Rosebell Kagumire (Ugandan Blogger) and Her Thoughts On Kony2012

I have so many thoughts about this overnight craze with the Kony2012 campaign created by the organization Invisible Children (I will not even post a link to the Kony2012 video). I think it is time that we Westerners start hearing Ugandans speak for themselves. They really don't need us (contributing more conflict to their conflicts). The world should know more about people like Rosebell Kagumire in this Youtube video than war-criminals like Joseph Kony.

Egypt, Revolution, Samira Ibrahim, and Western Paternalists

In the recent Egyptian elections the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties won the majority of votes. Overrated intellects such as Alan Dershowitz and Thomas L. Friedman will be giving their "I-told-you-so"s to the West and even advice to secularists in Egypt. See Friedman's December 6, 2011 article "Egypt, the Beginning or the End?" in the New York Times. Dershowitz really knows best. On 01/31/11 he wrote a piece for the Huff Post World titled "The Egyptian Revolution May Produce a Lebanon-Type Islamic Regime." He wrote:

I have visited Egypt on several occasions, most recently a few months ago. Compared to other repressive dictatorships I have visited over the years, it was a 5 or 6 on a scale of 10 for the average Egyptian. The hard question is will it get better or worse. "It's too soon to say." My best guess is that it will get better for some and worse for others.

Wow! So much insight. Dershowitz somehow has the ability to judge the scales of repression in undemocratic countries.

I think it is a shame and disgrace that Egyptians or any other country would be expected to defend their revolutions from anyone other than their own. A revolution by its definition is an internal conflict that a given society has to resolve with its self. It is also condescending to tell them what they should do. Egyptians don't need so-called advice from Friedman or others. There is one thing we as Westerners, especially US citizens, can do: We can tell our government to stop sending billions of dollars (coming from US tax payers) of military aid to the Egyptian military. You know, that military that has kept the corrupt regime in power and tortured civilians. I may be wrong on this, but it seems the Egyptian military historically pawned off the job of repression more on the Egyptian police. Initially, when the revolution against President Mubarak began, the Egyptian military attempted to divorce themselves from the dictator and the police. The military posed as guardians of the people and the revolution. Their true colors came out quickly. The military now attempts to control and perhaps sabotage the revolution to maintain the power it always had.

Why do I not mention and criticize groups such as those austere and grim Salafists from the Nour Party that have recently took power in the new government? Because my tax money does not empower them. The US government has helped fund and maintain the long standing regime. The Egyptian state uses state power to repress Egyptians and the US government contributes to that power. Hence, the US is linked to this legacy. Brave activist women like Samira Ibrahim have fought against the US funded tyranny of Mubarak, the police and the military. As a consequence she, along with countless other women, had not only suffered under Mubarak's rule for decades, but currently had "virginity tests" (rapes) from the Egyptian military while incarcerated. (It could have been worse. As Dershowitz pointed out, this was only repression on the scale of 5 to 6 out of 10.)I have posted two youtube clips talking about her and her struggle. She is an inspiration to many and a condemnation to others.

Of course I hope this revolution gets better and transforms Egypt into a prosperous nation. I want to see Egypt have religious equality and gender equality. Egyptians, not I, will do that work. There are plenty of issues for US citizens to take on in our own country. Yet, I should try to get my own government to stop using limited US funds for repression-devices and weapons to be put in the hands of the bad guys in Egypt (and elsewhere).

Syria, Freedom, and Lessons In Hypocrisy

It is being reported that over 100,000 people in the Syrian town of Hama are mourning the loss of activists recently killed by government security forces. The town of Hama is no stranger to state brutality. The notoriously pro-Western Middle East historian Bernard Lewis wrote in his book The Crisis of Islam (2003)about the Syrian government's 1982 slaughter of it's citizens and the morally problematic role of the US government. He writes that the Syrian government cracked down on the town of Hama after an uprising initiated by the Muslim Brothers. The Syrian government:

Attacked the city with tanks, artillery, and bomber aircraft, and followed these with bulldozers to complete the work of destruction...The number killed was estimated, by Amnesty International, at somewhere between ten thousand and twenty five thousand...The massacre did not prevent the United States from subsequently courting Assad...Hafiz Al-Assad never became an American ally or, as others would put it, puppet, but it was certainly not for lack of trying on the part of American diplomacy (pp 108, 109)

Lewis also points out that this event got very little press compared to the massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps a few months later by Israel's Lebanese Christian militia allies.

