Choking the Arab Spring

There has been lots of euphoric language concerning the last 6 months of unrest in the Middle East. We hear of rolling revolutions, in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya and more recently we are told of impending genocide in the latter case that would have been the inevitable result of Western inaction. Are these descriptions accurate? Have we really seen even one revolution? Is genocide a remotely satisfactory term to describe Gaddafi’s reprisals?

In the first case a revolution such as compared to historic benchmarks The American, French, Russian, Cuban or Chinese has not yet taken place. Indeed in the case of Egypt we have seen widespread revolt against a repressive and long lived dictatorship. Our dictator came from the military, and he has been replaced by the same military. The Egyptian military was lauded for its restraint, for backing the people. This same military could be argued to have been very much hedging its bets. It was not simply the security forces that killed protestors, the military too played a part, and untill the last week or so was still operating very closely with the Mubarak regime. It allowed pro Mubarak armed supporters to have their fun. Since the coup -for by any standards that is what the removal of Mubarak ammounted to- the military has been rather cadgy about its intentions,  it has not relased all political prisoners, it has opened but then promptly closed –and kept closed- the crossing to Gaza . It has brought a number of key members of the dictatorship before the courts, but this is hardly revolutionary.

The US had sent its special envoy to Egypt just prior to the removal of Mubarak, the question is how much is the US involved in backing this venerable ‘peoples’ military?

In Tunisia much the same has taken place, people are still on the streets for very good reason. Likwise international interference is visible, perhaps more visible than in Egypt. With particular cynicism the French govermnet has on several occasions prevented Tunisian citizens from accessing documentation concerning Ben Ali and French governmental ties at the Tunisian embassy in Paris, this has been done in support of an interim governmnet in Tunisia that hardly has any democratic basis, and is –as the protests have shown- not necissarily responsive to the people’s demands.

What is revolutionary in these cases is widespread technically savvied protest against states that 20 years ago may have quite happily murdered them in the thousands, while these are perhaps revoltuioanry times, they are not, yet revolutions.

The situation in Libya is much more contentious. The term genocide to describe the fate of the peoples in Benghazi and Mistara, if left to Gadaffis vengence is not just hyperbole, there were reports of mass rape as a practice advocated by the regime, mass killing, mercinaries  and such, nearly all of which appears to not to have been supported by much in the way of evidence. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have failed to locate any evidence of a practice of mass rape, let alone genocide, and the accusations of African Mercinaries look increasingly like a western misenterpretation of communal violence directed at migrant workers.

To be sure there has been governmnet repression and considerable violence, but genocide? An organized practice of mass killing based on some ethnic destinction? This was not taking place. There are tribal loyalties that can be seen in some parts of the country and not in others, but to represent this as an ethnic conflict with next to no analysis of the ethnic composition of the country is grossly distorting of reality.

What is taking place is a revolt against a dictator and his violent response; this is not the same as genocide, of which there is really no evidence. What is happening in Libya is not particularly distinct when compared to that in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, yet not once have these cases been referred to as genocide.

In Bharian and Iraq –where alternatively violence has often drawn down on ethnic lines- the abscence of condemnation and coverage is conspicious. In Bahrain where activists and those who sought to offer them medical treatment have been arrested, subject to show trials, tortured and imprisoned, yet there is hardly a wink from the international community. The US has paid lip service to the struggle, supporting the farcical ‘dialouge’ between protestors and a regime that has slandered, killed and tortured them in droves. The crown prince was quietly hosted at the White House last month. The US has great interests in Bahrain, the home of its 5^th fleet, yet this has not translated into diplomatic pressure. Pressure that the US could easily afford to put on the governmnet and the Saudi army occupation of the country.

Lastly in Iraq –supposedly a budding young democracy- protest has been met with repression and the killing of protestors, but you could be forgiven for not noticing it. It has been near universially excised from media coverage, and there has been no mention of it from the pulpits of Western governmnets. Human Rights Watch reported this week that the Iraqi government has been arming plain clothes security forces and sending them into protests to ferment violence and crush dissent, much as was seen in Egypt. Whilst Tunisia and Egypt have seen dictators removed, Iraq has a new one in Al-Maliki. It is disturbing that Human Rights Watch reports locate govermnet sponsored thugs directed from the ministry of the interiour, the same ministry that several years ago was sponsoring death squads throughout the country. This is in part what the insurgency was a response to –Sunni resistance to Shi’a domination of governmnet- the US led Coalition would do well to condemm this renewed action lest Iraq slide into fully fledged dictatorship, civil war or worse.

