The Arab revolution and Western decline
By Ari ShavitTwo huge processes are happening right before our eyes. One is the Arab liberation revolution. After half a century during which tyrants have ruled the Arab world, their control is weakening. After 40 years of decaying stability, the rot is eating into the stability. The Arab masses will no longer accept what they used to accept. The Arab elites will no longer remain silent.
Processes that have been roiling beneath the surface for about a decade are suddenly bursting out in an intifada of freedom. Modernization, globalization, telecommunications and Islamization have created a critical mass that cannot be stopped. The example of democratic Iraq is awakening others, and Al Jazeera's subversive broadcasts are fanning the flames. And so the Tunisian bastille fell, the Cairo bastille is falling and other Arab bastilles will fall.
The scenes are similar to the Palestinian intifada of 1987, but the collapse recalls the Soviet collapse in Eastern Europe of 1989. No one knows where the intifada will lead. No one knows whether it will bring democracy, theocracy or a new kind of democracy. But things will never again be the same.
The old order in the Middle East is crumbling. Just as the officers' revolution in the 1950s brought down the Arab monarchism that had relied on the colonial powers, the 2011 revolution in the square is bringing down the Arab tyrants who were dependent on the United States.
The second process is the acceleration of the decline of the West. For some 60 years the West gave the world imperfect but stable order. It built a kind of post-imperial empire that promised relative quiet and maximum peace. The rise of China, India, Brazil and Russia, like the economic crisis in the United States, has made it clear that the empire is beginning to fade.
And yet, the West has maintained a sort of international hegemony. Just as no replacement has been found for the dollar, none has been found for North Atlantic leadership. But Western countries' poor handling of the Middle East proves they are no longer leaders. Right before our eyes the superpowers are turning into palaver powers.
There are no excuses for the contradictions. How can it be that Bush's America understood the problem of repression in the Arab world, but Obama's America ignored it until last week? How can it be that in May 2009, Hosni Mubarak was an esteemed president whom Barack Obama respected, and in January 2011, Mubarak is a dictator whom even Obama is casting aside? How can it be that in June 2009, Obama didn't support the masses who came out against the zealot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while now he stands by the masses who are coming out against the moderate Mubarak?
There is one answer: The West's position is not a moral one that reflects a real commitment to human rights. The West's position reflects the adoption of Jimmy Carter's worldview: kowtowing to benighted, strong tyrants while abandoning moderate, weak ones.
Carter's betrayal of the Shah brought us the ayatollahs, and will soon bring us ayatollahs with nuclear arms. The consequences of the West's betrayal of Mubarak will be no less severe. It's not only a betrayal of a leader who was loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation. It's a betrayal of every ally of the West in the Middle East and the developing world. The message is sharp and clear: The West's word is no word at all; an alliance with the West is not an alliance. The West has lost it. The West has stopped being a leading and stabilizing force around the world.
The Arab liberation revolution will fundamentally change the Middle East. The acceleration of the West's decline will change the world. One outcome will be a surge toward China, Russia and regional powers like Brazil, Turkey and Iran. Another will be a series of international flare-ups stemming from the West's lost deterrence. But the overall outcome will be the collapse of North Atlantic political hegemony not in decades, but in years. When the United States and Europe bury Mubarak now, they are also burying the powers they once were. In Cairo's Tahrir Square, the age of Western hegemony is fading away.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
...the citizens of Israel had the guts of these Arabs rising up against their corrupt masters. Let's not forget, since you obviously can't avoid fearmongering, that the 'betrayal' of the Shah was preceded by the betrayal of the Iranian people by removing their democratically elected government and putting a puppet in it's place. Your beloved, torturing, and dictatorial Shah. It comes as no surprise that the security, welfare, and happiness of a few million (Jewish) Israelis outweighs those of a few hundred million Arabs. Who are you kidding, but yourself?
The only reason the west was mooted in it's responce to the protests in Iran, was that the US's (and Britain's) reputation in that country is so poor, that anything we said would have helped Ahmadinejad, not hindered him.
It will bring a form of Arab Fascism. Nazi rule. We already see it in Syria where citizens greet the dawn with fascist salutes and the army goose-steps.
you just can't stop historical evolution and the betrayal of the West was, and still is, the betrayal of the democratic values that it itself preaches to the rest of the world! This is the real betrayal and the real contradiction! You can't eternally based international policy on hypocrisy...
This is great material...
economic imperialism is the name of the game.the relegation of the gentocracy is essential to the non-perpetuation of its endemic order.uncle sam gepetto has new marionettes to punch and judy for us.abdallah may yet prevail since the ungainly englishman is a relic of the old empire that never saw the sun set,a reminder to all and sundry that the old colonial order exists and is well in the heart of a cacophany of religous dissonance,much alike to nobel endorsed and USA promoted puppet pretender to the pharonic throne.
the West should have supported Mubarak because it was good for Israel. And we shouldn't care about the rape and torture centres? Israel's glorious political leaders should have realised that all empires fall even the onbe's that it relies on and made peace when they were in the ascendency. Now that Israel's supporters are in the decline, the cost will be higher. And just why can Israel have nuclear weapons but nobody else can?
Apparently, Carter had the ability from 5000 miles to give the Shah cancer so he'd have to leave Iran.
After the U.S. has been trying to get Mubarak, and the Arab monarchies to institute democratic and economic reform for how long?
So Carter betrayed the democratic Shah. And the west have to live with the Ayathollas. The goverment of Iran was not elected in US thus not acceptable . So the US will vote for a goverment that is best for the rest of the world. Welcome to democracy.
The Egyptians are your friends? what do you smoke for breakfast?
Keep on spurning and rejecting the Saudi Plan. Because Israel does not deserve the Saudi Plan - it deserves the punishment that is coming for rejecting the Saudi Plan.
accurate--but when you draw a direct (and arguably petulant) correlation between the West's "decline" and it's "failure" (in your eyes) to cover Israel's backside at all times (and no matter what)--then I think you are--to put it charitably--a bit "wide of the mark."
Are you suggesting betrayal of Shah and Mubarak might have been caused by Carter's&Bambi's hatred towards Israel ? It could be true .