Kommentar til tredje TV-debat ml. Romney og Obama (første del).

I nat løb den tredje TV-debat mellem Mitt Romney og Barack Obama af stablen. Denne gang havde debatten den amerikanske udenrigspolitik som sit omdrejnings- punkt. Jeg kommenterer derfor i det følgende på to af de punkter der blev berørt under debatten. 

Droneprogrammet.

Romney om hans holdning til droneprogrammet:

“Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it’s widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.”

Besynderligt er det ikke ligefrem, at Romney støtter op om et våbenprogram som blev sendt i luften af hans republikanske forgænger, men det viser med al ønskelig tydelighed hvor snævert holdningsspektrummet er i TV-debatterne, som alle præsidentkandidater udenfor det herskende topartisystem er udelukket fra, selvom flere af dem er opstillet på stemmesedlen i de fleste amerikanske stater. Romney gjorde det altså ganske klart, at han ikke tilbyder et alternativ til den gældende voldsstrategi, hvorfor folk som er utilfredse med droneprogrammet, ikke har udsigter til nye linjer i den kommende administration, uanset hvem der sidder i toppen af den.

Droneprogrammet var for nylig genstand for sønderlemmende kritik i internationale medier i kølvandet på offentliggørelsen af et omfattende studium af programmets konsekvenser begået af forskere ved de juridiske fakulteter på universiteterne NYU og Stanford. Studiets formål var at foretage “en uafhængig undersøgelse angående hvorvidt, og i hvilket omfang, droneangreb i Pakistan er i overensstemmelse med folkeretten og gør [civile] fortræd.”

Rapporten er baseret på “over 130 detaljerede interviews med ofre og vidner til droneaktivitet, deres familiemedlemmer, nuværende og tidligere pakistanske embedsmænd, repræsentanter fra fem store pakistanske politiske partier, eksperter på området, advokater, lægefaglige professionelle, udviklings- og humanitære arbejdere, medlemmer af civilsamfundet, akademikere og journalister.”

I en opsummering af rapportens resultater kan man læse følgende:

"In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling "targeted killings” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false."

Rapporten beskriver hvordan droneprogrammet påvirker civilbefolkningen i det nordlige Pakistan:

"The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.”

Denne statsterroristiske virksomhed har både Romneys og Obamas fulde opbakning og der var derfor ikke nogen som helst kritisk debat omkring droneprogrammet, da de kandidater som stiller sig kritisk overfor denne magtpraksis, bekvemt var udelukket fra debatten.

Obama-administrationen og Det Arabiske Forår.

Obama gentog i debatten en påstand han også fremførte under sin tale til FN for nylig, nemlig den, at USA stod på demokratiets side under Det Arabiske Forår sidste år. I debatten sagde han således:

"One thing I think Americans should be proud of, when Tunisians began to protest, this nation -- me, my administration -- stood with them earlier than just about any country. In Egypt we stood on the side of democracy. In Libya we stood on the side of the people."

Obama forsøger her at positionere sig på den kønnere side af historieskrivningen, idet han eksplicit nævner, at man støttede op om de ægyptiske, tunesiske og libyske befolkninger, mens han implicit siger, at USA var en stærk støtte for de mellemøstlige og nordafrikanske befolkninger, i deres kamp mod deres undertrykkere.

Obamas påstand om støtte til den ægyptiske befolkning er imidlertid ikke i nærheden af at være sand. Obama-administrationen støttede Hosni Mubaraks styre indtil ganske kort tid før præsidentens fald. Man trak først støtten og stillede sig retorisk på befolkningens side, da det var tydeligt, at Mubarak-styret med stor sandsynlighed ville falde. Da Obama gav sit første interview til BBC i Juni 2009 omtalte han Mubarak som en "stålsat allieret" og "en stabiliserende kraft i regionen". Til spørgsmålet: "Anser du Mubarak for at være en autoritær leder?" svarede Obama "nej" og tilføjede: "Jeg undlader at klistre mærkater på folk".

