Jolie Rouge
04-05-2011, 06:19 AM
By The Monitor's Editorial Board – Fri Apr 1, 2:33 pm ET
In the four months since it first stirred, the Arab awakening has simply refused to be put to sleep. It seems that young people seeking freedom in the Middle East will not be denied once they have broken through heir own wall of fear.
The latest example is Syria, where protests against one of the most repressive regimes in the world are now in their third week – despite the killing of dozens of peaceful demonstrators. Friday’s protests – a “day of martyrs” – saw more violence by security forces in a number of cities.
What is rather sleepy is the Obama administration’s sense of moral outrage over these killings or its refusal to join calls by Syrians for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad and his repressive Baath party. The ruler of Damascus is, after all, already well branded as a regional facilitator of terrorists for Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
The contrast of US action in Libya, where military intervention was justified on humanitarian grounds, is stark. Why is one massacre of Arab freedom-seekers different from another?
As President Obama has already promised the people of the Middle East: "Wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States."
The violent crackdown by Syria's regime is not the only reason for a strong US response to help protect the lives of protesters. Syria, as a potential democratic state in the heart of the region with 22 million people, is far more important to American interests than is Libya. It is now the Grand Central Station for a number of conflicts, from Lebanon to Iraq to Gaza, and all done with Iran as an ally.
Just as US officials did with Egypt before the peaceful ouster of Hosni Mubarak, they still talk of Mr. Assad as a reformer. Yet his speech Thursday night in response to this string of protests that began March 15 did not ring with serious concessions of reform. Instead, Assad mainly saw foreign conspiracies behind the protests.
His strategy of intimidating protesters with violence is now clear. It reflects the tactics of his late father, who ended a rebellion in the city of Hama in 1982 by simply killing most of the 15,000 to 20,000 residents there.
This sort of tough, defensive response may be caused by the nature of the regime itself, which consists mainly of the 12 percent of Syrians who are Alawites, a secretive branch of Shiite Islam. They may see themselves as particularly vulnerable to the majority Sunni Muslims if there is a regime change.
Mr. Obama’s strategy seems to be to let neighboring Turkey set the tone and take leadership toward Syria. Yet the government in Ankara is hardly a bastion of freedom with its repression of media and its reluctance to rescue Libya’s rebels. Turkey’s ambitions to be a regional power are tainted by its own shortcomings as a democracy.
Stability in Syria – which Obama desires – can’t be achieved by US silence toward a government that has used live ammunition on young protesters chanting “peaceful, peaceful, freedom freedom.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110401/cm_csm/374121
comments
We in the west may wish to view the Middle East turmoil as a battle between youthful “tweeters” yearning to breathe free vs. tyrannical dictators, but the situation is far more complex than that. Think about it. From the Middle East to equatorial Africa, you see it over and over again: A dictator in power for decades has plundered his country and amassed a vast personal fortune, while suppressing the “rights” of untold numbers of his countrymen. Yet when the political tides finally shift and the end is seemingly inevitable, he refuses to step down – preferring even to throw his country into bloody civil war. We in the West view these “leaders” as quintessentially evil. And yet, surely there is something deeper at play here than simple malevolence. A merely evil person would simply take his fortune and run to a luxurious “exile.” Why do these despots cling to power so tenaciously, even at the risk of losing everything – including their lives, truly believing that they are “right” to do so?
The answer to this question lies in the dominant political and cultural force in much of the Middle East and in Africa. It is a force that is largely unappreciated by westerners, and Americans in particular, for it plays little role here. That force is TRIBALISM – the loyalty felt and owed to members of one’s own tribe, over the myriad other tribes with which it competes for power and resources. It is a much stronger force than patriotism because it is rooted in blood and the kinship of extended families. What we westerners view as “corruption” – graft, nepotism and illegal patronage is considered not just the norm, but a duty in these countries. Other tribes may resent the leader in power for patronizing his own, but given the opportunity, they would do the same. The tribe comes first.
