<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Occupied Palestine | فلسطين]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[occupiedpalestine]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/author/hajarhajar/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Egypt&#8217;s Berlin Wall Moment &#8211; by Prof. Em. Richard&nbsp;Falk]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="articleTitle" valign="top"><span id="DetailedTitle"> </span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="Tmp_hSpace10"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div id="ctl00_cphBody_dvArticleInfoBlock">
<div id="ctl00_cphBody_dvSummary" class="articleSumm">The recent uprisings do not exist merely in a historical vacuum, but must be considered within a geopolitical context.</div>
<div class="Tmp_hSpace5"></div>
<div style="float:left;height:20px;padding:6px 0 0 5px;"><span id="ctl00_cphBody_dvByLine" class="byLine">by Richard Falk</span><span id="dvArticleDate"> Last Modified: <span id="ctl00_cphBody_lblDate">08 Feb 2011 14:05</span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="dvToolsList">
<div id="toolsEmail" style="width:25%;float:left;"></div>
<div id="toolsShare" style="width:25%;float:left;"></div>
</div>
<div class="Tmp_hSpace5" style="clear:both;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="DetailedSummary">
<table style="width:33px;border-collapse:collapse;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://i0.wp.com/english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2011/2/7/201127101441249738_20.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><span style="font-size:10px;font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-size:10px;font-family:Verdana;"><strong>Two boys, their faces painted in patriotic colours, support each other during the tense standoff in Tahrir Square [Getty] </strong></span></span><strong> </strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, four transformative  events have reshaped the global setting in enduring ways. When the  Soviet empire collapsed two years later, the way was opened for the  triumphalist pursuit of the American imperial project, seizing the  opportunity for geopolitical expansion provided by its self-anointed  global leadership &#8211; as &#8216;the sole surviving superpower&#8217;.</p>
<p>This first rupture in the nature of world order produced a decade of  ascendant neoliberal globalisation, in which state power was temporarily  and partially eclipsed by passing the torch of lead global policymaker  to the Davos oligarchs, meeting annually under the banner of the World  Economic Forum. In that sense, the US government was the well-subsidised  sheriff of predatory globalization, while the policy agenda was being  set by bankers and global corporate executives. Although not often  identified as such, the 1990s gave the first evidence of the rise of  non-state actors &#8211; and the decline of state-centric geopolitics.</p>
<p>The second rupture came with the 9/11 attacks, however those events  are construed. The impact of the attacks transferred the locus of  policymaking authority back to the United States, as state actor, under  the rubrics of &#8216;the war on terror&#8217;, &#8216;global security&#8217; and &#8216;the long  war&#8217;. This counter-terrorist response to 9/11 produced claims to engage  in preemptive warfare &#8211; &#8216;The Bush Doctrine&#8217;. This militarist foreign  policy was put into practice by initiating a &#8216;shock and awe&#8217; war against  Iraq in March 2003, despite the refusal of the UN Security Council to  back American war plans.</p>
<p>This second rupture has turned the entire world into a potential  battlefield, with a variety of overt and covert military and  paramilitary operations launched by the United States without  appropriate authorisation &#8211; either from the UN or by deference to  international law.</p>
<p><strong>Selective sovereignty </strong></p>
<p>Aside from this disruption of the liberal international order, the  continuing pattern of responses to 9/11 involves disregard for the  sovereign rights of states in the global south, as well as the  complicity of many European and Middle Eastern states in the violation  of basic human rights &#8211; through engaging in torture, &#8216;extreme rendition&#8217;  of terrorist suspects and the provision of &#8216;black sites&#8217;, where persons  deemed hostile to the US were detained and routinely abused.</p>
<p>The response to 9/11 was also seized upon by the neoconservative  ideologues that rose to power in the Bush presidency to enact their  pre-attack grand strategy, accentuating regime change in the Middle East  &#8211; starting with Iraq, portrayed as &#8216;low-hanging fruit&#8217; that would have  multiple benefits once picked.</p>
<p>These included military bases, lower energy prices, securing oil  supplies, regional hegemony &#8211; and promoting Israeli regional goals.</p>
<p>The third rupture involved the continuing global economic recession  that began in 2008 &#8211; and which has produced widespread rises in  unemployment, declining living standards, and rising costs for basic  necessities &#8211; especially food and fuel. These developments have  exhibited the inequity, gross abuses, and the deficiency of neoliberal  globalisation &#8211; but have not led to the imposition of regulations  designed to lessen such widely uneven gains from economic growth &#8211; to  avoid market abuses, or even to guard against periodic market collapses.</p>
<p>This deepening crisis of world capitalism is not currently being  addressed &#8211; and alternative visions, even the revival of a Keynesian  approach, have little political backing. This crisis has also exposed  the vulnerabilities of the European Union to the uneven stresses exerted  by varying national domestic capabilities to deal with the challenges  posed. All of these economic concerns are complicated &#8211; and intensified  by the advent of global warming, and its dramatically uneven impacts.</p>
<p>A fourth rupture in global governance is associated with the  unresolved turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa. The mass popular  uprisings that started in Tunisia have provided the spark that set off  fires elsewhere in the region, especially Egypt. These extraordinary  challenges to the established order have vividly inscribed into the  global political consciousness the courage and determination of ordinary  people, particularly the youth, living in these Arab countries, who  have endured intolerable conditions of material deprivation, despair,  alienation, elite corruption and merciless oppression for their entire  lives.</p>
