CIAO DATE: 09/2011
Volume: 0, Issue: 20
Spring/Summer 2011
Seeing Russia Straight (PDF)
From the Publisher
For Americans, the recent turmoil in the Middle East has raised a multitude of questions about our foreign policy—challenging questions that go to the very soul of our national character. One concerns the objectives of our foreign policy. Are we just another country seeking our own benefit and advantage, or do we have a more idealistic mission to export freedom, equality, justice and democracy to the world? I suspect most Americans believe it to be the latter. We are therefore justifiably horrified when we are inconveniently reminded that some of our client states are, in effect, dictatorships. And, when pressed, we quickly seek the moral high ground by disassociating ourselves from them. Our abrupt abandonment of Egypt’s long-serving strongman, Hosni Mubarak, is only the most recent example of this trend. The word “revolution” brings to the American mind a vision of hungry, downtrodden people rising up against some brutal force in pursuit of “liberty, fraternity and equality.” It’s worth remembering, however, that those three words were authored by the same people who subsequently brought France the “reign of terror.” Vladimir Ilych Lenin, too, couched the Russian revolution in terms of a dramatic change that would equalize wealth between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” was the revolutionary slogan. And the Russian variation of “fraternity” was the term “comrade.” Later, George Orwell put it in perspective in Animal Farm when he wrote: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” These were followed by such revolutionary leaders as Franco, Castro, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, all of whom captured America’s imagination—and its sympathy. And let’s not forget that Gaddafi came to power because he unseated King Idris, and Nasser liberated Egypt from King Farouk. All these revolutions have two things in common: empty promises and sloganeering. They are not revolutions for the people, although they are certainly by the people. There is usually some organization behind these revolutions pulling the strings and taking advantage of the hopes and fears of the disenfranchised. So what makes us so sure this time that the rioting in Bahrain’s Pearl Square or Cairo’s Tahrir Square is in fact the true voice of the people and not that of the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, the military or the socialists? Maybe they are not, but we should approach them with some skepticism and require more than a bit of validation. After all, history has taught us many lessons about “popular” revolutions. Most we have lived to regret.