The importance of tribalism to the psyche of these “leaders,” can hardly be overstated. Tribalism was at the root of the genocidal carnage in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis. It is why the Baathists in Iraq, whose senior members were part of Saddam Hussein’s Albu Nasir tribe, fought fiercely to protect his regime – and their privileged position in it. It is why Gaddafi’s tribe, the Qadhafa, or the Syrian President Assad’s tribe, the Alawites, will fight just as fiercely to support them. It is why Laurent Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast or Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe will cling to power until they are forcibly ousted: It is their DUTY to their tribe on which they have bestowed decades of largesse and have received their loyalty and support in return. Abdicating power also means ceding the authority and privileges of the entire tribe. This cultural imperative is all the stronger in leaders of military background, for whom the soldier’s concepts of duty and honor are bound together with tribal allegiance.
This is also why colonialism has been so destructive in these regions. Mixing these tribes together in some artificial geopolitical entity that we call a “country,” and expecting them to “share” its resources “fairly,” is a purely Western concept. It is a recipe for continuous strife until one tribe garners sufficient power to install a “strongman” in the leadership role and forcibly suppresses other tribes in this ersatz “country,” plundering its resources for himself and his tribe. It is a winner-take-all system, and always has been. “Peace” lasts only until another tribe, or temporary alliance of several tribes, obtains sufficient power to overthrow the existing order in favor of their own. This is what is occurring in many countries in Africa and the Middle East today. Until we in the West at least appreciate this seemingly alien concept of tribalism, we will blunder into these inter-tribal civil wars. We may think we are protecting innocent civilians, and perhaps we are, but we are also taking sides in what are essentially tribal conflicts, some of which have been ongoing for centuries.
---
Many of the comments made on this article are true. I do not see any good of us intervening in Libya. If the rebels turn out to endorse terrorist organizations supporting them we will have yet again created a problem for America in the future. We supported Bin Laden at some point and look at how that turned out. We should thorughly investigate allegiations that terrorist organizations are sending "freedom" fighters to help the rebels in Libya. When we invaded Iraq the country has yet to stablize as result are Americans prepared to pay for years of countless wars. That's not to say people of the Middle East do not deserve freedom. They do, but America can't fight wars for every country that wants freedom if we do we risk destroying ourselves in debt and blood. If say North Koreas revolt will we support them? Will we support people in other African countries fleeing genocide? Libya has oils reserves and I belive this is the true reason why we are in there at this time.
In the four months since it first stirred, the Arab awakening has simply refused to be put to sleep. It seems that young people seeking freedom in the Middle East will not be denied once they have broken through heir own wall of fear.
The latest example is Syria, where protests against one of the most repressive regimes in the world are now in their third week – despite the killing of dozens of peaceful demonstrators. Friday’s protests – a “day of martyrs” – saw more violence by security forces in a number of cities.
What is rather sleepy is the Obama administration’s sense of moral outrage over these killings or its refusal to join calls by Syrians for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad and his repressive Baath party. The ruler of Damascus is, after all, already well branded as a regional facilitator of terrorists for Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
The contrast of US action in Libya, where military intervention was justified on humanitarian grounds, is stark. Why is one massacre of Arab freedom-seekers different from another?
As President Obama has already promised the people of the Middle East: "Wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States."
The violent crackdown by Syria's regime is not the only reason for a strong US response to help protect the lives of protesters. Syria, as a potential democratic state in the heart of the region with 22 million people, is far more important to American interests than is Libya. It is now the Grand Central Station for a number of conflicts, from Lebanon to Iraq to Gaza, and all done with Iran as an ally.
Just as US officials did with Egypt before the peaceful ouster of Hosni Mubarak, they still talk of Mr. Assad as a reformer. Yet his speech Thursday night in response to this string of protests that began March 15 did not ring with serious concessions of reform. Instead, Assad mainly saw foreign conspiracies behind the protests.
His strategy of intimidating protesters with violence is now clear. It reflects the tactics of his late father, who ended a rebellion in the city of Hama in 1982 by simply killing most of the 15,000 to 20,000 residents there.
This sort of tough, defensive response may be caused by the nature of the regime itself, which consists mainly of the 12 percent of Syrians who are Alawites, a secretive branch of Shiite Islam. They may see themselves as particularly vulnerable to the majority Sunni Muslims if there is a regime change.
Mr. Obama’s strategy seems to be to let neighboring Turkey set the tone and take leadership toward Syria. Yet the government in Ankara is hardly a bastion of freedom with its repression of media and its reluctance to rescue Libya’s rebels. Turkey’s ambitions to be a regional power are tainted by its own shortcomings as a democracy.
Stability in Syria – which Obama desires – can’t be achieved by US silence toward a government that has used live ammunition on young protesters chanting “peaceful, peaceful, freedom freedom.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110401/cm_csm/374121
comments
We in the west may wish to view the Middle East turmoil as a battle between youthful “tweeters” yearning to breathe free vs. tyrannical dictators, but the situation is far more complex than that. Think about it. From the Middle East to equatorial Africa, you see it over and over again: A dictator in power for decades has plundered his country and amassed a vast personal fortune, while suppressing the “rights” of untold numbers of his countrymen. Yet when the political tides finally shift and the end is seemingly inevitable, he refuses to step down – preferring even to throw his country into bloody civil war. We in the West view these “leaders” as quintessentially evil. And yet, surely there is something deeper at play here than simple malevolence. A merely evil person would simply take his fortune and run to a luxurious “exile.” Why do these despots cling to power so tenaciously, even at the risk of losing everything – including their lives, truly believing that they are “right” to do so?
The answer to this question lies in the dominant political and cultural force in much of the Middle East and in Africa. It is a force that is largely unappreciated by westerners, and Americans in particular, for it plays little role here. That force is TRIBALISM – the loyalty felt and owed to members of one’s own tribe, over the myriad other tribes with which it competes for power and resources. It is a much stronger force than patriotism because it is rooted in blood and the kinship of extended families. What we westerners view as “corruption” – graft, nepotism and illegal patronage is considered not just the norm, but a duty in these countries. Other tribes may resent the leader in power for patronizing his own, but given the opportunity, they would do the same. The tribe comes first.
The importance of tribalism to the psyche of these “leaders,” can hardly be overstated. Tribalism was at the root of the genocidal carnage in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis. It is why the Baathists in Iraq, whose senior members were part of Saddam Hussein’s Albu Nasir tribe, fought fiercely to protect his regime – and their privileged position in it. It is why Gaddafi’s tribe, the Qadhafa, or the Syrian President Assad’s tribe, the Alawites, will fight just as fiercely to support them. It is why Laurent Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast or Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe will cling to power until they are forcibly ousted: It is their DUTY to their tribe on which they have bestowed decades of largesse and have received their loyalty and support in return. Abdicating power also means ceding the authority and privileges of the entire tribe. This cultural imperative is all the stronger in leaders of military background, for whom the soldier’s concepts of duty and honor are bound together with tribal allegiance.
This is also why colonialism has been so destructive in these regions. Mixing these tribes together in some artificial geopolitical entity that we call a “country,” and expecting them to “share” its resources “fairly,” is a purely Western concept. It is a recipe for continuous strife until one tribe garners sufficient power to install a “strongman” in the leadership role and forcibly suppresses other tribes in this ersatz “country,” plundering its resources for himself and his tribe. It is a winner-take-all system, and always has been. “Peace” lasts only until another tribe, or temporary alliance of several tribes, obtains sufficient power to overthrow the existing order in favor of their own. This is what is occurring in many countries in Africa and the Middle East today. Until we in the West at least appreciate this seemingly alien concept of tribalism, we will blunder into these inter-tribal civil wars. We may think we are protecting innocent civilians, and perhaps we are, but we are also taking sides in what are essentially tribal conflicts, some of which have been ongoing for centuries.
---
Many of the comments made on this article are true. I do not see any good of us intervening in Libya. If the rebels turn out to endorse terrorist organizations supporting them we will have yet again created a problem for America in the future. We supported Bin Laden at some point and look at how that turned out. We should thorughly investigate allegiations that terrorist organizations are sending "freedom" fighters to help the rebels in Libya. When we invaded Iraq the country has yet to stablize as result are Americans prepared to pay for years of countless wars. That's not to say people of the Middle East do not deserve freedom. They do, but America can't fight wars for every country that wants freedom if we do we risk destroying ourselves in debt and blood. If say North Koreas revolt will we support them? Will we support people in other African countries fleeing genocide? Libya has oils reserves and I belive this is the true reason why we are in there at this time.