These rebellions are not yet revolutions, for them to become so the forces that have dominated these countries for years need to be removed and replaced with something better. In Bahrain and Iraq one assumes brutal civil war waits if communal grevances are met with repression rather than reform. Egypt does not need a military junta, France needs to bite its tounge and accept that if the ex leaders of Tunisia are to be tried, then their dirty laundry may have to be aired in public. If the international community wants to try Gaddafi then it would do well to stop attempting to kill him.

Pakistan’s Double Game

In the light of the US assassination of Osama Bin Laden, who it turned out was hiding in plain sight at the supposed heart of the Pakistani military establishment, much has been made of the relationship between Pakistan’s military and islamist movements in the country. David Cameron proclaimed that Pakistan was ‘looking both ways’ in its dealings with the West and its war on terror. Is such behaviour surprising? Is such behaviour confined to our allies in the region? I would argue to both questions; it is not.

From the earliest days of US support for the mujahidin in Afghanistan  Pakistan has been at the buisness end of dealings with the various militant groups in the region. Much of the capital that backed the proliferation of madrasses in Pakistan came from the US allied Saudi regime, support for the mujahidin came from the US via Pakistan, training for the same groups took place in Pakistan and those that would become the Taliban under Mullah Omar were raised, radicalized and mobilized in refugee camps bordering Afghanistan.  Indeed it is argued that the Pashtun dominated areas that straddle both Afghanistan and Pakistan, these provinces -broadly Helmand, Kandahar and Kabul (bordering Balochistan, North and South Waziristan in Pakistan)- are where Nato’s surge has faced most violent resistance.

Pakistan’s ‘double game’ most recently considered, is a series of treaties with newly predominant tribal groupings in North Wiziristan where failed attempts to assert the power of the Pakistani state in the tribal provinces have led to a truce between the ‘Waziristan’ Taliban and the Pakistani state. The treaties essentially guarentee the autonomy of the tribal militants from Pakistani state interference, and guarantee that these militias will report and not support forigen fighters in the area, for our purposes let’s call these ‘foreigners’ Al-Qa’eda (they actually feature Uzbeks, Tajiks and even militants from China) . However these new tribal players are closely linked and supported by Al-Qe’ada, perhaps now more closely than are the Afghan Taliban.

A very similar strategy of negotiation had been pursuded in Iraq during the ‘surge’ (the terminology surge is misleading in Iraq, as actually through the withdrawal of US allies, total troop numbers were going down) . In Anbar province the US struck a deal with Sunni militias, the US would pay fighters a regular salary to turn thier guns from occupation forces to Al-Qa’eda in Iraq. This was regarded as a breakthrough in US involvement in Iraq, by empowering the Sunni militias against a preponderant Shi’a majority and the ALQ-in-Iraq forces that plagued the occupation the US was able to draw down its forces on the ground.

Pakistans adopting of a similar strategy is not particularly new, indeed one wonders whether the Pakistani practice actually inspired the move in Iraq. That Pakistan has had to persistently adopt such tactics to deal with the militants within its borders is directly related to US actions in Afghanistan, both in the 80’s and today.

Firstly the initial offensive in 2001 saw the majority of surviving foreign fighters and Pashtun Taliban cross the border into Pakistan. It is highly likely that Bin Laden and Zwahiri had been in Pakistan ever since. Though ALQ and the various ‘Talibans’ are closely linked they are not one organization. There has been an alleged split or divergence of interests between the Afghan Taliban under Mullah Omar on one side and  Al-Qa’eda and emerging Pakistani militias or ‘Al-Qa’eda in Pakistan’ on the other. The former are concerned with retaking Afghanistan. The latter have wider designs, initially the plan was to bring the US army into the ‘swamp’ of Afghanistan and fight it on their own terms. This is now extended to include bringing the jihad to Pakistan, India –through bombings and destablizing tactics such as the Mumbai massacre- and the wider central asian region.

The Musharraf regime, under US pressure agreed to move forces from the Kashmir border to combat the rising power of these new militants and their foreign allies. This was contrary to the conservative nationalist sentiments of the Pakistani military, which like a majority in Pakistan saw India as the primary enemy. Military feelings were further brusied by the purging of islamist inclined officers from the ranks of the army and subsequent defeats at the hands of the new militants in the border regions.

