Egypt moves on….and the U.S. doesn’t make that much difference. MORE
Helene Cooper lays out the no-win situation the U.S. is in.
Bruce Riedel, former CIA, has this assessment: “A new Egypt will still be the enemy of al Qaeda and a rival to Persian Shia Iran.
The “realist” view of U.S. relations with Egypt, Stephen Walt: “the real reason the United States has backed Mubarak over the years is to preserve the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, and to a lesser extent, because Mubarak shared U.S. concerns about Hamas and Iran. … For those of us who think that the “special relationship” is bad for the U.S. and Israel alike, therefore, a change of government in Egypt is not alarming. In fact, change in Cairo might not threaten Israel’s interests significantly, and might even help break the calcified diplomatic situation in the region.
“For starters, a post-Mubarak government is unlikely to tear up the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, because such a move would immediately put it at odds with both the United States and Europe and bring Cairo few tangible benefits….”
February 1: Juan Cole on the Egyptian military’s many branches and perhaps differing views.
Pew has this on major Muslim countries including Egypt and the attitude of their populations to democracy, Islam, etc.
February 2: Juan Cole, Why Egypt 2011 is not Iran 1979.
I think the Egyptian protestors just came out against all Chicago sports teams. This was just too much for GG who is suffering from such a lack of post season activity that he will not suffer even international zingers. So save your posts.
The Egyptian governed has ordered al-Jazeera to shut down, but it is continuing to operate in three cities.
operate.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/30/egypt-shuts-down-al-jazeera-operations
As The NYT pointed out today, we are in a no win in how we’re perceived in Egypt and the middle East.
I think the problem is exacerbated by the tension between ideals and practical solutions to great dangers (see the review of Stephen L. Carter on Obama and his war and in Afghanistan and bein gcaught between comitment to “just war principles” and on the ground problems of maintaining security.)
We’ll have to see exactly what develops in Egypt and beyond and try to shape policy that will not be as the now destructive ties we’ve kept in maintaining or supporting those who we think favor Americ.
Here’s the link to the Carter review: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/books/review/Traub-t.html?ref=stephenlcarter
Very sad that Obama seems to have lost, as far as torture and war, his sense of right and wrong. Even worse that he is ignoring the Geneva convention the way Bush did. This is a president not willing to stand up for principle. It is politics geared to winning a second term. He was great on health care. Bad on war. Politics wins. Justice loses.
By the Way is it coincidental that a little after Egypt ordered the papal ambassador to leave that this revolt began? Are those eight million Copts involved in this protest? And is Mubarek a Copt?
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/major-islamic-university-egypt-suspends-ties-vatican
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/01/20111672929630461.html
I’d be astonished if Mubarak were a Copt. Is he a Muslim? that’s the question many of his fellow citizens might be asking….
The “wheel’s still in spin” but so far the very good news is the events show that it’s not so easy to take over the world,America.The spector of “the Muslim brotherhood” is all you have in your arsensal of propaganda to rationalize not standing firmly with the protesters and against the dictator who you propped up for thirty years.The other good news is that American pomposity and hypocricy is exposed.The people on the streets are not waving American flags saying “we would not have had a thought to be free if it wern’t for you America”,which is the narrative we have of ourselves abroad and at home.The bind of having supported the dictatorship and therefore being partially responssible for the oppression of the Egyptainsiis exposed. Even now the hypocreisy of being more concerned with how their revolt against their oppresssor effects our interests then with the human rights of the people is exposed for the world to see.Freedom for everyone on the planet except people of the middle east is the message of Obama’s hedging .The hypocrisy validates what Osama has said about America being an oppresssive force in the Mid East.
Just to back up what Rose-Ellen wrote, read this incisive piece from Salon:
http://www.salon.com/news/egyptian_protests/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/29/weiss_egypt_scared
rose-ellen, how does one stand firmly with the protesters when one does not know exactly what the protesters stand for? With freedom, comes responsibility, including the responsibility of the people of Egypt to support leaders and a government who will work for the common good.
