Monday, 30 July 2012



"His trip began with a visit to Tunisia, which Washington has held up as a model for democratic change in the Middle East after a popular revolt forced autocratic leader Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali to flee the country on January 14, 2011, touching off a wave of political unrest across the Arab world."


Ram Prasad said...

In what way was the Tunisian revolution 'pro-NATO'? Please explain.

Sukant Chandan said...

Ram Prasad: here you have one of the leading people in nato, the 'defence secretary' saying the Tunisian 'revolution' was a model one and most favoured one by the empire.

Tunisia did nothing to negatively impact the nato operation in neighbouring Libya, actually the post BenAli regime did a lot to facilitate it, and continues to do so.

But perhaps people should be asking the question to panetta, sarkozy and other empire leaders who adaore the Egytpian and Tunisian 'rvolutions'.

If these revolutions were anti-nato, no dobt we would be seeing their demonisation in the empire media, and preparations for sabotaging and actually sabotaging them like Libya and what's happening in Syria.

But no, these 'revolutions' are "model ones", so say the empire.

Ram Prasad said...

Sarkozy et al didnt laud the revolution as it was going on - they said they would send riot police to the area in order to put down the uprising. The people who lauded the revolution in Egypt were people like Fidel Castro in Cuba. Do you think he is also part of empire's plots?

Also regarding Egypt, Mubarak's regime received the third largest amount of US aid in the world, behind only Israel and Pakistan. This was their preferred model for the arab world.

And of course the west are going to reorientate themselves and try and divert and contain the revolutions - what do you expect? Jimmy Carter during the late 70's and very early 80's followed the same strategy in Nicaragua - arm the dictator Samoza, and then after the revolutionary patriots of the Sandinistas won, try and moderate them through 'dialogue' while behind the scenes doing everything possible to find another way. Of course, the Obama administration (who, come to think of it, I seem to remember you saying should be voted for) isn't faced yet with the victory of the revolutionaries in Egypt and so didnt have to deal with them trying to stop NATO's aggression, because the military were in in charge.

Also, as if Mubarak and Ben Ali - aka Israel's and the US's boys in the region - would have opposed NATO's assault on Libya.

Lastly, for a blog which seems to support the peoples of the global south, this post seems to completely deny them in the case of Egypt and Tunisia any agency, seeing them simply as dupes and political cannon fodder.

Sukant Chandan said...

Ram Prasad: no where did the empire threaten anything actual against the 'arab spring', actually or empire it went in their favour in a remarkably well manner.

You wont find anything but glowing terms about all these nonsense 'uprisings' by the empire.

And I feel you are wriggling out of the obviousness that Panetta is saying Tunisia is a model revolution! People are so far hypnotised by the empire trick, that they still havent woke up, but many, especially non-Arabs can see it for what it blatantly is.

Its funny people like to bring out my position on Obama at the last election. I made some areas of misjudgment, but some people do say this, but I dont agree, that they thik romney - tea pary alliance in power wouldnt be worse than democrats / Obama in. I cannot justify myself supporting anything that will being in romney and the tea party.