In
giving his State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama will
presumably brag about his greatest supposed achievement in the Middle
East: Support for democracy and human rights.
But
consider this amazing fact. Exactly two years ago there were massive
demonstrations in Egypt against the Mubarak regime, which was a U.S.
ally. Today there are massive demonstrations in Egypt against the Mursi,
Muslim Brotherhood regime, which hates the United States and opposes
its interests. The Mursi regime has killed more demonstrators than the
Mubarak regime did during the comparable period.
Yet
what a difference in U.S. policy! Two years ago the Obama
Administration found this repression
to be unacceptable. It demanded Mubarak’s immediate resignation and
spoke of human rights and democratic norms. Today we hear none of that.
On the contrary, the Mursi regime is praised by the White House and
advanced arms are given as presents to it without delay.
So it isn't surprising that Bahieddin Hassan, director of the Cairo
Institute for Human Rights Studies, has written an open letter to
President Barack Obama. While many (most?) Americans think their
country under the Obama administration has been supporting democracy and
human rights in the Muslim-majority Middle East countries the people
who live in those places know better.
In
Iran, the U.S. government ignored the democratic opposition as it was
repressed and the same was true in Syria until the civil war in which,
amazing as it may seem, that same government has backed particularly the
anti-democratic Islamist elements in the opposition. In the Gaza Strip,
the U.S. policy has helped protect the Hamas regime, while in Egypt and
Tunisia it lifted not one finger to help the moderates but
enthusiastically endorses the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamist-ruled Turkey,
whose government, has campaigned to limit democratic and human rights
is repeatedly cited by Obama as a role model.
Some
of these regimes have been elected but that has not stopped them from
being repressive and seeking to create a situation in which they can
never be voted out of office.
Arab,
Iranian, and Turkish democrats
are thus angry at the Obama Administration, feeling it is helping their
enemies. But one would never know this to listen to the mainstream mass
media, academia, and the political debate in America.
And
so Hassan has written an open letter, published in al-Ahram, beginning
with reminding Obama that he once visited the White House as part of a
group
of human rights’ activists. Hassan now writes that after he criticized
Obama’s policy:
“Jokingly,
you noted that despite being a guest in the White House, I was
audacious enough to criticize the president in his presence. I responded
that the act required no courage at all in light of what happens when
we try to criticize Arab presidents back
home, at which the hall erupted in laughter.”
Hassan
is very anti-Israel and praises Obama’s “commendable human rights
advisor Samantha Power” who talked a great deal once about Palestinian
and Libyan rights but hasn’t been heard from on this issue regarding
countries where the Islamists are on the offensive.
He continues:
“Egyptian
young people continue to live in frustration due to the deteriorating
economic situation and the repeated failure of political processes to
represent their demands, despite the sacrifices that they have made for
the sake of the revolution and transition to democracy.”
Obama
has spoken a great deal of an alleged American past of bullying and
imperialist behavior in the Middle East and other places which largely
consisted of supporting local dictatorships because they benefited U.S.
interests. Yet he is indifferent to the fact that as president he has
supported local dictatorships without even the rationale of them being
good for U.S. interests. In fact, they are both repressive and opposed
to U.S. interests.
“Since
December,” Hassan writes, Cairo has “witnessed the torture of
demonstrators by members of the president’s party, the dragging and
beating of protesters by security forces in scenes broadcast around the
world, and assassinations.
“Two
prominent cases are those of opposition journalist Mohamed Al-Husseini
Abu Deif, who was shot in the head 12 December in front of the
[presidential] palace, and that of Amr Saad, 19, who was also shot in
the head in front of the palace in the beginning of February.
“This
violence has also been seen in Tahrir Square. On 20 November,
17-year-old Gaber “Jika” Salah, the administrator of the Together
against the Muslim Brothers Facebook page, was shot in the head with a
shotgun. On 31 December, 20-year-old Mohammad Samir, a member of the 6
April Movement [the group that was lauded in America when it revolted
against President Husni Mubarak but is now largely ignored when it is
battling the Muslim Brotherhood regime], was shot in the head with a
shotgun and entered a coma for several days before it finally became
clear that he would survive.”
