Antony Loewenstein

The numbers prove it (via IPS):

Despite repeated expressions of support by President Barack Obama for democratic change during the “Arab Spring”, the United States remains widely distrusted in the region, according to a major new survey of public opinion in five Arab countries released here Monday.

Instead, Turkey is viewed as having played the “most constructive” role in the past year’s events and its prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, emerged as the most admired leader by far in the region, according to the 2011 edition of the annual “Arab Public Opinion Survey” conducted by Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution.

The survey, which was conducted during the last half of October, was based on detailed interviews of some 3,000 respondents from urban centres in Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It also included Saudi Arabia, the results from which, however, arrived too late to be weighted with the other five countries.

“Turkey is the biggest winner of the Arab Awakening,” said Telhami, who noted that, despite increasing disillusionment with Obama’s performance on Israel-Palestinian issues, the U.S. president himself appears to have gained some ground in Arab public opinion since the summer of 2010 when the last survey was conducted.

Nonetheless, most Arabs, according to the new poll, continue to believe that Washington’s policies in the Middle East are mainly driven by its desire to control oil and protect Israel from its Arab neighbours. Only five percent said they believe the U.S. is driven by the desire to spread human rights or democracy.

Last week I was invited down to Canberra to give the keynote speech at the Independent Scholars Association of Australia 2011 Conference. It was held at the National Library to an appreciative audience. The following are my notes:

-       Quote from Julian Assange, The UnAuthorised Autobiography, p. 119/120 + 168

-        What is modern journalism if not mostly collection of sanctioned leaks from the powerful to lazy media? Take the MSM media on any day, ABC, Fairfax or News Ltd, and see how much so-called news are rehashed press releases.

-       Personal favourite lead ABC news radio story early in 2011: “Abbott says Gillard lying over carbon tax.”

-       If this is the crisis in MSM, then hard to shed any tears.

-       Wikileaks offers an alternative, a prospect for a different, more collaborative kind of media.

-       Wikileaks; more leaks in 5 years than all corporate press combined over last 30 years.

-       Brief history of Wikileaks from 2006.

-       Response of Western governments to Wikileaks; criticism, defensive, hurt, aggressive, leading US politicians calling for Assange execution.

-       PM Julia Gillard, late 2010 after Cablegate release, said Assange/Wikileaks had broken Australian laws but subsequent investigation found no laws had been broken.

-       Real threat is embarrassment and insight into how our governments are a) craven towards Washington and b) increasingly finding new ways to restrict freedoms in the name of providing “security”.

-       Wikileaks challenges insider culture/journalism and asks; why didn’t you get these stories?

-       MSM narrative, pushed by Lowy Institute’s Michael Fullilove, was that Wikileaks released nothing new, this is how power works and it needs to be secret and important. International affairs framed as complicated. In reality, as Noam Chomsky says, it rarely rises above child’s play.

-       Some Wikileaks revelations:- US spying on the UN;

• Israel/Egypt relationship over Gaza;
• US/Australia scuttling cluster bomb treaty;
• US firms colluding with repressive states to benefit US businesses such as Shell in Nigeria;
• Ongoing US efforts to undermine democratically elected Chavez in Venezuela; and
• Extreme closeness between the ALP and America

-       Wikileaks provides opportunity for power to be more democratic. Lessening/removing unnecessary secrets in the public domain. We the public have responsibility to demand transparency. Can’t rely on mainstream media.

-       Wikileaks-style spin-offs, such as Greenleaks.

-       MSM either adapts or faces irrelevance. Secure drop-boxes of information essential but not the WSJ/Murdoch version (full of holes).

-       MSM fearful of losing power and influence, enjoys being gate-keeper.

-       Robert Fisk concern of Wikileaks (journalists will simply wait for stories to fall in their lap via the computer).

-       What about politicians and bureaucracy? Wikileaks shows over-classification is rife.

-       Rise of national security state, close to one million Americans have top-secret clearance. Wikileaks can and must challenge this.

As another flotilla makes its way to Gaza, to highlight the ongoing and illegal Egyptian and Israeli imposed siege on the Strip, the following statement is released today:

Free Gaza Australia rejects the threats by Israel to “take any necessary action” to prevent two boats carrying pro-Palestinian activists, including Australian Michael Coleman, from reaching Gaza. The two boats Tahrir (Liberation) and Saoirse (Freedom) set sail from Turkey on Wednesday with the aim of breaking Israel’s illegal sea blockade of Gaza.