Mubaraks Ægypten var næstefter Israel regionens største modtager af amerikansk støtte. Dette var ikke noget nyt som pludseligt opstod under Obama. Hans administration fortsatte blot over tredive års årlige økonomiske støtte i størrelsesordenen milliarder af amerikanske dollars. Dette til trods for, at man fra amerikansk officiel side vurderede menneskeretttighedssituationen ganske dyster. I udenrigsministeriets rapport fra 2008 kan man således læse den officielle vurdering af de ægyptiske tilstande under Hosni Mubarak.

Regeringens »respekt for menneskerettigheder forblev lav, og alvorlige misbrug fortsatte på mange områder … Sikkerhedsstyrkerne brugte uberrettiget dødbringende vold og torturerede og misbrugte fanger og tilbageholdne, i de fleste tilfælde straffrit. Vilkårene i fængsler og arrester var dårlige. Sikkerhedsstyrker anholdte og tilbageholdte individer vilkårligt, i nogle tilfælde af politiske grunde, og man holdt dem langvarigt varetægtsfængslede. Den udøvende magt udøvede kontrol over og pres på den dømmende magt. Regeringens respekt for foreningsfriheden og religionsfriheden vedblev med at være lav gennem året, og regeringen fortsatte med at begrænse NGOers virke. Regeringen begrænsede delvis ytringsfriheden.«

Det var imidlertid ikke blot i Ægypten, at Obama-administrationen ikke stod på de demokratiske aspirationers side. I Bahrain er støtten til styret fortsat, til trods for både voldsomme og enorme folkelige protester i hovedstaden og hinsides. Årsagen til dette er, at Bahrain huser den femte amerikanske flådebase hvorfor kongeriget tilhører en af de væsentligste amerikanske militære alliancepartnere i regionen. 

For en nærmere gennemgang, hvori det demonstreres, at Obama-administrationen støtter op om voldsomt repressive og udemokratiske regimer verden over, se min artikel fra 2010.

Anden del: Spørgsmålet om Irans atomprogram.

Orientalisten Thomas Friedman.

Den verdenskendte klummeskribent og politiske kommentator ved New York Times, Thomas Friedman, havde den 2. marts en klumme i avisen hvor han postulerer, at revolutionerne i Mellemøsten blandt andet kan tilskrives Obamas nu så berømte Cairo-tale, samt hans mellemnavn og hudfarve, og at dette var blandt årsagerne til at egypterne rejste sig mod deres (amerikansk støttede) diktator. Denne og Friedmans øvrige årsagsforklaringer gendrives på Counterpunch af Esam al-Amin som anklager Friedman for at være orientalistisk anlagt.

Wael Ghonim: Inside the Egyptian revolution

Anbefalelsesværdig kommentar af Robert Fisk

There is nothing like an Arab revolution to show up the hypocrisy of your friends. Especially if that revolution is one of civility and humanism and powered by an overwhelming demand for the kind of democracy that we enjoy in Europe and America. The pussyfooting nonsense uttered by Obama and La Clinton these past two weeks is only part of the problem. From "stability" to "perfect storm" – Gone With the Wind might have recommended itself to the State Department if they really must pilfer Hollywood for their failure to adopt moral values in the Middle East – we've ended up with the presidential "now-means-yesterday", and "orderly transition", which translates: no violence while ex-air force General Mubarak is put out to graze so that ex-intelligence General Suleiman can take over the regime on behalf of America and Israel.

Fox News has already told its viewers in America that the Muslim Brotherhood – about the "softest" of Islamist groups in the Middle East – is behind the brave men and women who have dared to resist the state security police, while the mass of French "intellectuals" (the quotation marks are essential for poseurs like Bernard-Henri Lévy have turned, in Le Monde's imperishable headline, into "the intelligentsia of silence".

And we all know why. Alain Finkelstein talks about his "admiration" for the democrats but also the need for "vigilance" - and this is surely a low point for any 'philosophe' – "because today we know above all that we don't know how everything is going to turn out." This almost Rumsfeldian quotation is gilded by Lévy's own preposterous line that "it is essential to take into account the complexity of the situation". Oddly enough that is exactly what the Israelis always say when some misguided Westerner suggests that Israel should stop stealing Arab land in the West Bank for its colonists.
Indeed Israel's own reaction to the momentous events in Egypt – that this might not be the time for democracy in Egypt (thus allowing it to keep the title of "the only democracy in the Middle East") – has been as implausible as it has been self-defeating. Israel will be much safer surrounded by real democracies than by vicious dictators and autocratic kings. To his enormous credit, the French historian Daniel Lindenberg told the truth this week. "We must, alas, admit the reality: many intellectuals believe, deep down, that the Arab people are congenitally backward."

