Many Israeli prime ministers flocked down to Mubarak's seat of power in Sharm Al Sheikh in what was presented by Israelis as a sign of improved relations, and by the Egyptians as an Israeli recognition of who's in charge.
Unlike his predecessor Sadat, who made quite an overture and appealed for regional, lastable peace from the podium of the Israeli Knesset, Mubarak never ventured to the Holly Land with the exception of Rabin's funeral.
Some interesting rumours are running wild at the moment. A recent one puts Mubarak in Eilat, Israel.
Of course those rumours are just as reliable as the ones that placed the former Egyptian president (HeeHee!) in Dubai, Baden-Baden and Saudi Arabia.
-QP
Showing posts with label mubarak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mubarak. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Dethroning the Oppressor
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Rejoicing the Junta
In the last few weeks, Egypt was undergoing a coup d'etat. For 61 years Egypt has been an authoritarian military dictatorship, headed by the strongmen Nassr, Sadat and Mubarak. This cadre of military strongmen came during the officer's revolt, which saw a constitutional monarchy with a multi-party democratically elected parliament replaced with the current, authoritarian style of government. Out of the three Nassr is the only one that left office due to natural death. His successor, Sadat, was assassinated by a radical islamist shortly after signing a peace treaty, and Mubarak was ousted by the military due to popular pressures.
Other than Mubarak's premature departure, so far there isn't much to rejoice. While I maintained that Mubarak is a good ruler (in the Machiavellian sense, not in terms of benevolence), he was pushed into a corner that he couldn't get himself out of. So now, instead of having a faux democratically elected president that atleast pretends to balance the needs of the military elite, business elite and the people, the country is in full control of a small military Junta that has become even more powerful over the last few days.
Mubarak's last deed of office was to put the military in full charge of the affairs of state. Now this does not mean that a peaceful transition towards multi-party democracy is impossible, but at the end of the day, the country is currently run by a powerful group, armed to the teeth and the lion's share of the crimes of the regime. Should we expect much of a change when the whip is wielded by the people who were patiently waiting for Mubarak to croak, anyway?
I would hope positive change can come. However, military juntas tend to be horrible with yielding power. There is always going to be some unfinished business that necessitates maintaining the status quo.
-QP
Other than Mubarak's premature departure, so far there isn't much to rejoice. While I maintained that Mubarak is a good ruler (in the Machiavellian sense, not in terms of benevolence), he was pushed into a corner that he couldn't get himself out of. So now, instead of having a faux democratically elected president that atleast pretends to balance the needs of the military elite, business elite and the people, the country is in full control of a small military Junta that has become even more powerful over the last few days.
Mubarak's last deed of office was to put the military in full charge of the affairs of state. Now this does not mean that a peaceful transition towards multi-party democracy is impossible, but at the end of the day, the country is currently run by a powerful group, armed to the teeth and the lion's share of the crimes of the regime. Should we expect much of a change when the whip is wielded by the people who were patiently waiting for Mubarak to croak, anyway?
I would hope positive change can come. However, military juntas tend to be horrible with yielding power. There is always going to be some unfinished business that necessitates maintaining the status quo.
-QP
Friday, February 11, 2011
Reactions from Israel to Mubarak Departure
I have previously maintained that support for the Mubarak regime is not deeply ingrained in Israeli society and is mostly limited to close cordial relationship of a small layer of politicians and to the fact that Mubarak's rule has been stable and found shared interests with Israel.
As for the people, they usually see Mubarak as a laughable autocrat. While 'official Israel' pretended that Mubarak's regime is a democratic republic for posterity, everyone knew the truth. Israelis tend to have disdain for central authority and far reaching regulations, they have no sympathy for a brutal dictator, be him a complacent one.
Israel always pointed out that the Middle East is a tough neighbourhood, and having Switzerland, Belgium or Canada as neighbours is preferable to having Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Deep inside, most Israelis would love to see Egypt (as well as all of Israel's neighbours) transformed to western style liberal democracies. This can be reflected by reactions of the Israeli public to recent events in Egypt.
As for the people, they usually see Mubarak as a laughable autocrat. While 'official Israel' pretended that Mubarak's regime is a democratic republic for posterity, everyone knew the truth. Israelis tend to have disdain for central authority and far reaching regulations, they have no sympathy for a brutal dictator, be him a complacent one.
Israel always pointed out that the Middle East is a tough neighbourhood, and having Switzerland, Belgium or Canada as neighbours is preferable to having Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Deep inside, most Israelis would love to see Egypt (as well as all of Israel's neighbours) transformed to western style liberal democracies. This can be reflected by reactions of the Israeli public to recent events in Egypt.
Mubarak is Out!