Syrians, not just from Hama, have faced the heavy hand of the authoritarian Bashar Assad,son and successor of the late dictator Hafiz Assad. Reported in HuffPost World :

A 13-year-old Syrian boy detained by government forces has been brutally killed, his wounds displayed in a shocking video. The boy, identified as Hamza al-Khateeb, was shot, burned, and had his penis cut off when his body was returned to his family.

Syrians, like Tunisians, Egyptians,Yemenis, Bahrainis, Libyans, and Palestinians (more to add), are fighting for their freedom from such barbarism. All these people deserve international solidarity (that does not necessarily mean military intervention).Humans cannot and should not endure such horrors. Freedom loving people are in awe of these incredible revolutions spreading, but I think it is important to examine the geopolitical forces at play. A brief look at how ordinary citizens are being used by these forces is needed.

Lebanon's Hezbollah helped Lebanon become free of Israeli military occupation, yet now they support Bashar Assad's oppression of his people because they get aid from Syria. Iran expresses rage at Bahrain's repression of the Shiites by the Sunni monarchy while it represses it's own people and supports dictatorship in Syria. The US has a large Navy fleet in Bahrain and watches, if not supports, the unarmed citizen protesters being slaughtered (along with medical professionals tending to the injured) by the Bahraini monarchy because it is an enemy of Iran. Yet, the US and NATO bomb Qaddafi's forces in Libya to "protect" armed civilians from Libyan government attacks. The US supports the unpopular dictator Saleh in Yemen because he claims to help repress al-Qaida. Turkey stands in solidarity with Palestinians while they treat Kurds in Turkey in a similar way Israelis treat Palestinians. Israel talks about suffering from Palestinian terrorism and brazenly oppresses Palestinians with ample military aid from the US government. I can go on and on. My point is that solidarity in support of freedom needs to mean freedom for everyone: not tied to the hypocrisy of cold narrow political ends masked in the name of humanitarianism.

Here is a video posted in honor of the Syrian Revolution.

What in the Hell is NATO? (It Will Even Take On Climate Change)

The US State Department's website explains the background and role of NATO(North Atlantic Treaty Organization). It states:

Formed in 1949 with the signing of the Washington Treaty, NATO is a security alliance of 28 countries from North America and Europe. NATO's fundamental goal is to safeguard the Allies' freedom and security by political and military means...Article 5 of the Washington Treaty -- that an attack against one Ally is an attack against all -- is at the core of the Alliance, a promise of collective defense. Article 4 of the treaty ensures consultations among Allies on security matters of common interest, which after 60 years have expanded from a narrowly defined Soviet threat to the critical mission in Afghanistan, as well as peacekeeping in Kosovo and new threats to security such as cyber attacks, and global threats such as terrorism and piracy that affect the Alliance and its global network of partners.

It is interesting how NATO has conveniently expanded its role over the last several decades. The raison d'etre of NATO is as stated in Article 5 "that an attack against one Ally is an attack against all -- is at the core of the Alliance." Currently,with the wave of a magic wand, NATO views Article 4's "security matters of common interest" to mean, literally,whatever it wants to make it mean. It echoes the essence of the statement by Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that "the Constitution is what the judges say it is." In other words, NATO is what NATO says it is.

In 1999 NATO bombed Serbia due to the way it was dealing with it's internal conflict with Kosovo. A NATO member was not attacked. NATO decided it needed to intervene in the crisis regardless. Now, led by President Obama, NATO is involved in Libya's civil war (a significant distance away from the North Atlantic). What is the role of NATO?

