19 May 2011

BHO? BHA? Bee aytch GO!

BHO vs BHA?

So now the American President, Barack Hussein Obama – BHO – has increased sanctions against the Syrian President, Bashar Hafidh Assad – BHA – and is readying a speech tonight.

The Washington speech will get a lot of play, I’m sure, and the chattering classes will wonder if this ‘resets’ the US in the Middle East. BHO will, I suspect, make noises of praise towards the successes of the Revolution in Tunisia and Egypt even as he will say nothing about Bahrain (a country where proportionately more have been killed in any of the countries save Libya this year, where actual foreign fighters have been brought in and mosques have been bulldozed … but all that by American allied regimes). He’ll make noises of support for the Syrian opposition; they’ll even have a few pseudo-oppositionists (the ones firmly in the pocket of AIPAC and with no real support here) in attendance.

He’ll probably repeat the announcement of increased sanctions on Syria. And he’ll claim now that the same sanctions that were in existence before to punish the Syrian people for having a government that didn’t lick the bootheels of the Israelis are now supposed to show that the American government loves us.

I’m no fan of the Assad regime but I’m not a fool. And Washington seems to think that the people of Syria are all fools. Now, they suddenly hail the benefits of democracy and respect human rights here, where not very long ago some of the same people who claim to be in favor of democracy in Syria were in favor of firebombing Syrians. They claim to like Arab democracy now but when was the last time that an American president called for an end to authoritarian rule in … Bahrain, Kuwait, or Jordan, let alone Saudi Arabia, or supported the democratic rights of the Palestinians? It wasn’t so long ago that they made clear their preference for sectarian rule in Lebanon …

Yet they expect that we are too stupid and too lacking in memory to have noticed these things. A few cheery words and, BAM!, we’re supposed to think of BHO and the USA as great liberators.

Look, it is rather simple: we don’t need American aid to achieve democracy here. I for one do not trust American aid; we know that in the past, the CIA proudly proclaimed its overthrow of democracy in Syria (and did so quite deliberately to get an armistice with Israel back in 1949 as no democratic Syrian government was willing to make a peace). One speech does not change a century’s worth of actions; one speech does not erase what we see here everyday when we see the refugees from Iraq, people who have fled America’s ‘freedom bombs’.

And sanctions that were written by the enemies not of dictatorship in Syria but of all Syrian people cannot be repackaged and sold to us as a friendly gesture. If anything, they do not help but hinder our struggle. We don’t need international law to come down and swoop in and arrest the figures of this regime if they go abroad; we’d be content if they would just go and, if there are to be trials, that they be for us to decide. If anything, these sanctions limit the ability of the regime to go.

Think for a moment of South Africa: imagine if, twenty years ago, De Klerk and the rest in the Apartheid regime had known that, no matter what Mandela and the ANC agreed to, if they were ever to leave South Africa, they’d be lucky to just be imprisoned. Now, think how the end of apartheid might have been different then. People with no options fight on to the bitter end.

And we, here in the actual opposition on the ground would like to see Assad – and all the rest – go … we’d be happy if BHA took Emma and the kids and went back to giving eyetests in Surrey or Middlesex. We’d let him be; we’d even take him to the airport and wish him all good fortune. But this ‘aid’ that’s offered doesn’t help; it hinders that day.

So if they really want to help us – and their help is genuine rather than as part of an ancient goal of keeping the Arab nation squashed beneath their bootheels – the best thing they can do is … get out of the way.

Better than sanctions would be withdraw of military forces from the Arab lands, an end to arms and aid for occupiers, an end to subversion and assasinations here, an end to always smiling when the occupier kicks us … just get out of the way. Nothing more. Just stand aside and let us be. You’ve already done too much damage and the more you do, the worse it is.

Go. Take your puppets with you. Go, Take Assad too, take all your stooges. Just Go.

15 comments:

Etymon said...

The US. . .watches for its own interests, first and foremost. The values of its people and its leaders will always take second place to the realities of the world, especially of the Middle East. All countries are like this, so the US is not exceptional in this. That said, right now what would benefit the US the most in Syria would be the downfall of the Assad regime. Not only that but its values point towards helping Syria become a liberal and democratic state. Only when both its interests and its values are aligned can the US truly help another country.

Distrust and paranoia towards the US will not help your cause. It's been decades since the US has helped depose a democratic leader in favour of a stooge. If the US has been silent in Bahrain it has helped or is helping to topple Musharraf, Saleh and Qaddaffi, two of which were strong allies. The US of today is not the neo-colonialist power of the Cold War. It's no angel, of course, but they are sincere in trying to help the Syrian people.

Lloyd said...

Interesting and informative post. Thanks, Lloyd

cprincess said...

Etymon…
I completely disagree with you…the last thing the US government wants in addition to all of Syria's neighbors,most of all Israel is the downfall of the Assad regime… they see it as being way to destabilizing for the region..
I take it you mean Mubarak and Saleh-first of all we didn't help topple Mubarak-the Egyptian people did it in a grass roots campaign with out any help from the CIA and the US definitely was not overjoyed to see a 'friend'( for that read recipient of aid) go …same situation in the Yemen-have you read the wikileaks regarding Yemen? Saleh was willing to take the fall for anything as long as the checks keep coming!
Make no mistake about it is .. our foreign policy is geared ONLY toward our interests and damn the people-I can only wish we were sincere….

Anonymus Valesianus said...

Agree. The US has tried to topple lots of governments in that region recently. Maybe Etymon slept through the last decade or two? Regime change? Iraq? Lebanon? The PA? And that's just their neighbors!
But it is typical of American arrogance to claim all good things that happened despite the US and ignore all bad things caused by the US.
If an Arab trusts anything an American says, they are stupid, plane and simple.

Micah said...

Amina, you are advocating the US- and by extension, all western governments to walk away from the Middle East and let nature take it's course.

The Assads and Ghaddafis of this world would be free to do as they please without fear of retribution.

marcusbarondi said...

This post is a load of confused cobblers - America's influence was, and still is, absolutely crucially detrimental and very decisive in helping OUR revolutions in the Middle East.

America is not perfect, nobody is, but its role, especially in Egypt where millions of American dollars poured into the Egyptian army helped to keep the army under the positive influence of the American support for the revolution and, in my opinion, helped the Egyptian people secure the amazing outcome.

As to the American and European intervention in Libya - well, ask anyone from Benghazi or Misurata and they will tell you how grateful they truly are. Furthermore, if you study carefully the Syrian president's actions and reactions, you may see that these actions, are greatly tempered by what the American government say or do and indeed what they do not say or do not do!

In other words, the Americans are our friends and they are helping us and we, in Syria, we DO need all the help we can get against the ruthless bastards trying to crush us. It is an utter myth to think that the Syrians, or any other nation for that matter, can achieve democracy completely by themselves. Please Amina, from a Syrian to a Syrian, it is time to grow up: We need all the help we can get from America and elsewhere and we are grateful and that certainly does not mean we condone whatever America did / is doing or will do in the future.

الحرية والكرامة لكل السوريون
مع الحب

Etymon said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Etymon said...

Agh, I meant Mubarak instead of Musharraf, sorry about that. But it is undeniable that, in spite of him being a strong ally of the US, Mubarak was pressured by Obama and the rest of the US government to step down: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12371479
It's been reported that the US used the close ties it has with the Egyptian army to persuade it NOT to open fire on protesters.
The Obama administration has also (much more quietly) withdrawn support for Saleh:http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/04/what-obamas-yemen-decision-means/73384/
The US is no angel, as I said before, but in these cases they have acted genuinely in support of pro-democracy groups.
The Syrian government is no ally of the US and has constantly acted against US interests in the region. They allowed hundreds of terrorists to enter Iraq to kill American soldiers and, most crucially right now, they provide enormous amount of support, including missiles, to Hizbullah, which is essentially at war with one of the closest allies of the US. Why wouldn't the US want a government that does these things to be destroyed?
The US has nothing to lose and everything to gain if Assad's regime goes down. There is no reason why they wouldn't try to help you.

Etymon said...

Uugh, deleted and reposted my comment because I *again* confused two names, I wrote Hamas when I meant Hizbullah, not one of my most brilliant days...

Etymon said...