Watch live streaming video from usa_today1 at livestream.com
After dancing tango with the Egyptian military and people, Mubarak has finally stepped down. You can watch live coverage via the embedded player above and read more below.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Mubarak and Regime Survival in Egypt
After much speculation, we find that Mubarak is not resigning. All he does is transfer some powers to his newly appointed VP, Omar Suleiman, appoint a a special committee to oversee constitutional reform, and step down in September after overseeing an orderly transition of power. This means that the regime is not relenting, and not planning to go anywhere.
If the entire episode has left you confused, perhaps you should stop listening to what Al Jazeera tries to promote, but rather read experts such as Guy Bechor and Barry Rubin. Perhaps checking back at my earlier post on Bechor's 10 rules for regime survival in Egypt and you will readily see that the struggle for power in Egypt still plays out according to those 10 rules.
You would also be better served if you read Barry Rubin latest piece, as well as an earlier one. While so far Rubin has mostly played the role of pessimist, raising the alarm bells of the possible outcomes of an Egyptian revolution, he is an excellent analyst of what's going on over there.
-QP
If the entire episode has left you confused, perhaps you should stop listening to what Al Jazeera tries to promote, but rather read experts such as Guy Bechor and Barry Rubin. Perhaps checking back at my earlier post on Bechor's 10 rules for regime survival in Egypt and you will readily see that the struggle for power in Egypt still plays out according to those 10 rules.
You would also be better served if you read Barry Rubin latest piece, as well as an earlier one. While so far Rubin has mostly played the role of pessimist, raising the alarm bells of the possible outcomes of an Egyptian revolution, he is an excellent analyst of what's going on over there.
-QP
Updated: Apparently Mubarak to Resign Tonight
The Egyptian army came out with a statement that the 'demands of the people' are about to be met:
Egyptian television interrupted all programming to present footage of a panel of serious military officers reading out a statement they described as "communique number one" of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
"Based on the responsibility of the armed forces and its commitment to protect the people and its keenness to protect the nation... and in support of the legitimate demands of the people," the army "will continue meeting on a continuous basis to examine measures to be taken to protect the nation and its gains and the ambitions of the great Egyptian people," it said.But the demands of the people have been fairly vague. Some of the more principled positions would require a rigorous and lengthy process of careful reform. I doubt the army and the security establishment is about to throw in the towel.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Change in the Land of the Pharaoh's
While in no way am I pertaining to be an expert in the field, I have a soft spot for Egyptian history and culture.
Egypt is the world's oldest nation state, with 5,000 years of concentrated central authority headed by a mighty figurehead. Dynasties, foreign and domestic came and went while the population kept the country's heart beating to the rhythm of the Nile. While the exact location of the capitol shifted around between the centuries, the general governing model remained largely unchanged.
Any revolution, or change of governing authority usually involved a purge at the higher levels of government only, keeping the overall social order intact. Of course there are a few minor exceptions throughout history.
It was Lenin who said that there are decades where nothing happens, and weeks were decades happen. It is arguable that the common people of Egypt have gained more pull with the authority in two weeks than they have been able to garner in 5,000 years.
Why then, is there such a rush to get rid of Mubarak? Yes, his arm was twisted into stepping down in an orderly manner. The prospect of a dynasty is formally killed and he has also relinquished control of his powerful Egyptian National Democratic Party. So why not continue to pressure him to make concessions in a position where the isn't much of a future stake for him (except for honor and personal wealth)?
His immediate resignation would leave Omar Suleiman as interim president with practically no power to make reforms. The current constitution forbids him from adopting reforms and making cabinet appointments. The situation would be a disaster. Perhaps Hosni is correct when he points out that if he will resign immediately, chaos will ensue.
The last thing that Egyptians need right now is a free for all pitting brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor.
Egyptians have gained so much in the last couple of weeks. They don't want to through it by going to far and letting 5,000 years of social evolution descend into petty factionalism. Let Hosni pack his pekelakh when the time his due. Yes, he was corrupt, but he also adopted many reforms that helped Egypt modernize and it's not like there was a realistic better option.
UPDATE: It looks as though the initial popular momentum of the opposition is gone. The people want to get on with their lives, be able to get money and food, rather than shelter themselves with emergency supplies and wooden bats. The opposition groups are now in discussion with Omar Suleiman on an orderly transition of power, keeping Mubarak in charge for the meantime. The MB is playing the pragmatists, as usual. The Machiavellian group is set on working with the regime while other opposition groups are posing more hasty and radical demands. Make no mistake about it, this is merely a tactic to make themselves appear attractive to the regime and thus maximize their role in any upcoming power sharing agreement.
Interestingly enough, El Baradei was shut out. I think everyone knows that aside from 300,000 Facebook friends, he does not have concrete support.
