Egypt thread 4

[Maltaran]

Leaving Egypt for a moment, the president of Algeria is planning to lift the state of emergency which he imposed in 1992

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12359750

[Jerol]

Leaving Egypt for a moment, the president of Algeria is planning to lift the state of emergency which he imposed in 1992

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12359750

If Mubarak goes, the rest are going to fall like dominoes. Here's to hoping that the Saudi Royals get caught up in this as well. In the short run, that could be trouble for the US but I could really care if some oil company execs lose sleep worrying about the plight of their Arab "friends". Let all despots burn.

[Padraig]

To me it seems pretty obvious that Mubarak wants to be remembered kindly in the future history books. Clutching stubbornly to his position until he dies or giving it to someone from his inner circle won't help him achieve that. But being thrown into exile by an angry mob would be much worse. As I said in my first post trying to strip him of his dignity was a mistake. And that is how this counter-mob came about I would think. He was pushed too far.

That's a major revisionist view of history there. :)

We should pity poor old Mubarak? Brutal dictator for 30 years? No...he wants to be loved!

The guy refused to clarify (until very recently) who would succeed him in the election to come in September. Up to this rebellion, people feared he would try to pass it to his son. Or ever try to hold on himself. Those were serious considerations. Those options might look unlikely now but September is still a long time ago. And if he is in charge of the election, anything could happen. Its naive to think otherwise. A Mubarak crony is definitely possible.

As for now been a liar? If I had my enemies killed...I really wouldn't expect people to have faith in my truthfulness. And now you think he has completely changed and wants to be remembered kindly? That's why he uses thugs?

You really feel pity for his poor dignity? What about the people dieing on the streets because of his ego? People may have had some kind things to say about him if he left on Tuesday. He didn't.

[shadowbinding shoe]

I think you misunderstood me Pardaig. I don't pity him :rolleyes: I'm just trying to understand what goes through his head.

Sure when everything looked to be going his way he believed he could continue to rule them until he died and pass his position to his son but after the protesters (and the Tunisian precedent) showed 'the power of the people' he was willing to make major compromises.

By the way being ruthless and being a liar are not the same thing.

[Padraig]

Sure when everything looked to be going his way he believed he could continue to rule them until he died and pass his position to his son but after the protesters (and the Tunisian precedent) showed 'the power of the people' he was willing to make major compromises.

Mubarak may never have actually intended to stay in power. So that wouldn't be much of a compromise. Maybe deciding not to give the position to his son was a compromise but that was going to be difficult even before this conflict. Soooo, what has he really done? Shift some cronies out of positions of power and put other cronies in? Seriously? If he said he would bring in independent foreign people to supervise the election that would be something. But really, its pretty obvious that change can only be measured by him leaving now. Everything else can be seen to be rather ephemeral.

By the way being ruthless and being a liar are not the same thing.

I know. You pointed this out already. But as I said, been ruthless doesn't inspire trust. And even if he is truthful, that doesn't mean that free and fair elections will be held. So either way, clinging to the idea that Mubarak is not a liar is meaningless.

And sorry, you did bring up the "remembered kindly" thing. :) I don't know what you intended by it (since it apparently wasn't pity). But given all he has done, it's just...a bemusing idea (to put it mildly).

[Eddison]

A bit more proactive:

The New York Times reports that the Obama administration is in talks with Egyptian officials over Mubarak's immediate resignation, in a proposal that would hand power to Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman:

Even though Mr. Mubarak has balked, so far, at leaving now, officials from both governments are continuing talks about a plan in which, Mr. Suleiman, backed by Sami Enan, chief of the Egyptian armed forces, and Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, the Defense Minister, would immediately begin a process of constitutional reform.

The proposal also calls for the transitional government to invite members from a broad range of opposition groups, including the banned Muslim Brotherhood, to begin work to open up the country’s electoral system in an effort to bring about free and fair elections in September, the officials said.

[sologdin]

the rest are going to fall like dominoes

but wasn't it supposed to go like that, after saddam got oustered?

or did W mean that the revolutions would only hit the axis of evil, and not US clients?

