Insightful Interview with British historian Deepak Tripathi (2011).
January 22, 2013 (Kouroshziabari.com) - Deepak Tripathi is a British historian, journalist and
researcher who specializes in South and West Asia affairs, terrorism and
the United States foreign policy. He was born into a political family
in Unnao, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. His grandfather, Pandit
Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi, was a prominent leader in the Indian
independence movement and Member of the Constituent Assembly and later
the Indian Parliament.
Deepak Tripathi worked with BBC for almost 23 years and
ended up his cooperation with the British broadcaster in 2000. During
these years, he served as a South Asia specialist and correspondent,
Afghanistan correspondent and Syria, Nepal, Pakistan, India and Sri
Lanka reporter. He has also been a BBC News and World Service Radio News
producer.
Tripathi is a Member of the Political Studies Association and the Commonwealth Journalists Association.
His articles and commentaries on the international issues
have appeared on Counterpunch, Foreign Policy Journal, Al-Ahram Weekly, Z
Magazine and History News Network.
Deepak has authored several books including ‘Breeding
Ground: Afghanistan and the Origins of Islamist Terrorism’, ‘Overcoming
the Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan’ and ‘Dialectics of the
Afghanistan Conflict: How the country became a terrorist haven.’
What follows is the complete text of my in-depth interview
with Deepak Tripathi on the recent revolutions in the Middle East and
North Africa, the civil war in Libya and the popular uprising in
Bahrain.
Kourosh Ziabari: Do you consider the chained, continuous
revolutions in the Arab world a result of pan-Arabist, nationalistic
sentiments of the peoples of region who rose up? Well, the dictatorial
regimes of the region have been ruling for so many decades, but the
people in these countries revolted against them quite suddenly and
unexpectedly. Has the economic factor been the main contributor to the
emergence of Middle East revolutions? Was it all about paying a tribute
to Mohamed Bouazizi that turned violent and became a set of revolutions?
Deepak Tripathi: You have raised an important question. The
answer is somewhat complex. Of course, from Libya to Bahrain there are
similarities on the surface: repressive regimes, closed societies,
ruling cliques imposing their will on the masses. Then there is the
Orientalist syndrome in the West that Edward Said depicted so
brilliantly in his book ‘Orientalism.’ It is the tendency to lump all
Muslims and other people in the East into one basket, and seeing them as
exotic, but inferior, people who must be educated in western ways, and
exploited. This is where lies the basic mistake, and it has proved
disastrous.
The recent uprisings across the Arab world display two
different currents. The bigger picture is that of people rising against
pro-United States dictators, in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain. On the
other hand, we see Libya and Syria, which are not pro-US. Many in the
populations of these countries are fed up and can take no more. They
want to breath fresh air. Now, in an ideal world the people of each
country should be allowed to choose their own destiny without outside
interference, but that is not the case in the real world. Western
interference is a major cause of resentment in many countries in the
region.
Having said this, I believe each popular uprising has its
roots in local conditions and causes. In Egypt, it was a people’s
revolution, of men and women, young and old, Muslim and Christian. They
succeeded in overthrowing Hosni Mubarak and his party, but the future is
by no means certain; the United States, with allies, continues its
interference. America has considerable power because of the huge aid it
gives to the Egyptian military every year. So we will have to see what
transpires in Egypt.
Tunisia, which started all this, is the same – how do
long-oppressed people ensure that the system changes to their liking,
not just a few faces? In other places, too, things are far from certain.
In Bahrain, where the pro-US Sunni ruling family, representing
one-third of the population at most, is engaged in the brutal
suppression of Shi‘a majority – nearly two-thirds of the population. In
Bahrain, it is oil that drives Western policy of support for the ruling
family; in Libya, too, oil drives policy, but there Britain, France and
Italy, and to lesser extent the Obama administration in the United
States, are supporting the anti-Gaddafi forces, because Gaddafi is too
independent, too unpredictable. In Syria, oil is not a factor – perhaps
one of the reasons why the Western response has so far been limited to
condemnations and warnings. And the Yemeni president is America’s
surrogate; Yemen is vital for the security of Saudi Arabia, America’s
strongest ally after Israel and the most reliable oil supplier.
The last part of your question concerns the Tunisian,
Mohamed Bouazizi, street vendor who set himself on fire after being
harassed by corrupt police. Bouazizi certainly touched million and
millions of people right across the region, because they could easily
identify with his harassment and humiliation.