-QP
Egypt is the world's oldest nation state, with 5,000 years of concentrated central authority headed by a mighty figurehead. Dynasties, foreign and domestic came and went while the population kept the country's heart beating to the rhythm of the Nile. While the exact location of the capitol shifted around between the centuries, the general governing model remained largely unchanged.
Any revolution, or change of governing authority usually involved a purge at the higher levels of government only, keeping the overall social order intact. Of course there are a few minor exceptions throughout history.
It was Lenin who said that there are decades where nothing happens, and weeks were decades happen. It is arguable that the common people of Egypt have gained more pull with the authority in two weeks than they have been able to garner in 5,000 years.
Why then, is there such a rush to get rid of Mubarak? Yes, his arm was twisted into stepping down in an orderly manner. The prospect of a dynasty is formally killed and he has also relinquished control of his powerful Egyptian National Democratic Party. So why not continue to pressure him to make concessions in a position where the isn't much of a future stake for him (except for honor and personal wealth)?
His immediate resignation would leave Omar Suleiman as interim president with practically no power to make reforms. The current constitution forbids him from adopting reforms and making cabinet appointments. The situation would be a disaster. Perhaps Hosni is correct when he points out that if he will resign immediately, chaos will ensue.
The last thing that Egyptians need right now is a free for all pitting brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor.
Egyptians have gained so much in the last couple of weeks. They don't want to through it by going to far and letting 5,000 years of social evolution descend into petty factionalism. Let Hosni pack his pekelakh when the time his due. Yes, he was corrupt, but he also adopted many reforms that helped Egypt modernize and it's not like there was a realistic better option.
UPDATE: It looks as though the initial popular momentum of the opposition is gone. The people want to get on with their lives, be able to get money and food, rather than shelter themselves with emergency supplies and wooden bats. The opposition groups are now in discussion with Omar Suleiman on an orderly transition of power, keeping Mubarak in charge for the meantime. The MB is playing the pragmatists, as usual. The Machiavellian group is set on working with the regime while other opposition groups are posing more hasty and radical demands. Make no mistake about it, this is merely a tactic to make themselves appear attractive to the regime and thus maximize their role in any upcoming power sharing agreement.
Interestingly enough, El Baradei was shut out. I think everyone knows that aside from 300,000 Facebook friends, he does not have concrete support.
-QP
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Mubarak and the Sin of Hubris
I recently caught up with Mubarak's interview. The message was simple: 'I wish I could go, but the country will collapse without me'.
What can I say, my heart bleeds out for the guy...
For the last 60 years, all he wanted to do is to serve his country. Although all he wanted in life is to work hard and serve his country, the difficult circumstances of this time period have compelled him to follow a much different course. After a very succesful service at the Air Force, he was made its Chief Marshal after the October War (Yom Kippur) when he had the rare achievement of not having his entire force eliminated on the ground within five minutes.
After that, his country needed him to take a higher calling, he hesitantly accepted president's Sadat request that he becomes Vice President. It was only the assassination of Sadat that forced him to temporarily fill the presidential seat, which he has been temporarily occupying ever since.
Since then, Mubarak has been working difficult long hours on behalf of his noble constituents. Taking upon himself long hours, cramped in his shabby Cairo office strictly out of his deep concern for all Egyptians, whom he saw as his children. To reward his hard work, he has been awarded a small, modest country home at the town of Sharm Al Sheikh.
He dutifully served his two terms of office with honor and dignity. Unfortunately, due to his immense popularity and lack of any capable leader in the largest state in the Arab world, he reluctantly had to modify Egypt's constitution in order to answer the call of the people.
And now, after all these years of selfless service, his children rejected him. He is old and tired, but cannot vacate his seat, as his country needs him. All he wanted is to fill his current term peacefully and oversee a smooth transition towards a true rainbow and lollipop democracy.
Sarcasm aside, the sad thing about the situation, is that under the current more probable scenarios we will probably miss him. Egyptians included. And this is by no means a compliment to his 30 year long reign of terror.
-QP
What can I say, my heart bleeds out for the guy...
For the last 60 years, all he wanted to do is to serve his country. Although all he wanted in life is to work hard and serve his country, the difficult circumstances of this time period have compelled him to follow a much different course. After a very succesful service at the Air Force, he was made its Chief Marshal after the October War (Yom Kippur) when he had the rare achievement of not having his entire force eliminated on the ground within five minutes.
After that, his country needed him to take a higher calling, he hesitantly accepted president's Sadat request that he becomes Vice President. It was only the assassination of Sadat that forced him to temporarily fill the presidential seat, which he has been temporarily occupying ever since.
