First, let me say that this entry is no more than a simple venting of several repeated, and apparently accepted by many, talking points that I've heard repeated ad nauseum over the past few weeks.
1. Despite the massive support I've seen for the Egyptian protests, there is considerable resistance to the idea by many who tend to be found on the right. The nay-saying goes as follows: They're not used to democracy, it won't go right and will result in inequalities, etc. I'm sure if I pulled out a history book and deconstructed our dominant narrative piece by piece, I could find some pretty gaping inequalities in between our proclaiming to be a democratic, free, land and our practice. I'm sure I could find examples of genocide, slavery, gender domination, class inequality, all of which were socially considered acceptable and resisted by a relative and comparative few. I'm sure I could find injustices in our society today that are considered "fine" yet unacceptable when placed next to our stated ideals. Our democratic republic is not perfect and never has been. To place a bar of expectation on the Egyptians that we ourselves have never attained is suspect.
2. There has been an underlying tone of a "Muslim threat" headed for Europe in the last decade. This is usually referring to birthrates, using old stories about the Moors and Al-Andalus to bring up old fears and resentment for political purposes, and is cloaked in "multiculturalism" language. What I find curious about American right-wing "concern" about this is the fact that Europe is their favorite punching bag for their attacks on the left. "European, socialist, big government systems" are always some sort of underlying threat and are indicative of society, productivity, and political morality. European countries like France and Germany were implied to be wimps and cowards for either not joining in the War on Terror, or leaving in the case of Spain when they realized it was a hapless cause. If they're so politically base, socially lazy and worthless, and wimps in their convictions, what do we care? Europe is the boogeyman when they need them to be to further their domestic privatization causes, but a poor poster child for paternalism when it concerns the "evil, Muslims" abroad.
Tunisia breaking free of a despotic regime backed by France for years and Egypt breaking free of the same backed by our money are both good news scenarios for human self-determination. Creating benchmarks that not even we have measured up to in order to downplay their significance and credibility or invoking scare tactics about regions of the world that happen to border with them are laughable and should not be given more validity than a grain of salt, especially considering who is delivering the tactic.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Internalizing Empire
In the wake of the recent protests against the Egyptian leader Mubarak, the dominant focus in the discourse over what position the U.S. should take is not surprisingly predictable: whatever suits our interests. Indeed, many pundits and commentators, as well as politicians, have spoken of the need to do what is best to protect our goals in the region. But for a country that prides itself on being a protector of liberty and freedom, why do we fail to notice the larger irony of such a stance: that perhaps the interests of the Egyptian people and their desires might not be the same as ours?
If we truly respected the sovereignty of the Egyptian people, wouldn't we respect whatever came of their movement? Or would we simply use it as an example to continue viewing the unfolding of world events as a plot against us, further separating our national identity from the context of a global one?
When the U.S. has meddled in affairs before, such as our instrumental role in the coup against the first democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953, we laid the groundwork for a brutal regime to take charge, setting the stage for the 1979 Iranian revolution that has led to the repressive reactionary regime existing today. When we set the stage for Saddam Hussein to become leader of Iraq to take on said Iranian regime, we set the groundwork for a repressive regime to contend with later. This is not to mention the other meddling we've perpetrated in Latin America and other areas abroad, along with the subsequent backlash it entailed.
A failure now to support the movement of a free Egypt would fly in the face of our dominant narrative that the U.S. is a force for democracy and freedom in the world. This does not necessarily mean direct intervention, but at times the humble and non-paternalistic approach of respecting the outcomes of world events. It was the power of Britain and the U.S., afraid of what outcomes the popular election in Iran would mean for its oil supplies that drove the coup of an elected leader. But surely many in the West would agree that our dependence on Middle Eastern oil has brought us much more international folly, which in most cases could have otherwise been avoided, than good.
Our country needs to rethink seriously its current approach to foreign policy that seems to lack context and understanding of its place in world events, and that does not view itself at the center of all things. It's time to revise our approach to foreign affairs and remove this antiquated, ethnocentric mindset that views the wants of the world as in line with ours, and if they aren't, then we ought to make it so. That isn't a country whose ideals line up with those of liberty and freedom. They line up more with hegemony and empire.
The wants and interests of a free Egypt, as it advances slowly (just as the West did) towards a more stable form of democracy, may not be the same interests as ours. It's time the United States, as well as much of the West, faced up to that and accepted it.
If we truly respected the sovereignty of the Egyptian people, wouldn't we respect whatever came of their movement? Or would we simply use it as an example to continue viewing the unfolding of world events as a plot against us, further separating our national identity from the context of a global one?
When the U.S. has meddled in affairs before, such as our instrumental role in the coup against the first democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953, we laid the groundwork for a brutal regime to take charge, setting the stage for the 1979 Iranian revolution that has led to the repressive reactionary regime existing today. When we set the stage for Saddam Hussein to become leader of Iraq to take on said Iranian regime, we set the groundwork for a repressive regime to contend with later. This is not to mention the other meddling we've perpetrated in Latin America and other areas abroad, along with the subsequent backlash it entailed.
A failure now to support the movement of a free Egypt would fly in the face of our dominant narrative that the U.S. is a force for democracy and freedom in the world. This does not necessarily mean direct intervention, but at times the humble and non-paternalistic approach of respecting the outcomes of world events. It was the power of Britain and the U.S., afraid of what outcomes the popular election in Iran would mean for its oil supplies that drove the coup of an elected leader. But surely many in the West would agree that our dependence on Middle Eastern oil has brought us much more international folly, which in most cases could have otherwise been avoided, than good.
Our country needs to rethink seriously its current approach to foreign policy that seems to lack context and understanding of its place in world events, and that does not view itself at the center of all things. It's time to revise our approach to foreign affairs and remove this antiquated, ethnocentric mindset that views the wants of the world as in line with ours, and if they aren't, then we ought to make it so. That isn't a country whose ideals line up with those of liberty and freedom. They line up more with hegemony and empire.
The wants and interests of a free Egypt, as it advances slowly (just as the West did) towards a more stable form of democracy, may not be the same interests as ours. It's time the United States, as well as much of the West, faced up to that and accepted it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)