a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

Falafgadaf

i think gaddafis look is "late 70s bob dylan as late 80s michael jackson"

omg this is perfect.

i would've settled for 00's mickey rourke but the bob dylan/michael jackson comparison works as well (if not better).

lol i told somebody today 'mickey rourke IS michael jackson IN libya 2011'

Good luck Eboue, Drogba, and brothers Touré:

Unidentified gunmen in Ivory Coast’s commercial capital, Abidjan, killed at least 10 policemen yesterday and seized one military vehicle, according to l’Intelligent d’Abidjan.

Gunfire was heard in the neighborhood of Abobo throughout the night, the Abidjan-based newspaper reported today.

The suburb is a stronghold of President-elect Alassane Ouattara, the internationally recognized winner of disputed Nov. 28 elections. Incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo has refused to resign, alleging voter fraud.

yup, gotta love all the people wringing their hands saying "are we sure they're READY for democracy?" cos they all look plenty ready to me.

Funny that a lot of the same people were conviced the Iraqis were ready for democracy come what may and a that lot of other people, who were saying "you can't impose democracy in Iraq, they're not ready for it", think the Egyptians et al are

a that lot of other people, who were saying "you can't impose democracy in Iraq, they're not ready for it"

i don't recall anyone saying this, Tom. i do recall several million people believing that democracy can't be imposed down the barrel of a gun.

interesting question on today programme of whether the_west shd help libyans now by imposing a no-fly zone

Confused by Tariq Ali's piece in the Guardian today.

The absurd, if much vaunted, neocon notion that Arabs or Muslims were hostile to democracy has disappeared like parchment in fire.

Didn't neocons think the opposite? Depends what you mean by neocons, I guess, but some were, if anything, excessively optimistic about democracy in the Arab world while some of the Iraq war's opponents were the pessimists, not just about Iraq (where they were right) but about the whole region. For example:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/the-fantasy-of-democracy-in-an-arab-state-569805.html

I found that link via David Aaronovitch on Twitter. Unlike him, I opposed the Iraq war and distrusted the rhetoric around it, but I think he's right to point out the lack of coherence coming from the likes of Fisk and Ali here. (Of course there's equal and opposite incoherence from the likes of John Bolton on the right)

^ that's what I meant

tariq ali's article is full of weird shit, like libya being a key US ally, the US loving the muslim brotherhood... best ignored really

dorian otm

In fairness, the neocons attitude to democracy tended to be completely different depending on which nation they were talking about.

I think the characterisation is meant to be:

-The Arab world is not ready for self-built democracy
-We should teach the poor Arabs about democracy and then they will love us.

Whether anyone on the right ever actually held this position is debatable, of course.

I know it's not good for your blood pressure to read Melanie Philipps articles, but I read one the other day in which she harangued people who were against the Iraq war for their hypocrisy in supporting democracy in Egypt, and then went on to say that she was against democracy in Egypt although she was pro imposing it in Iraq.

Personally, I felt at the time that one of the many tragedies of the Iraq war was that it actually set back and discredited the idea of democracy promotion.

Basically she's in favour of democracy of Arabs who know their place in the world and the region and don't get uppity

"for" not "of"

mad mel was thinking about "things that no one is even THINKING about", ie all she cares about is israel.

xp I think a lot of ppl (myself included) agree w you re Iraq

fuck knows. stack up the counterfactuals: were saddam in power now, what would be happening in iraq?

Personally, I felt at the time that one of the many tragedies of the Iraq war was that it actually set back and discredited the idea of democracy promotion.

― Citizen Smith (Jamie T Smith), Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:17 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark

i'm not sure what this means exactly. it evidently hasn't discredited the idea of democracy in general. are you saying these revolutions would have happened *sooner* were it not for the iraq war? or what?

Domestically, within the US and Britain, the idea of spreading our "values" was discredited, no? Whatever moral authority "we" had internationally was damaged?

I've no idea whether these revolutions would have happened *sooner* were it not for the iraq war, though.

No reason why they should have

I've had a lot of conversations with people where the "they're not ready for democracy" argument was largely informed by opposition to Iraq war.

Botched "liberal intervention" not only made more such interventions difficult/impossible (a good thing in my book) but also made promoting freedom/human rights/democracy through non-military means more difficult.

Sorry, thinking this through as I type, so thanks for making me be more precise.

It may not have set back the cause of democracy or its desirability, but it set back the West's (questionable and hypocritcal in any case) efforts to promote it.

Since these uprisings seem to have happened without either Western encouragement or opposition, probably had no impact on them whatsoever.

But it was an attempt to answer the hypocrisy charge, which has some mileage.

Domestically, within the US and Britain, the idea of spreading our "values" was discredited, no? Whatever moral authority "we" had internationally was damaged?

our moral authority was damaged by the torture, definitely, but people didn't oppose the war because it was inevitable that we'd start torturing people. they opposed it partly because, as tracer says, you can't impose democracy with a gun, which is certainly something to debate.* i think for a fair few anti-war types it isn't something even to debate tho. anyway, that's why i raised the no-fly zone question.