Since then, Mubarak has been working difficult long hours on behalf of his noble constituents. Taking upon himself long hours, cramped in his shabby Cairo office strictly out of his deep concern for all Egyptians, whom he saw as his children. To reward his hard work, he has been awarded a small, modest country home at the town of Sharm Al Sheikh.
He dutifully served his two terms of office with honor and dignity. Unfortunately, due to his immense popularity and lack of any capable leader in the largest state in the Arab world, he reluctantly had to modify Egypt's constitution in order to answer the call of the people.
And now, after all these years of selfless service, his children rejected him. He is old and tired, but cannot vacate his seat, as his country needs him. All he wanted is to fill his current term peacefully and oversee a smooth transition towards a true rainbow and lollipop democracy.
Sarcasm aside, the sad thing about the situation, is that under the current more probable scenarios we will probably miss him. Egyptians included. And this is by no means a compliment to his 30 year long reign of terror.
-QP
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Barry Rubin: Egypt: The American Debate Has Gone Stark, Raving Crazy
By Barry Rubin
As I pointed out recently (it will be the next item so hold on for the link), the mass media in America generally presents only one side of the debate nowadays. Then, it publishes nonsense which survives because it is protected from the withering critique it deserves. And even people who should know better are just losing it.
Consider one example (Roger Cohen has gone beyond ridicule so let's focus on someone who should know better). I regret criticizing Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution as he is one of the smarter, saner people.
Yet the kinds of things he is quoted as saying in the New York Times remind me of why the "neo-conservatives" have been so dangerous because of their naivete about the Middle East. They are fitting counterparts of the apologists for radicals who have demonized them. Both groups are trying to impose their fantasy model on the real Middle East. Of course, if Kagan didn't say things like this he wouldn't be quoted at all in the New York Times.
Kagan explains to us:
As I pointed out recently (it will be the next item so hold on for the link), the mass media in America generally presents only one side of the debate nowadays. Then, it publishes nonsense which survives because it is protected from the withering critique it deserves. And even people who should know better are just losing it.
Consider one example (Roger Cohen has gone beyond ridicule so let's focus on someone who should know better). I regret criticizing Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution as he is one of the smarter, saner people.
Yet the kinds of things he is quoted as saying in the New York Times remind me of why the "neo-conservatives" have been so dangerous because of their naivete about the Middle East. They are fitting counterparts of the apologists for radicals who have demonized them. Both groups are trying to impose their fantasy model on the real Middle East. Of course, if Kagan didn't say things like this he wouldn't be quoted at all in the New York Times.
Kagan explains to us:
Fun with Contextual Advertising
As I am watching one of the many videos of the carnage unfolding in Egypt I started paying attention to those little contextual ads that pop at the bottom of the YouTube player.
For some reason, Google's algorithm believes that I will wanna take a cruise on the Nile while watching Egyptians hacking away at each other while tanks are on the street.
For some reason, Google's algorithm believes that I will wanna take a cruise on the Nile while watching Egyptians hacking away at each other while tanks are on the street.
Netanyahu Showing (very) Cautious Optimism on Egypt
I have always maintained that Israel would love to collaborate with democracies in the Middle East. Unfortunately, true liberal democracies in the region do not exist beyond the borders of Israel. So Israel resorts to collaborating with moderate authoritarian regimes such as Mubarak's Egypt. This does not stem from any desire to keep the Egyptian people repressed, but rather out of fear that the alternative is far too bad. 'He is a bastard, but he is our bastard'.
For western viewers, the debate may be about abstract ideas about liberty and democracy. For Israelis, the debate is about life and death, because if Egypt becomes another Iran, well you can figure that one out. Remember: democracy does not equate to rule at the whims of the masses. Democracy should encode a deeper principle of an individual relationship with the state and the state's relationship with its neighbors.
Netanyahu, in what appears to be the first official government statement on the issue, is showing cautious optimism:
-QP
For western viewers, the debate may be about abstract ideas about liberty and democracy. For Israelis, the debate is about life and death, because if Egypt becomes another Iran, well you can figure that one out. Remember: democracy does not equate to rule at the whims of the masses. Democracy should encode a deeper principle of an individual relationship with the state and the state's relationship with its neighbors.
Netanyahu, in what appears to be the first official government statement on the issue, is showing cautious optimism:
"It is inevitable that an Egypt which adopts the 21st century, which adopts such reforms, is a source of great hope for the world, the region, and us."
Netanyahu, who has previously voiced concern that the uprising would take on the characteristics of the Islamic revolution in Iran, spoke in a more positive tone on Wednesday.
"Democracy is dear to us, it is real, and it is obvious that a democratic Egypt will not endanger peace, just the opposite. If modern history teaches us anything it is that the stronger the democratic foundations, the stronger the foundations for peace," he said.
