Democracy Now's Amy Goodman interviewed Noam Chomsky to get his take on the Egyptian uprising and what it means to the United States. Here are a couple of excerpts:
The United States, so far, is essentially following the usual playbook. I mean, there have been many times when some favored dictator has lost control or is in danger of losing control. There’s a kind of a standard routine—Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, strongly supported by the United States and Britain, Suharto: keep supporting them as long as possible; then, when it becomes unsustainable—typically, say, if the army shifts sides—switch 180 degrees, claim to have been on the side of the people all along, erase the past, and then make whatever moves are possible to restore the old system under new names. That succeeds or fails depending on the circumstances.
...Actually, the only leader who has been really forthright and is becoming the most—maybe already is—the most popular figure in the region is the Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan, who’s been very straight and outspoken.
...I mean, it’s sometimes compared with Eastern Europe, but that’s not much of a comparison. ...In fact, about the only moderately reasonable comparison would be to Romania, where Ceausescu, the most vicious of the dictators of the region, was very strongly supported by the United States right up ’til the end. And then, when he—the last days, when he was overthrown and killed, the first Bush administration followed the usual rules: postured about being on the side of the people, opposed to dictatorship, tried to arrange for a continuation of close relations.
...the problems that the protesters are trying to address are extremely deep-seated, and they’re not going to be solved easily. There is a tremendous poverty, repression, a lack of not just democracy, but serious development. Egypt and other countries of the region have just been through a neoliberal period, which has led to growth on paper, but with the usual consequences: high concentration of extreme wealth and privilege, tremendous impoverishment and dismay for most of the population. And that’s not easily changed.
It's a long but interesting interview. Follow the link above to read the whole thing.
American-Ceausescu relations were very strong toward the end, particularly after the Romanians renounced Most-Favored Nation status after criticism of Ceausescu's human rights record. Frankly, I never understood why Ceausescu failed to employ his vast array of MIGs T-72s, AK-47s, and the other American weaponry manufactured by the Soviet in arsenal to stop the uprising.
ReplyDeleteAmerican-Ceausescu relations were so good, that it took substantial browbeat to get the Romanians to cooperate on things they wanted done such as the prosecution of Romanian war criminals who fled to American after the Second World War.
Chomsky's on American foreign policy would be more credible if started to engage in the basic best practices of historians and started to visit the National Archives, filed a FOIA request, conducted an oral history interview, to name a few.