Customer Reviews

A Brutal Friendship: The West and The Arab Elite

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Why is our picture of the Middle East (ME) distorted? O-I-L. That image reflects the interests of our political and economic establishments. To fashion that image various sources-former diplomats, dubious experts, universities, think tanks and public relations firms-are enlisted. None will harm benefactors who make contributions to their institutions or pay for their services. Writers who take different positions are ostracized and belittled; and journalists quickly learn that truthful reporting is verboten.

Said Aburish is a legitimate expert who has not sold out. I highly and enthusiastically recommend his book for anyone who is interested in the current ME situation because he reveals the sordid intrigues of the ME leaders that underlie the turmoil in the area.

The ME as we know it was created after World War I. The British and French recruited Arabs to fight the Turks promising emancipation from the Ottoman Empire. When the war ended they carved up the area to form new easily manageable countries and installed client dynasties under their direct control. Any leader who sought to represent the majority and develop a legitimate democratic government was quickly ousted.

The only major change that occurred in the intervening years is that the United States replaced the British and French. No existing regime is legitimate. A government that represents the people is a threat. It might charge more for oil and control the industry. It is safer to have compliant puppets who accede to their demands. The West has used every vile tactic and formed alliances with despicable villains to guarantee long-term instability. It shows little interest in competent or intelligent people; tough, mean, corrupt thugs are perfectly acceptable.

Aburish analyzes each ME county. Invariably, a tyrant from a minority sect maintains political control. The ruling sect uses income from oil and the military to remain in power. The West manipulates the oil market through oil companies and influences the purchases of arms which make the military effective. By using both oil and arms-two major enormously profitable Western businesses--it determines the policies of these countries.

America supports Saudi Arabia as an anchor of its ME policy. The corrupt Saudi ruling family with thousands of male members and over 50 billionaire princes spends an estimated $17 billion on the king's palaces and between $6 and $7 billion for the royal family budget. When oil prices declined per capita income in the country dropped over 50 percent but the royal family was not affected. They rule with an iron hand-imprison, torture and murder their people. The American government has used Lend-Lease and tax credits to satisfy the family's greed. In return the Saudis obediently follow the foreign policies of the country that controls the purse-strings. They maintain a price of oil, acceptable to the West, by increasing or decreasing production. Although their security has been guaranteed, they squander so much on armaments from Western companies that it costs five times more to maintain a Saudi soldier than an American soldier. They support corrupt Muslim and Arab leaders, and underwrote the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars to the tune of $60-$80 billion while budgets for health and education declined an average 5 per cent a year. At the time the book was written Saudi Arabia had run thirteen consecutive budget deficits. These policies have turned their people against them.

Nasser was and continues to be the leader that the average Arab most admires. He was no revolutionary but a pro-West, anti-communist conservative, who wished to cooperate with the West. But he was a man with an independent mind who could not be controlled. He supported the wishes of the people and opposed corruption. His independent foreign policy was frowned upon. He promoted a secular Arab nationalist movement that represented a threat to Western hegemony. To overcome that threat the CIA promoted a major Islamic movement. After Nasser's death his secular movement was soon replaced by a stronger continually growing militant Islamic movement--the result of the West's prior sponsorship! Husni Mubarak, his successor, is similar to all the other ME despots. He needs the army and Western support to remain in power.

Without doubt Saddam Hussein is a despicable tyrant. The Sunni minority provides the army officers whose loyalty keeps him in power. He executes people at random, imprisons and tortures thousands. He killed the Kurds of his own country. He developed a military arsenal that included chemical and biological weapons and was working on an atomic bomb. How could such an unsavory character get these weapons? He actually acquired these weapons from the West. Saddam's horrors were not exposed in the Western media when we looked upon him favorably. We supported him in the Iran-Iraq war although we claimed neutrality. Only when his subservience to our wishes became suspect were those atrocities disclosed. When he was on the ropes at the conclusion of the Gulf War we failed to perform the coup de grace. Why? Because destroying the Sunni control might create a government which would represent the people--and this might jeopardize the already precarious ME establishment.