I do not endorse the abrasive language to which Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com resorts, but he is undoubtedly correct in pointing out that U.S. policy toward the government of Israel is a major factor in our own government’s reaction to events in Egypt:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/01/30/the-hosni-mubarak-fan-club/
Anyone who accepts the official teaching of the Catholic Church on war and peace should read Raimondo’s columns.
Raimondo: Abrasive, indeed! and pungent.
Just to help keep things straight, let’s remember that Egyptians are Arab-speakers and Sunnis; Iranians are Farsi-speakers and Shi’ites. No more than dumping all Christians into Inquisitorial Spain (or name your least favorite Christian nation) is it fair or accurate to dump all Muslims into fundamentalist Iran. And even then, there are differences among Shi’ites about the role of the ayatollahs in the state and governance. Ayatollah Sistani, a Shi’ite and the dean of Iraqi clergy, is what is called a quietest; he has actively discouraged clerical meddling in the Iraqi government. Distinctions!!!
Right now they stand for wanting to overthrow a dictatorship.That the 30 year regime has oppressed them is indisputable.Morally it is right and good to want to overthrow Mubarak.We have treated the Egyptains like pawns in our game. America’s interests are and should be irrelevant to the people on the ground in Egypt.The Egyptians can determine for themselves their common good.We are in no position to lecture people about responsibility and the common good when we prop up an oppressive regime. The Egyptains are not monolithic in their beliefs but right now they are fed up.The future is unknowable. This does not negate the people’s right to overthrow their opprssive regime.
If one is acting responsibly, one would support an organized plan that would work towards promoting the common good, least they replace what they believe to be an oppressive regime with one equally or possibly more oppressive. Although the future is unknowable, that which promotes the common good will lead to a more prosperous future.
When someone has their bootheel on your foot you want that bootheel off.Abstractions like the “common good” [a loaded term in and of itself-a libertarians' view is different from a socialists' which is different from a religious fundamenmtalists'] will be dealt with when that bootheel of dictatorship is not pressing on the people.The body doesn’t lie and right now the pressure of dictatorship has become too much to bear.
Mss. Caminer and Danielson, I’m sure that dotcommonwealers have these shibboleths firmly in mind; if you have something informative, insightful, or useful to say, than say it, otherwise….
“‘Having said that, I’m not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process.’”’”
Chutzpah? Maybe not. It’s all very well to support democratic institutions, but history tells us that not all leaders who shout “I’m for democracy!” actually are nor are they always good guys. The Aytollah Khomeini in Iran came to power by promising democracy. Hitler was duly elected, for that matter. Before them one has ony to look at the French Revolution to see that “democrats” can be monsters too. Think Robespierre. The process of establishing a healthy democracy can be fraught with danger to democracy.
It is curious that so many Americans, and so many here, see only the dangers of the democratic road ahead. Alternative examples, South Korea, the Philippines after Marcos (albeit still with a lot of corruption), Japan and Germany after WW II, most of central and eastern Europe in the 90s. Isn’t easy of course, but there seems to be the deeply embedded notion that Islam is not compatible with democracy, at least some form of it. Look at Turkey, Algeria, Indonesia…. Why is the default looking like they just can’t do it, and whatever comes in Egypt will be worse than Mubarak. Why? What evidence?
I would go with the Egyptian revolutionists given who they appear to be. The problem is we don’t know just who they are, what they’re truly loyal to or who among them is likely to be dominant at the end of the transition. Not to recognize the danger would be naive.
I wonder how similar Egypt is at present to Turkey during the relatively long period from the overthrow of the Ottoman government by the Young Turks in 1908 to the firm establishment of Ataturk’s democracy in the ’20s (?). Interesting note: the initial Turkish revolution was led by some very young men, somewhat like what just happened in Egypt. But the last Ottoman leader was both corrupt and weak, unlike Mubarek, who isn’t weak.
“Having said that.I’m not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go throigh the democratic process”
This is the old “they’re not ready to vote yet” said about blacks in this country or “they’re not ready for full equality” said about blacks in South Africa as well as countless other times this has been said to rationalize maintaining the status quo for the ruling elites ,in this case U.S. interests. Our past and present interests include the cheap flow of oil, cold war partners,blind support of Israel,and the “war on terror”.all of which results in the people of the region being pawns in our game.