I'm posting three short youtubes. One comes from a group promoting the "new" role of NATO. The two others are the opinions on the same topic by President Clinton's former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and President Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. What is noticeable is the blatant ambiguity of everything they are saying. There are no real concrete answers given.Madeleine Albright is even asked what role NATO has in dealing with climate change. NATO is now fighting wars dealing with environmental issues? The official NATO website has a most peculiar way of defining itself on the link "What is NATO?" It invites you to "Discover NATO." The viewer hears the sound of birds and forest water for a brief moment.There is a picture of teenagers jumping excitingly in the air. Juxtaposed to that picture is a couple laying down in the grass romantically. A computer animated flower is next to the guy. He stares at the girl while she is lazily reading. The definition reads:

We want to be sure that we can walk around freely in a safe and secure environment. Security in all areas of everyday life is key to our wellbeing, but it cannot be taken for granted.

Perhaps NATO will further expand by intervening in the global economic crisis? Would members be willing to bomb banks and send drones to assassinate corrupt CEOs? Even if such a surreal occurrence were to take place, in all likeliness, NATO would be on the other side of that war: "securing" markets. Or is that part of it's role already?

US/European Intervention in the Arab World

The Riz Khan show from last week on Al Jazeera English conveniently follows the topic I wrote about in my last blog. The topic covered on Al Jazeera addresses the curiosity many have as to why the West is intervening in Libya but not in places such as Bahrain and Yemen. This episode shows that the Arab and Islamic World are keenly aware that Western interests in Libya could be less than amicable. This skepticism is understandable when looking at the overall legacy (past and present) of Western policies in the North African and Middle Eastern regions.

The US Role in Bahrain Delegitimizes the US Role in Libya

On March 28, 2011 US President Barack Obama gave a speech to the nation regarding the US role in bombing Qaddafi's forces in Libya. Obama stated that the US must help the struggling people of Libya against the tyrant Qaddafi.To expand on his argument to justify intervention, he commented about the revolutionary "change" taking place throughout the Middle East and North Africa:

There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And then there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns will have to be addressed.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference.

I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one's own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith -- those ideals -- that are the true measure of American leadership.

The hypocrisy of Obama and the US government is striking. Or is it hypocrisy? I would argue that they are merely playing out unconvincing propaganda. In Bahrain peaceful civilians have been slaughtered when they have protested against the tyranny of their government. This is occurring with a huge US Navy fleet secured in Bahraini waters. The invasion of Saudi troops to crush the unarmed rebellion has not been condemned by the US. If fact, the US government publicly stated it was not an invasion(Similar in spirit to US Vice President Biden's comments that Mubarak of Egypt was no dictator). Some of the US public may be fooled, but any informed person can see that the US claim to humanitarian concerns in Libya is not convincing.

The US Government Just Loves Dictators Too Much To Let Them Go

The Tunisians kicked out their US-backed dictator and the US was completely caught off guard. The Egyptians resisted their US-backed dictator and the US eventually (Dare I say reluctantly?) sided with the protesters. Now the US-backed dictators of Yemen and Bahrain are slaughtering their people while the US makes cynical comments such as, "The US government is opposed to violence on both sides." As if there were two sides. The unarmed pro-democracy protesters are being fired on with live ammunition by the heavily armed US-backed pro government forces.

This first news clip I post reveals the mind set of ruling class Arabs and aspects to US foreign policy strategy. I have a hunch that all elites really are shaking in their boots right now. The US, unlike its monarchical friends, is at least supposed to pretend it supports democracy. Alas, phony rhetoric has a nasty habit of always being seen for what it is.

