Arab dictactor having strong ties to the west lead him to be less barbaric?

[Le Roi]

Does stronger ties to Western country mute the dictator's response to their people's uprising?

Tunisia and Egypt had strong ties to the West and their people were able to throw out their dictator with no more than a few hundred deaths. On the other hand, Syria and Libya have little ties to the West, and their dictator were much more aggressive and open to shooting their own people than Tunisia and Egypt. Thousands have being massacred in both of those countries so far, with little prospect of the uprising succeeding.

Yemen is in the middle of the pack, with a lot of ties to the West, especially the US to help fight terrorist, but not as close as Egypt and Tunisia. The dictator there has being a little more violent than Tunisia and Egypt, but nowhere close to Syria and Libya, and is now willing to step down if he can get amnesty.

Bahrain, I'm not sure how to label what's going there. They have close ties to the west with the US having a naval base there, and they have being harsh toward their own people. However, the killing of their people has being more on the scale of Tunisia and Egypt than it has being on the scale of Syria and Libya. That hasn't helped the uprising succeed, but they haven't being as barbaric.

So, it would seem that having dictators have strong ties to the west, through osmosis or some other factors, would lead the dictator to not be as barbaric toward his people? So, can the case be made that the West fostering close ties to dictatorship is not a detriment to that country's people, as long as we don't artificially prop up the dictatorship?

Thoughts?

[ssandra]

Maybe it is the other way around?

Countries who's dictators are likely to respond very harsh towards their people in case of an uprising would most likely already respond harsh to them in other ways. And that might lead to the West not having strong ties to them, out of official or unofficial disapproval with that dictator.

And countries who's dictators are more or less decent people are less likely to be undecent (is that a word?) if their people complain. And them being decent makes it easier to sell strong ties to the public of a democracy...

I hope i"m explaining myself... it sounds clear in my head, but i have no idea how it comes across on paper?

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Maybe it is the other way around?

Yes that is absolutely possible too and it makes sense.

Or perhaps both are true? Leading to a reinforcing cycle?

When a country has close ties to the US, the military may make exchanges, and the US can help strengthen the infrastructure of the country, especially their military. The Egyptians military officers had a lot of exchanges with the US counterparts, even on lower officer levels. So a culture of professionalism was enhanced, and an expectation that the military only is involved on fighting foreigners, not its own people, were perhaps enhanced. That had to help somewhat too in keeping the Egyptian military from being used against its own people to the level Libya and Syria have used their military.

[garentee]

The money the US gave to Egypt went straight to Mubaraks pocket..Mubarak's Stolen Billions Still in US Banks

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by garentee

The money the US gave to Egypt went straight to Mubaraks pocket..Mubarak's Stolen Billions Still in US Banks

What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

[garentee]

Egyptians have been poor for so long that when the chance came for the removal of Mubarak from power the military was right on board.. It did not happen right away...but once the first few were ballsy enough to renounce their allegiance to Mubarak they went for it. In all things politics it is wise to follow the money to get your answers for questions...Mubarak was a thug. The magnitude of the movement and the fact that there was so much press allowed in the country kept him from acting as he probably would have if he did not have the open(ish) society. Syria does not allow any foreign journalists in the country and is acting accordingly. Khaddafi is a known thug for many years and is acting accordingly. The US has been in bed with brutal dictators and that did not stop them from brutalizing their populace.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by garentee

Egyptians have been poor for so long that when the chance came for the removal of Mubarak from power the military was right on board.. It did not happen right away...but once the first few were ballsy enough to renounce their allegiance to Mubarak they went for it. In all things politics it is wise to follow the money to get your answers for questions...Mubarak was a thug. The magnitude of the movement and the fact that there was so much press allowed in the country kept him from acting as he probably would have if he did not have the open(ish) society. Syria does not allow any foreign journalists in the country and is acting accordingly. Khaddafi is a known thug for many years and is acting accordingly.

Yeah, I'm not saying Mubarak wasn't a thug. However, why was the Egyptian society so relatively open compared to Syrian and Libyan society? Why was the press so able to come in and out as they pleased out of Egypt?

Was the fact that the US giving so much money to Mubarak (whether it went to the military or to him) making it impossible for Mubarak to close down the foreign press from going in and out of the country?

The movement only grew so huge after a couple of weeks where it was obvious those supporters would die and everyone knew what was happening thanks to the foreign press.

The US has been in bed with brutal dictators and that did not stop them from brutalizing their populace.

True. However, is the degree of brutalization different in those countries that the US has relations? Is there less brutalization in those Arab countries that the US has heavy relations with?

So that once the people decided to revolt, and not take it anymore, it was easier for them to do so?