Arafat and Fatah his political organization are supported financially and politically by the Arab establishment. They consider him a conservative and a bulwark against the more radical Palestinians. He is a poor administrator, who puts loyal corrupt followers in important positions. He has been unable to control dissidents. To remain in power he must walk a tightrope--accede to the demands of his supporters but not distance himself from the aspirations of the Palestinians (that is why he supports the current Intefada and supported Iraq in the Gulf War). Initially Arafat and PLO properly represented the Palestinians and were opposed by the West. Curiously though, during that period, the PLO was in continual contact with the CIA. By entering into the peace agreement he temporarily gained the support of the West. But his Palestinian Authority is corrupt, it mistreats fellow Palestinians and suppresses the press. As a result he has lost the support of those he is supposed to represent.

Jordan, Syria, Lebanon--amply covered in the book--are similarly corrupt and abusive. Read this book. Learn what really takes place in the ME.

Said Aburish's book does a number of tasks. It exposes Britain and the USA's complicity in the current state of affairs in the Middle East more clearly than any other book I have read, (perhaps with the exception of Chomsky's World Orders Old and New.) At the same time, he brings out the truth, (or what appears to be the truth,)about the various coups in the region. In addition to this, his analysis of the situation in the Lebanon is masterly; but it was his exposure of the Saudi Regime for what it really is, which shocked me. Aburish's analysis of the progressive leaders of the Gulf, (Nasser and Kassem in particular,) is also very rewarding. He goes on to analyze the behaviour and attitude of the main Orientalists as well. But perhaps the two most important messages of Aburish's book are these: 1.) With the undermining of Arab nationalism and socialism in the Middle East, the final radical force left in the area is Islamic fundamentalism, and this is the one force which the region's rulers cannot overcome. They and the West nurtured it, and now will suffer for it. 2.) The Arab 'elite' (i.e. the Beirut on the Thames,) is so distant from the Arab population, that it is simply unfit to rule it. One senses a strong element of class warfare between the Westernized, hedonistic elites, and the radicalized, puritanical, masses. The former, in countries like Saudi Arabia use Islam to justify their corrupt rule - but it is the latter who are truly Islamic. Given its vast survey of the situation in the Middle East and its origins, I can only conclude that Aburish's book is well worth reading, and is a sharp guide not just to the Middle East, but to the Western powers who must share responsibility for the mess it's in.

"There are no legitimate regimes in the Arab Middle East"

The very first statement in the book already makes clear the direction which Aburish's polemic will take. His central thesis is that 'the West' (shorthand for the USA, UK and France) has by a number of means skewed the political processes of the Arab region in its own favour to further geopolitical aims.

The West's goal is to maintain political divisions in the region, many of which are artificial and without popular support, so as to allow it untroubled access to its vital resource, oil. The buzzword in this power game is 'stability', taken here to mean a stable succession of pro-Western regimes. In this context the fostering of democratic values would invariably be counterproductive and the West has shown itself willing to cooperate with dictators and despots of any ilk, provided they do not attempt to upset the prevailing order.

Aburish claims that this leads to a tacit, and sometimes rather more obvious, cooperation between Arab governments and the West. In order to ensure the continuance of this cooperation, the West has taken to supporting regimes with minority popular acceptance, rendering them more likely to address Western interests ahead of those of their own people. In systematic case studies of each major regime, Aburish shows how the tiny elites of the Lebanese Maronites, Iraqi Sunnis, Saudi Wahabis and Syrian Alawis further Western interests. These elites - hailing from minority groups representing respectively 20%, 25%, 20%, 15% of their countries' populations - further Western interests in return for arms and guarantees against subversive activities by foreign (i.e. Western) intelligence agencies.

Major challenges to Western hegemony have come in the form of Nasser's pan-Arabism and the more modern Islamic Fundamentalism. These two movements achieved such potency and proved so dangerous to Western interests because they were blessed with the support of the Arab people. Although Aburish's claim is difficult to substantiate in the absence of any mechanism for determining the will of the Arab people, it nevertheless shows that the common people are systematically excluded from political decisions.

