A Syrian Plot?

I had written a new post yesterday and then forgot to email it to myself, thus trapping it on my work computer until Monday.  In the meantime, I wanted to link to an article I just read.  I have already speculated about whether the CIA and other forces are behind the Syrian uprising.  This article provides some fairly compelling evidence that it is, indeed, the case.

Is The West Plotting Against Syria?

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has claimed that his regime and his nation are being subject to external meddling. He suggests that the West is purposely trying to create instability in an effort to overthrow the government. Now, on the one hand, this is exactly the kind of claim that an embattled dictator would make in an effort to defend himself. On the other hand, it also seems likely that it could actually be true. At this point it's hard to be sure either way, but Assad's argument has gotten support from other leaders and media outlets around the world.

For one thing, one has to look at what happened in Libya. Gaddhafi railed against external interference. Now, evidence has come to light that suggests he was correct, and that, in fact, U.S. and British intelligence officers were working within the country, while leaders of the Rebel forces had connections within the U.S.

It is also significant to note that both Libya and Syria have been considered as targets of interference, particularly during the George W. Bush era. Especially Syria. The U.S. has been absolutely dying to get control over that country.

Yet, the West acted rather quickly to provide military assistance to the Libyan rebels. One has to wonder why, if they are indeed trying to topple the Syrian government, they have not yet upped the ante?

We will probably just have to sit back and wait for all the evidence to come in after the fact.

Understanding Western Intervention In Libya

I would actually like to address the MENA unrest once more before moving on (a series on health is to follow!).  I just read a blurb by one of my favorite neo-Marxist theorists, Immanuel Walllerstein, which seeks to make some sense out of the U.S./NATO decision to intervene in the Libyan conflict.  His premise:  that it was more a matter of subduing the Arab resistance movement and maintaining the geopolitical structure of the region than about humanitarian aid or oil.  Read "The Great Libyan Distraction."

MENA Dictatorships and Colonialism

The recent history of the MENA (Middle East/North Africa) region has been characterized by three successive waves of colonization. First, by the Ottoman Empire, until the Arabs were "liberated" by the British and French. This inaugurated a period of British and French colonization, until the Arabs were "liberated" by the United States. The United States then took up the torch of colonization (under its fancy new guise: neocolonialism). It should also be mentioned that Israeli imperialism has been pereceived as an extension of European imperialism; and the USSR also made some in-roads before its collapse.

Two means of resisting imperialism have been salient in the capitalist era. Nationalism is an assertment of the right to self-determination and a challenge to the racist assumptions (re: the superiority of European culture) that undergird the colonial enterprise. Socialism is a reaction to globalization and capitalist exploitation. These movements have often been employed in concert with each other in liberation struggles all over the world.

In the MENA region, Islamic fundamentalism represents a third mode of colonial resistance. It is many ways a type of nationalism, as it an assertment of the superiority of traditional Islamic values over Western, secular culture. This is most definitely a challenge to institutionalized racism, particularly the scholarly enterprise of "Orientalism," which has portrayed Arabs and those of the Islamic faith as cuturally backward and prone to irrationality and liscentiousness.

Various combinations of Arab nationalism, socialism, and Islamic fundamentalism have been employed in resistance struggles in the MENA region. Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism have also been actively cultivated by, first, the British/French and then the U.S. to fuel resistance movements against OTHER colonial powers (the Ottoman Empire in the first case; the USSR in the second).

At other times, the British and French created and encouraged religious sectarian rilvaries in order to effect divisions among the population and consolidate their own rule. Furthermore, the British, French, and U.S. have all had an interest in undermining socialist movements, overthrowing democratically elected governments (for example, in Iraq and Iran), and supporting (sometimes installing) dictators with whom they could "do business." In this way, these colonial powers have actively nourished instability, authoritarianism, and infrastructural weakness to maintain neo-colonial control over the region.

And for what ulimate purpose? The necessities of capitalism.

The MENA protestors are just as concerned about employment, wages, and social services as they are civil and political rights. In part (notwithstanding concerns about political repression and abuse), they believe that democracy is a means to effecting better socio-economic conditions. Yet, it is poverty that creates the conditions for dictatorship, and not vice versa.

