppression of any and all political opposition, often with the use of arrest, torture, or worse. In reality, the societal and political conditions created and fostered by these "stable" regimes could not be more unstable! That is unless you consider vast income inequality with epidemic poverty and violent political repression to be stable economic and political models.

And of course the corollary rules apply. Any regime unwilling to play ball by our rules is "unstable," or if they really attempt to conduct their affairs with independence from Washington, and, heaven forbid, outside of the Capitalist model, then they may even be "radical." Again, the nature of the regime itself is irrelevant, what only matters is their stance towards US interests, if they are willing to put US interests above those of their own people, then of course, they are a "stable" regime. An example of a "radical" regime in this context was the democratically elected, but left-leaning government of Chile under Salvador Allende. Allende was overthrown and murdered in a US-backed coup that installed decades of "stable," vicious autocratic rule under General Augusto Pinochet. You see, a "stable" dictatorial government is always preferable to a "radical" democracy. Chile under Allende could not be tolerated mostly because it might represent the "threat of a good example," and worse yet, right in America's own backyard. That is, a nation that develops outside the Western-dominated model, with development actually serving the interests of its population and not those of international capital.

Another crucial myth that must be continually reinforced is the notion that the US is the bastion and guarantor of true democracy throughout the world. This is axiomatic among news talking-heads and the punditocracy in mainstream US media. While there is abundant evidence to the contrary, it is all completely irrelevant. Just consider the case of Egypt's Mubarak, supported through 30 years of one-party (indeed one-man), iron-fisted rule by multiple US administrations. You see, when government officials understand that this myth is virtually unassailable, then they can get away with the kind of bare-faced lies like those spouted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued in a recent CNN interview, "We are on the side" of the Egyptian people, "as we have been for more than 30 years." The Egyptian people know better Ms. Clinton.

But you can understand that in such circumstances US officials have to be careful, they don't want to be seen as completely on the record in their support for a dictator whom a million Egyptians are out in the streets to try and remove. And on the other hand, if they still see a fair chance for the survival of their client, Mubarak in this case, well, then they don't want to openly call for him to depart to quickly. This is where obfuscation becomes a real asset, and there are few better at it than US State Department Officials. Consider this gem from Clinton herself, in response to a question about the US's stance on Mubarak, "This is a complex, very difficult situation," said Clinton, "We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back..." Backing forward? Backing back? Well, I'm glad that cleared everything up. One has to show some grudging admiration for someone who could so torture the English language, but that has been the nature of much of US commentary so far, obfuscation.

We can also learn a great deal by comparing the US response to the present rebellion in Egypt to that which occurred last year following elections in Iran. Now, according to our rules of the game, Iran is clearly not a "stable" regime. On the contrary, Iran is a "radical" regime that sows "instability" in the Middle East. In the summer of 2009 when large numbers of Iranian citizens protested the outcome of elections in their country, then US officials were more than vociferous in their support for the democratic rights of the protesters in Iran. But now, when faced with similar conditions in Egypt, and the apparent demise of one of its own lynch-pin clients in the Middle East, US officials can only talk out of both sides of their mouths and call for "restraint," and other such neutral platitudes. While Iran's theocratic government is objectionable on many levels we have to keep in mind that it had its roots sown in the overthrow of another "radical" democratically elected regime, that of Mohammed Mosadegh, deposed in yet another US-orchestrated coup, that installed the dictatorial rule of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi. I guess you can say what goes around comes around.

At present, the Mubarak government appears to be digging in its heals, and may not go without trying to first exact a terrible price from the Egyptian people. Let's hope that doesn't happen, and that the Egyptian people can attain a democratic future.