Aburish indicates a quasi-conspiracy of interest groups which collectively promote a false image of the Arab Middle East. These range from the governments involved (which draw financial and political benefit), to their field operatives (often driven by their own vanity and desire to enjoy the trappings of power), to the vast majority of journalists who are keen to follow the establishment line or in many cases simply too ignorant or lazy to cut through the tangled web of deception and disinformation. Many wealthy Arab businessmen and intellectuals (with a few notable exceptions), says Aburish, help to perpetuate this false view of the Middle East in which the simple Arabs must be protected from the onslaught of Islamic Fundamentalism and the West's primary goal is to furnish selfless assistance in regional development. Aburish points to the Arab diaspora centred on London which seeks to present itself in a favourable pro-Western light, and even sometimes Westernises aspects of itself.

Finally, no investigation into the Middle East would be complete without considering the Israeli and Zionist agendas. Aburish shows how Arab divisions have led to the consolidation of the Israeli state, with one Arab regime being played off against another. Whilst some are content to live with Israel so long as it does not threaten their own power bases (e.g. Suadi Arabia), other countries have behaved much more complicitly to the point of direct cooperation with Israel (eg. Jordan). Israel, in dealing with each Arab state separately, paradoxically creates further regional disunity.

In the end the losers are the Arab people who remain exploited and voiceless in the great melee of Middle Eastern politics. The winners are the corrupt governments of the Middle East, and the Western multinationals and shareholders to whose interests they pander.

I have spent 11 years in Israel. 4 of these years I served in the Israeli Defense Forces in the occupied Gaza Strip as assistant Military Attorney General. Thereafter, in private practise, as alwyer in Israel - Gazan businessmen used me as their interlocutor in Israel and in the world. I forged deep and lasting friendships in Gaza - and managed to gain a refreshing insight into the mainstream mindframe of leading Palestinian businessmen - the men who, before the advent of Arafat, were sustaining the Gazan people. Said Aburish more or less articulates the thoughts and feelings of this business class. He misses the mark - as far as I can discern - mainly in the sense that the majority of the thinking Palestinians I encountered are not familiar with the history upon which his thesis is predicated. He is accurate in his contempt for the illigetimate Arab regimes and has hit the nail on the head when he claims that the majority of Palestinians see Arafat as a brutal traitor. The true leaders of Gaza - Heider Abdel Shafi - for example (whom I prosecuted) - have been silenced by Arafat. Not being an Arab- and being on the opposing side - I venture to say that - in so far as the Gazan business elite is concerned - Aburish is off the mark. This elite - especially in Gaza - has seen the benifits of western democracies - having lived under Israeli rule which can be compared to Arafat's rule - and they so despearately want to be part of that world. Aburish is eloquent. There are truths in what he says. To me as an Israeli - he is a more formidable foe than Arafat BUT Aburish - like those he speaks for - has integrity and honesty. I'd rather him as a partner than Arafat.

Post 9/11 and during the infancy of the 'interim government' in Afghanistan we can see two major points of this book illustrated succinctly.
Firstly, the colonisation of the old Ottaman Empire awarding local rule to gangs and ascribing them legitimacy based on some flimsy genealogical or religious claim is being duplicated almost exactly in Afghanistan over 80 years later by picking leaders from the representatives of the politically-correct-sounding 'ethnic groups'.
Rather more urgently for us (the West), the massive destruction visited upon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may well be the beginning of 'the fire', the whole-scale clash of civilisations bred from the total dissatisfaction of an Arab majority who feel entirely unrepresented by what they see as Western backed dictatorships. 15 Saudis out of 19 hijackers looks like more than a coincidence and despite almost uniform condemnation throughout the 'Arab World' (well the leaders of it anyway) of the attack, Osama Bin Laden and his top men are hiding somewhere. Add to this the Arab governments' (understandable) unease about any US plans to attack Iraq (without the right provocation this time), popular Arab despair about any possibility of peace between the Palestinians and Israel, the effective fusing of Palestinian secular groups with their Islamist 'enemies' and you have a Middle East ready to completely explode. Let's see what happens dudes!

