Al Jaz - infantile maunderings

Have been regretting adding Al Jaz "In Depth Features" to my RSS. Today's offering from Marwan Bishara, their "senior political analyst", overflows the cup. If I felt a need for lousy syntax and sophomoric content I'd read the New Statesman. 

The military's insistence to keep the Mubarak appointed Ahmad Shafiq government for the transitional period has raised concern. Likewise, freezing the constitution is a double edge sword. While it allows for writing a new more democratic constitution, it could also enable the military leaders to act according to its own interest, rather than the interest of the revolution [d'you think?].

It also begs the question [he means raises the question - begging the question is when the proof of a proposition is implicit in the premise], why hasn't the military command cancelled the emergency laws nor freed those arrested during the last three weeks, not to mention the political prisoners?

In the short term, the foremost loser are the region's autocrats who most likely will face serious pressure as the spirit of peoples’ power spread around the Arab and even Muslim world. So will al-Qaeda and its ilk that preferred violence to peoples' power. [I'm getting all misty-eyed]

In the long run, the three theocracies, or theocracy-based regimes - Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran - could see their religious-based legitimacies falter in favour of civic and democratic legitimacy as more people rise and claim their governments as citizens and people not subjects and sects.[then again, they could not - wanna bet on it?]

A united, democratic and strong Egypt can regain its long lost regional influence as an Arab leader. It will eclipse Saudi Arabia, put the belligerent Israeli occupation on notice [Of what? Peoples' Power? Because the armed forces sure as hell don't want another round with the IDF], and curtail the Iranian Ayatollahs’ ambition for regional influence.

Mubarak left because the military told him it was time to go. The only way Bishara's dream can come true is if the second largest and most privileged armed forces in the Arab world (after Pakistan) hand over power and thereafter refrain from intervening when their interests are threatened. And the three bears.

Ashton says we have "deep democracy" thanks to the EU

Unelected - by any constituency, anywhere, anytime - EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton, having been turned away by the Egyptian authorities, has laid out her message in a Guardian article.

I hardly need to parse her argument - as you can see from the comments following the article, it was too hypocritical even for the lefties who read the Guardian to swallow. However, it is a very clear expression of the corporativism that is the organizing principle of the EU and as such repays study.

Two principles underpin the European Union's actions. The first is that we in Europe know how long and painful the journey towards liberty can be. Our own path to 20th century liberal democracy was a slow one. The EU itself was born in the ashes of conflicts that reminded us how terrible life can be when democracy breaks down. Add in the mixed record of Europe's empires, and some humility is in order, even as we assert that democracy is the necessary foundation of human progress.

Second, democracy is, of course, about votes and elections – but it is also about far more than that. What we in Europe have learned the hard way is that we need "deep democracy": respect for the rule of law, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary and impartial administration. It requires enforceable property rights and free trade unions. It is not just about changing government but about building the right institutions and attitudes. In the long run, "surface democracy" – people casting their votes freely on election day and choosing their government – will not survive if deep democracy fails to take root.

All very plausible, right? Except that it is a very well-drafted - not to say "deep" - excuse for the total absence of democratic oversight in the EU and for the spurious eminence of an apparatchik like Ashton. Democracy is entirely about votes and elections, and anyone who suggests otherwise is the enemy of freedom.

In the case of the foul Ashton there can be no doubt about it: she was the treasurer of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament when its main source of funding was the KGB.

P.S. After posting the above, saw that Autonomous Mind had let go a similar broadside. I imagine I'll find a few more as I work through my RSS. Ashton's words, and her history, are compellingly revealing about the nature and intention of the European project. I feel so sorry for the peoples of Eastern Europe who have jumped from the frying pan of Soviet totalitarianism into the fire of Eurocorporativism. Same animal, different stripes. 

The Egyptian revolution

Always happy to see a dictator get the heave-ho, although events have proved that Mubarak's regime was not dictatorial enough. Ya gotta be a socialist to do dictatorship right.  Look at the Castros in Cuba - fifty-two years and counting.

Still, I'm with Edmund Burke on revolutions: "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations". If there were any prior history of democracy in Egypt, any institutions other than the armed forces to provide continuity, one might be more sanguine. It is always possible that some kind of new, civilian-run order will emerge from the inchoate protests that brought Mubarak down - but it's not the way to bet.

In general, a prolonged period of submission to arbitrary power reduces the possibility that it will be replaced by responsible self-government when overthrown. The exceptions that test the rule are the more western members of the old Soviet Bloc, who made the transition remarkably well. The clue there lies in "more western" - they were only subject to despotism for forty-five years, and retained the memory and the habits of responsible self-government developed before Soviet occupation. 

As far as the Middle East is concerned, the most optimistic precedent is the way Ataturk and the army broke with the supranational Ottoman inheritance to impose a new, nationalist order on Turkey. Unfortunately that option is not open to the Egyptian military. First of all, Egyptian nationalism produced the pan-Arabist Nasser, not a westernizing Ataturk. Secondly, the Muslim Brotherhood is not tainted by association with obscurantist clericalism and is the only organized opposition.

I think the military will have to do a deal with the Brotherhood. Let's see what the terms of that deal are before celebrating a brave new dawn in Egypt.

On saying nothing when one has nothing to say

One of the most startling insights I was granted into what I subsequently dubbed the "arrogant ignorance" of a certain type of Brit came when someone I thought well of echoed the fool Wedgewood Benn's "itsh about oil" judgment on the invasion of Iraq.

After I deconstructed her comment, she retorted: "Just because I don't know anything about it doesn't mean I don't have a right to an opinion". Nobody could argue that she did, indeed, have the right: the question was why she should think it necessary to formulate an opinion when confessedly ignorant of the matter at hand.

Thus Nordlinger's article "The Humility of the Knowledgeable" in National Review, that one could wish were compulsory reading for the Brit journopukes currently giving us the benefit of their ignorance about what is going on in Egypt, by far the most populous Arab country with well over twice the population of Algeria, the next largest.

Those who know the most about the Middle East are saying the least, when it comes to the turmoil in Egypt. Or they are speaking most cautiously. They’re quickest to say, “I really don’t know. I don’t know the exact nature of this, or how it will turn out.” They seem to be humblest, about what can be known, now.

I’m talking about Bernard Lewis, David Pryce-Jones, Amir Taheri, Fouad Ajami — people like that. These are men who have spent years and years in the Middle East, studying its politics, peoples, and languages, taking in everything possible. Those who know less speak in far more confident tones. They are even cocksure. I’m not sure we should trust anyone who speaks in those tones, just now.

Like anyone in the rest of the world gives a shit

William Hague declared that the Mubarak dictatorship needs to accommodate the “legitimate demands of protesters”.  In an interview for CNN, the boy Cameron said "I think what we need is reform in Egypt". "I mean", he went on "we support reform and progress in the greater strengthening of the democracy and civil rights and the rule of law."

Overawed by the blinding wisdom of these British seers, Mubarak has ordered the complete liberalization of Egyptian society, invited the Muslim Brotherhood to join his cabinet and everything will now be wonderful.

Oh - he hasn't? You mean to say a wog dictator has ignored the advice of Her Britannic Majesty's Prime Minister and her Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? Tsk - what's the world coming to?