A spokesperson for the group, Vivienne Porzsolt said: ”The participants of this flotilla are unarmed peaceful activists and journalists who are acting entirely lawfully. We call on the Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd to denounce Israel for its expressed intention. We ask that he urges the Israeli government and military to desist from intervening, boarding or towing the boats to Israel and that he insist Israel does not use force or violence against any of those on board the vessels. In particular, we demand that the Australian Government exert its influence to ensure the safety of Australian citizen Michael Coleman.”

An email to Free Gaza Australia from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) on 3 November legitimised Israel’s military blockade of Gaza. While DFAT confirmed it would provide consular support to Coleman, currently on board the Tahrir, “if necessary”, rather than condemning the illegal blockade, DFAT instead advised against travel to Gaza.

“The travel advice for Israel, Gaza Strip and the West Bank strongly advises against travelling by sea to the coast of the Gaza Strip in breach of Israeli naval restrictions or participating in any attempt to break the naval blockade,” a spokesperson for DFAT said.

Ms Porzsolt said: ”We call on the Australian Government to condemn Israel’s ongoing illegal blockade of Gaza and the consequent collective punishment of the 1.5 million Palestinians who live there.”

Yes, and Iraq is a liberated nation with peace and tranquility. Delusional:

“The demise of repressive governments in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere during this year’s “Arab spring,” she says, stemmed in part from Bush’s “freedom agenda,” which promoted democracy in the Middle East. “The change in the conversation about the Middle East, where people now routinely talk about democratization is something that I’m very grateful for and I think we had a role in that. It would be a mistake to make the leap of faith that this [Arab Spring] would somehow have worked in Iraq,” she says in her first newspaper interview about her memoir, No Higher Honor. [...]

“Gadhafi … wasn’t Saddam Hussein in terms of his reach and capacity,” she says. “I do think that an Arab spring in Iraq would have been unthinkable under Saddam Hussein.

Great recent piece in the Washington Post on a key source of maintaining the brutal Egyptian dictatorship for so long; the US tax-payer:

Beginning two decades ago, the United States government bankrolled an Egyptian think tank dedicated to economic reform. A different outcome is only now becoming visible in the fallout from Egypt’s Arab Spring.

Formed with a $10 million endowment from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Egyptian Center for Economic Studies gathered captains of industry in a small circle — with the president’s son Gamal Mubarak at the center. Over time, members of the group would assume top roles in Egypt’s ruling party and government.

Today, Gamal Mubarak and four of those think tank members are in jail, charged with squandering public funds in the sale of public resources, lands and government-run companies as part of a dramatic restructuring. Some have fled the country, pilloried amid the public outrage over insider deals and corruption that toppled President Hosni Mubarak.

“It became a crony capitalism,” Magda Kandil, the think tank’s new executive director, said of the privatization program advocated by its founders. Because of the corruption, the center now estimates, the assets that Egypt has sold off since 1991 have netted only about $10 billion, $90 billion less than their estimated worth.

The privatization saga is a cautionary tale about the power and perils of U.S. foreign aid — most notably the nearly $8 billion that the United States has provided to Egypt since the 1990s to push the country toward economic reforms.

Gamal Mubarak, 47, and the others deny any wrongdoing and are fighting corruption charges filed by the new Egyptian government, saying they have been trumped up to placate street protesters calling for retribution. The defendants also assert that the deals were legal under existing laws.

But the arc of the American-backed privatization effort in Egypt recalls years of questions from critics about the transparency and effectiveness of the more than $70 billion in military and economic assistance to that country over the past six decades, the most aid given to any country other than Israel.

Although U.S. officials have not publicly raised questions about the funding to ECES, as the economic think tank is known, they expressed concerns in confidential cables that privatization efforts could lead to high-level corruption, according to a review of hundreds of WikiLeaks documents by The Washington Post.

Walter Pincus dares to go there:

As the country reviews its spending on defense and foreign assistance, it is time to examine the funding the United States provides to Israel.

Let me put it another way: Nine days ago, the Israeli cabinet reacted to months of demonstrations against the high cost of living there and agreed to raise taxes on corporations and people with high incomes ($130,000 a year). It also approved cutting more than $850 million, or about 5 percent, from its roughly $16 billion defense budget in each of the next two years.

If Israel can reduce its defense spending because of its domestic economic problems, shouldn’t the United States — which must cut military costs because of its major budget deficit — consider reducing its aid to Israel?

…

Look for a minute at the bizarre formula that has become an element of U.S.-Israel military aid, the so-called qualitative military edge (QME). Enshrined in congressional legislation, it requires certification that any proposed arms sale to any other country in the Middle East “will not adversely affect Israel’s qualitative military edge over military threats to Israel.”

