America, Lover of Revolutions

The United States supports the Arab popular uprisings and revolutions. Is it sincere? Is it believable that the U.S., which has been, on all occasions, the enemy of the people, would suddenly become a friend to the people and send warnings to Arab governments demanding that they step down or lay the foundations of democracy?

The revolutions are impacting not only the Arab world, but the whole world. The U.S. is worried because it has benefited from the creation of local dictators, who merit and deserve the name of dictatorship. The U.S. sets up milksops to rule over the mighty and oppress their people in their arrogance.

Now it appears that the United States wants to improve its image, and in every place where popular protests have emerged, the U.S. took the side of the protesters. However, it followed this pattern throughout: In the beginning, they were silent. If the protests continued, they issued a tentative statement about the necessity of respecting human rights. If the popular protests heated up further, U.S. officials demanded that the Arab governments reform and when things became unstable, the U.S. finally recognized that the regime was inevitably changing, made threats and declared that the regime’s rule is over. Then they started a search for supporters among the advocates of the new order.

In Tunisia, Gen. Ben Ali was not estranged from the U.S. rather, he was their favorite person in the region, a humble servant of the West, but when his fall was imminent, the U.S. went over to the side of the people of Tunisia, reluctant rather than heroic. In Egypt, the U.S. could not find a better man than Hosni Mubarak. Although he was a weakling, he was an expert in oppressing the people. In the beginning, the U.S. tried to calm the anger of the people, but the whirlwind was so strong that Washington was left in disarray, they jumped on the bandwagon, supporting the Egyptian opposition.

In Libya, they did not oppose the idiot colonel, Muammar Gadhafi, as they had done before; he had agitated against the U.S. and its empire, but then he became like an obedient child of the U.S. and gave them all the secrets of his nuclear weapons program. Therefore, the U.S. hoped he would stay in power, but the Libyans had other ideas, so the U.S. had to recognize the inevitable yet again.

This was repeated in other places and it will be repeated many times in the coming months and years. This flaming torch will not go out and the U.S. is ready for it, although in the beginning they did not expect it. After all, how could the CIA know that the desperation of a Tunisian street vendor would spark outrage in the entire Arab world?

The U.S. was not the only one to throw money down this sinkhole, since France clearly spent a lot when the Tunisian uprising blew up. France sent the tools for the oppression and torture of protesters to Tunisia, and when the destruction demonstrated how foolish their actions had been, they changed their ways when they came to Libya and initiated the immediate recognition of Libya’s National Transitional Council, as if this would make up for the wrongs they did to the Tunisians.

France had a different idea when it came to Libya, a country with an output of 1.5 million barrels of oil per day but with an unstable government, which would be easy to topple. So, NATO did not hasten Gadhafi’s defeat for the sake of Libyans, but for the sake of their black oil, which is described as the best in the world.

In terms of Yemen, the West apparently doesn’t care what happens, because it is a poor country and true to its heritage, making it very foreign to the West, so no one in the West cares if the Yemeni revolution succeeds or fails. No one talks about it.

The West does not support popular revolution, Arab or non-Arab, unless they have to. Perhaps they think that these aren’t real revolutions, but just a temporary flare-up that will leave no trace.