Attempts at social and economic reform that would mitigate poverty and create more egalitarian conditions are routinely squelched by the U.S. and other capitalist powers. For it is in their interest to keep markets "open to foreign investment" (read: open to exploitation by multinational corporations).

In short, inequality and widespread poverty exist in MENA because it is a necessity for capitalist profitability. U.S. and European foreign policy in the region has revolved around creating and sustaining these conditions.

If the Arabs wish for a better life, it is capitalism and colonialism that they must continue to fight against. Not just the individual dictators.

The MENA Protests

In my last post I asserted that the difference between dictatorships and democracies is a difference in degree and not in kind. State repression and violence are tied to overall conditions of poverty and lack of infrastructure.

What does this mean for MENA? Will these revolts truly end in a flowering of democracy in the Middle East?

Probably not. The root of the problem in that region is not dictatorship, per se. It is a history of colonialism and continued capitalist exploitation that has resulted in the destitution of a vast majority of the population. (Subject of part 3.)

The problem, as I see it, is that the revolts are not being directed at the real locus of oppression: capitalist imperialism. I am truly excited by the energy and commitment to change that is rippling across the region. Revolution is truly needed at this point. However, I just hope that energy can be harnassed and transformed into a global struggle to demolish the pillars of capitalist, neocolonial domination.

If the revolts remain relatively localized struggles to replace heads of state and other government officials, I fear that nothing will change in the end.

Dictatorships and Democracy

I have wanted to touch on recent events in the Middle East/North Africa for some time now, but I almost don't know where to start. Certainly there is a lot of history related to global capitalism and imperialism that contextualizes these events. However, I think I would prefer to start at a more theoretical level and extend my earlier discussion of state power toward a discussion of democracy and dictatorships.

If you don't care to read my earlier posts, here are some key points:

1. There is only one "form of government": oligarchy. If one is referring to control over the means of legitimate state violence and the ability to create and enforce the law, this always (and can only) lie in the hands of a select few. Even in a system of representation, ultimate decision-making abilities are always monopolized by a handful of people.

2. Power is a property of relationships, which extend beyond the state. The state is not a locus or source of power.

3. The state is merely a tool of various (sometimes conflicting) capitalist interests that control the state apparatus.

It follows that there is no fundamental difference between a "democracy" (like the U.S.) and a dictatorship. Clearly, however, there is some difference. Yet, contrary to common perception, it is a difference in degree and not in kind.

In effect, "democracy" is a strategy for managing dissent that is available to nations enjoying a certain amount of wealth and infrastructural (both physical and ideological) development. By allowing people to feel as though their voices are heard and their actions have influence, "democracy" quells frustration with the system at the same time as it channels energy and actions into practices that ultimately support the system, all while creating a smokescreen to cover up the power relations that are really at play.  When people are allowed to participate in "fair" elections, lobby their congressional representatives, speak their minds on the radio or in blogs, and criticize the government without fear of retribution, people are less likely to see need for full-scale change in the current social order, even as they are being exploited. They are more likely to believe that things just need to be "tweaked" and reformed; they are more likely to believe that they live in circumstances that, while not perfect, are probably the best they can hope for; they are more likely to believe that the state exists to uphold the common good.

Thus, "democracy" is an excellent means of maintaining the status quo. If everyone could use this tactic, they probably would. Yet, there are significant barriers to the accessibility of this option.

