Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
37 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Phony Image of the Middle East Shattered, April 24, 2001
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.
|
|
|
20 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An exciting and troubling read., November 6, 1998
By A Customer
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.
|
|
|
20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Explodes the established cosy myths on the Middle East, April 14, 2002
By A Customer
"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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Saïd K. Aburish
by Saïd K. Aburish
by Steve Coll