Lest we forget Libya. The so-called (or once upon a time) revolutionary Mu'ammar Qaddafi does not officially rule Libya. He merely represents it like a mascot cheering on the actual rulers, which are the people themselves. That's in theory anyways. He wrote about all these wonderful ideas in what is called al-Kitab al-Akhdhar, the Green Book. An excerpt from it reads:

The question arises: who has the right to supervise society, and to point out deviations that may occur from the laws of society? Democratically, no one group can claim this right on behalf of society. Therefore, society alone supervises itself. It is dictatorial for any individual or group to claim the right of the supervision of the laws of the society, which is, democratically, the responsibility of the society as a whole.

Perhaps the US government has one thing in common with good ol' Qaddafi, namely, they both use the ideas of democracy to do the exact opposite. Notice the protesters in Libya sharing their thoughts on the Green Book. The Arabs just might teach their corrupt leaders and the US what democracy really means.

The North African and Middle Eastern Revolutions: Which Side are You On?

Today CNN published an article titled "Egypt protests draw mixed reaction in region." The wrong reaction is only coming from sources or supporters of African and Middle Eastern dictatorships. What happened in Tunisia, what is happening in Yemen, Jordan,Algeria, and Egypt (more to come?) is straightforward: people are calling for basic human rights they have long been denied. Most of these dictatorships have been and are heavily supported by the US government and other nations. If a person or group does not unequivocally support these revolutions, the Egyptian one in particular,then that person or group sides with slaughter, torture, and all forms of oppression. Here is what the article shows:

Saudi Arabia "strongly condemns" the protest, it said. Mubarak assured the Saudi king "that the situation is stable" and that the protests "are merely attempts of groups who do not want stability and security for the people of Egypt, but rather they seek to achieve strange and suspicious objectives..."

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called Mubarak and "affirmed his solidarity with Egypt and and his commitment to its security and stability," according to the official Palestinian news agency, Wafa...

Benjamin Ben Eliezer, a member of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, told Israel's Channel 10 that he recently spoke with Mubarak, who told him that "this is not Beirut and not Tunis" and suggested that Egyptian authorities had prepared the army in advance...Ben Eliezer is known to be the Israeli politician with the best personal relationship with Mubarak...

What is the US position? Vice President Joe Biden said on PBS News Hour, "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator."

The most horrid comments come from John Bolton on Fox News!!! Then watch Gibbs mumble his garbage about Obama's position. By the way, unlike what Bolton said, Islamists have played a very small roll in all this.

I want to encourage all supporters of freedom to mobilize and demonstrate, call politicians, or whatever, to side with the Arabs against despotism. Lets be on the right side of history!

The US, Iran, and Democracy

In 1776 Thomas Paine wrote a revolutionary tract titled "Common Sense." He hoped to arouse rebellion of American colonists against the British. The tract's thesis is essentially that a democratic-republic is far superior to a monarchy. He wrote, "The king is not to be trusted without being looked after , in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is that natural disease of monarchy." Ironically in 1953 the US, collaborating with the British that Americans once fought to be independent of,overthrew democracy in Iran. The US government replaced the Iranian government with a tyrannical monarchy.

The long term repercussions of US involvement in Iran arguably resulted in the anti-American Islamic Revolution of 1979. This short film produced during the George W. Bush presidency argues that a bombing campaign/war with Iran in the future may also produce undesirable results in the future. Presently US President Obama and Israel continue to articulate the possibility of such an aggressive scenario.

Did US Intervention in Latin America Bring the War Home?

This youtube piece is a documentary on the gang MS 13 (also known as Mara Salvatrucha). This video is of poor quality and simply takes the approach of assisting community awareness. I found no quality analysis of their historical development. What caught my attention is that the documentary claims this gang originated in El Salvador. Supposedly M 13 originates from men that fought in El Salvador's Civil wars from the 1980s. They are reportedly trained in guerrilla tactics. If this truly is the case, it puts the legacy of US intervention in South and Central America on a whole different level: It brings the aftermath of the US Cold War to the home-front. I'm asking anyone reading and watching this to post information regarding this topic. It seems the need for an added critique of US foreign policy is waiting in the wings.