January 28, 2011
So, for those of you who might not know, Egypt has been ruled for the last 30 years under an emergency rule clause in its constitution, resulting in functional one-party rule over this time. It's also been a key ally of the west, being, along with Jordan, one of two Arab states to have diplomatic relations with Israel*, and to be generally friendly about the Suez canal.
Well, with a general spike in food prices, this autocratic rule, increased persecution of Coptic Christians, and the ouster of the Tunisan government, there's apparently been a tipping point. Egyptians have taken to the streets, and the government has responded by shutting down all internet in the 26th largest economy in the world, along with a huge swath of SMS and cell-phone service. The major dissident pro-democracy leader in the country has returned, with the opposition Muslim Brotherhood party reporting that its leaders have been jailed. There are reports that the regular police have been cleared out of Cairo, meaning that perhaps the government may be calling in the uniformed military.
US response to this has been half-assed, at best. But at least they're not alone in that. And at least the current government didn't say shit like this, but that's really no consolation to me.
Anyway, Check out how fed up the street protestors are. The only thing it reminds me of is the Tienamen Square guy.
*In exchange for this recognition, Carter gave the Egyptians a matching contribution of military aid to what was given to Israel--Egypt is currently the #2 recipient of US military aid after Israel. It should also be pointed out that Mubarak's government has supported the Israeli blockade of the Hamas-led government in the Gaza strip
There's at least one person still here, occasionally... :)
I think what's going on now across the Middle East is fascinating (though of course scary for those there), and even more astounding is that Wikileaks was a catalyst . Perhaps Assange's lack of journalistic caution will turn out to be somewhat beneficial. (Sorry, I don't know where everyone stands on that score, and I'm not actually trying to stir the pot, just eating some of my own words previously stated elsewhere.)
I'm not sure I have a problem with the US's stance at the moment -- Valatan (or anyone else), what do you think they should do?
I think it's hard for the US to get involved in an internal revolution in any case, much less in a country (1) whose leader we've effectively been backing for 30 years (sending billions in aid each year), (2) which is a needed ally in a very sensitive region, and (3) who is still acknowledged to hold power ("legitimately" might be a bit strong, but it's not the same as if he'd actually lost an election and was refusing to step down). IMO, it's appropriate for them to say essentially what Clinton did, i.e., we encourage freedom of speech and the holding of elections, but otherwise stand back and see what happens. But I don't actually follow the region that closely, so I'm interested to hear what opportunities/obligations you think they're missing.
As for comparisons elsewhere, this reminds me a bit more of Iran's recent attempted green revolution than Tiananmen Square (esp in terms of organization). Also, I think reports in the last couple days have been that the military is more or less in support of the protestors, which would seem to make sense since as a conscription army, you'd expect it to more closely mirror the general population. Whether Egypt has a force approximating Iran's Revolutionary Guard, though, I don't know.
Now what will be interesting - and perhaps worrisome - is that if they do make it to true elections, how Muslim Brotherhood, which by my understanding is pretty conservative, will do. It's possible that part of the US's hesitation is that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. Anyway -- my $.02. Thanks for bringing it up; I'm glad to hear some non-talking head opinions :)
Mother Jones has a continually updated "What's Happening in Egypt Explained"
Yeah, I think the US's best stance is probably to stand back, be clear that a Tienamen-style military assault on the protestors is unacceptable, and be ready to get an international coalition to come in and set up an international regime for elections/election monitoring when the whole thing is over. The main security concern in the Camp David deal, and ElBarradei was at least in the room with Sadat when that went down, and pretty much all sides in the protest movement seem to be backing him right now.
Overenthusiastic support of the protest movement will just make the protest movement look like a Western stooge movement, or expose the US to claims that it's trying to coopt a movement. I don't know a ton about the Muslim Brotherhood, but I do know that they are distinct from the far-right wing Islamist movements that were present in Egypt in the '80s and '90s (which were responsible for Sadat's assassination in the first place). The impression that I get is that they're an odd mix of pro-Democracy and pro-Shari'a. Who knows what they'd do in government (though they did hold a large number of seats in the Egyptian Parliament before they were banned--it's just that the current constitution gives broad powers to the President, made even more broad since the country has been under emergency rule since the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat).
« Older Caveman | Concentrated Crazy Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
Also, check out this pamphlet that's been distributed
posted by Valatan at 01:02AM CST on January 28