The radicalization of the Pakistani military has been an issue for years, and the active engadgement with the muhajidin in Afghanistan in the 1980’s saw ties established that would be consolidated in the Kashmiri conflict. The war on terror and US pressure on Musharraf and his successors has seen a continuation of dispersal through removal by the state and defection of numerous officers, firstly into paramilitary groups engaged in Kashmir, then into Afghanistan and now into the Waziristan region. That the US claims to have killed or captured Pakistani soldiers fighting against them in Afghanistan is small surprise

Just as the Pakistani military may have been involved in hiding the presence of Bin Laden from the US, the US has –intentionally or otherwise- behaved in a similar manner, from a Pakistani perspective. A key Pakistani militant Abdullah Meshud was captured by US forces in combat in Afghanistan in 2001, he was transported to Guantanamo where he remained for over two years until he was allowed to return to the border regions, where he quickly returned to engage in war with the Pakistani State.

Consistent US support for Pakistan against the USSR and now its new jihadist replacements has seen brutal dictatorship, war with India, rampant internecine intrigue and corruption, the assassination of US puppet and presidential hopeful Bhutto and the incremental disintegration of what little state power there has ever been in Pakistan.

It is eminently possible that the practices seen in Iraq could be reproduced in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The new tribal players in the border regions have been placated by the Pakistani regime before and at the expense of the ‘foreigners’. However negotiations are likely to fail –as has been the case before- if the US continues to act unilaterally with its special forces in the border regions. This action undermines the Pakistani state itself and potential negotiations; why should those on the ground negotiate at all if the very state that they reside in cannot offer credible guarantees? The issues concerning the efficacy of US action inside Pakistan are numerous enough to fill another post, but suffice to say, as accurate as advocates of drones claim them to be, accuracy is irrelevant if intelligence is inadequate, which it consistently is.

The US can afford to engage in such grand scale overtures. The tribal ‘Talibans’ of Pakistan and Afghanistan cannot be removed from the picture, they will always be there, the foreigners on the other hand are of a much smaller number and if it serves the interests of the tribal players could effectively be routed. This it seems is the only viable option available

Neither the US or Pakistan sees their various wars in black and white, to accuse Pakistan of a double game is only to admit that the US has been playing much the same game for years. As such it seems the only mutually beneficial exit strategy for all concerned is the double game, at the expense of those who are essentially the enemies of all.

Lunatic Fantasies, Beginian Public relations: Israeli unreality and the Freedom Flotilla

 Over the next few days we will be hearing - or at least noticing the conspicuous absence of- reports concerning international civil society’s latest attempt to breach Israel’s blockade over the Gaza strip. In the light of last year’s attack, the blatant manipulation of events by the Israeli media machine and the ramping up of international diplomatic pressure from Israel and the US on various Mediterranean governments and their own citizens to dissuade any cooperation with the project, it is worth considering the peculiar internal dynamics of the current situation.

There are several things that need to be noted, if we take Israel’s collective punishment of a civilian population for its democratic preferences as an acceptable given –which of course it isn’t- and just look at the issue of breaching the siege. Firstly there does not seem any reason why the Israeli navy could not have negotiated inspections of the flotilla ships as they arrive, Israel’s navy is an advanced military machine, it could inspect the ships thoroughly and confiscate what it considers to be dangerous contraband. Of course the Israeli government will maintain that it cannot conduct such a search with the violent opposition it faces. This might be convincing if we consider violent opposition the norm. However there were several reasons that violence erupted on the Mavi Marmara, and -as Israeli military spokesmen noted- not on other vessels.

Arriving at 5am, little or no prior communication with the vessels, firing rubber bullets from helicopters, -there were injuries on board before a single commando had abseiled onto the deck- this kind of greeting is going to incite a problematic reaction. The vast majority of passengers did not fight back, some did, which given the reputation of the Israeli military was foolish, but it hardly takes an Islamic extremist to defend one’s self in deliberately destabilized circumstances. Other vessels passengers reacted passively, they were still truncheoned and handcuffed in stress positions in the summer heat for hours, they were still arrested, had their belongings confiscated and were then deported.