*tbh a lot of anti-war people went further than this, hence my shock at zizek recently becoming the 'liberal democracy 4 egypt' guy -- he's explicitly not in favour of liberal democracy usually, so what gives?

Botched "liberal intervention" not only made more such interventions difficult/impossible (a good thing in my book) but also made promoting freedom/human rights/democracy through non-military means more difficult.

― Citizen Smith (Jamie T Smith), Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:50 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

people weren't protesting botched intervention, just intervention. idk, i think we look incredibly shitty now for legitimizing gadaffi in the last decade, and the people who did it will tell you it helped the cause by turning him off WMD... complex shit man, complex shit.

*tbh a lot of anti-war people went further than this, hence my shock at zizek recently becoming the 'liberal democracy 4 egypt' guy -- he's explicitly not in favour of liberal democracy usually, so what gives?

guy talks a lot of shit?

duh

i think we look incredibly shitty now for legitimizing gadaffi in the last decade, and the people who did it will tell you it helped the cause by turning him off WMD... complex shit man, complex shit.

Never mind Venezuela, maybe Alex Salmond can offer Muammar a wee bungalow in Gourock or something

*tbh a lot of anti-war people went further than this, hence my shock at zizek recently becoming the 'liberal democracy 4 egypt' guy -- he's explicitly not in favour of liberal democracy usually, so what gives?

Don't know a lot about Zizek but he's presumably not in favour of military dictatorships either?

I think it could be as simple as a general support for self-emancipation of the people? Haven't read him on it so can't give an actual analysis, but seems reasonable.

Zizek has said explicitly before that military dictatorships can be better than democracies

[LIBYA, 9:45 a.m., 4:45 p.m. local] A Libyan military aircraft crashed Wednesday southwest of Benghazi after the crew refused to follow orders to bomb the city, Libya's Quryna newspaper reported.

Holy shit.

Since these uprisings seem to have happened without either Western encouragement or opposition, probably had no impact on them whatsoever

also possible: the uprisings are for democracy thanks to Iraq, otherwise they might've been for fascism, theocracy or some variant. Tbf the variables mount up so quickly it's best to judge Iraq on basis of Iraq only imo.

also possible: the uprisings are for democracy thanks to Iraq

Strikes me as highly unlikely, esp. considering it's hardly been a roaring success in Iraq so far. Currently pushing Belgium for the top slot as world's least functioning democracy aren't they?

Zizek has said explicitly before that military dictatorships can be better than democracies

― Mordy, Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:03 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark
durr durr do you have a cite or will you just continue repeating this one context-free statement until the end of time in order to 'prove' that Zizek, regardless of what he might say to the contrary, 'really' wants military dictatorships

PS I guess this does not exactly count as 'the region' unless the region in question is 'the mediterranean', but a friend of mine who is abroad right now and just missed (like, by a couple hours) the beginning of the egyptian stuff is now chilling in a hotel in athens in the middle of some light rioting

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-110223-greece-protest5-jm.photoblog900.jpg

xpost, re. Zizek

I have seen quotes from Zizek books in the LRB where he seems somewhat sympathetic to Stalin and Mao... not quite the same thing as supporting military dictatorships, but maybe heading in that direction.

oh man is that cop on fire??

the are they ready question re democracy is somewhat legit imo - only its not abt the people its abt the governmental institutions - tho obvs its not an argument against trying - its more an understanding of what its gonna take - weve seen in iraq voting isnt democracy particularly

btw this times headline after reading the article seems quite off the mark - replace fighting with massacring and you get the idea

http://grab.by/96PV

xxxpost Well I mean he's a total commie but... not like, an unrepentant, uncritical stalinist. I think what little he's written about the dude is mostly provocation — anti-anti-communism, as it were.

And I'm not sure what's wrong with being "somewhat sympathetic to" Mao tbqh, provided "somewhat sympathetic to" doesn't imply any kind of orthodoxy or dogma so much... as a shared problematic? "Third-Worldism" and all that.

(uh i put an ellipsis in the wrong place, hopefully my meaning can still be reconstructed)

it's becoming apparent to me that 1) libya having a lot more oil and 2) journalists effectively shut out of tripoli and 3) no background of steady labor organizing (as in egypt) means these protests are probably gonna end up really differently

being somewhat sympathetic to mao is no cool sry

I don't think I really understand what "sympathy" means in the context of history but whatever

greeks just freaking love rioting, its a part of their culture like baseball is to us

good points via our man #1 revolution fan sully http://www.themonkeycage.org/2011/02/why_do_protests_bring_down_reg.html

yeah that was good, but so much of this stuff just seems like common sense!

also, obligatory lol@academic trends:

Much of the action in the last days of January seems to have consisted of various high profile figures using the protest to signal their allegiance to or defection from Mubarak. This kind of signaling is less studied now in political science but it was a major part of the so-called transitology literature on authoritarian regimes in Latin America and other 3rd Wave cases.

(... which actually sounds like it would be kind of interesting to read!)