[KAH]

Rigging the election is a dishonesty of the regime. I'm talking about Mubarak's personal honesty. Is he a man of his word? Show me where he made promises only to break them later (Saddam Hussein was famous for doing that for example). We need to remember who we're talking about here. Mubarak is not a strapping young man. He's 82 years old and has serious health problems. He's been thinking about his exit strategy for years now. Since his son lost all chances of inheriting him he can either concede to the demands of the protesters and exit with dignity or he can cook up some scheme to pass the mantle to someone from the military or as you all claim make someone pry it from his cold dead fingers in a couple of years.

To me it seems pretty obvious that Mubarak wants to be remembered kindly in the future history books. Clutching stubbornly to his position until he dies or giving it to someone from his inner circle won't help him achieve that. But being thrown into exile by an angry mob would be much worse. As I said in my first post trying to strip him of his dignity was a mistake. And that is how this counter-mob came about I would think. He was pushed too far.

You don't win by pushing your enemy against the wall unless you want an all out war.

I don't have a problem believing Mubarak was going to step down (at some point) anyway, or that Gamal was not necessarily going to follow him.

There's a big club of good ol' boys from which for him to pick a successor, an establishment that has lots of privileges to lose from regime change, and an enormous crowd of minions that depend on the establishment for a meal ticket. The interior ministry of Egypt employs over 1.7 million people (of which 450 000 in the central security forces, and 400 000 for the secret police). That's on par with the population of cities like Hamburg, Budapest or Minsk.

My guess is that it's not so much about personal power for Mubarak, but keeping the establishment in position so that their privileges are not lost.

[mormont]

I very much doubt it. The offer to stand down was made first and foremost to Egypt's army and I have very little doubt that if he keeps his post that long, Mubarak will leave in September. And yes, the 'pro-Mubarak demonstrators' were planned all along -- I suspect Mubarak got the army to agree to that as a means of dispersing the remaining protesters (though I doubt they agreed to monumentally stupid actions like firing a machine gun into the crowd).

Well, to begin with, 'Egypt's army' is not a monolith. Second, remember that Mubarak has a military background himself: he was Air Chief Marshal. The generals are his appointees, and by and large they are his allies. They have stayed out of this so far for several reasons: pressure from the US, the fear that the lower ranks would not obey an order to shoot on the demonstrators anyway, and caution over their own future. If they needed an 'offer' from Mubarak at all, it was one intended to preserve their position: in other words, they are likely no keener on the demonstrators' demands than he is.

I suspect any 'offer' Mubarak has made to the generals - or more accurately, any plan he has presented to them - was made behind the scenes and accepted long before he spoke on TV. I also suspect it involved preserving as much of the current power structure as possible, with essentially one of them - possibly Sulieman, possibly someone else - taking over from him. Possibly in September, possibly when they get around to it. That's why I say the offer was likely made in bad faith.

[Horza]

Yep, the Army is looking out for itself, it would like as much of the status quo as possible but will cut the government loose if it gets in the way of that. I feel sorry for the people chanting 'Army and People are one'.

[mormont]

The travel ban on several former ministers is an interesting development. Signs of splits within the NDP? Or do Suleiman and Mubarak think they need to keep some scapegoats handy?

[KAH]

The travel ban on several former ministers is an interesting development. Signs of splits within the NDP? Or do Suleiman and Mubarak think they need to keep some scapegoats handy?

Would not surprise me if it was both.

With huge internal pressure, and probably quite a lot of external pressure as well (although not as overt), it stands to reason that some players are thinking alternatives. And if that thinking differs from Mubaraks, well...Mubarak does need scapegoats, that is not in doubt. Whether the chosen ones will suffice is a different story.

[sToNED_CAT]

The New York Times reports that the Obama administration is in talks with Egyptian officials over Mubarak's immediate resignation, in a proposal that would hand power to Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman.

The proposal also calls for the transitional government to invite members from a broad range of opposition groups, including the banned Muslim Brotherhood, to begin work to open up the country’s electoral system in an effort to bring about free and fair elections in September, the officials said.