Aburish provides a good survey of the political history of Arab regimes for much of the 20th century. He provides good detail in particular on various frivolous interventions by the British and Americans. One can see some of the real historical basis of Arab paranoia against the west in these pages. At the same time, the worldview Aburish is illustrating has some major hollowness in it. He goes on ad infinitum about how the US and Britain are always thwarting the genuine ambitions of the Arab masses, and any genuine political reform. Yet what are the major goals he is championing? Democracy? Minority rights? Economic social justice? Transparency and accountability in government?

Nope, Aburish doesn't say word one about these things, apparently to him and the Arab masses, the only genuine ambition, the only goal of any political reform, is to allow Arab states to fully express the hatred their people have of the West and Israel. This seems to be the sole criterion he is using to measure an Arab regime's authenticity.

If that's what the Arab people's want, that's fine. But what's in it for the western reader, who actually stops a minute to think about what kind of world they want to live in? NOTHING. It was foolish for Aburish to even write this book in english if he intends it to influence western policies. Westerners who read this and who care at all about the well-being of their own societies, will probably come around to support Daniel Pipes positions on the Middle East, will have less faith in an understanding between civilizations, and will conclude, quite contrarily to Mr. Aburish's intent, that it is only by backing these regimes through cynical short-term meneuvers, that the west can protect itself against the fury that would surely come out of a democratized Arab world.

This is a damning expose of the relationship between the pro-west governments/establishments of the middle east and the west. Anyone who wants to understand the dynamics of this region must read this book. Although it is a couple of years old, it still heavily bears on the current situation on the ground.

Furthermore, for a scholarly work it is an incredibly easy read.

This book seeks to critique the west for its support of Arab regimes who have frequently abused human rights. Aburish draws a parallel between American support for radical Islamic fundamentalists and minority leaders against the `masses' who would have selected someone else. Several nations are picked out for criticism among them Lebanon's Maronites, Syria's Alewite Asad, Saudis Wahabis, Iraq's Sunni Saddam and Jordan's King Hussien and even Arafat. While true that all these leaders were corrupt and probably didn't have the average Arab in his best interest it is a cliché to simply blame the west.

The reality is the House of Saud established itself, without western support, in the 1920s. The Jordanian Hashemite King was installed by the British but the majority of Jordanians are Palestinians. Is the argument that Jordan should become a Palestinian state? Wouldn't this mean that the Palestinians would no longer be able to complain that they were `stateless' and `refugees'? Although the Sunni's of Iraq are the minority it was Sunni wealth and traditions of governance that brought them, rather then the mountain Kurds or `Swamp' Shia Arabs to power. The West actually supported King Faisal in Iraq only to see him overthrown by the Sunni Ba'athists. In Lebanon it is true the West supported the Maronites but it is also true the west abandoned the Maronites during the Lebanese Civil War. In Syria the west played almost no role in putting Asad, an Alewite, into power. And the west certainly played no role in choosing Arafat as leader of the PLO.

So this book is a wonderful study. The character assassinations and descriptions of fumbling, barbaric Arab leaders and strongmen is refreshing from the usual hum-drum academic works on these regimes. The text is lively and fast paced, but unlike most Aburish books, the critiques have been heard before and most of them don't entirely stand up to scrutiny. In the end the West did support Saddam and the Saudis, but this was only after most of these strongmen had already put themselves into power, rather then the west conspiring to suppress the Arab majorities. With the obvious exception of Jordan's King Hussien, who actually runs one of the more free and open Arab countries, so in reality the west has helped those Arab masses. Also not touched on is the fact that the Western support for Islamic fundamentalism against communism has recently backfired in the rise of Osama and anti-western fundamentalism. Here the book shows that it is outdated. And probably the book is also flawed in not acknowledging that the west cleared retreated and failed to install its leaders in Lebanon, despite intervention in the 50s and 80s.

