Annual Fundraising Appeal

Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from Chris Hedges….

Hedges2

Chris Hedges calls CounterPunch “the most fearless, intellectually rigorous and important publication in the United States.” Who are we to argue? But the only way we can continue to “dissect the evils of empire” and the “psychosis of permanent war” is with your financial support. Please donate.

Day5

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

paypal-donate-21

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

What's the Use of a Revolution That Doesn't Change Anything?

Back on Cairo’s Streets

by SERGE HALIMI

The Muslim Brotherhood had sworn not to seek the Egyptian presidency. Having broken this promise, they said they would bring “bread, liberty and social justice”. But under their rule, insecurity and poverty increased. So the people took to the streets again, insisting that President Mohammed Morsi must go (see Shadow of the army over Egypt’s revolution). This is how some revolutions start. And when they are successful, they are celebrated for centuries without much attention to whether they were spontaneous, or to the legal grounds for their unleashing. History is not a lesson in law.

When Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship ended, it would have been unwise to imagine that the first elections would not be affected by the prolonged stranglehold he had exerted over political life and open debate. Voters in these circumstances often confirm the status of the most highly structured social or institutional forces (leading families, the army, the original ruling party) or of organised groups that have built up clandestine networks to escape repression (the Muslim Brotherhood). Democracy cannot be achieved in the course of a single election.

Broken promises, leaders elected by narrow margins only to be confronted by disenchanted or angry people, mass demonstrations organised by a miscellaneous collection of protesters: other countries besides Egypt have experienced situations like this in recent years — though without the army taking over, holding the head of state without trial and murdering militants. Otherwise, it would be known as a coup.

Western countries are not using that term. As self-proclaimed arbiters of diplomatic nuances, they seem to think that not every military putsch — in Mali, Honduras or Egypt — is equally objectionable. The United States initially supported the Muslim Brotherhood but then continued to give military support to Cairo when Morsi was “deposed” by the army. Washington’s dream ticket would have been a conservative alliance between the army and Brotherhood, but it was not to be. To the delight of those nostalgic for the old regime, pro-Nasser nationalists, Egyptian neoliberals, Salafists, the secular left and the Saudi monarchy. Some of them are bound to be disappointed.

Even though Egypt is bankrupt, the conflict between the military and the Islamists has very little to do with the economic and social choices facing the country, largely unchanged since Mubarak fell. But whether it ends in elections or a coup, what’s the use of a revolution that doesn’t change anything in those key areas? The new leaders put financial aid ($12bn) from the Gulf states, notably reactionary Saudi Arabia (1), before saving the country. If that option is confirmed, the Egyptians will take to the streets again, whatever the lawyers may have to say.

SERGE HALIMI is director of Le Monde Diplomatique. He has written several books, including one  on the French press, Les nouveaux chiens de garde and another on the French left in the 20th century – Quand la gauche essayait – both are fine works.  He can be reached at Serge.Halimi@monde-diplomatique.fr

This article appears in the excellent Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch features two or three articles from LMD every month.