There is nothing new in this. It applies to our subterranean feelings about the whole Muslim world. Chancellor Merkel of Germany announces that multiculturalism doesn't work, and a pretender to the Bavarian royal family told me not so long ago that there were too many Turks in Germany because "they didn't want to be part of German society". Yet when Turkey itself – as near a perfect blend of Islam and democracy as you can find in the Middle East right now – asks to join the European Union and share our Western civilisation, we search desperately for any remedy, however racist, to prevent her membership.

In other words, we want them to be like us, providing they stay away. And then, when they prove they want to be like us but don't want to invade Europe, we do our best to install another American-trained general to rule them. Just as Paul Wolfowitz reacted to the Turkish parliament's refusal to allow US troops to invade Iraq from southern Turkey by asking if "the generals don't have something to say about this", we are now reduced to listening while US defence secretary Robert Gates fawns over the Egyptian army for their "restraint" – apparently failing to realise that it is the people of Egypt, the proponents of democracy, who should be praised for their restraint and non-violence, not a bunch of brigadiers.

So when the Arabs want dignity and self-respect, when they cry out for the very future which Obama outlined in his famous – now, I suppose, infamous – Cairo speech of June 2009, we show them disrespect and casuistry. Instead of welcoming democratic demands, we treat them as a disaster. It is an infinite relief to find serious American journalists like Roger Cohen going "behind the lines" on Tahrir Square to tell the unvarnished truth about this hypocrisy of ours. It is an unmitigated disgrace when their leaders speak. Macmillan threw aside colonial pretensions of African unpreparedness for democracy by talking of the "wind of change". Now the wind of change is blowing across the Arab world. And we turn our backs upon it.

The Independent: Robert Fisk: Hypocrisy is exposed by the wind of change.

Dancing in Tahrir

Journalists førstehåndsberetning om det ægyptiske tortur-regime.

The sickening, rapid click-click-clicking of the electrocuting device sounded like an angry rattlesnake as it passed within inches of my face. Then came a scream of agony, followed by a pitiful whimpering from the handcuffed, blindfolded victim as the force of the shock propelled him across the floor.

A hail of vicious punches and kicks rained down on the prone bodies next to me, creating loud thumps. The torturers screamed abuse all around me. Only later were their chilling words translated to me by an Arabic-speaking colleague: "In this hotel, there are only two items on the menu for those who don't behave – electrocution and rape."...

The Guardian: 28 hours in the dark heart of Egypt's torture machine.

Ægypten: Fremtrædende medlemmer af regeringspartiet træder tilbage

MP Mamdouh Hosny, director of the Industry and Energy Committee and ruling National Democratic Party’s (NDP) representative for the Ghirbal district in Alexandria, resigned from the party.

A source from within the Federation of Industries also revealed that a number of its members planned to resign from the party.

The same source said that Mahmoud Suleiman, the Deputy Chairman of the Chamber of Chemical Industries and the NDP’s Economic Committee member in parliament, had also resigned from the party several days ago.

Al Masry Al Youm: Senior NDP officials resign from party.

Kina: Lad Ægypterne bestemme selv.

China said on Thursday foreign powers should stay out of Egypt's affairs, in an oblique swipe at the United States and some European countries that have put pressure on embattled President Hosni Mubarak to step down.

"China advocates that Egyptian affairs should be determined by the Egyptian people, and should not face outside interference," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said at a regular press briefing.

"We believe Egypt has the wisdom and ability to find the proper solution and get through this difficult time," he added.

Beijing's stance reflects its reluctance to criticise authoritarian governments in the developing world and its long-held policy of denouncing foreign interference in domestic affairs, especially external criticism of Chinese policies.

Reuters: China says Egypt should decide future on its own.

Wikileaks: Ægyptens torturbødler har modtaget træning hos FBI.