Seth J. Frantzman

The Independent (London), August 2, 1997
Middle Eastern reigns of error; Lawrence Joffe wonders why the West always backs crooks and creeps in the Arab world;A Brutal Friendship: the West and the Arab elite by Said K Aburish

From the opening sentence of A Brutal Friendship, it is clear that Said Aburish intends to be the Emile Zola of Araby. "There are no legitimate regimes in the Arab Middle East", he states; and few escape his ire. He spares neither Whitehall mandarins, nor mendacious arms dealers, nor Israeli-sponsored think-tanks, nor wheeler-dealer CIA agents, nor well-tailored Arabs in London's "Beirut-on-Thames". Not even that perennial British favourite, "plucky little" King Hussein of Jordan, emerges unscathed. As if to clinch the point, the gruesome dustjacket shows two hands shaking, one smeared in oil, the other in blood.

Yet throughout its 360 exhaustive pages, A Brutal Friendship is informative, engrossing and entertaining. Aburish, a Palestinian writer whose book attacking the House of Saud established him as a leading Arab dissident, now extends his offensive to all "pro-West" regimes. His thesis seems obvious. Arab people deserve as much dignity and liberty as anyone else. For Aburish, this alone is the litmus test for a government's legitimacy. The "street", he implies, is always right, and whichever leader it adopts is therefore legitimate. Even bogey figures such as Saddam Hussein do better than King Fahd when it comes to spending on education or economic development.

Aburish accuses the West of moulding the Arab world to further its own interests, handpicking minority elements and criminals as leaders while denying Arab people their basic rights. From Britain encouraging the slaying of popular King Ghazi of Iraq in 1938 to the CIA instigating coup after coup in Syria, such interventions "almost became a bad habit". Then comes another, somewhat paradoxical argument: apart from being immoral, to mollycoddle dictators is to endanger long-term Western interests. Now that London has become "the new capital of the Middle East", Arab corruption has started "infecting the hosts" - witness Jonathan Aitken. And the Arab-Israeli peace process, Aburish warns, is doomed unless and until the parties heed the voices of ordinary people.

"Arming friends" - such as Britain's multi-billion weapons supply to Saudi Arabia - is equally short-sighted. The average Saudi soldier costs five times as much to maintain as his US equivalent, but poor training renders him useless in battle. The most obvious example is Saddam himself, who eventually bit the Western hand that had fed him with arms. Aburish unveils an entire hidden history of mendacity, as the CIA nurtured the young thug in the Sixties as their secret weapon against the anti-Western Iraqi leader Kassem.

Curiously enough, Western powers follow no Machiavellian master-plan, but rely on the improvisations of field officers and PR agents. Thus Britain's Harry Philby and the CIA's Miles Copeland could change history merely by exploiting personal ties with their Arab "pets". Given this accidental quality, Arab acquiescence seems all the more shameful.

Aburish may be quirky - having condemned "commission-skimming" arms-brokers, he suddenly reveals himself as one of their number - yet it is his keen eye for personal foibles, and the psychological background to political developments, which brings the book to life. His rogues' gallery includes "the gun-toting, whiskey-swigging, skirt-chasing" PLO agent, Hassan Ali Salameh; and the roving Orientalist, Gertrude Bell. She dined off the finest silverware in her desert tent and made blunder after blunder, yet created the State of Iraq from nothing. Meanwhile, Lebanese delegates to France wore an assortment of fezzes, baggy trousers, turbans and lounge suits to express their ethnic diversity, prompting Aburish to comment that "Prime Minister Clemenceau must have thought he was facing a collection of circus performers".

Aburish incisively queries received wisdom. For instance, King Hussein's historic peace "breakthrough" with Israel in 1994 merely concluded a process which began in secret decades earlier. Britain and the US may bewail the danger of Islamic fundamentalism, but it was they who nurtured the zealots in order to undermine Nasser's nationalists and his Soviet ally. And, in noting that Egypt's 1967 war against Israel coincided with her sponsorship of rebels in Saudi-backed Yemen, Aburish deduces: "Fighting Israel and Islam at the same time defeated Nasser and broke the back of the Arab nationalist movement."