Wealth
Democracy is expensive. Many underdeveloped nations simply cannot afford to set up polling stations, invest in voting equipment, hire election officials, and take all the necessary steps to prevent fraud. Furthermore, the elections that occur in the U.S. (not sure how this compares to other countries) require a HUGE amount of wealth and resources from those who are campaigning and their associated political parties. Additionally, wealth is a requisite for development of the infrastructure that supports "democracy":

Physical infrastructure
This includes what is normally placed under the heading of infrastructure: roads, transportation, communications, public works, etc. It also includes social welfare programs and non-profit organizations (a small investment, far less than what is gained via exploitation, to ensure that people believe democracy is "working for them" and supporting their goals), and most importantly, it includes bureaucracy. There are many ways in which bureaucracies contribute to the illusion of democracy, most notably the fact that if people are able to gain employment through the state or interact on a daily basis with other "ordinary" people who represent the state in this way, the state is more likely to appear "of the people" - more anonymous and diffuse. Bureaucracies also allow agendas to be carried out in more indirect and covert ways. (For example, if certain FDA regulations are designed to support and subsidize particular agricultural industries, it is easy to employ the research of a number of public health officials and scientists to create a faux rationale for the regulation that addresses the "public good": and most of the people involved in the decision and its execution would honestly believe that is the case. Cogs in the wheel don't always know in what direction the wheel is spinning!) Finally, just as wealth supports physical infrastructure, physical infrastructure supports ideological infrastructure.

Ideological infrastructure
Partially, the ideological infrastructure consists of hegemonic ("natural" or "obvious" to the point of being unquestionable) ideas. This may include the concept of "founding principles" of the nation (usually involving freedom/liberty.... essentially meaningless terms if one looks at reality); notions of "nationhood," national unity, land rights, patriotism, loyalty, and citizenship; other ideas derived from social contract ideology - that power is located completely in the government, which, in turn, represents the will of the people; and components of neoliberal ideology - that "government" and "business" are distinct entities, that "capitalist" societies possess free markets, and that anyone can make it if they work hard enough and play by the rules of the system. These hegemonic ideas are cultivated primarily by the educational system (an important piece of physical infrastructure), political rhetoric, and the media, all mutually reinforcing one another. So, for example, to mobilize people to engage in warfare in defense of capitalist interests (which are ultimately antithetical to their own), all one needs to do is invoke discourses of patriotism, nationhood, and liberty. Interesting how every war seems to be about "defending our liberties," right?

Ideological infrastructure also involves "organized disagreement." What better way to create the illusion of "democracy" than to populate all sectors of society with diverging points of view? Thus, in the U.S. we have Republicans and Democrats; we have Fox News and MSNBC; the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post; the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal; anti-war protests and Tea Party rallies; the Open Society Institute and the Heritage Foundation. And people feel like they have options, that their choice of political leadership will shape the direction of the country, and that they participate in a "free marketplace of ideas." Yet these seemingly diametrically opposed points of view are grounded in the same fundamental assumptions (some of which are the hegemonic ideas described above) that work to uphold the social order. Any points of view which could seriously undermine the status quo are militantly squelched (and that is why Marxism is derided as "radical," "subversive," and "obviously wrong"... it is not as acceptable to be a Marxist in the U.S. as it is to be a Democrat or Republican, and it was not even legal to be a communist at certain points in our history.) People like to think it makes a differences whether they elect a Democrat or a Republican, but in reality there have been more significant changes in policy within presidential administrations than between them. For example, Reagonomics was implemented at the end of Carter's term, and Reagan himself, several years into his own tenure, took up a military Keynesianism which has continued to the present, through both Democratic and Republican adminstrations.

Therefore, in neither dictatorships nor democracies do people have the power. All states take actions to curtail civil liberties when they face some sort of "threat" to their legitimacy. The big difference is that states with more robust infrastucture do not feel as threatened as often and consequently are able to limit these actions compared to the classic dictatorship. And since infrastructure requires wealth, it is no coincidence that dictatorships are most common in the poorest countries in the world (in addition to the fact that starving people are less likely to be pacified by appeals to "liberty" and "patriotism").  Certainly, it is more comfortable to live under a "democracy" than a dictatorship, even if one has no real power, but that is just one of the many advantages of living in conditions of great wealth.

What, then, of this notion of a "power vacuum"? In truth, it is an infrastructural vacuum. Dictatorships are most likely to emerge out of infrastructural ruins: for example, that which is caused by war. (No coicidence, then, that Hitler appeared in the ravages caused by WW1....).

And what does this mean for the MENA unrest? Subject of my next post.