In 2009 meetings with defense officials in Israel, Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher “reiterated the United States’ strong commitment” to the formula and “expressed appreciation” for Israel’s willingness to work with newly created “QME working groups,” according to a cable of her meetings that was released by WikiLeaks.

The formula has an obvious problem. Because some neighboring countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are U.S. allies but also considered threats by Israel, arms provided to them automatically mean that better weapons must go to Israel. The result is a U.S.-generated arms race.

For example, the threat to both countries from Iran led the Saudis in 2010 to begin negotiations to purchase advanced F-15 fighters. In turn, Israel — using $2.75 billion in American military assistance — has been allowed to buy 20 of the new F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighters being developed by the United States and eight other nations.

As I wrote last week, it makes me extremely uncomfortable that the law can tell us, as writers, journalists or citizens, what may be offensive. Should we not have the right to offend and be offended?

It’s a point well raised by Dr Tad on the essential Left Flank site today:

Andrew Bolt is just one reason there is so little trust in the mainstream media in Australia today. But the media is but one of a series of social institutions that has come under increased questioning in recent times. The political class has suffered just as seriously, constantly searching for ways to regain authority lost as its social base has deserted it. The collapse has been most spectacular for the official Left, but such problems bubble beneath the surface for the Right also.

This verdict unfortunately creates a space for the Right to (falsely) claim it is against the unwarranted incursion of state power into people’s lives while simultaneously backing much more destructive state action against Indigenous people. As the global crisis deepens, states will become increasingly assertive in their use of coercive measures to enforce the interests of the ruling elites. When they come after their opponents they will use all the powers they have at their disposal, including those that carry a “progressive” gloss.

Rather than focusing on legislation and judicial recourse, the Left needs to start thinking about how we create facts on the ground that will delegitimize and sideline the likes of Bolt. How can we change the editorial policies of the major media outlets from below, to force social change and accompanying shifts in the terms of debate? Such pressure must come not just from outside the media, but be part of the struggle of media workers against their employers. For too long, too many dedicated, honest journalists — those who want to speak truth to power — have been hamstrung by their bosses’ editorial and business prerogatives. Change can only be won through self-activity, by forcing governments and media organisations to cede their control — a struggle most vividly seen in Egypt today.

These are policies that must be enacted by people themselves, as real democracy demands ordinary people putting their minds and bodies on the line. We should not kid ourselves that laws that gives the courts power to suppress journalism, arbitrate as to what acceptable “facts” are, and use abstract legal notions of racism to silence dissent won’t be potential facets of the elite backlash to such struggles.

What is there to stop a group of Jewish Australians from suing the Greens for their boycott of Israel and arguing that the boycott is anti-Semitic?

Really:

American arms merchants enjoyed a dominant year in 2010 as the United States was responsible for selling more than half of all weapons worldwide.

Although U.S. arms exports actually declined last year, compared to 2009, the dramatic drop in global arms deals resulted in American suppliers controlling 53% of the market (up from 35% in 2009). Altogether, the U.S. inked $21.3 billion in new weapons orders with foreign countries in 2010. These figures do not include arms deals made directly between commercial weapons makers and other countries outside of the U.S. government program known as the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system.

Only 49% of all U.S. deals were with developing countries, which usually account for the vast majority of international military purchases. These nations accounted for 70% of all new arms agreements with American suppliers last year. In 2010, U.S. companies led the world in arms sales to developing countries, controlling 40% of the market.

The United States overwhelmingly dominates arms sales to the Near East, with the bulk of sales in the last four years going to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Iraq.

Among developing countries, India was the top buyer overall, concluding about $6 billion in new deals. Next were Taiwan ($2.7 billion) and Saudi Arabia ($2.2 billion).

The upcoming Festival of Dangerous Ideas is taking place at the Sydney Opera House in October. Feel threatened.

I’m involved in the following event on 2 October at 6pm:

In Egypt and Tunisia we have seen ordinary people come together to claim democracy and human rights in the face of oppressive regimes, with Twitter and Facebook the other heroes of the revolution. Are social media and Al Jazeera instrumental in what happened, or are they just the latest communication tools? Can anyone with a mobile phone foment revolution or do the punitive regimes in Syria, Bahrain and Libya show that it takes a whole lot more?

Join our panel: Mona Eltahawy, columnist; Simon Sheikh, international public speaker and national director of the community advocacy group GetUp!; and Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Salil Shetty appears with the support of Amnesty International.

Chaired by Antony Loewenstein;

We may speak about this, this, this, this or this.