COMMENTARY

Michael Hudson Speaks at AUB

Source : Lebanese Political Journal

Want to know something new about the Middle East?
Don’t ask Michael Hudson.

Related article : U.S. academic believes Syria still influential in Lebanon

Over the course of an hour and a half address to graduate students at the American University of Beirut, Hudson repeated many claims that bloggers are overly familiar with.

Hudson met Bashar Assad during his Damascus visit, and it seems Bashar has the Clinton effect: you just want to believe him. However, Hudson was not totally taken in by Bashar’s gleaming eyes and smile. He might believe an old guard exists, but when Bashar told Hudson that he was not getting enough credit for releasing political prisoners, Hudson said he mentioned the names of some of the people still incarcerated.

Hudson noted that through the 70s scholars examined the Middle East through Modernization Theory, mukhabarat states, and militarization. They did not examine civil society, Islamic fundamentalism, or incipient impetus for political reform. The dynamic changed in the early 80s, and he mentioned that he had written about the possibility of democratization in 1986.

Strangely, Hudson thinks reform can occur within totalitarian Middle East dictatorships because the children of the dictators were educated abroad and “have picked up the virus of liberalism.” He continually mentioned Bashar’s British education, but also noted the myriad places in which this did not happen. The history of Westernized children sparking reform his short (I can only think of the Libya and Bahrain).

He claims he was initially far too excited by democratic opportunities in Algeria, Yemen, and elsewhere and has now tempered his thinking.
Hudson mentioned that he might be naive, but that he thinks reform is going to continue happening in the Middle East citing Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. However, he took issue with the Bush Administration’s claim that the Iraq War started all of this.

Hudson made mention of the Bush campaign in Iraq saying that democracy in Iraq is not such a bad idea, if only it could be implemented.
“The Kiss of Death” phenomenon was repeated, which is Hudson’s belief that American support of politicians and local ideas means indigenous abhorrence of those very same things.
Hudson opened for questions and was immediately challenged.

Hudson got it wrong. The “kiss of death” doesn’t exist. For one thing, the theory does not work in Lebanon, land of Hezbollah and Palestinian refugee camps. Saad Hariri recently met with President Bush, and the Maronite Patriarch met with him months ago. No one can claim that these two intend to sell out their communities to the Americans, nor do they dare.

The “kiss of death” appears to exist when people without a broad supportive base receive the support of America, but then are criticized back home. However, established entities with popular support do not risk their agenda when meeting with Americans.
If the “kiss of death” actually existed, then why wouldn’t the United States start saying all sorts of wonderful things about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or Hamas? The US does not particularly like them, so if the “kiss of death” theory were true, the US could very easily undermine those groups. But it’s not. The “kiss of death” is just an excuse derived from defunct ideas about “the Arab Street.”

Hudson revealed something that is typical of American academics. He looked at the Hezbollah protests and the Opposition protests as diametric opposites: Hezbollah hates Israel and Western intervention, the Opposition loves the West and wants peace with Israel. This is true – to a degree – at the moment, but does not speak to any larger phenomenon.
Hezbollah and Syria were very much in favor of the United States in 1990. Syria was given full reign in Lebanon, and the US was going to war with Syria and Hezbollah’s evil Sunni enemy, Saddam. The people angry at the United States were some of the very people making up the current Opposition: supporters of General Michel Aoun.
The United States is used as an asset or rhetorical punching bag by all sorts of groups to gain leverage over others.

Through Hudson’s speech ran a line of Arabist thought. However, from what he said, Hudson does not seem to be a dyed in the wool Arabist. He seems to be caught in “America think.” He wants to deny Bush credit for events occurring in the Middle East. He wants to show that Bush’s democracy rhetoric is not entirely sincere, and he is partially right on both accounts.
Where Hudson goes wrong is in joining the opposing camp. Just because the Bush Administration has realist reasons – like protecting Israel and defending Iraq – for pressuring Syria and is not campaigning only for democracy does not mean that the Syrian regime should be allowed to continue in its depraved fashion. It was made abundantly clear to Hudson that the Syrian regime gets along with none of its neighbors (Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan). It no longer has good relations with Greece or Spain, and Russia has fights closer to home to worry about in terms of relations with the US.

Had Hudson made the argument that Bush has said nothing about the dictatorship in Tunisia and that the State Department has said very little, he would have had a good point. If he had pointed out that Bush is still supporting Mubarak in Egypt and the Saudi regime, I would have given him some credit. Had he noted (like Fouad Ajama and Henry Kissinger both have recently) that Bush is not responsible for the impetus for change but that he is a major part of implementation, he would have made a good point.

The Syrians could have cracked down on us had Bush, Chirac, and Saudi not been watching. No one would pressure Egypt to allow Kifaya protests if the United States was not doing it. Would Syria be scared of an American invasion if they were not looking right in the face of one? Would Bashar continually emphasize that he is not Saddam if an invasion hadn’t happened? Who else will pressure Tunisia, if the US doesn’t?

However, Hudson had not put his thinking cap on. He was being a reactionary. And as such, he helped the corrupt regimes that are hurting us all. Perhaps Hudson’s experiences here will re-orient his thoughts and put things into a better perspective than his current view looking down on Washington from his superior Georgetown perch with John Esposito and pals.