Chomsky's Assessment

I hope Noam Chomsky won't mind my reprinting his article in its entirety. One of these days, I'll look up the law about reprinting. I think it's ok as long as it's properly credited. So, the below was written by Noam Chomsky who is Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the author of dozens of books on U.S. foreign policy. He writes a monthly column for The New York Times News Service/Syndicate.

‘The Arab World Is on Fire’
By Noam Chomsky (first published in the New York Times)

A common refrain among pundits is that fear of radical Islam requires opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. That formulation is misleading.


“The Arab world is on fire,” al-Jazeera reported on January 27, while throughout the region, Western allies “are quickly losing their influence.”

The shock wave was set in motion by the dramatic uprising in Tunisia that drove out a Western-backed dictator, with reverberations especially in Egypt, where demonstrators overwhelmed a dictator’s brutal police.

Observers compared the events to the toppling of Russian domains in 1989, but there are important differences.

Crucially, no Mikhail Gorbachev exists among the great powers that support the Arab dictators. Rather, Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless it is properly tamed.

One 1989 comparison has some validity: Romania, where Washington maintained its support for Nicolae Ceausescu, the most vicious of the East European dictators, until the allegiance became untenable. Then Washington hailed his overthrow while the past was erased.

That is a standard pattern: Ferdinand Marcos, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Chun Doo Hwan, Suharto and many other useful gangsters. It may be under way in the case of Hosni Mubarak, along with routine efforts to try to ensure that a successor regime will not veer far from the approved path.

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).

“The traditional argument put forward in and out of the Arab world is that there is nothing wrong, everything is under control,” says Marwan Muasher, former Jordanian official and now director of Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment. “With this line of thinking, entrenched forces argue that opponents and outsiders calling for reform are exaggerating the conditions on the ground.”

Therefore the public can be dismissed. The doctrine traces far back and generalizes worldwide, to U.S. home territory as well. In the event of unrest, tactical shifts may be necessary, but always with an eye to reasserting control.

The vibrant democracy movement in Tunisia was directed against “a police state, with little freedom of expression or association, and serious human rights problems,” ruled by a dictator whose family was hated for their venality. This was the assessment by U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec in a July 2009 cable released by WikiLeaks.

Therefore to some observers the WikiLeaks “documents should create a comforting feeling among the American public that officials aren’t asleep at the switch”—indeed, that the cables are so supportive of U.S. policies that it is almost as if Obama is leaking them himself (or so Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The National Interest.)

“America should give Assange a medal,” says a headline in the Financial Times. Chief foreign-policy analyst Gideon Rachman writes that “America’s foreign policy comes across as principled, intelligent and pragmatic—the public position taken by the U.S. on any given issue is usually the private position as well.”

In this view, WikiLeaks undermines the “conspiracy theorists” who question the noble motives that Washington regularly proclaims.

Godec’s cable supports these judgments—at least if we look no further. If we do, as foreign policy analyst Stephen Zunes reports in Foreign Policy in Focus, we find that, with Godec’s information in hand, Washington provided $12 million in military aid to Tunisia. As it happens, Tunisia was one of only five foreign beneficiaries: Israel (routinely); the two Middle East dictatorships Egypt and Jordan; and Colombia, which has long had the worst human-rights record and the most U.S. military aid in the hemisphere.

Heilbrunn’s Exhibit A is Arab support for U.S. policies targeting Iran, revealed by leaked cables. Rachman too seizes on this example, as did the media generally, hailing these encouraging revelations. The reactions illustrate how profound is the contempt for democracy in the educated culture.

Unmentioned is what the population thinks—easily discovered. According to polls released by the Brookings Institution in August, some Arabs agree with Washington and Western commentators that Iran is a threat: 10 percent. In contrast, they regard the U.S. and Israel as the major threats (77 percent; 88 percent).