I think rose-ellen caminer makes a wonderful point. Americans want it both ways. If the dictator is pro america, we support the dictator. If he is not pro america we wnat democracy. When we find that the majority of the people are not pro america, then we are in turmoil, like in Iraq. I think the first thing we have to admit is that we don’t have the patience to try to understand the people of the Middle east. We are really looking out for our interests not theirs. The beginning of democracies are very messy. Look at our own. We had a revolution and a civil war. We may not be doing so well now. America has to make up its mind what it stands for. I do not know, nor pretend to know what is good for Egypt. By the way, how else do you get rid of a dictator than the way their doing it.
This is a bit off topic, but . . .
Here’s a somewhat hopeful article by Sandro Magister about a document prepared before the upheaval by 23 prominent Egyptian scholars. It calls for the reform of Islam itself in very specific ways. It went viral on the net, and it has met a great deal of opposition throughout the Muslim world, but people are talking about it.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/?eng=y
It doesn’t seem like the protestors are demanding anything we don’t insist on for ourselves here in America. And Dr. ElBaradei, who seems to be prominent in the reform movement, is hardly some scary radical. From a distance, it looks like a good thing is going on in Egypt right now.
Like Andy, I think we are caught up in our own self interest approaches.
I think correlatively, it doesn’ thelp to emphasize the problems of Christians there when the people are thinking about what affects everybody in Egypt.
Analogies to other places like Iran are neither helpful nor accurate.
If the Egyptian phenomenon has its own unique “democratic” or “secular” or whatever character , there is a spill over in the region. See Jordan today.
And the results in other countries may be different.
But, we have our own issues in shaping a consistent policy that stresses our values.
Please check out David at Politics Daily today also where a prominen tJewish leader in the Us calls El Baradei a “stoge” of Iran.
Even harder to maintain our value base in polcy.
FLASH: CNN is reporting that Jordan’s king has fired his government and appointed a new prime minister. He is promising reform.
Bob Nunz: my thoughts. MOBS
From David Gibson’s story on Politics Daily: “Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and one of the most influential Jewish voices in the United States, said ElBaradei covered up evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program while he was head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
“He is a stooge of Iran, and I don’t use the term lightly,” Hoenlein said in an online recorded interview with Yeshiva World News on the Egyptian crisis. “He fronted for them, he distorted the reports.”
Mr. Hoenlein doesn’t offer any proof for his claims. I’d take this with a teaspoon of salt. If I remember correctly, even the Israeli intelligence people have gone back and forth on what Iran really has in the way of nuclear material, as have U.S. intelligence reports.
This isn’t about ElBaradei or Iran. It’s the opening salvo in the battle over how Obama lost Egypt… as if Obama could keep or lose it at this point.
Here is the NYTimes on ElBaradei: “US Scrambles to Size Up ElBaradei” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/world/middleeast/01elbaradei.html?_r=1&hp
A lot of the story focuses on ElBaradie’s admiration for Obam.
I haven’t been able to find much of a Republican response to what’s going on in Egypt (maybe I’m looking in the wrong places). But what does the GOP leadership have to say about the situation and how the US should respond?
Here is a map of major ME countries and their status vis a vis protests and government attitudes. Very nicely put together:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/feb/01/protests-north-africa-interactive-map
Irene: Republicans: early on neocon Republicans like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams were calling on Obama to support Mubarak. Plain Republicans are seeming to support whatever Obama is doing at any given moment, i.e., congressional Republicans are mostly lying low. I think Romney called for Mubarak to leave. Tea Party Repubs: the only thing I’ve seen is Rand Paul calling for withdrawing aid (I think he included Israel in that, but I suspect that is either inaccurate or will be withdrawn).
Just found this about Republicans: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48661.html
At least Romney had the courage to say *something*. The others are wimps. Romney also had the courage to sponsor the Massachusetts health care law. Maybe he’s the centrist the Republicans need so badly, though I’m not sure he could beat Obama. Two nice guys don’t present much of a choice to a lot of people — they want definition by extremes.