According to leaked diplomatic cables, the head of the Egyptian state security and investigative service (SSIS) thanked the US for “training opportunities” at the FBI academy in Quantico, Virginia. The SSIS has been repeatedly accused of using violence and brutality to help prop up the regime of President Hosni Mubarak. In April, 2009, the US ambassador in Cairo stated that “Egypt’s police and domestic security services continue to be dogged by persistent, credible allegations of abuse of detainees.

“The Interior Ministry uses SSIS to monitor and sometimes infiltrate the political opposition and civil society. SSIS suppresses political opposition through arrests, harassment and intimidation.”

In October, 2009, “credible” human rights lawyers representing alleged Hizbollah detainees provided details of the techniques employed by the SSIS. The cable states: “The lawyers told us in mid-October that they have compiled accounts from several defendants of GOE [Government of Egypt] torture by electric shocks, sleep deprivation, and stripping them naked for extended periods.

The Telegraph: WikiLeaks: Egyptian 'torturers' trained by FBI

Den ægyptiske hær tilbageholder og torturerer demonstranter

The Egyptian military has secretly detained hundreds and possibly thousands of suspected government opponents since mass protests against President Hosni Mubarak began, and at least some of these detainees have been tortured, according to testimony gathered by the Guardian.

The military has claimed to be neutral, merely keeping anti-Mubarak protesters and loyalists apart. But human rights campaigners say this is clearly no longer the case, accusing the army of involvement in both disappearances and torture – abuses Egyptians have for years associated with the notorious state security intelligence (SSI) but not the army [...]

Among those detained have been human rights activists, lawyers and journalists, but most have been released. However, Hossam Bahgat, director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights in Cairo, said hundreds, and possibly thousands, of ordinary people had "disappeared" into military custody across the country for no more than carrying a political flyer, attending the demonstrations or even the way they look. Many were still missing.

"Their range is very wide, from people who were at the protests or detained for breaking curfew to those who talked back at an army officer or were handed over to the army for looking suspicious or for looking like foreigners even if they were not," he said. "It's unusual and to the best of our knowledge it's also unprecedented for the army to be doing this."

The Guardian: Egypt's army 'involved in detentions and torture'.

Fremragende baggrundsartikel om Omar Suleiman

Under the Bush administration, in the context of "the global war on terror", US renditions became "extraordinary", meaning the objective of kidnapping and extra-legal transfer was no longer to bring a suspect to trial - but rather for interrogation to seek actionable intelligence. The extraordinary rendition program landed some people in CIA black sites - and others were turned over for torture-by-proxy to other regimes. Egypt figured large as a torture destination of choice, as did Suleiman as Egypt’s torturer-in-chief. At least one person extraordinarily rendered by the CIA to Egypt — Egyptian-born Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib — was reportedly tortured by Suleiman himself....

...A far more infamous torture case, in which Suleiman also is directly implicated, is that of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi. Unlike Habib, who was innocent of any ties to terror or militancy, al-Libi was allegedly a trainer at al-Khaldan camp in Afghanistan. He was captured by the Pakistanis while fleeing across the border in November 2001. He was sent to Bagram, and questioned by the FBI. But the CIA wanted to take over, which they did, and he was transported to a black site on the USS Bataan in the Arabian Sea, then extraordinarily rendered to Egypt. Under torture there, al-Libi "confessed" knowledge about an al-Qaeda–Saddam connection, claiming that two al-Qaeda operatives had received training in Iraq for use in chemical and biological weapons. In early 2003, this was exactly the kind of information that the Bush administration was seeking to justify attacking Iraq and to persuade reluctant allies to go along. Indeed, al-Libi’s "confession" was one the central pieces of "evidence" presented at the United Nations by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to make the case for war...

...Omar Suleiman is not the man to bring democracy to the country. His hands are too dirty, and any 'stability' he might be imagined to bring to the country and the region comes at way too high a price. Hopefully, the Egyptians who are thronging the streets and demanding a new era of freedom will make his removal from power part of their demands, too.

Al Jazeera: Suleiman: The CIA's man in Cairo.

Dina Guirguis: After Mubarak, What's Next for Egypt?

Egyptians seek a democratic transformation, not another military dictatorship or a theocracy. Hosni Mubarak should transfer his presidential powers and step down. A transitional national unity government representing diverse political forces and composed of respected independent figures should be installed; their first order of business should be to lift Egypt's notorious "emergency" law, with which Mubarak has governed the country for 30 years. Next, they should approve the formation of a committee of independent legal experts to draft a new constitution enshrining principles of true citizenship, religious and political pluralism, and the civil (non-religious) nature of the Egyptian state. The military should preserve and protect Egypt's newly drafted constitution and the civil nature of the state.

