Sunday, January 30, 2011

The tyrannophile faux-left and Hosni Mubarak



And who did we hear this morning on radio? Tony Blair basically defending his
mate Mubarak.
writes our friend Olching in the comments section to our last post.


And there's more on Tony and Hosni from Mehdi Hasan over at the NS
Tony Blair, that other great neoconservative crusader for freedom and democracy in the Middle East, visited Egypt with his family on holiday on several occasions, had countless meetings with Mubarak, but never chastised him in the manner that he now chastises, say, the Iranians. Shamefully, Blair, while in office as prime minister of the United Kingdom, allowed Mubarak to pay for his family's luxury holiday at the Red Sea resort of Sham-el-Sheikh in December 2001. Was he worried, I wonder, about the freedom and human rights of political prisoners languishing in Egyptian prisons while he sunned himself in his holiday villa, as a guest of Mubarak's dictatorship?
The faux-left love to label the genuine left as ‘apologists for dictators’ ’Stalinists’ ‘or tyrannophiles’.
But when it comes to apologising for tyrants no one is more guilty than neocons and the faux-left.

PS The odds on any other faux-leftist/ neocon writing a piece condemning Tony Blair for his association with the brutal dictator Hosni Mubarak: 1,000,000-1.
 

1 comment:

Czarny Kot said...

Good luck to the protesters.

I just hope that someone has a plan for what happens if /when Mubrak falls.

The famous Polish journalist Ryszard Kapucinski personally witnessed more than a few revolutions. He said that one memory common to them all was not molotov cocktails but rather some tired looking people sitting round a table saying 'what now?'

Generally, people do not revolt against good leaders and regimes. They rise up against regimes which are oppresive, corrupt etc.. As a result, nearly all revolutions seem like a Good Thing at the time. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we can tell if they really were a Good Thing.

Only the most bitter Communist diehards would argue that the collapse of Communism in E Europe was not a Good Thing at the time. The fact that countless polls and surveys show that many in the ex-Eastern Bloc now remember the old days quite fondly should be seen as a failure of what happened next, rather than as an endorsement of the old system.

Thankfully, most of the E European countries managed a peaceful transition. Yugoslavia and Iraq, howver, show what can happen when a long-standing strongman departs the scene-- ethnic and/or sectarian conflict.

I do not know enough about Egypt to be pessimistic or optimistic about the future. It could be a mixed future-- a more Islamist-minded Egypt could be a blessing for the people of Gaza whilst being a further blow to the Egyptian Copts, already reeling from bomb attacks.

As for Western hypocrisy, it is there for all to see. It is not only Western governments though. Whilst Washington and Whitehall deem authoritarian leaders as acceptable or not depending on whether they are pro-Western or not-- Mubarak OK, Lukashenko Bad-- many commentators play the same game from the other side. Authoritarian regimes which are deemed anti-Western are given a pass whilst pro-Western stooges are rightly denounced-- Mubarak Bad, Lukashenko OK.

Obviously we live in a world where many countries are not democratic. Rather than judging them by their relationship with the West, we should judge each one on its own merits--- why is it not a democracy? What are its political history and traditions? What are the alternatives to the current regime?....

This way, Lukashenko and Mubarak could both be seen together as necessary evils (or tyrants in need of deposing) regardless of what people with their own agenda try to tell us.