Too often, though, Aburish tries to shoehorn the facts to fit his thesis. He maintains that Maronites still run Lebanon - despite intracommunal murders, the disarmed militias and boycotted elections, the erosion of Christian presidential powers, and Syria's displacement of France as Lebanon's mentor. Likewise, Aburish wants to portray Arafat and King Hussein as archetypal Arab dictators. But what of Arafat's convincing electoral mandate in January 1996, or Hussein's own attempts, albeit halting, to introduce multi-party democracy in his kingdom?

Two nagging questions remain. Are Arab governments illegitimate because they are in cahoots with a corrupting West; or is the West corrupt because it is in cahoots with illegitimate governments? Aburish's answer seems to be: guilty on both counts.

Accepting that A Brutal Friendship is polemic, we can learn much about the Middle East from it - and enjoy a good read. Aburish is either brave or foolhardy (perhaps a bit of both). (...)

---

A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite; book reviews Commentary September, 1998

"There are no legitimate regimes in the Arab Middle East." With this eye-opening first line, Said Aburish, an independent-minded Palestinian writer long resident in London, promises something fresh: an insider's expose of the tyrannical governments that dominate his region. Aburish is, indeed, in a good position to document a sordid political history that harks back to World War I, and he is also no stranger to the form: his previous book, The Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of the House of Saud (1994), was an important if over-the-top denunciation of the Saudi ruling family.

In A Brutal Friendship, Aburish sets out to deliver on his promise by offering biting assessments of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, plus Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority. But, alas, his indictment is brief and superficial, consisting mostly of criticisms of the region's rulers for not following their real interests. And that sets the stage for Aburish's true topic, which is to find a scapegoat for this dismal state of affairs.

Here, to put it charitably, he is less than enlightening. His explanation for Arab tyranny dwells not on the foibles of culture in Arabic-speaking countries; not on their premodern legacy of dictatorship; and not on the winner-take-all atmosphere that dominates their politics. In fact, Aburish has almost nothing to say about the motor forces of Arab life; his attention is focused outward.

What emerges from Aburish's pages, in a nutshell, is that nearly all the problems of the Middle East are due to a vast British and American conspiracy that aims to perpetuate "Western political hegemony" in the regime. The British and American governments are not alone in pursuing their greedy goals; oil companies, too, are complicit, and are blamed by Aburish for, in particular, the "moral degradation" of Arab leaders. As for the citizens of Western countries, they have been too thoroughly brainwashed to resist the corrupt imperialism of their rulers. The only Westerners identified by Aburish as seeing through the vast deception are Noam Chomsky and Edward Said, two stars in the firmament of the conspiracist Left.

In pursuit of its aims, the West does not rely on anything so crude or transparent as direct rule. Instead, writes Aburish, the Anglo powers get Arab stooges to do their work for them, teaching them how to "suppress their people to stay in power and use their control of their countries to provide a stability which serves Western political and economic interests." By this means, generations of Arab elites have become nothing more than "deputy sheriffs," or, more pungently, the losing partners in a "master-slave relationship."

Blaming the West leads Aburish into some strange byways. In order to differentiate among Arab leaders, for instance, he constructs a topsy-turvy moral calculus. Those who have explicitly aligned themselves with the West--King Hussein of Jordan, various Egyptian governments, and the like--he castigates as "hideous" and "abominable"; even Yasir Arafat is put down as "a tool" of Western power. By contrast, Saddam Hussein is praised for his "eradication of illiteracy, his health-care programs, and his championing of women's rights," while the fundamentalist Muslim movements are designated the Arabs' one remaining hope. As for Israel, that country. all but disappears from the Middle East picture as Aburish draws it. However much he may loathe the Jewish state, he sees it as only another client of the West and therefore not a power in its own right.

To anyone not versed in matters Middle Eastern, the extremist bent of A Brutal Friendship might make it seem like the slightly deranged musings of one out-of-touch intellectual. Unhappily, its outlook cannot be so easily dismissed. Outlandish as it may be, the book represents a main line of Arab thinking, one that (as Fouad Ajami has noted in his recent book, The Dream Palace of the Arabs, which I reviewed in the March 1998 Commentary) is embraced as well by any number of leading politicians, military officers, religious authorities, journalists, and academics. Moreover, the principal points made

I sent an online review 3 weeks ago. How come it was never published