Is the West Really Standing by the Peoples’ Revolutions?

The aims of Washington’s hypocrisy toward the Arab uprisings are well known. It cares only for its interests and those of its strategic ally, Israel.

It has become blatant that the West applies double standards to world events. This is not an affront to the other countries or a show of skepticism about their positions, but rather an attempt to clarify their positions in the ongoing Arab uprisings.

When the Soviet Union fragmented at the end of the 1980s, the American administration created the impression that it had come out victorious at the end of the Cold War and that the capitalist approach had triumphed over the socialist model. Brzezinski said at that time that “democracy was the best prescription for toppling the communist regime and the Soviet Union along with it.”* Western propaganda also cheered the uprisings that took place in states that used to belong to the Soviet Union, giving them names like the Velvet Revolution, the White Revolution and others all because what was happening represented the end of what had remained of the Soviet legacy. The door was likewise opened wide for the United States to enter these nations that previously had been defiant and closed off to it.

The objective of American administrations is to serve America’s universal strategy, particularly on the Asian continent, in order to confront the two emerging nations, China and Russia, and also to build military bases in Asian nations to help it in Afghanistan.

As for the Arab world, the United States has several aims including:

1. Control over Arab oil and to take from it the quantities it needs at cheap prices. This is what it strove for after the demise of British hegemony in the Middle Eastern states in 1945 following World War II. We recall how it orchestrated a coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh to prevent him from continuing to nationalize Iranian oil and how it invented flimsy arguments against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq to invade and occupy it in 2003 because he nationalized Iraqi oil in 1972. The United States also called for investment in oil as a weapon in the central Arab battle over Palestine in 1973.

2. Upholding the pledge to protect and ensure the security of the Zionist entity by offering every possible material and moral force politically, economically and through the media. Although Obama has tried to create the impression in the global public opinion that he is in favor of a just solution to this complex issue and that he supports the two-state solution with the 1967 borders, he gives in to Zionist pressure every time and backs away from his promises. Recently, and within just two weeks, he has retracted his statement in which he promised to establish a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders. He retreated in the face of pressure from Netanyahu and said he supported a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, but not on those borders specifically.

3. The American administration has, of late, adopted a third objective of fighting so-called terrorism in the Middle Eastern states, carrying this out by occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. The result is the destruction of these two Muslim countries and the loss of thousands of lives among their populations.

The American administration has supported the Yemeni regime in its fight against terrorism — that is, fighting al-Qaida as well as the Houthis. This result is a quasi-civil war that has almost drawn in Saudi Arabia significantly. Yet the buck hasn’t stopped there. In fact, it has reached the point where Arab resistance forces, wherever they are, are considered terrorists because they resist the Zionist presence in Palestine and the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Among the double standards in U.S. positions is that it considers Islamic parties and movements as terrorist forces and has encouraged the Arab regimes harboring them to seize them and limit their public movements; at times it does so by arresting them, and at other times, it cuts off their livelihoods. When the winds of change swept across the Arab countries, and the uprisings widened, and the role of the Islamic parties became more prominent, the regimes made the Islamists out as the bogeyman, but the American administration was not to be deceived and instead gave clear signals that it was ready to work with these groups so they could later share in ruling, whether in Egypt or elsewhere. American Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said in a press statement on Feb. 24, 2011 that her country does not object to Islamists gaining power as long as they are committed to the treaties that ensure security in the region, by which she means the security of the Zionist entity. A study published by Agence France-Presse on March 28 reported that the West is ready to abandon the traditional regimes in the interest of relations with Islamists who have influence on Arab Islamic streets. The American administration believes that the Turkish model is an example that could be emulated in the region.

We must point out that the leaders who were ousted and those who are reeling under the blows of the revolutionaries were severely disappointed with America’s position of supporting their removal. It is as if they have not read history or heeded warning from what happened to a number of leaders whom the American administration abandoned the moment their tasks were over or as soon as their usefulness had expired. Condoleezza Rice told Congress that the administration’s mission for the coming period is to renounce its allies whose usefulness is spent; they’ve been assigned to history. The administration has made itself appear blameless to the new generations, claiming that it supports peoples’ movements that advocate freedom and democracy. Corruption among rulers occurred with its knowledge and consent, and it knew full well that corruption is adverse to democracy. When it supported totalitarian regimes, it wanted the people to be humiliated by their leaders, and it pushed the younger generations to harbor yet more resentment, resulting in the blow-out. It pushed them to pick up weapons and to spark a civil war yielding nothing but destruction and ruin for their countries. The U.S. administration knew of the corruption of the regimes affiliated to it — the so-called moderate regimes, yet it remained silent because it cares not for real reform in Arab countries. Neither does it care about the happiness of Arabs. The Arab rulers did not want to grasp this fact or take heed from the lessons of their predecessors. As for the reform the U.S. administration has called for, it is reform by its rules and as stipulated by the International Monetary Fund.

The aims of America’s hypocrisy in its position toward the Arab uprisings is well-known. It cares only for its interests and those of its strategic ally, the Zionist entity. We must be very careful of these dubious positions and the possibility that they might infiltrate the ranks of the revolutionaries and deflect their revolution from its real reformist path.

*This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified