Re: Crisis in Egypt!
I know this is a little close to the wind, but I have been reading from a number of sources, analysis that could be very interesting, as long as it is discussed maturely. If it fails that test sadly I will have to pull the plug.
In summary, the analysis is that the wave of protests and revolutions occurring in 2011 mark the real end of the cold war, with these protests bringing down the US "Far Abroad" in the same way that the Protests of 1989 brought down the Soviet "Near Abroad". The main difference here is of course that the Soviets never had a Far Abroad" of their own and so the problems only manifested themselves when they were critical and right on the Soviets doorstep.
So is there a significant difference between a Near and Far Abroad in terms of its ability to impact a major power?
Can discontent in a Far Abroad be managed or sacrificed in order to ensure that it does not spread to the "Near Abroad"?
If not, where would you expect the protests to spread to over the short to medium term?
Think before you post!
Sorry for waiting so long, Sampan. But at least I was able to think a little bit.
The main thing about the Middle East, is that it isn't just any old "Far Abroad". It is a rather special one, as it holds 50% or so of the worlds oil reserves (have not checked the figure). Even without this, the region lies at the intersection of the three largest continents, and is also home to the center of one of the major world religions. Strategically speaking, this is the most important region in the world, and has been seen as the single most important strategic "prize" for decades by both the US and the Soviet Union when it was around.
So let's look at the bigger picture:
- In the 'AfPak' region, it appears, not only that the both of the governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan are simultaneously becoming estranged from the US, but that they have begun to cooperate among themselves. They have also turned more and more towards Iran, Russia, Turkey and China. Relations between the US and Pakistan have reached a crisis point in the last couple of weeks, with the Raymond Davis case, and relations with Karzai keep reaching new lows.
- Lebanon has just dumped the pro-American Prime Minister, Hariri, and replaced him with someone friendly to Hezbollah. All of this, because Hariri, and the US, insisted on continuing with the STL ploy, against the wishes of the Iranians, Syrians, Turks, and others.
- An American puppet has been removed in Egypt, while unrest continues in Yemen, Bahrain and other pro-American bastions in the region. Tunisia, while less crucial to US policy than Egypt, was also a friend of the US. Already, Abbas has had to promise elections, and generally, there is no end in sight, as yet, to the crisis in this region.
- Iraq today finally has a prime minister, but he owes his position to the Sadrists and to mediation by Iran. If all else were fine in the region, this would merely be a bad situation, but in the current environment, Maliki is not likely to repeat his performance of 2007-8, when he turned against the Sadrists that had supported him. Seeing the American position weaken, he would be foolish to stick his neck out for the US that way.
I think what we are seeing today is the collapse of the American grip on the Middle East. This prolonged period of war, of forcing various "allies" to bend over backwards, to do things against their will, or that are not in their own interest, has taken its toll. This is the case with Mubarak, Abbas, the Pakistani government, Maliki, Karzai, and others. The last 10 years have stressed the hell out of the relations between the US and pretty much every single player in the region.
But this is quite different from the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is just a particular strategy which is collapsing. The US is no worse off than it was in 1974, for example, in terms of the Middle East.
As to the cold war... well the world is no longer divided into two "camps", so one has to interpret the "real end of the cold war" according to the view that the US is still pursuing it's cold war aims. Well, during the cold war, the US and the SU both tried to impose their own ideologies, "systems", or "mode of development" as the Chinese now say, on there respective spheres of influence, under the mistaken notion that this would guarantee friendship and alliance. Russia junked these views when the Soviet Union collapsed. The US did not. Will the US junk this method now? Well it could, in my view it should, but actually, there's no connection between this problem and the current crisis, so I doubt it.
Will the crisis spread? I think it will. Not necessarily unrest and revolution in the fashion of Egypt and Libya, but in the sense of spreading problems for the American position world wide. The reason is that the US is forced into damage control mode in the region which is
most important for it, and therefore has no time for other problems. The US is being "attacked where it must defend". Because of Egypt, Bahrain, etc, even pressure on Iran has become secondary, and you can forget about Lebanon. And when the cat is away, the mice will play.
Note the very clever and bold move by the Iranians just a couple of days ago. They sent a couple of military vessels up the Suez Canal (and up Tantawi's, and Israel's kazoo) for the first time since 1979. The Egyptians said no, then thought about it, and said yes. If the Egyptian military had refused the Iranians, it would be one more sign for the people that nothing has changed. But by allowing them to pass, the Iranians sow discord, both between Egypt and Israel, as well as between different factions in the military.
This move itself is a measure of the things that are now possible, and all those, worldwide, who are uncomfortable with American domination will be free to take bolder actions such as this, at least for a certain period, but more likely, from now on.
The current wave of revolutions can perhaps be seen as marking the true birth of a multi-polar world.