Arab opinion is so hostile to Washington’s policies that a majority (57 percent) think regional security would be enhanced if Iran had nuclear weapons. Still, “there is nothing wrong, everything is under control” (as Marwan Muasher describes the prevailing fantasy). The dictators support us. Their subjects can be ignored—unless they break their chains, and then policy must be adjusted.

Other leaks also appear to lend support to the enthusiastic judgments about Washington’s nobility. In July 2009, Hugo Llorens, U.S. ambassador to Honduras, informed Washington of an embassy investigation of “legal and constitutional issues surrounding the June 28 forced removal of President Manuel `Mel’ Zelaya.”

The embassy concluded that “there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch.” Very admirable, except that President Obama proceeded to break with almost all of Latin America and Europe by supporting the coup regime and dismissing subsequent atrocities.

Perhaps the most remarkable WikiLeaks revelations have to do with Pakistan, reviewed by foreign policy analyst Fred Branfman in Truthdig.

The cables reveal that the U.S. embassy is well aware that Washington’s war in Afghanistan and Pakistan not only intensifies rampant anti-Americanism but also “risks destabilizing the Pakistani state” and even raises a threat of the ultimate nightmare: that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists.

Again, the revelations “should create a comforting feeling—that officials are not asleep at the switch” (Heilbrunn’s words)—while Washington marches stalwartly toward disaster.

© The New York Times Syndicate

How to Save an Important Graphic Chart

I don't know how else to save this interactive media in today's New York Times except to copy the link here. I tried to print out (it doesn't work). I tried to "save as an image". That only captured half of the graphics. If you're reading this, and you have a better idea, please let me know. I'd like to have access to this interactive graphic later, in a year or so maybe, perhaps use it in a textbook sometime (with permission). I wonder how long one has access to past articles and graphics via a web link to the article. Young and Jobless.

Reaction to the article by Cairo University students: The Lede (blog) by Mike Nizza.

To Burka Or Not To Burka

A few days back, I read an article in Al-ahram called "The Gentlewoman's Club" about the phenomenon of female-only clubs, bars, and beaches in Egypt.

So I started thinking about the burka and remembered when I visited my then-fiance Rachid in Morocco in '89, how I stayed with his uncle and aunt in a 3 story suburban house in Casablanca. During the 7 days that I visited, I ate the most exquisite food: slow roasted, fall-off-the-bone chicken, couscous, with pistachio and cinnamon, steamed artichokes, soft sweet dates, oranges, and rice pudding. Oh, I loved eating with my hands. Without any guidance, I dove right into the culture. Except. I dove in like a guy.

When the men moved out to the patio after dinner for a smoke, I joined them. It's where the conversation moved. Well, it was where Rachid moved, and he was my translator. Plus, I didn't understand the kitchen, and since there were already three grown women in there, I didn't think twice. It never occurred to me that I should volunteer to clean, and, my gracious hosts never suggested otherwise. It's only looking back that I flinch with embarrassment at my naivety.

When Rachid wanted a night out, a drink, I went along. I would never have considered staying home. Plus, we had spent two years living together in Manhattan and romping around the clubs and parties there. Here, the bars were full of men. Occasionally, there was a French woman who also accompanied a man in the establishment, but there were no Arab women. Yet, I felt completely comfortable. I smoked, drank, and argued about politics with the crowd.

Frankly, I didn't feel comfortable with the women of the family although one trip to the public baths proved an eye-opening experience where I saw that a large group of naked, multi-aged women and girls were completely comfortable walking, talking, combing each other's hair, relaxing and playing in the water. Then, my group bathed me. My own mother had stopped bathing me when I was too young to remember. Here, three generations of women set to sudsing down my body as the children dipped cups into the rinsing water and poured them over my head. We all laughed. It was so bonding that I still dream of those women although I haven't seen them in 20 years.

One afternoon, Aunt Zoubida invited me to the market to shop for groceries. Before we left, she held up two burkas for me. She was smiling, asking with her eyes "which one?" I thought the idea of wearing a burka would be like dressing up for Halloween. Fun. And, in a way, it was. Because I did not feel obligated to this dress, I could wear it for an afternoon. So I did.