However, the prime minister reminded listeners that less optimistic scenarios could also transpire. "Tehran is waiting for the day in which darkness descends. They are not interested in the Egyptian citizens' aspirations for freedom, just as they were uninterested in such cries from the Iranian people," he warned.
Netanyahu also addressed concerns that the uprising would lead to the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's main opposition group, which may object to the 1979 peace agreement with Israel.
"A peace agreement does not guarantee the existence of peace, so in order to protect it and ourselves, in cases in which the agreement disappears or is violated due to a regime change on the other side, we protect it with security arrangements on the ground," he said.Israel embraces all steps towards a true, modern and democratic Middle East. It is good to have a small flavour of optimism. It is more important however, to have a much larger dose of cautious realism.
-QP
Two Sides to Every Coin
There are two sides to every coin. In the case of Egypt, the other side are the millions of Egyptians that have a vested interest in the regime's survival and who more often than not owe their livelihood to Mubarak and adore him.
Beyond Mubarak and the NDP, there is an entire apparatus of state that employs about 7 million men, making them and their families directly dependent on it. Major organizations often operate out a drive of mutual survival instinct rather than on some high minded principles. This is now manifested in the form of massive street fighting between the anti-regime and pro-regime forces. It seems that the pro-Mubarak crowd has much anger to vent at the anti-regime crowd, whom they see responsible for the chaos that their country is undergoing. There is also a lot of frustration with the US and and the international media. Al Jazeera is particularly hated right now, considering the flavour of their coverage and their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
It has been reported that machine gun fire was opened at the chaotic crowds, with some reporting over 600 injured and 30 dead. The details flowing out of a Tahrir square are quite murky for the time being. But it seems to me, the new power broker Suleiman and the Egyptian army want to create the appearance that something 'bad' might happen in order to calm the situation down a bit.
-QP
Beyond Mubarak and the NDP, there is an entire apparatus of state that employs about 7 million men, making them and their families directly dependent on it. Major organizations often operate out a drive of mutual survival instinct rather than on some high minded principles. This is now manifested in the form of massive street fighting between the anti-regime and pro-regime forces. It seems that the pro-Mubarak crowd has much anger to vent at the anti-regime crowd, whom they see responsible for the chaos that their country is undergoing. There is also a lot of frustration with the US and and the international media. Al Jazeera is particularly hated right now, considering the flavour of their coverage and their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
It has been reported that machine gun fire was opened at the chaotic crowds, with some reporting over 600 injured and 30 dead. The details flowing out of a Tahrir square are quite murky for the time being. But it seems to me, the new power broker Suleiman and the Egyptian army want to create the appearance that something 'bad' might happen in order to calm the situation down a bit.
-QP
Will the US Involve its Military in Egypt?
Egyptian daily 'Al Masry al Youm' is reporting on a subtle hint from US Central Command Chief, General James Mattis:
-QP
The United States would respond "diplomatically, economically, militarily" to any closure of the Suez Canal, although such an event seems inconceivable, the head of US Central Command said on Tuesday.
General James Mattis, who oversees US military operations in an area stretching from Egypt to Pakistan, also said the US had no plans to order its military forces into the region because of instability in North Africa.
"When you look at the fiscal impact of that [closing the Suez canal] on whoever is in a position of authority in Egypt, I just can't imagine the motive to shut that down," Mattis said at a London event hosted by the Policy Exchange think tank.
He had been asked if the US would be prepared to act if there were any disruptions to the key shipping channel because of mass protests in Egypt against the 30-year rule of President Hosni Mubarak.
"Were it to happen, obviously we would have to deal with it diplomatically, economically, militarily, whatever, but that to me is hypothetical and I would defer to the political leaders," he said.I wonder whether this a subtle warning to Mubarak to not rock the boat at this time. It could also be a subtle hint to whomever is going to end up in charge.
-QP
It's Snowing Upwards!
It has been snowing ceaselessly for almost a day now. When I am looking out of my window, it appears as though it is snowing upwards!
No, I am not insane. I live in one of those tall, modern condominium buildings and there is a current of warm air emanating from the large vents some 30 floors down from where I am. This current is making the snow flakes travel upwards right in front of my window.
Let's assume for a second that I have never seen snow in my life. Let's assume that I do not understand the elementary physical principles involved. Let's pretend that my entire understanding of the situation comes from what I see right now going on outside my window. I may conclude that these piles of cold white stuff that is covering the streets is going to disappear shortly! I will however, get a nasty shock when I find myself stuck in 3 feet of snow a little later.
It is a little bit like what I see when I follow events in the Middle East unfold through the eyes of the mainstream media. They are looking at Egypt at a moment when it appears to be snowing upwards and they are optimistically relaying to us that 'soon a democratic consensual government will rise in Egypt!', 'soon all the snow will disappear!'.
