Oh, How We Love Our Oriental Rulers!

"If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria.  If you want someone to disappear—never to see them again—you send them to Egypt", Robert Baer once said.

Now, the West loves brutal dictators - as long as they keep their cruelties secret and as long they play by the rules - OUR rules, or - to be more precise - the rules of big business. We loved when crazy Gaddafi  resided in a tent on Donald Trump's property in New York and was eager to supply oil, we loved when the Trabelsi Clan provided us with cheap labor slaves and hotels to serve us Western tourists on Tunesia's golden beaches; we loved the outsourcing, the money laundering and the weapon deals with the Mubarak Clan in Egypt, we loved Yemen's Saleh and offered him refuge just as we liked the Shah of Persia and Saddam, and we still love the Gulf states - especially Saudi Arabia - because we can make such a good business with them and they really manage to keep their fellow citizens down and torture in the dark. And we all know: Syria is next. Assad was good, but he couldn't keep his people effectively under control. So don't wonder why "Obama authorized covert support for Syrian rebels"! This is just the "Syrian war of lies and hypocrisy" as one of the last remaining journalists said. Don't you worry, we'll find another dictator for Syria and then we apply democracy there!

Déjà Vu: Saleh in the US to Drink the Waters

Field Marshal Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen's dictator since 1978, will visit his US friends - officially to have medical treatment. Any associations? Ah, yes, on 22 October 1979, at the request of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, President Jimmy Carter invited the notorious Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, to the US for a treatment, after he had been chased out by the Iranian people. (He had been in power there since 1941, so it somehow looks like that being a long time proconsul for the US may really pay off, provided you play by the rules.)

Do you remember Noam Chomsky on the Ongoing Arab Spring?

News from Egypt

Do you remember the Egyptian Revolution? Shouldn't the elections already been held in September? And what about the emergency law (since 1981), has it been already abolished? What happened after the first televised day of the trial against Mubarak? Is it going on? How did some people storm the Israeli embassy in Cairo? You might be surprised ...

Other posts concerning Egypt on base2014:

A Must See Chomsky Interview

Chomsky On the Ongoing Arab Spring

Mubarak Steps Down From His Throne

Friends of a Dictator

Egypt Uprising - Standard Routine for an Unusual Event

Smart Villages and the City of the Dead

Egypt's Cyber Dissidents

The Illusion of the Independent Dictator

At the end of a previous posting „Grown Men Do Not Need Leaders“ there was a question which is reformulated here: Although in most (Western) democracies there are independent institutions controlling the power of the elected governments (like e.g. supreme court, financial regulation or consumer protection), how come that it doesn't work the way Popper believed it should? (And how come that more and more people have the impression of being faced with a democracy solely on paper, a faked democracy?)

One of the replies to this posting was: „it doesn't work without leaders! People need a leader, a strong hand guiding them!“

One could have expected other objections like that - in practice - the mentioned institutions are neither free nor independent. Thus, the reply is surprising on the one hand. On the other hand, it is not surprising at all, because one can still hear it so often. If you go to Russia for instance, you will hear it all the time. Putin is said to be Russia's hero, because he's the strong hand Russia needs and he prevented the country (or the empire) from further breakdown – in contrast to the much hated Gorbatchov and Jelzin in the nineties. Also in the US, you can hear the call for a strong leadership in ever election campaign and people are often disgusted by fruitless congressional debates. The more chaos, the more demanding the wish for a strong leader. Sometimes it appears to be a kind of reflex … it seems you can't kill it. But it's not a reflex. It's an illusion.

Let's go back to 1944, when Karl Popper's „The Open Society and it's Enemies“ was about to be published. Hitler and Stalin were still in power and they were the epitome of strong leaders – no one can doubt that. Popper stated the theory of (uncontrolled) sovereignty as follows: „that political power is practically unchecked, or for the demand that it ought to be so; together with the implication that the main question left is to get this power into the best hands.“ (chapter 7/I)

But before he starts to argue against this theory, he calls in question the picture of the independent/almighty leader some people were still maintaining at that time. And it is these simple remarks questioning an old and problematic concept – not even arguing against it- which make Popper's writings still so valuable.