<p><strong>Resisting the status quo</strong></p>
<p>The outcomes of these movements for change in the Arab world is not  yet knowable &#8211; and will not become clear for months, if not years, to  come. It is crucial for supporters on the scene &#8211; and around the world &#8211;  not to become complacent, as it is certain that those with entrenched  interests in the old oppressive and exploitative order are seeking to  restore former conditions to the greatest extent possible, or at least  salvage what they can.</p>
<p>In this regard, it would be a naïve mistake to think that  transformative and emancipatory results can come from the elimination of  a single hated figure &#8211; such as Ben Ali in Tunisia or Mubarak in Egypt &#8211;  or their immediate entourage. Sustainable, significant change requires a  new political structure, as well as a new process that ensures free and  fair elections and adequate opportunities for popular participation.  Real democracy must be substantive as well as procedural, bringing human  security to the people &#8211; including tending to basic needs, providing  decent work, and a police force that protects rather than harasses.  Otherwise, the changes wrought merely defer the revolutionary moment to a  later day, and the ordeal of mass suffering will resume.</p>
<p>To simplify, what remains unresolved is the fundamental nature of the  outcome of these confrontations between the aroused regional populace  and state power, with its autocratic and neoliberal orientations. Will  this outcome be transformative, bringing authentic democracy based on  human rights and an economic order that puts the needs of people ahead  of the ambitions of capital? If it is, then it will be appropriate to  speak of &#8216;The Egyptian Revolution&#8217;, &#8216;The Tunisian Revolution&#8217; &#8211; and  maybe others in the region and elsewhere to come &#8211; as it was appropriate  to describe the Iranian outcome in 1979 as the Iranian Revolution.</p>
<p>From this perspective, a revolutionary result may not necessarily  lead to a benevolent outcome &#8211; beyond ridding the society of the old  order. In Iran, a newly oppressive regime resting on a different  ideological foundation emerged, itself challenged after the 2009  elections by a popular movement calling itself the Green Revolution. So  far this use of the word ‘revolution’ expressed hopes rather than  referring to realities on the ground.</p>
<p>What took place in Iran &#8211; and what seemed to flow from the onslaught  unleashed by the Chinese state in Tiananmen Square in 1989 &#8211; was  ‘counterrevolution’ &#8211; the restoration of the old order and the  systematic repression of those identified as participants in the  challenge to power. In fact, the words deployed can be misleading. What  most followers of the Green Revolution seemed to seek in Iran was reform  &#8211; not revolution &#8211; changes in personnel and policies, protection of  human rights &#8211; but no challenge to the structure or the constitution of  the Islamic Republic.</p>
<p><strong>Reform vs counterrevolution </strong></p>
<p>It is unclear whether this Egyptian movement is at present  sufficiently unified &#8211; or reflective &#8211; to have a coherent vision of its  goals beyond getting rid of Mubarak. The response of the state, besides  trying to crush the uprising and even banish media coverage, offers at  most promises of reform: fairer and freer elections and respect for  human rights.</p>
<p>It remains unknown what is meant by &#8211; and what will happen during &#8211;  an &#8216;orderly transition&#8217; under the auspices of temporary leaders closely  tied to the old regime, who likely enjoy enthusiastic backing from  Washington. Will a cosmetic agenda of reform hide the reality of the  politics of counterrevolution? Or will revolutionary expectations come  to the fore from an aroused populace to overwhelm the pacifying efforts  of ‘the reformers’? Or, even, might there be a genuine mandate of  reform, supported by elites and bureaucrats &#8211; enacting sufficiently  ambitious changes in the direction of democracy and social justice to  satisfy the public?</p>
<p>Of course, there is no assurance &#8211; or likelihood &#8211; that the outcomes  will be the same, or even similar, in the various countries undergoing  these dynamics of change. Some will see ‘revolution’ where ‘reform’ has  taken place, and few will acknowledge the extent to which  ‘counterrevolution’ can lead to the breaking of even modest promises of  reform.</p>
<p>At stake, as never since the collapse of the colonial order in the  Middle East and North Africa, is the unfolding and shaping of  self-determination in the entire Arab world, and possibly beyond.</p>
<p>How these dynamics will affect the broader regional agenda is not  apparent at this stage, but there is every reason to suppose that the  Israel-Palestine conflict will never be quite the same. It is also  uncertain how such important regional actors as Turkey or Iran may &#8211; or  may not &#8211; deploy their influence. And, of course, the behaviour of the  elephant not formally in the room is likely to be a crucial element in  the mix for some time to come, for better or worse.</p>
<p><strong><em> </em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of  International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished  Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of  California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous  publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing  the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice  (Routledge, 2008).</em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>He is currently serving his third year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. </em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>The views expressed in this article are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera&#8217;s editorial policy.</em></strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112795229925377.html">Egypt&#8217;s Berlin Wall moment &#8211; Opinion &#8211; Al Jazeera English</a>.</p>
]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://i0.wp.com/english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2011/2/7/201127101441249738_20.jpg?fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[]]></thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[]]></thumbnail_height></oembed>