Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk, who writes for The Independent in London, spoke from Cairo with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman today. The subject was the revolution in Egypt, and the main takeaway from the interview was that Barack Obama had a chance to undo a lot of the ill will among Egyptians in particular, and the Arab world in general, for the decades-long role the United States has played in their suffering.
He had a chance... and he blew it.
Of course our trouble-making in the Middle East is nothing new. This started way before Obama came along. As Fisk points out...
Clearly, we have maintained—first the British and the French, and then after the Second World War, with the Americans—we have maintained a system of patronage for ruthless, anti-democratic dictators across the region. We’ve called them kings, we’ve called them emirs, we’ve called them princes, we’ve called them generals, we’ve called them all kinds of presidents.
But what seems to bother Fisk the most is that Obama seemed to be different... he PROMISED to be different. (I suggest you listen to the interview here since these transcript snippets don’t really convey the occasional anger you can hear in Fisk’s voice over what the U.S. has done, and what Obama is doing.)
What they’re calling out for are everything which ordinary Americans would agree with: multi-party democracy; a new constitution which gives equal rights to everyone; an end to fraudulent elections ... These people are therefore asking for nothing less than Americans accept in their own lives.
With all the talk in this country about "spreading democracy" and how "freedom is paramount", you’d think any president (at least any one not named George W. Bush) would LOVE this opportunity. Well...
The great tragedy is that at this critical moment, Obama chose not to hold out his hand to the democrats and to say, "We support you, and Mubarak must go." He chose to support, effectively, Mubarak by saying orderly transition. You know, he wants another general—he’s already got one, Omar Suleiman, the Vice President—to take over. Omar Suleiman, the Vice President, is a general, head of intelligence, a very ruthless man. His people carried out a lot of tortures in the past against Islamist uprisings in Egypt. And for many of the people on the street, there was deep disappointment that at this critical moment the President of the United States, who came here to Cairo just under 18 months ago to tell the Muslim world—he held up their hand, and he said, "Do not clench your fists in response." When the democrats came onto the streets of Cairo and wanted what Obama had advertised to them, it was Obama who clenched his fist and Hillary Clinton who said that it’s a stable regime.
The discussion turns for awhile to the fact that not only the Egyptian leaders, but also their military have basically been puppets of the U.S. for a long time. And he talks about how Americans are all for freedom and democracy... just as long as it doesn’t affect our own self-interests. And although this is well-known among Egyptians and much of the Arab and Muslim world, Obama had a chance the win a few -- maybe a LOT of -- hearts and minds.
As I wrote in the paper, had Obama decided to say, "Look, I’m with the democrats; they’re doing what I talked about in Cairo 18 months ago, 17 months ago," there would have been American flags all over Cairo, all over Egypt. And indeed, it would have solved, in many Arab minds, all the wounds that the Arab and Muslim world has sustained from the United States [and other Western countries]...
American flags all over Cairo? Help make up for what we’ve done to the Arab/Muslim world over the past (especially) 10 years? Again... wouldn’t you think our gov’t would have just been DROOLING over an opportunity like this? That is, of course, if our primary concern was the PEOPLE of these countries.
One thing I hadn’t heard about was that one of the vehicles that ran over demonstrators (a number of videos on the Web) belonged to the American embassy. And in response to anger at the Americans, the embassy released a statement saying, ""Our diplomats don’t go out in the streets in such circumstances." Ok, fine... guess that means is wasn’t Americans driving the vehicle. But then the question becomes, who WAS in the car? Several days later, the embassy claimed that several of their vehicles were stolen recently, so THAT could be the problem. But, as Fisk wonders...
Well, how did they get those vehicles stolen? Did they lend them to the Mubarak government, perhaps? Or did they know the police had taken them and therefore chose to keep silent about it?
And if that sounds like conspiracy theory, how ‘bout this?:
Another example is when the first M1 Abrams tanks came into the square on the Friday. I’m talking about when they were ordered to attack the crowds. I noticed that the coding on the front of the vehicle—it had Egyptian codings for the brigades and parachute units on the side, in Arabic and Arabic numerals. But on the front of the vehicle was a coding, which began MFR and then a series of numbers of each vehicle. And I actually took it down, and a parachute officer started shouting at me and told two soldiers to arrest me. And I actually ran away into the crowd to get away from them. ... It seems that MFR stands for Mobile Force Reserve. And these are American-owned vehicles. These are American tactical deployment matériel, which is stored in Egypt ... Now, these vehicles, these tanks, which were threatening at that point the demonstrators, appear to have been vehicles that actually belong to the American military, not to the Egyptian military, but which were obviously used by the Egyptians in this instance... The question is, did the Americans know they were being taken? Did they give permission for this?... I have a feeling these were actually reserve vehicles belonging to your country which were being used by Mubarak’s government.
Note, if this is true, it’s far different than saying, "The Eqyptian government is using weapons sold to them by the U.S. at some point." No, this is more like, "The Egyptian government is using weapons that are currently being provided by the U.S. for use in this uprising." Obviously it can’t be proven right now if that’s what’s going on, but if it is... wow. Which might be one reason the U.S. seems to be worried about the possibility of a non-Mubarak-loyalist taking over the country. If that happens, some pretty ugly stuff may come out...
But like the tortures in police stations, which are now coming to light, I think that if this regime does crumble ... we’re going to learn a lot more of what went on behind the scenes. And it won’t be nice, and it won’t be something that U.S. governments will want to associate themselves with.
Finally, Amy asks Fisk what he thinks Obama should do. His answer is, basically, "It’s a little too late now."
The question is what he should have done.
You know, I never really believed quite in Obama... And I think that, you know, because of his weakness vis-à-vis the Republicans and of course the recent midterm elections and because of his vanity—I mean, Obama should never have taken the Nobel Prize... I mean, he should have said, "Look, I’m not worthy of it, but thank you"—he’s missed so many steps he could have taken to show that the moral values which he claimed to espouse in that famous Cairo speech... You know, if only he had stuck to those moral values in the Arab world, the warmth of the Arab world towards America... might have been reestablished. But it was a critical moment...he did blow it. He blinked. He was weak. He was vain. He chose not to support the good guys.
Strong words. But before anyone feels sorry for how Robert Fisk is badmouthing Barack Obama, how ‘bout you consider how this missed opportunity negatively impacts the U.S., and possibly the whole Arab world...
That failure will cost America yet again. It’s a tragedy in many ways. You know, here was an opportunity suddenly to get it right, and he flunked it. And he’s seen as being a very weak man in the Arab world. You know, Bush was seen as—in a sense, people preferred Bush, because they saw him as an intemperate bully, which is pretty much what he was out here, whereas Obama came forward with—you know, as a man who seemed to have something to offer of moral value. And at the end of the day, the moral values have gone out of the window... And, of course, the nightmare here is that if the demonstrators go home—whether they get arrested or not, and beaten and tortured afterwards is not the point—then there will be more stability, tourists will come back, the army will be happy, and then Mubarak will suddenly discover that, for the good of Egypt, he would like another six-year term starting in September this year. That, I think, is probably the nightmare scenario and not one that’s entirely, you know, without credibility.
The sarcasm and anger is clear in Fisk’s voice toward the end of this interview. Is he harsh in his criticism of Obama? Sure. Is it deserved? Well, considering not just Egypt, but also his actions re. Afghanistan, Pakistan, blocking war crimes prosecutions, etc, I’d say yes. I’m sure some here disagree with me (and Fisk). But deserved or not, if Obama were to listen to what Fisk has to say, and take it to heart, then maybe this opportunity hasn’t yet been totally missed.
http://www.democracynow.org/...