Is Obama completely nuts? Why doesn't he just serve whole Egypt to AQ on silver plate? If MB is allowed to be part of goverment, Egypt will become Islamist republic in 2 years. It looks like we really Jimmy Carter Jr. here - idealist completely unable to handle economy and foreign politics.

[mormont]

Is Obama completely nuts? Why doesn't he just serve whole Egypt to AQ on silver plate? If MB is allowed to be part of goverment, Egypt will become Islamist republic in 2 years. It looks like we really Jimmy Carter Jr. here - idealist completely unable to handle economy and foreign politics.

:lol: And would you like to enlighten us as to your plan as to how the US can help set up a credible democratic government whilst exercising a veto over the involvement of one of the largest political groups in the country? Apparently it's so obvious that you'd have to be 'nuts' to contemplate anything else, but you need to explain it for us slow thinkers who have no grasp of 'foreign politics'.

p.s. Coco, who is far better informed than either you or I about this, has explained at length in previous threads why the MB =/= AQ, by the way.

[shadowbinding shoe]

:lol: And would you like to enlighten us as to your plan as to how the US can help set up a credible democratic government whilst exercising a veto over the involvement of one of the largest political groups in the country? Apparently it's so obvious that you'd have to be 'nuts' to contemplate anything else, but you need to explain it for us slow thinkers who have no grasp of 'foreign politics'.

p.s. Coco, who is far better informed than either you or I about this, has explained at length in previous threads why the MB =/= AQ, by the way.

Muslim Brotherhood is probably too big and influential to ignore but what it boils down to is the separation of religion from state. Religious political parties don't work well in democracy. Their religious aspirations almost always butt heads with basic freedoms that define democracy. When they are a majority they implement a tyranny of the majority against non-religious sects and when they're not they still try to achieve these goals through various means.

And that's assuming they even believe in democratic ideals which is always iffy.

[The Iceman of the North]

Muslim Brotherhood is probably too big and influential to ignore but what it boils down to is the separation of religion from state. Religious political parties don't work well in democracy. Their religious aspirations almost always butt heads with basic freedoms that define democracy. When they are a majority they implement a tyranny of the majority against non-religious sects and when they're not they still try to achieve these goals through various means.

And that's assuming they even believe in democratic ideals which is always iffy.

Isn't that a bit harsh denouncement of the US Republican Party?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SS, Anguy,

If the people of Egypt put power in the hands of the MB who are we to say no? I certianly don't want others telling the US who may and may not have power in our government.

[Trebla]

Isn't that a bit harsh denouncement of the US Republican Party?

heh, you could say:

Is Obama completely nuts? Why doesn't he just serve whole America to Evangilicals on silver plate? If Teabaggers are allowed to be part of goverment, America will become Theocratic republic in 2 years. It looks like we really Jimmy Carter Jr. here - idealist completely unable to handle economy and foreign politics.

[mormont]

Muslim Brotherhood is probably too big and influential to ignore but what it boils down to is the separation of religion from state. Religious political parties don't work well in democracy. Their religious aspirations almost always butt heads with basic freedoms that define democracy. When they are a majority they implement a tyranny of the majority against non-religious sects and when they're not they still try to achieve these goals through various means.

And that's assuming they even believe in democratic ideals which is always iffy.

But the point is this: how is the US meant to go into Egypt and tell the Egyptians, "You know what? Religious parties don't work well in a democracy. So we're just going to refuse to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to even take part in setting one up." From where do they get the authority? How can they do this without fatally damaging the credibility of the process? Why is it Obama's job to tell the Egyptians who they can and can't vote for? And why shouldn't the Egyptians just tell him to fuck off?

I appreciate you're not necessarily implying any of these things - but anguy certainly is.

[IheartTesla]

FFS. Do we actually know how many votes the MB would get in an election? For all we know, it could turn out like Pakistan where Islamic parties rarely get more than 10% of the vote. The rest would be nice little populist parties with a bit of socialism thrown in.

I won't deny that MB has some crazy ideas especially when it comes to Israel (and the Presidency, the majority of them don't want a female there although they are ok with women parliamentarians). But still, the Hitler party can run in the US too, ok. Those are the perils of democracy.