Aaand now my reposted comment isn't showing, sorry if this ends up being a double post X(

Agh, I meant Mubarak instead of Musharraf, sorry about that. But it is undeniable that, in spite of him being a strong ally of the US, Mubarak was pressured by Obama and the rest of the US government to step down: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12371479
It's been reported that the US used the close ties it has with the Egyptian army to persuade it NOT to open fire on protesters.
The Obama administration has also (much more quietly) withdrawn support for Saleh:http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/04/what-obamas-yemen-decision-means/73384/
The US is no angel, as I said before, but in these cases they have acted genuinely in support of pro-democracy groups.
The Syrian government is no ally of the US and has constantly acted against US interests in the region. They allowed hundreds of terrorists to enter Iraq to kill American soldiers and, most crucially right now, they provide enormous amount of support, including missiles, to Hamas, which is essentially at war with one of the closest allies of the US. Why wouldn't the US want a government that does these things to be destroyed?
The US has nothing to lose and everything to gain if Assad's regime goes down. There is no reason why they wouldn't try to help you.

Micah said...

Yes, AV, Americans are a nefarious lot.

They want to topple the tyrants and dictators you referred to.

The Syrians would be foolish to want real freedom and democracy.

Saddam, Arafat, Assad, Hamas, Hizbollah have brought so much blessing, dignity and hope to the region. They were honest, fought corruption and cared deeply for their peoples.

Yes, the have done so much good for the ummah.

AV, your remarks are breathtaking in their shallowness.

JC said...

The fall of Assad's regime would be "de-stabilising" in the most favorable sense as far as the Americans are secretly concerned. Who are we kidding? Destabilization in this sense would potentially be a blow to the “axis” of resistance to Israel and American power, primarily Hisb’allah and Iran. And I'm not a supporter of either in saying that.

The Americans plundered Iraq (not exactly a plunder which has ceased) and their unspoken policy (consistent from the Bush era and previously) is to divide and rule and foment sectarian division wherever is convenient. They would be glad for that to happen in Syria - do they care about the Syrian people in earnest? Damn well not. What they would like is either to smoothly usher in a favorable replacement to Assad, one that would stop its support of Hisb'allah and its ties to Iran - but that is not on the cards. What they are left with is having to tread a careful diplomatic line while doing what they have continued to do for decades (yes, up until today) - and that is covert intervention. And it is happening as we speak. Its consequences, apart from the obvious destabilizations just mentioned, would also be devastating for the Syrian people.

I fully support the revolution (and every revolution in the region that is seeking to rid itself of its repressive oligarchs), but we have to have our eyes open about what political game is being played behind the scenes (tragically I feel) while people are bravely risking their lives. Should Assad heed the call of his people to "go"? Absolutely and now. But let's not pretend that the Americans and Israelis won't also be celebrating..

gashrash said...

Amina
I completely and utterly agree with you. Ignore these others with their own agendas.

Micah said...

gashrash-

To what agendas are you referring- specifically?

And why do you presume Amina is in need of your advice and counsel?

cprincess said...

To marcusbarondi…
Re Egypt -yes and those same American dollars that were poured into the military are what kept Mubarak in power and the president said very little until it was obvious that the Egyptian revolution was unstoppable….
As regards Libya…I supported NATO enforcing a no fly zone because I believe Ghadaffi should go…. its very obvious that the Libyan people want him to go and were begging for help but it would not have happened without the French and British pushing for it…
Regarding Syria-its kinda hard to study Bashar because he is not a lot in evidence(!) … I am certainly not saying that America is not a friend to the Middle East but you only have to look at a relationship like Saudi Arabia to see that as long as they keep that oil coming we will turn a blind eye to their disgusting human rights record and the actions of their greedy plundering 'royal'family…
We have zero leverage with the Syrian regime because of Bush and his 'axis of evil' scenario which has had the effect of pushing the regime more toward Iran…surely not a natural alliance…
I prefer the carrot and stick approach because as evil as the regime is isolation and sanctions do not work-they only ever hurt the population.
Better to work with Turkey who seem to at least have some leverage….
It is beyond horrifying to see what the regime is doing to civilians but lets face it this has been going on for years and years….
I actually prefer Obama's disciplined dovish approach to whats happening in the region…after all where did Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld 'shock n awe' campaign get us- nowhere... it I also like the fact that he said on record that Israel must pull back to the pre 67 borders.
Palestinians must achieve statehood but it is also going to involve Arab governments getting over this evil zionist crap and everybody in the region creating peace starting right now…
I happen to believe that we,Iran and everyone should stay out of it….this is the Middle East everyone understands each other perfectly well so get on with it and lets get some peace and democracy going….

Post a Comment