But unfortunately, the situation is a lot more complex than that. While the snow might be gone if we wait a few days, and Egypt might stabilize within a few years, it is extremely dangerous to act prematurely based on a very narrow and limited vantage point.
It is, for example, extremely possible that the chaos Egypt is undergoing will lead to a radically anti-Western Islamic dictatorship lead by the Muslim Brotherhood. It is also possible that Mubarak's rule will decide to go out with a blast after realizing it has nothing to lose. Both outcomes seem very real if you consider the history and culture of the Middle East. A western like democracy, however, will be a pleasant change, but a rare precedent none the less.
For the time being, I will relay the advice of the radio talk show host from this morning: 'If you have to drive, proceed with caution and don't trust anyone. Even the guy driving next to you could potentially ruin your day, because chances are, he has no clue what he is doing'.
-QP
No, I am not insane. I live in one of those tall, modern condominium buildings and there is a current of warm air emanating from the large vents some 30 floors down from where I am. This current is making the snow flakes travel upwards right in front of my window.
Let's assume for a second that I have never seen snow in my life. Let's assume that I do not understand the elementary physical principles involved. Let's pretend that my entire understanding of the situation comes from what I see right now going on outside my window. I may conclude that these piles of cold white stuff that is covering the streets is going to disappear shortly! I will however, get a nasty shock when I find myself stuck in 3 feet of snow a little later.
It is a little bit like what I see when I follow events in the Middle East unfold through the eyes of the mainstream media. They are looking at Egypt at a moment when it appears to be snowing upwards and they are optimistically relaying to us that 'soon a democratic consensual government will rise in Egypt!', 'soon all the snow will disappear!'.
But unfortunately, the situation is a lot more complex than that. While the snow might be gone if we wait a few days, and Egypt might stabilize within a few years, it is extremely dangerous to act prematurely based on a very narrow and limited vantage point.
It is, for example, extremely possible that the chaos Egypt is undergoing will lead to a radically anti-Western Islamic dictatorship lead by the Muslim Brotherhood. It is also possible that Mubarak's rule will decide to go out with a blast after realizing it has nothing to lose. Both outcomes seem very real if you consider the history and culture of the Middle East. A western like democracy, however, will be a pleasant change, but a rare precedent none the less.
For the time being, I will relay the advice of the radio talk show host from this morning: 'If you have to drive, proceed with caution and don't trust anyone. Even the guy driving next to you could potentially ruin your day, because chances are, he has no clue what he is doing'.
-QP
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Obama's Response: Live
Obama is about to address Mubarak's earlier announcement. It was scary to watch how Obama has humiliated America's closest ally in the Arab World while snuggling up to the much worse despot in Syria.
American policy in the Middle East is falling apart and all other Arab/Muslim states are taking notice.
Obama's speech is about to begin, I will update this post very soon!
UPDATE: a rather long delay. Perhaps some intense, last minute strategy deliberations in the bowels of the White House? Perhaps Obama is just on a smoke break...
Meanwhile: a Fox News Panel discusses the possibility of El Baradaei being a 'transitional' leader, having already garnered the support of the dominant opposition group the Muslim Brotherhood. Charles Krauthammer correctly recognizes it's a bad idea.
Here's Obama!
Obama says that based on his conversation with Mubarak, the Egyptian president recognizes that a peaceful transformation of his country is necessary.
Obama follows with some wishy-washy statements about 'Universal Values' and about the need for democratic transformation.
Obama says that he believes the Egyptian people should take their destiny in their own hands. All nice and fuzzy in theory, but can Obama point to a recent Middle Eastern example where this ended up going well?
Speech is over. I am disappointed. Obama was very vague and didn't say much new. Didn't shed any light on his conversation with Mubarak. However, the speech itself was very well written and showed cautious optimism, without explicitly taking sides.
American policy in the Middle East is falling apart and all other Arab/Muslim states are taking notice.
Obama's speech is about to begin, I will update this post very soon!
UPDATE: a rather long delay. Perhaps some intense, last minute strategy deliberations in the bowels of the White House? Perhaps Obama is just on a smoke break...
Meanwhile: a Fox News Panel discusses the possibility of El Baradaei being a 'transitional' leader, having already garnered the support of the dominant opposition group the Muslim Brotherhood. Charles Krauthammer correctly recognizes it's a bad idea.
Here's Obama!
Obama says that based on his conversation with Mubarak, the Egyptian president recognizes that a peaceful transformation of his country is necessary.
Obama follows with some wishy-washy statements about 'Universal Values' and about the need for democratic transformation.
Obama says that he believes the Egyptian people should take their destiny in their own hands. All nice and fuzzy in theory, but can Obama point to a recent Middle Eastern example where this ended up going well?
Speech is over. I am disappointed. Obama was very vague and didn't say much new. Didn't shed any light on his conversation with Mubarak. However, the speech itself was very well written and showed cautious optimism, without explicitly taking sides.
The Coup is Complete
In the last few days, while most of the world focused on the popular uprising, the Egyptian military has executed what seems to be a successful coup d'etat.
Mubarak is a military man, the protege of president Sadat and the former commander of the air force. Given his past, Hosni Mubarak is well respected and to a certain degree, admired by much of Egypt's vast military apparatus. He is well suited to hold the title 'Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces'.
The problem is not with Hosni per se, but with his dynastic aspirations and his son, Gamal. Unlike his father, Gamal spent most of his adult life taking advantage of his connections in the business world. A military man he is not. For this reason, Egypt's mighty military is not keen on the idea of such a transition of power.
The military's favourite choice is General Omar Suleiman, the head of Egypt's powerful 'Mukhabarat' (Military Intelligence/Secret Service). In the last few days, we have seen the culmination of this succession crisis, which has been brewing for several years now, unfold in full force.
Let's look at the anatomy of the coup:
1. Inspired by the recent transition in Tunisia, civil discontent has erupted.
2. After the civilian authorities and the police have failed to suppress the riots and a wave of looting, rape and murder begun, the military was requested to move in.
3. The military, which has a very special place in the hearts and minds of many Egyptians, did not take sides, but rather arreyed themselves in full force around the halls of power (Presidential Palace, Broadcasting Authority, etc.), vowed to protect the safety and security of Egyptians civilians and to protect national treasures.
4. The military did not attempt to suppress the discontent, but rather declared that they are merely present to keep the peace, not to influence the political situation, but keep the streets safe. Thus maintaining its image as protector of the people.
5. The military's own candidate, Omar Suleiman was appointed by Mubarak as a VP, effectively making him successor to the 'throne'. It should be noted that Mubarak has never designated a VP before.
6. Mubarak assigned Suleiman as chief mediator between himself and the opposition, effectively making him the power broker in the country.
That's where things currently stand. It is reported that Mubarak will soon declare that he will step down after this year's presidential election.
As things stand, Egypt's military is the true winner out of the whole situation. Omar Suleiman will possibly offer democratic reformer El Bardai a senior position such as Prime Minister, with an increased constitutional mandate. Additionally, Suleiman should work towards gradual democratic reforms. Sudden substantial reforms will probably rock the boat and bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power.
Of course there are many parameters in the equation and Egypt is going to face some tough, unstable times, but if the opposition and the military are willing to work with each other patiently it may be a positive turn after all. First, Suleiman and El Bardai are not likely to rock the boat vis-a-vis Israel and the US. Second, they can stabilize the domestic situation and work towards substantial reforms. Third and foremost, it will provide continuity and stability in the most important state in the Arab world.
-QP
Mubarak is a military man, the protege of president Sadat and the former commander of the air force. Given his past, Hosni Mubarak is well respected and to a certain degree, admired by much of Egypt's vast military apparatus. He is well suited to hold the title 'Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces'.
The problem is not with Hosni per se, but with his dynastic aspirations and his son, Gamal. Unlike his father, Gamal spent most of his adult life taking advantage of his connections in the business world. A military man he is not. For this reason, Egypt's mighty military is not keen on the idea of such a transition of power.
The military's favourite choice is General Omar Suleiman, the head of Egypt's powerful 'Mukhabarat' (Military Intelligence/Secret Service). In the last few days, we have seen the culmination of this succession crisis, which has been brewing for several years now, unfold in full force.
Let's look at the anatomy of the coup:
1. Inspired by the recent transition in Tunisia, civil discontent has erupted.
2. After the civilian authorities and the police have failed to suppress the riots and a wave of looting, rape and murder begun, the military was requested to move in.
3. The military, which has a very special place in the hearts and minds of many Egyptians, did not take sides, but rather arreyed themselves in full force around the halls of power (Presidential Palace, Broadcasting Authority, etc.), vowed to protect the safety and security of Egyptians civilians and to protect national treasures.
4. The military did not attempt to suppress the discontent, but rather declared that they are merely present to keep the peace, not to influence the political situation, but keep the streets safe. Thus maintaining its image as protector of the people.
5. The military's own candidate, Omar Suleiman was appointed by Mubarak as a VP, effectively making him successor to the 'throne'. It should be noted that Mubarak has never designated a VP before.
6. Mubarak assigned Suleiman as chief mediator between himself and the opposition, effectively making him the power broker in the country.
That's where things currently stand. It is reported that Mubarak will soon declare that he will step down after this year's presidential election.