According
to multiple testimonies, Hassan continues, rape is now being used as a
strategy to break up demonstrations as female protesters are seized and
taken to other locations for this purpose. These are organized attacks
and bear every mark of being organized “to break the political will of
the victims” rather than to satisfy lusts.
Hassan concludes:
“Mr.
President…over recent months, statements by your administration have
similarly failed to address violations and have even blamed protesters
and victims for violence committed in the context of demonstrations.
Indeed, the stances of your administration have given political cover to
the current authoritarian regime in Egypt and allowed it to fearlessly
implement undemocratic policies and commit numerous acts of repression.”
--------------------------
Please be subscriber 31,211 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click here.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and
send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY
10003.
--------------------------
He then admirably dissects the true implications of the current U.S. government’s statements on Egypt:
“Statements
that `Egypt is witnessing a genuine and broad-based process of
democratization’ have covered over and indeed legitimized the
undemocratic processes by which the Constituent Assembly passed the new
Constitution….
“Calls
for `the opposition [to] remain non-violent’ and for `the government
and security forces [to] exercise self-restraint in the face of
protester violence’ have allowed the police and the current Egyptian
administration to shirk their responsibilities
to secure demonstrations and to respond to the demands of the Egyptian
people, and have allowed them to place the blame for violence and
instability on protesters themselves.
“Urging
`the opposition [to] engage in a national dialogue without
preconditions’” is meaningless since, “these `dialogues’ seldom result
in anything more concrete than a photo-op with the president.”
And then he concludes:
“Is
it a coincidence that the statements issued by your administration
reflect the same political rhetoric used by the new authoritarian regime
in
Egypt?”
No, every U.S. government has supported dictatorships abroad. President Franklin Roosevelt had to align with Stalin’s USSR to defeat Nazi Germany. During the Cold War, American presidents backed dictatorships in Latin America, South Vietnam, and other parts of the world to defeat Communism. The merits of these policies can be assessed on a case by case basis. Could this be justified by national security needs? Was there a better alternative which combined a more pro-democratic, pro-human rights' approach with legitimate American interests?
No, every U.S. government has supported dictatorships abroad. President Franklin Roosevelt had to align with Stalin’s USSR to defeat Nazi Germany. During the Cold War, American presidents backed dictatorships in Latin America, South Vietnam, and other parts of the world to defeat Communism. The merits of these policies can be assessed on a case by case basis. Could this be justified by national security needs? Was there a better alternative which combined a more pro-democratic, pro-human rights' approach with legitimate American interests?
But
what do you call it when the U.S. government supports dictatorships to
defeat…what exactly? Backing Sunni Islamists doesn’t defeat Islamism,
and if they act against al-Qaida in their own interests they ally
themselves with Salafists whose views are almost identical to those of
al-Qaida. Indeed, in Syria, U.S. backed opposition groups unanimously
defended the local al-Qaida affiliate from an American attempt to
isolate it.
Yet
perhaps, as is often said in the United States, Obama really has no
influence in Egypt, Syria, or other such places. That’s not what the
local people think. Hassan refers to, “The world’s superpower—the one
most able to have a positive or negative impact on policies in Egypt and
the region, not to mention the biggest donor and material supporter of
the Egyptian regime for the past 35 years….”
All
Hassan requests is that U.S. officials stop making statements of the
above sort which give verbal backing to the Brotherhood regime and are
used by it to justify its own behavior and intimidate the opposition.
(Give up, even the Americans support us and won’t help you!)
Americans themselves should expect a lot more from their government.
PS: I can’t help but remember a July 2009 open letter from
Central European leaders asking Obama to help them against Russian
ambitions under Putin. Despite being endorsed by virtually all of the
great heroes of the democratic battle against the Soviet bloc, that
letter was also ignored. We are continually told that Obama's policy has
been supportive of democracy and human rights, and that people all
around the world love him for it. While I know that polls can be
cited--sometimes misleadingly--I have
never met a single anti-Islamist Arab, Iranian, or Turk who thought
that way. Come to think of it, the same applies to Central Europeans,
Chinese, and a number of other nationalities.
This article is published on PJMedia.
This article is published on PJMedia.
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The
Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment