Monday, January 02, 2012

Juan Cole and the tension of liberal colonialism


Juan Cole has listed 5 foreign policy challenges for the US in 2012, number 3 being Syria and number 2 being Egypt. One might be charitable and describe Cole as neutral on the issue of states in the Middle East being independent and accountable to their populations rather than to Cole's country, the United States. But one must admit that he expresses comfort and reassurance at the idea that the foreign policies at least of these countries are not determined locally.

My comment posted there did not pass the moderation filter, but I'll leave it here.
The Muslim Brotherhood is making it clear that they want to submit the 1979 Camp David Peace treaty to a national referendum. A Muslim Brotherhood prime minister or president is most unlikely to be willing to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or to continue to help impose a blockade on the Palestinian civilians of Gaza. The Egyptian military is still ultimately in control, and it does not want hostilities with Israel, so that this change is unlikely to go beyond producing tensions.

What makes you write, in the context of a future with a sitting parliament and an Islamist post-Mubarak prime minister, that the Egyptian military is still ultimately in control? The constitution of post-Mubarak Egypt has not been written or at least not released to the public.

Have you heard indications of this behind the scenes from Obama administration officials?

You also present it as a reassuring thing, which raises the question, do you approve of Egypt’s voters not being sovereign over Egypt’s foreign policy but that instead Egypt’s foreign policy should remain accountable to the United States?

In any case, rising Egyptian-Israeli tensions for the first time since the early 1970s present a severe challenge to US policy, which attempts to maintain good relations with both.

That’s an interesting way to put that. Would you describe the US’ relationship with Iran under the Shah as an “attempt to maintain good relations” with Iran? The Shah, like Mubarak and Tantawi, was a dictator over whom the United States held tremendous leverage and over whom his own people had no leverage until at least hundreds were dying in the streets in protest. Is that your idea of good relations?

The crisis in Syria remains grave. It can only end in one of three ways: The regime succeeds in repressing the reform movement, 2) the reform movement comes to power, or 3) the regime makes enough changes to allow a slow transition away from one-party authoritarianism.

I don’t remember ever reading you characterize Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or UAE as authoritarian.

Last year the phrase you used to describe the Mubarak dictatorship was “unproblematic for the US”. No mention of authoritarianism there either.

And of course, you’ve referred in agreement to Freedom House describing Morocco and Kuwait as “partly free”.

Do you give passes to pro-US authoritarian dictatorships in the Middle East? If so, why?
Cole came to prominence as a critic of the George W. Bush administration. I once thought he was far more liberal than he actually is. Cole's only criticism of Mubarak, of Iran's Shah, and if he's consistent also his only criticism of the British indirect rule of parts of India and Great Britain's control of the colonies that are now called UAE is that those examples of colonialism may not effectively hold those countries under control.

If Western countries are actually able to hold non-Western countries effectively, Cole's language indicates that he favors colonial-style relations. That puts him in agreement with Barack Obama no more or less than it does with Winston Churchill and Cecil Rhodes.

6 comments:

George Carty said...

Does Cole only advocate colonial-style policies in the Middle East (for Israel's sake) or does he advocate them in other parts of the non-Western world too?

Arnold Evans said...

I have to say that the United States is a lot more intensely anti-democratic in Israel's region than anywhere else in the world.  I also observe that Americans, if pressed, admit that they are happy the governments of the region do not follow what they admit they believe are the perspectives of the majority of their populations because of Israel.

You'll notice even here that supporters of American policy can't when pressed, deny that they are against democracy until the people of the Middle East accept Israel, but since they've admitted that, begin making justifications of why the people of the Middle East deserve to be subjugated.  Cole would just end the conversation before it reaches that point.  Cole will not admit, as some do here, that he opposes democracy in Israel's region. Probably if given a truth serum, he'd end up sounding a lot like the recent commenters noname and cowboy, basically the people of the Middle East aren't worthy of governments that represent them.

Today, the non-Western world is not that difficult to keep within acceptable policy bounds even with more or less representative governments except where Israel is a salient issue.  If the US still was committed to an enforced White political majority state in South Africa, that would have the same effect on US policy with respect to its neighbors that Israel has. But it is not, so people in Southern Africa can vote without necessarily being a threat to the US agenda.

Arnold Evans said...

I have to say that the United States is a lot more intensely
anti-democratic in Israel's region than anywhere else in the world.  I
also observe that Americans, if pressed, admit that they are happy the
governments of the region do not follow what they admit they believe are
the perspectives of the majority of their populations because of
Israel.

You'll notice even here that supporters of American
policy can't when pressed, deny that they are against democracy until
the people of the Middle East accept Israel, but since they've admitted
that, begin making justifications of why the people of the Middle East
deserve to be subjugated.  Cole would just end the conversation before
it reaches that point.  Cole will not admit, as some do here, that he
opposes democracy in Israel's region. Probably if given a truth serum,
he'd end up sounding a lot like the recent commenters noname and cowboy,
basically the people of the Middle East aren't worthy of governments
that represent them.

Today, the non-Western world is not that
difficult to keep within acceptable policy bounds even with more or less
representative governments except where Israel is a salient issue.  If
the US still was committed to an enforced White political majority state
in South Africa, that would have the same effect on US policy with
respect to its neighbors that Israel has. But it is not, so people in
Southern Africa can vote without necessarily being a threat to the US
agenda.

Lidia said...

I would say that the most repugnant recent words by Cole was 

http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/iraqis-celebrate-being-free-of-us-troops-fear-us-meddling.html#comment-86139

"The only place in the Arab world where I know of American military action of any sort at the moment is Yemen, where there have been drone strikes secretly authorized by the outgoing Saleh government. The strikes are seen in Washington as self-defense, which is permitted in international law. In any case, you can’t really say the US is at war with Yemen, as opposed to being authorized secretly by Yemen to take out al-Qaeda."

So, you see, when USA is bombing Arabs with "authorization" by its puppet it is OK. Not a word, by the way, why Saleh is "outgoing". 

But I suppose the close second was Cole's answer to his mostly loyal reader 

http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/2011-end-of-us-hyperpower-its-war-with-islamdom.html#comment-85997

"Juan; what about the reports that the Taliban leaders were willing to hand over OBL if they were supplied substantial evidence of his involvement in the attacks of 9/11/01? If those reports are true, does that not make the war on Afghanistan illegitimate?Juan 12/31/2011 at 4:02 pm The Taliban were bought and paid for by Bin Laden and weren’t going to hand him over. That’s ridiculous."

I suppose it brings new meaning to word "intellectual dishonesty" and shows a bit what  Cole's commitment to "law" (as in "lawful war") really means. 

I could not agree more with Arnold when he sees not real difference between Cole's imperialism and imperialism by "Cowboy" and so, by Rhodes (or Roosevelt)

Arnold Evans said...

Lidia, we must be the same person.  When I saw the first comment I thought to respond, but I realized that there was no response I could write that he'd let through moderation and my response to that would have been a lot like this comment anyway.

It is not a war if Washington considers it self defense? Umm, what about Iraq then?

I'm glad someone else sees that.

Lidia said...

As a matter of fact I am sure you are my long lost twin :)

Of course, a lot of people see it, even on Cole blog, not mentioning the majority of the world population who just not clever enough to see how bombing Yemen means "self-defense" for some state half a globe away. Cole is a fine example of an American liberal justifying any imperialist crime by some "law" gimmic . Obama used the same logic about Libya, and I would not say the USA war against Libya (one more Arabic country) is over. 

Of course, there still are one or two liberals in USA who do not do it, to be fair. Vidal is one.