Washington Post: After Mubarak, What's Next for Egypt?

ElBaradei: Mubarak should leave office to keep his dignity.

Potential presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei said President Mubarak should retire and leave office to keep his dignity.

In an interview with On TV satellite channel late on Sunday, ElBaradei said the Egyptian regime had lost its credibility and legitimacy, describing it as "pharaonic" for depending on only one person. The young protestors in Tahrir Square think Mubarak's resignation will resolve many of the problems they are protesting about.

“I hope Mubarak will respond,” ElBaradei added. “The regime is eroding as National Democratic Party figures quit, and many ministers have been referred to trial. The regime depends solely on Mubarak. Speaking of a void that would occur if Mubarak leaves proves the whole regime depends on him--which should never happen in any country.”

ElBaradei said Egyptian youth took to the streets on 25 January to call for a free, democratic system that does not rely on individuals.

We shouldn’t concern ourselves with the US stance towards the protests in Egypt, he pointed out, saying change will be achieved by Egyptians.

He also said “I don’t think the Muslim Brotherhood will come to power. They told me they won’t nominate anyone for the presidential elections and will run for only 30 percent of parliamentary seats. They don’t represent the majority of Egyptians."

Al Masry Al Youm: ElBaradei: Mubarak should leave office to keep his dignity.

West Backs [Suleiman's] Gradual Egyptian Transition.

The United States and leading European nations on Saturday threw their weight behind Egypt’s vice president, Omar Suleiman, backing his attempt to defuse a popular uprising without immediately removing President Hosni Mubarak from power.

American officials said Mr. Suleiman had promised them an “orderly transition” that would include constitutional reform and outreach to opposition groups.

“That takes some time,” Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton said, speaking at a Munich security conference. “There are certain things that have to be done in order to prepare.”

But the formal endorsement came as Mr. Suleiman appeared to reject the protesters’ main demands, including the immediate resignation of Mr. Mubarak and the dismantling of a political system built around one-party rule, according to leaders of a small, officially authorized opposition party who spoke with Mr. Suleiman on Saturday.

Nor has Mr. Suleiman, a former general, former intelligence chief and Mr. Mubarak’s longtime confidant, yet reached out to the leaders designated by the protesters to negotiate with the government, opposition groups said.

Instead of loosening its grip, the existing government appeared to be consolidating its power: The prime minister said police forces were returning to the streets, and an army general urged protesters to scale back their occupation of Tahrir Square.

NYTimes: West Backs Gradual Egyptian Transition.

Michael Irving Jensen og Søren Espersen diskuterer Ægypten

2 Detained Reporters Saw Police’s Methods

To New York Times journalisters vidnesbyrd omhandlende deres møde med det ægyptiske styres hemmelige politi.

Captivity was terrible. We felt powerless — uncertain about where and how long we would be held. But the worst part had nothing to do with our treatment. It was seeing — and in particular hearing through the walls of this dreadful facility — the abuse of Egyptians at the hands of their own government.

For one day, we were trapped in the brutal maze where Egyptians are lost for months or even years. Our detainment threw into haunting relief the abuses of security services, the police, the secret police and the intelligence service, and explained why they were at the forefront of complaints made by the protesters.

Many journalists shared this experience, and many were kept in worse conditions — some suffering from injuries as well.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, over the period we were held there were 30 detentions of journalists, 26 assaults and 8 instances of equipment being seized. We saw a journalist with his head bandaged and others brought in with jackets thrown over their heads as they were led by armed men.

In the morning, we could hear the strained voice of a man with a French accent calling out in English: “Where am I? What is happening to me? Answer me. Answer me.”

This prompted us into action — pressing to be released with more urgency, and indeed fear, than before. A plainclothes officer who said his name was Marwan gestured to us. “Come to the door,” he said, “and look out.”

We saw more than 20 people, Westerners and Egyptians, blindfolded and handcuffed. The room had been empty when we arrived the evening before.