KZ: As you may admit, Bahrain has one of the blackest
human rights records in the Persian Gulf region. Its longstanding
tradition of suppressing the Shiites, persecuting the bloggers and
journalists,incarcerating and torturing the political
activists attest to the fact that despite being a close ally of the
United States, Bahrain is not a democratic country based on
American-championed values. Why does the United States support such a
repressive regime? Does the United States consider Bahrain a proxy to
confront the hegemony of Iran in the region?
DT: Countering Iran is certainly the major factor behind US
support for Bahrain, and explains the muted references from Washington
to the brutality of Bahraini security forces – and let’s not forget many
are foreign soldiers – and more recently Saudi forces who have entered
the Emirate. The tactics used against peaceful demonstrators in Bahrain
in recent weeks and months are some of the worst kind. How many
countries are there in which hospitals are raided by security police and
doctors treating wounded people are threatened?
As you know, Bahrain is a member of the Gulf cooperation
Council, dominated by Saudi Arabia, and is there to prevent Iranian and
Shiite influence spreading in the region. Bahrain is also the base of
the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which is so important for America’s strategy
in the Gulf and the Middle East at large.
KZ: Do you agree with a military intervention in Libya?
We already know that the Gaddafi regime, before the authorization of
no-fly zone over Libya by the Security Council, had massacred scores of
unarmed and innocent civilians in air-strikes on different cities of the
country. Is a NATO-led military expedition necessary to
preclude the killing of civilians? What’s your prediction for the future
of the civil war which is taking place in Libya?
DT: The Gaddafi regime, no doubt, has been repressive over
the last forty years, and I am very critical of its human rights record.
It is Britain, France, Italy and the United States that have been
swinging like a large pendulum: vehemently opposed to Gaddafi for
decades, then friends with Gaddafi, and now enemies again.
I have several misgivings about the NATO military operation
in Libya. My first and most serious objection is that NATO has gone far
beyond the remit approved in the UN Security Council 1973, which
authorized ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians and
civilian-populated areas, excluding foreign occupation forces on any
part of the territory of Libya. Legal scholars have pointed out that
‘all necessary measures’ means starting with peaceful means to resolve
what seems to be a tribal civil war between pro- and anti-Gaddafi
forces. In this respect, Libya is quite different from Egypt, where tens
of millions of people from all sections of society rebelled against the
Mubarak regime. Second, NATO military planes are now hitting government
targets far from opposition-controlled areas. Tripoli and Gaddafi’s own
compound have been bombed.
This was not envisaged in the Security Council Resolution
1973. Regime change was not part of it. I think these are serious
violations of the UN authorization. Third, NATO aircraft are now
operating as if they were the air force of the anti-Gaddafi forces;
British, French and Italian ‘military advisers’ have been deployed in
Libya; and there is talk of sending troops. This is taking sides, and
goes beyond protecting civilians. Worst of all, we now have confirmed
reports that NATO planes are bombing and killing people on their own
side, the anti-Gaddafi side; collateral damage in Western euphemism.
Fourth, and this is very serious, the West is being highly selective in
picking on an oil-rich country for military action, while its friends,
Bahrain and Yemen, willfully repress their populations. I fear we will
see a long war in Libya.
KZ: Many political commentators believe that whoever
assumes power in Egypt following the establishment of new constitution
and formation of new government will be less friendly to Israel than the
regime of Hosni Mubarak was. The same analysts believe that the new
government in Egypt will be necessarily less hostile to Iran compared
with the Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Do you agree with them? What’s your
take on that?
DT: The climate in the Middle East has undergone a dramatic
change following the Egyptian Revolution. Its effects go far beyond
Egypt’s borders, and these effects will be long term. The people of
Egypt and beyond yearn for democracy, human rights and dignity, but they
are not going to be blind supporters of American policy. There will be
all kinds of pressures, warnings, threats against the Egyptian military
from the West that would like to indirectly control the peoples of the
region. I hope that the military does not give in to these
American-Israeli tactics. I believe that the ‘new Egypt’ – if it is
allowed to choose its future path – will lead to a new climate that will
mean better relations with Iran, Palestinians, and will be a force for
good overall.
KZ: Answering to a question regarding the recent air-strikes on Libya,the
White House spokesman Jay Carney said that it is not a U.S. policy to
bring about regime change in Libya. It’s already clear to the
international community that Gaddafi is a merciless terrorist. He
massacred more than 6,500 citizens during the first three weeks of civil
war in Libya. Why don’t the United States and its allies want to take
action to change the regime of Gaddafi while they did the same with
regards to Iraq and Afghanistan in a situation that they didn’t have any
compelling excuse to do so? Is it all about American and European
interests in Libya’s oil sector which is guaranteed by the Gaddafi
regime?