The exercise of confiscating aid destined for Gaza is a political act, and has little to do with pragmatism under exceptional circumstances. It is Israel saying to Gaza and the rest of international civil society; “We are in charge, we will deal with this at our discretion, with impunity”

Much was made in both Israeli government press releases –which the BBC, ITV, FOX, CNN and co transcribed verbatim- and in discussion in the UK the US and elsewhere of the extremist character of  passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara. We were told that they were ‘The terrorists’, the language of discussion slipped so easily into such terminology an ignorant observer would assume that these were heavily armed individuals in Kevlar, wrapped in ammunition belts, RPG’s atop shoulders, rather than slingshots and whatever came to hand. This is of course the point; fling enough shit, some of it sticks. Substitute Palestinian boys with rocks, to Turkish boys with sticks and you’re there.

What was removed from mainstream discourse was that there were a number of Nobel Laureates on board, and several members of the Israeli Knesset. Are we to assume that they would be happily consorting with heavily armed terrorists? It would seem absurd, but if one looks at the way Israel has dealt with criticism in the past, a familiarity with absurdity is in fact a key technical practice.

In the 1980’s when settler practice was attracting considerable criticism from within Israel as well as from without, Meacham Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Moshe Dayan had some interesting advice for demagogic advocates of religious nationalism.  Shamir advised that activists “should refuse to respond rationally to arguments” as such reasonable responses would “imply that some sort of conditionality was attached” to the future shape of Israel. This is the classic ‘straw man’ tactic for avoiding reasonable debate on a subject. It is adopted today in numerous situations. Therefore Alan Dershowitz can scream anti-semitism at any and all who criticise the state of Israel, his statement that Norman Finkelstien, would be an anti-Semite, if only he weren’t Jewish, is a particularly stark example of the tactical lunacy of Zionist activism.

In relation to the flotilla this kind of disinformatory tactic is applied across the board, and is now being applied in the discussion of the present situation. There are conventional acts of disinformation, where reality is subverted to suit the Israeli agenda. Israeli’s UN envoy recently cited a precedent for Israelis hysterical behaviour, that of the Victoria, a ship impounded by the navy, that was carrying hundreds of weapons, which is all well and good until we see that this ship had nothing to do with the flotilla, it was destined for Egypt, but the flimsiest of ‘evidence’ is all that is required of Israeli ‘scatter-gun’ disinformation.

In a recent interview with The Real News, Israeli naval spokeswoman Sgt Anital Leibowitz  stated that the IDF would be seeking “as little physical contact as possible [..] with those passengers”. Now we could initially assume that this is in fact a positive development, that the navy has perhaps learned some self restraint and international self awareness over perceptions of its actions, but Leibowitz later elaborates that this is not for reasons of humanitarian consideration or international perceptions, rather it is a matter of life and death; “we don’t want to endanger our lives as soldiers”. This flotilla must be some adversary indeed, even the Israeli navy, the most powerful Middle Eastern maritime force, is cautious of engagement!

There is the very real concern that as nationalist indoctrination in Israel –let alone the armed forces- is so severe it can only help to put naval forces in a mindset that makes brutalising activists the norm. If we consider, as Robert Fisk does, that Israel’s armed forces are not the purveyors of ‘purity of arms’ but rather just another  “indisciplined rabble of an army – as "elite" as the average rabble of Arab armies” we would do well to worry about the outcome of this next encounter with its imaginary enemies.

The fantasy of the freedom flotilla –the hate flotilla as it has been dubbed by the Israeli establishment- as a military threat is reaching considerable levels. Mr Netanyahu has been lobbying for Ban Ki Moon to call on Mediterranean governments to do what they can to prevent vessels leaving from their ports; (the Audacity of Hope at present seems to be stalled in Greece.) Mr Moon has not used quite the same hyperbole in his pronouncements, rather framing the project as a threat to Israel-Palestine negotiations, but the effect seems much the same; the flotilla is dangerous to stability, even the worlds preeminent international organization –who’s human rights council backed its own fact finding mission, which reported that activists aboard the Mavi Marmara were in fact murdered- is coming out against a gesture of solidarity as if it were some latter day act of piracy.

The US has warned its citizens against involvement, particularly damming as the same government has to date refused any investigation into the murder on one of its citizens, and denied numerous freedom of information requests from lawyers working for the family of Furkan Dogan.

The current flotilla will feature politicians from Ireland, nationals from numerous democratic states throughout the world, many older Jewish Americans and even a Reagan and Bush confidant, ex-CIA officer Ray Mcgovern. Israel has stated that it intends to make no distinction between journalists and activists, to prevent footage and reports reaching the world. When these activists are slandered as hate mongers and terrorists and when this is shamelessly reported as fact by demagogues and lazy journalists in our countries, do our governments expect us to believe it?