“We could be treating you a lot worse,” he said in a flat tone, the facts speaking for themselves. Marwan said Egyptians were being held in the thousands. During the night we heard them being beaten, screaming after every blow.

NYTimes: 2 Detained Reporters Saw Police’s Methods.

Chomsky: It's Not Radical Islam That Worries The US – It's Independence

The current hope appears to be Mubarak loyalist Gen. Omar Suleiman, just named Egypt’s vice president. Suleiman, the longtime head of the intelligence services, is despised by the rebelling public almost as much as the dictator himself.

A common refrain among pundits is that fear of radical Islam requires (reluctant) opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. While not without some merit, the formulation is misleading. The general threat has always been independence. In the Arab world, the United States and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.

A familiar example is Saudi Arabia, the ideological center of radical Islam (and of Islamic terror). Another in a long list is Zia ul-Haq, the most brutal of Pakistan’s dictators and President Reagan’s favorite, who carried out a program of radical Islamization (with Saudi funding).

Chomsky: It's Not Radical Islam That Worries The US – It's Independence.

Egypt: Exchanging a Dictator for a Torturer.

As it now stands, the United States appears content to contemplate exchanging Hosni Mubarak for Egypt's new Vice President, Omar Suleiman, the Egyptian spy master--that is, one dictator for another-- to maintain the status quo. Of course, Israel must sign off on this deal, assuring the U.S. that Egypt can remain as its main base in the region, straddling as it does North Africa and the Middle East. Without it, the U.S. would most definitely have to rethink its entire neo-colonial policies in the region.

As for Suleiman, he looks to be a nasty piece of work....

Mother jones: Egypt: Exchanging a Dictator for a Torturer.

Are We Witnessing the Start of a Global Revolution?

It seems as if the world is entering the beginnings of a new revolutionary era: the era of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’ While this ‘awakening’ is materializing in different regions, different nations and under different circumstances, it is being largely influenced by global conditions. The global domination by the major Western powers, principally the United States, over the past 65 years, and more broadly, centuries, is reaching a turning point. The people of the world are restless, resentful, and enraged. Change, it seems, is in the air. As the above quotes from Brzezinski indicate, this development on the world scene is the most radical and potentially dangerous threat to global power structures and empire. It is not a threat simply to the nations in which the protests arise or seek change, but perhaps to a greater degree, it is a threat to the imperial Western powers, international institutions, multinational corporations and banks that prop up, arm, support and profit from these oppressive regimes around the world. Thus, America and the West are faced with a monumental strategic challenge: what can be done to stem the Global Political Awakening? Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the chief architects of American foreign policy, and arguably one of the intellectual pioneers of the system of globalization. Thus, his warnings about the 'Global Political Awakening' are directly in reference to its nature as a threat to the prevailing global hierarchy. As such, we must view the 'Awakening' as the greatest hope for humanity. Certainly, there will be mainy failures, problems, and regressions; but the 'Awakening' has begun, it is underway, and it cannot be so easily co-opted or controlled as many might assume.

The reflex action of the imperial powers is to further arm and support the oppressive regimes, as well as the potential to organize a destabilization through covert operations or open warfare (as is being done in Yemen). The alterantive is to undertake a strategy of "democratization" in which Western NGOs, aid agencies and civil society organizations establish strong contacts and relationships with the domestic civil society in these regions and nations. The objective of this strategy is to organize, fund and help direct the domestic civil society to produce a democratic system made in the image of the West, and thus maintain continuity in the international hierarchy. Essentially, the project of "democratization" implies creating the outward visible constructs of a democratic state (multi-party elections, active civil society, "independent" media, etc) and yet maintain continuity in subservience to the World Bank, IMF, multinational corporations and Western powers.

It appears that both of these strategies are being simultaneously imposed in the Arab world: enforcing and supporting state oppression and building ties with civil society organizations. The problem for the West, however, is that they have not had the ability to yet establish strong and dependent ties with civil society groups in much of the region, as ironically, the oppressive regimes they propped up were and are unsurprisingly resistant to such measures. In this sense, we must not cast aside these protests and uprisings as being instigated by the West, but rather that they emerged organically, and the West is subsequently attempting to co-opt and control the emerging movements.

Global Research: Are We Witnessing the Start of a Global Revolution?