„Without entering into a detailed criticism, I wish to point out that there are serious objections against a rash and implicit acceptance of this theory. Whatever its speculative merits may appear to be, it is certainly a very unrealistic assumption. No political power has ever been unchecked, and as long as men remain human (as long as the ‘Brave New World’ has not materialized), there can be no absolute and unrestrained political power. So long as one man cannot accumulate enough physical power in his hands to dominate all others, just so long must he depend upon his helpers. Even the most powerful tyrant depends upon his secret police, his henchmen and his hangmen. This dependence means that his power, great as it may be, is not unchecked, and that he has to make concessions, playing one group off against another. It means that there are other political forces, other powers besides his own, and that he can exert his rule only by utilizing and pacifying them. This shows that even the extreme cases of sovereignty are never cases of pure sovereignty. They are never cases in which the will or the interest of one man (or, if there were such a thing, the will or the interest of one group) can achieve his aim directly, without giving up some of it in order to enlist powers which he cannot conquer. And in an overwhelming number of cases, the limitations of political power go much further than this.“ (Popper [1945], chapter 7/1)

Our Man in Romania

For all the Russians who didn't believe that Nicolae Ceausescu, the cruel dictator of Romania from 1974 to 1989, maintained warm relations to the USA (and the West in general) during the cold war era – as mentioned by Noam Chomsky in a previous post (see "Egypt Uprising ..."): You may want to take a look at Alina Stefanescu's blog

Exploring Ceausescu's warm relationship with the USA: Part 1

Exploring Ceausescu's warm relationship with the USA: Part 2

Like Egypt or Tunesia, Romania under Ceausescu

• was a tourist destination (Ceausescu eagerly welcomed tourists to the Black sea bringing foreign exchange),
• the dictator displayed an Israel-friendly Middle-East Politics,
• he proved his willingness to offer Romanians as cheap wage slaves for joint-ventures with Western firms,
• he had his torturing and killing secret police ("Securitate") between him and the ordinary people
• finally lost (financial) reality and left Romanians starving and 
• fled from the demonstrating crowd by helicopter (before he was finally killed).

Well, and the Queen gave him the Knight Grand Cross - don't forget!

from http://www.vivid.ro

Egypt Uprising - Standard Routine for an Unusual Event

„The United States, so far, is essentially following the usual playbook. I mean, there have been many times when some favored dictator has lost control or is in danger of losing control. There’s a kind of a standard routine—Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, strongly supported by the United States and Britain, Suharto: keep supporting them as long as possible; then, when it becomes unsustainable—typically, say, if the army shifts sides—switch 180 degrees, claim to have been on the side of the people all along, erase the past, and then make whatever moves are possible to restore the old system under new names. That succeeds or fails depending on the circumstances.“

From an interview with Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now!

http://www.zcommunications.org/this-is-the-most-remarkable-regional-uprising-that-i-can-remember-by-noam-chomsky

Noam Chomsky

„Die USA halten sich bislang an das übliche Drehbuch. Ich meine, es ist schon häufiger vorgekommen, dass ein von den USA favorisierter Diktator die Kontrolle verloren hat oder in Gefahr geriet, sie zu verlieren. Es gibt da eine gewisse routinemäßige Standardvorgehensweise - siehe Marcos (Philippinen), Duvalier (Haiti), Ceausecu (Rumänien) oder Suharto in Indonesien/Osttimor (der von den USA und Großbritannien massiv unterstützt wurde). Diese routinemäßige Standardvorgehensweise lautet: Unterstützt sie, solange es geht. Wenn es sich nicht mehr lohnt (typischer Weise ist das der Fall, wenn die Armee die Seiten wechselt), dreht euch um 180 Grad und behauptet, ihr hättet schon immer aufseiten des Volkes gestanden. Vergesst die Vergangenheit und unternehmt alle möglichen Schritte, um das alte System, unter neuer Bezeichnung, wiedereinzuführen. Ob das gelingt, hängt von den jeweiligen Umständen ab.“

Noam Chomsky in an interview with Democracy Now! Translation by Andrea Noll in ZMAG.