DT: I have elaborated on the lack of consistency in Western
policy, and the real factors behind Western and allied actions showing
blatant disregard for universal human rights. Their actions amount to
double standards wherever it suits them. They are not about democracy
and human rights at all. Look at the reign of terror and torture under
the ‘war on terror’ that President George W Bush waged, and that
President Obama continues in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.
KZ:Saudi Arabia was among the Arab countries
which was somewhat encompassed by the wave of 2010-2011 protests of the
Middle East and North Africa; however, it seems that strangulation and
oppression,implicitly endorsed by the United States, is so
intense that the people don’t have enough backbone and courage to rise
up against the government and demand fundamental changes and
reformations in the political structure of their country. Will the
United States, as the most strategic partner of Saudi Arabia, allow the
implementation of sociopolitical reforms in the structure the Saudi
government? Will the sporadic movements of the Saudi people bear fruit?
DT: Saudi Arabia is a closed society, in many ways that the
Soviet Union was before 1985, when Mikhail Gorbachev became the General
Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. It took just six years for the
Soviet state to collapse after the USSR began to open up.
Communication and free movement are very difficult, if not impossible
for the ordinary citizen, in such societies; and news of unrest does not
readily reach the world. We know that Saudi citizens nevertheless do
find ways to express their opposition, but they are crushed with brute
force. Remember, Saudi Arabia’s security forces are among the best
equipped in the Middle East, supplied by the Americans. They use these
means to coerce their population. Despite all this, social discontent
simmers under the surface. Failure to open up Saudi society and give the
people their basic rights could have serious consequences.
KZ: Do you agree with the idea that the Middle East revolutions, specially the popular uprisings in Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt,
will be of Iran’s interests? Does the destabilization of U.S.-backed
Arab regimes in the region empower Iran politically, strategically?
DT: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, to which I
subscribe, a revolution in the political context is ‘forcible overthrow
of a government or social order in favor of a new system.’ Uprising is
an ‘act of resistance or rebellion’ to achieve that end. It is important
not to confuse the meaning of the two terms. In the late twentieth
century, what happened in 1979 in Iran was a revolution; and between
1989 and 1991 there were revolutions in what was then the Soviet bloc.
In the new century in recent months, Egypt has had a revolution, in the
sense that a dictator and his ruling party that had a monopoly over
power, have fallen. What replaces it is not certain yet. We will have to
see until after the elections at least.
Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, perhaps Libya, are all
experiencing rebellions of one kind or another. How it all ends in each
case – we will have to wait and see. As of now, the ruling structures in
these countries are shaking; they may be collapsing; but they are still
there. Equally important, what impact does it all have on the
Palestinian struggle will have to be seen.
In the wider geopolitical context, these events do indicate
that the United States is losing its grip over the region. In fact,
America had been losing its grip for some years. It is just that the
military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and America’s militaristic
foreign policy may have given the opposite appearance to those who fail
to look beyond the immediate.
If the people of each country can decide how their country
should be run, it would be a good thing. I find the idea that a big
power far and away can dictate to others anywhere most objectionable.
And I don’t see the events in West Asia as a victory for one country or
another. The tide of history is going in its own inevitable direction;
popular movements are making huge waves and contributing to that tide of
history. The final outcome is not yet certain, so the struggle will
need to go on.
KZ: What will be the implications of the Middle East
revolutions for the Israeli regime? Will Israel suffer from the change
of government in Egypt and the fundamental political reforms which are
going to happen in Jordan?
DT: I have alluded to these matters in my previous replies.
I will summarize my answer here. What is happening in the Middle East
at present is going to limit Israel’s scope for arbitrary conduct. The
overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt has been a huge setback to
Israel, because frankly Mubarak was acting like an American and Israeli
surrogate to continue the occupation of Palestinian territories, and in
the broader interests of Western policy in the Middle East. In Jordan,
as elsewhere, change looks inevitable, though I hesitate to predict what
form it will take. I think it is never a good idea to underestimate the
big players’ capacity for manipulation and deceit. In a sense, the West
learned the lesson very quickly in Egypt, where it was slow to act
during the anti-Mubarak protests. Eventually it dumped Mubarak when it
realized he was a too big liability to carry, and then picked Libya and
Syria to reestablish its pro-democracy credentials. The West, in the
guise of NATO, has switched to a pro-democracy posture by siding with
the anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya and with the opposition to Bashar
al-Assad in Syria. But that makes Western policy in Bahrain, Saudi
Arabia, and Yemen even more inconsistent, if not hypocritical.