Shopping in the open-air market was heady--full of sensations: the scent of cinnamon, curry, and cumin competed with the sight of heavy bags full of red, yellow, and brown powders. Colorful burkas for sale waved in the wind. Sandals, wallets, cloth, and oranges were being bought and sold. Aunt Zoubida told me in French that if I wanted something, I should tell her. She worried that the vendors would stiff me. She also seemed to worry about me in general. My sex and my white skin color brought a danger to our group, and this pleased me more than it scared me. I felt exotic, and the burka, for me, completed the feeling in a physical way.

Five months later in France, I had a conversation with Rachid's sisters who were, like me, in their 20s, and they expressed that the burka represented freedom to them. I scoffed at this idea. Even though it had not meant oppression to me, I could not fathom the idea that it might mean freedom. The tension mounted suddenly, and I found myself chock-full of Western superiority. I could not hide it. All three of Rachid's sisters were raised in France, and I could not understand why they didn't side with Western culture on this topic. According to Fouzia, the burka was used to keep ogling-men's eyes from harassing one's physical form.

Since that time almost 20 years ago, I've read and witnessed (via film) the horrors of the Taliban's retribution toward Afghani women who dare to show their skin; I've followed the plight of women in Middle-Eastern countries, studied feminism, read the literary work of female Arabs, and, today, I continue to find the issue of the burka a complex one. Is it freedom or oppression?

It was in this vein, that I read "The Gentlewoman's Club," and remembered the old discussions about "freedom from ogling."

The downside to the burka, in my humble estimation, is not so much the oppression that the women feel, but the rise in sight-obsession that ordinary men feel toward the female body. In the society of the Taliban, even the sight of a wrist could send an otherwise "holy" man shivering with lust. And, frankly, this was a new realization for me: how the burka psychologically affects men, changing them into psychotic, panting, lusting creatures, for which only more burka, more cover, could protect innocent women. Where is the balance? To purge the demon of lust rising in these sight-deprived men, they commit crimes of murder and other atrocities toward women blaming their mere existence for their own depravities. This is the extreme, of course. But fundamentalism, in every culture, exemplifies the extreme.

Any woman who has lived in Manhattan can tell you that the creepiest public ogling comes from the most religiously, socially and sexually-suppressed community: the Hassidic Jewish men who ride the subway cars or pass by on the street.

So the women in Egypt, tired of the male-ogling and lack of public spaces where they can be themselves have begun to demand private, female-only public spaces. Female-only gyms are popping up, as are bars and cafes. Women are saying, "Give us some space so we can be ourselves." They've claimed public beach spaces that are "Female Only" where life guards and security consist of women, where, I read, "lurid dancing competitions" are happening. Remembering the comfort-level and openness I felt among the Moroccan women, I can imagine how much fun they're having. Imagine groups of Western women flocking to Egypt to hang out with the girls!

In support of this movement, I want to say that this IS one way to fight oppression: Leave the superior group to themselves. Create your own world. It's one reason I've always thought that African-American colleges and women-only colleges are an excellent way to blossom without the white-male Western cultural influence that is such an undercurrent in public institutions that it's very difficult to see, resist, rethink or overcome while living, studying and maturing inside of one. It's certainly hard for me, and I've thought a lot about this. It seems I'm more acculturated male than I am female--my Western cultural upbringing is a psychological cloak that I cannot simply disrobe and discard.

Imagine, too, the rise of Middle-Eastern "good-old-girl" clubs where women figure out who they want to run for elections and who should get top jobs.

Maybe that's going in the wrong direction. Maybe it's away from an equal society, but imagine that happening and then, the men demanding equality in society because they're tired of being left out of the girls club! I have to admit, I'd enjoy the irony of that. If this trend continues, I think Middle-Eastern women might find themselves WAY ahead of Western feminists because they chose to separate rather than to join.