In light of the recent collapse of the Lebanese government, an interesting expose on a two decade relationship (courtesy of Carl Wege and the Small Wars Journal):
The Hezbollah - North Korean Nexus
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Arab Immolation
Without a word, the symbolic image of man setting himself aflame speaks more than a thousand pages of political manifesto could hope to accomplish. It is disturbing, violent and compelling all at once.
The iconic image of Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation in the middle of a Saigon street shook the American consciousness to the bone. It reaffirmed fears that the United States had involved itself in a political conflict beyond our collective understanding. The real turmoil in 1960's South Vietnam would remain invisible to the Western eye, encoded in a culture we would perpetually misinterpret and misunderstand.
These same distortions pervade popular American thought in the Arab Middle East. In the casino of Arab politics most experts would have bet that the first Arab autocracy to fall to popular protest would succumb to an anti-government popular Islamic revolution. For years we have been fed the line that American tolerance of Arab dictatorships (be they allies like Mubarak and Hussein or quasi-enemies like Assad and Ghadaffi) will breed the anti-American jihad armies of the future. We were told that Arab states have two choices: tyranny or theocracy and repression is the lesser of two evils.
How than do we explain the ousting of Tunisia's former president of the last 20 years (read: dictator) Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali? Massive popular protests against rampant unemployment amongst college graduates coupled with crippling commerce licensing inspired one Tunisian man to set himself ablaze, instigating the chain reaction that would force the Tunisian state to declare a new government today, absent of the Orwellian billboard face of Mr. Ben Ali.
These events would not be worthy of critical speculation if they were only isolated within Tunisia. As of today, 6 more men throughout the Arab world have set themselves on fire protesting unemployment, high food prices, poor living conditions and above all stagnant political discourse from Mauritania to Egypt. Whether or not a democratic government will take hold in Tunesia remains to be seen, but there is a hopefull glimmer that change in the Arab states can come about internally, without American GI's or Islamist revolution.
The iconic image of Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation in the middle of a Saigon street shook the American consciousness to the bone. It reaffirmed fears that the United States had involved itself in a political conflict beyond our collective understanding. The real turmoil in 1960's South Vietnam would remain invisible to the Western eye, encoded in a culture we would perpetually misinterpret and misunderstand.
These same distortions pervade popular American thought in the Arab Middle East. In the casino of Arab politics most experts would have bet that the first Arab autocracy to fall to popular protest would succumb to an anti-government popular Islamic revolution. For years we have been fed the line that American tolerance of Arab dictatorships (be they allies like Mubarak and Hussein or quasi-enemies like Assad and Ghadaffi) will breed the anti-American jihad armies of the future. We were told that Arab states have two choices: tyranny or theocracy and repression is the lesser of two evils.
How than do we explain the ousting of Tunisia's former president of the last 20 years (read: dictator) Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali? Massive popular protests against rampant unemployment amongst college graduates coupled with crippling commerce licensing inspired one Tunisian man to set himself ablaze, instigating the chain reaction that would force the Tunisian state to declare a new government today, absent of the Orwellian billboard face of Mr. Ben Ali.
These events would not be worthy of critical speculation if they were only isolated within Tunisia. As of today, 6 more men throughout the Arab world have set themselves on fire protesting unemployment, high food prices, poor living conditions and above all stagnant political discourse from Mauritania to Egypt. Whether or not a democratic government will take hold in Tunesia remains to be seen, but there is a hopefull glimmer that change in the Arab states can come about internally, without American GI's or Islamist revolution.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Questions of Democracy: The Case of Rhodesia
In the Republic of Plato, democracy leads to tyranny, and in this tyranny Thucydides maxim holds true: “The strong do as they wish, while the weak suffer what they must”.
The 1979 fall of the unquestionably racist U.D.I. regime in Rhodesia (present day Zimbabwe) marked a triumphant victory for anti-colonialists world-wide. However, the former British colony had not fallen by the sword of the Maoist/Communist ZANU and ZAPU insurgent infiltrators; instead Rhodesia had crumbled under the impossibility of prolonged minority rule. Despite the fact that the Rhodesians fought a 15 year war against Chinese, Russian and Cuban backed communist militias; the West abandoned the racist state in a web of sanctions and treachery. Rhodesia was a sacrificial lamb in a Cold War where both sides usually played for keeps. The only real help the Rhodesians received was from Apartheid South Africa (who turned the faucet of military/economic aid on and off in quite a Machiavellian manner, using Rhodesia as a front for Pretoria's protracted war against the ANC and other African nationalists) and the fascist Salazar regime in Portugal who were also struggling to hold on to their southern African “overseas provinces” in Angola and Mozambique.
Despite its anti-democratic, racist qualities, the betrayal and fall of Rhodesia is an interesting bone to chew. Was it as simple as “White racists repress communist blacks and then get their just deserts?” Or are there more difficult questions that freedom loving democrats (with a lower case "D”) would rather not answer.
In 1964, as the Brits clamored for majority rule in British Southern Rhodesia (as it was known at the time), Prime Minister Ian Smith looked north to Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and a plethora of other African states that had submerged into devastating economic turmoil and civil war after the fall of colonial, “white” rule. His reaction is the famous proclamation of “I don’t believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in 1000 years.” In 1965 Rhodesia declared independence from Great Britain, the UDI embodying Rhodesia's refusal of universal sufferage.
Obviously, history has proven Mr. Smith (and other faithful "Rhodies") wrong about the thousand years, but his question remains unanswered: what if democracy leads to famine, economic destabalization, currrency inflation, land nationalization and the (bizarre and cruel) dictatorship of Mr. Robert Mugabe? Should the weak suffer what they must or should the meek inheret the earth?
The 1979 fall of the unquestionably racist U.D.I. regime in Rhodesia (present day Zimbabwe) marked a triumphant victory for anti-colonialists world-wide. However, the former British colony had not fallen by the sword of the Maoist/Communist ZANU and ZAPU insurgent infiltrators; instead Rhodesia had crumbled under the impossibility of prolonged minority rule. Despite the fact that the Rhodesians fought a 15 year war against Chinese, Russian and Cuban backed communist militias; the West abandoned the racist state in a web of sanctions and treachery. Rhodesia was a sacrificial lamb in a Cold War where both sides usually played for keeps. The only real help the Rhodesians received was from Apartheid South Africa (who turned the faucet of military/economic aid on and off in quite a Machiavellian manner, using Rhodesia as a front for Pretoria's protracted war against the ANC and other African nationalists) and the fascist Salazar regime in Portugal who were also struggling to hold on to their southern African “overseas provinces” in Angola and Mozambique.
Despite its anti-democratic, racist qualities, the betrayal and fall of Rhodesia is an interesting bone to chew. Was it as simple as “White racists repress communist blacks and then get their just deserts?” Or are there more difficult questions that freedom loving democrats (with a lower case "D”) would rather not answer.
In 1964, as the Brits clamored for majority rule in British Southern Rhodesia (as it was known at the time), Prime Minister Ian Smith looked north to Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and a plethora of other African states that had submerged into devastating economic turmoil and civil war after the fall of colonial, “white” rule. His reaction is the famous proclamation of “I don’t believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in 1000 years.” In 1965 Rhodesia declared independence from Great Britain, the UDI embodying Rhodesia's refusal of universal sufferage.
Obviously, history has proven Mr. Smith (and other faithful "Rhodies") wrong about the thousand years, but his question remains unanswered: what if democracy leads to famine, economic destabalization, currrency inflation, land nationalization and the (bizarre and cruel) dictatorship of Mr. Robert Mugabe? Should the weak suffer what they must or should the meek inheret the earth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)