[Alstar]

Yes, of course, countries that associate heavily with the U.S inexplicably become more good, moral, pure and just. The U.S is just THAT awesome.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by Alstar

Yes, of course, countries that associate heavily with the U.S inexplicably become more good, moral, pure and just. The U.S is just THAT awesome.

Heh, it does sound like I'm trying to say that?

I'm actually trying to make the point that perhaps the US shouldn't shun those countries with whom we majorly disagree with - like Cuba, Iran and other countries like that.

It's not that the US is THAT awesome. It's by osmosis of being influenced by your friends and the people you associate with. I'm reading a book right now that talks about how you're influenced by those you are friends with on a tremdendous amount. The US politicians aren't saints, there are a lot of darkworkers who are cuthroats toward others. However, one thing they don't do yet, is mass massacre their own people, with a few exceptions. They also don't forbid the media from operating around, with few exceptions.

I'm not trying to say the US deserves credit for the revolutions - they don't. The people themselves do. The US doesn't deserve ANY credit. However, I'm starting to think that at the same time, having the US or the western countries be buddy with a dictator doesn't make that country's people automatically worst off like many Egyptians resented the US for being buddy with Mubarak.

At least for an area that is known for barbaric and murderous leaders. I'm sure in countries that share a more civilized way of life, being buddy with the US can instead bring things down and make things worst.

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

However, one thing they don't do yet, is mass massacre their own people, with a few exceptions.

This is where the premise fails. True, they don't massacre their own people, they just massacre the "other" people. Whoever that "other" group is is a matter of fluctuation with the time. The U.S has had major influences over countries in the past in which they placed their own puppet barbarian dictators.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by Alstar

This is where the premise fails. True, they don't massacre their own people, they just massacre the "other" people. Whoever that "other" group is is a matter of fluctuation with the time. The U.S has had major influences over countries in the past in which they placed their own puppet barbarian dictators.

That is true, the American presidents do kill a whole lot of non-Americans. Hmmm.

[Brutha]

On the other hand, Syria and Libya have little ties to the West, and their dictator were much more aggressive and open to shooting their own people than Tunisia and Egypt.

The Tunesian dictator did shoot at his own people. The military just didn't went along.
If you want to understand those countries it's important to understand that there are multiple stakeholders that have power.

Part of the reason that the Egyptian military turned against Mubarak was that they didn't like that Mubarak allowed so much foreign capital into Egypt.

The situations are complex.

Take Saudi Arabia. It's also a US reported regime but they don't allow much free press.

[Le Roi]

That's a good point Burtha. It was the military in both Egypt and Tunisia that forced the dictator to resign by refusing to go along with the dictactor.

So, why did the military in Tunisia and Egypt refuse to go along with the dictactor, while the military in Syria, Bahrain and Libya (to a great extent) went along with the dictator?

In Bahrain, I can see the case of the Sunni being afraid of a majority Shiite rule. In Libya, I can see how there was no real separate military structure, but that it was tied into the personal leadership of the Gaddafi clan. The military of Yemen seems split, with some generals supporting the dictactor and other generals joining the protesters?

[AlmostGodess]

How do you define strong ties with the West? The daughter of Gaddafi, Ayesha al-Gaddafi, was UN Goodwill Ambassador, Gaddafi himself had a degree from Oxford and very good relations with the European banks.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Take Saudi Arabia. It's also a US reported regime but they don't allow much free press.

That's true. However, Egypt didn't allow a free domestic press either. However, they did seem to allow foreign press to come in. Does Saudi Arabia restrict foreign press or allow it to visit?

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

How do you define strong ties with the West? The daughter of Gaddafi, Ayesha al-Gaddafi, was UN Goodwill Ambassador, Gaddafi himself had a degree from Oxford and very good relations with the European banks.

That's ties, but I wouldn't call that strong ties with western leaders. Libya did start to have more frequent ties with Western leaders for a few years, but it's nothing compared to the close and constant relationships between Mubarak and the Western leaders that date back 30 years, and the close military co-operations between US and Egyptian officers. Egypt has being the US's second biggest foreign behind Israel with at least $30 Billion given to the Egyptian government. During most of that time period, Gaddafi was being shunned by the west.

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

That's ties, but I wouldn't call that strong ties with western leaders. Libya did start to have more frequent ties with Western leaders for a few years, but it's nothing compared to the close and constant relationships between Mubarak and the Western leaders that date back 30 years, and the close military co-operations between US and Egyptian officers. Egypt has being the US's second biggest foreign behind Israel with at least $30 Billion given to the Egyptian government. During most of that time period, Gaddafi was being shunned by the west.

As I understand you define close ties when (1) there is Western money pumped into the country and (2) there is military collaboration. These two elements speak about Western interests in Arab countries, most probably economic or geopolitic interest.

And then the question becomes: Do Western interests in Arab countries, render dictators less barbaric?