As things stand, Egypt's military is the true winner out of the whole situation. Omar Suleiman will possibly offer democratic reformer El Bardai a senior position such as Prime Minister, with an increased constitutional mandate. Additionally, Suleiman should work towards gradual democratic reforms. Sudden substantial reforms will probably rock the boat and bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power.
Of course there are many parameters in the equation and Egypt is going to face some tough, unstable times, but if the opposition and the military are willing to work with each other patiently it may be a positive turn after all. First, Suleiman and El Bardai are not likely to rock the boat vis-a-vis Israel and the US. Second, they can stabilize the domestic situation and work towards substantial reforms. Third and foremost, it will provide continuity and stability in the most important state in the Arab world.
-QP
Monday, January 31, 2011
Revolution Until Bankruptcy!
Despite of its large size, Egypt is not a very wealthy country. Israel, its next door neighbor possesses an economy of comparable size while having about 10% of Egypt's population. Additionally, much of the rest of its income comes either due to its ties with Israel and the West or due to its Faux democratic moderate autocracy.
About 10% of Egypt's incomes comes from direct trade with the states. A lot more is due to various free trade agreements with the West, which Egypt has access to due its peace agreement with Israel. And then there is the big elephant in the room: tourism!
If an anti-American regime takes hold in Egypt, you can be sure that the Americans will cease selling the Egyptians modern weapons and cut military aid, which is second only to Israel (though the Obama administration has been rather unpredictable with things like that). The powerful Egyptian army will not like that. Whomever takes over in Egypt is going to have a tough time maintaining a modern army.
Additionally, you can assume that trade between Egypt and the states is going to diminish immensely. Egypt might be able to find alternative markets, but they will probably be compelled to use more competitive prices. That's before we consider the number of foreign companies with production facilities in Egypt that will pull out. The very successful Israeli underwear manufacturer, 'Delta', has already ceased production in Egypt, temporarily. If things do not become stable, temporary is sure to become permanent.
Then there is the issue of foreign and local investment. Foreign investors have been fleeing the Middle East in the last few days. Egypt's bond rating has already been cut. It has also been reported that some Egypt's uber rich have been fleeing the country with their cash. This is not good for the economy.
And then there is the little issue of tourism, one of Egypt's most powerful sectors. Nobody is crazy about going to a country where mass riots can break any minute, accompanied by waves of looting pillaging and raping. Not to mention highway robbery. Things are bad... There has already been a break-in to Egypt's treasured national museum and some ancient artifacts have been stolen. This must be a big blow to Egypt's national pride and dignity.
So are we looking at a democratic transformation, or a big disintegration of a great nation, with its history, national treasure, dignity and wealth all being wasted away. It's international prestige and strategic interests collapsing and its food supplies running out?
Does that mean that the situation in Egypt must stabilize soon as a corrective step? Of some compromise being reached in order to return Egypt to where it was?
Most likely not... that's what happened in Russian in 1917, or Iran in 1979. More chaos, less democracy and less freedom.
-QP
About 10% of Egypt's incomes comes from direct trade with the states. A lot more is due to various free trade agreements with the West, which Egypt has access to due its peace agreement with Israel. And then there is the big elephant in the room: tourism!
If an anti-American regime takes hold in Egypt, you can be sure that the Americans will cease selling the Egyptians modern weapons and cut military aid, which is second only to Israel (though the Obama administration has been rather unpredictable with things like that). The powerful Egyptian army will not like that. Whomever takes over in Egypt is going to have a tough time maintaining a modern army.
Additionally, you can assume that trade between Egypt and the states is going to diminish immensely. Egypt might be able to find alternative markets, but they will probably be compelled to use more competitive prices. That's before we consider the number of foreign companies with production facilities in Egypt that will pull out. The very successful Israeli underwear manufacturer, 'Delta', has already ceased production in Egypt, temporarily. If things do not become stable, temporary is sure to become permanent.
Then there is the issue of foreign and local investment. Foreign investors have been fleeing the Middle East in the last few days. Egypt's bond rating has already been cut. It has also been reported that some Egypt's uber rich have been fleeing the country with their cash. This is not good for the economy.
And then there is the little issue of tourism, one of Egypt's most powerful sectors. Nobody is crazy about going to a country where mass riots can break any minute, accompanied by waves of looting pillaging and raping. Not to mention highway robbery. Things are bad... There has already been a break-in to Egypt's treasured national museum and some ancient artifacts have been stolen. This must be a big blow to Egypt's national pride and dignity.
So are we looking at a democratic transformation, or a big disintegration of a great nation, with its history, national treasure, dignity and wealth all being wasted away. It's international prestige and strategic interests collapsing and its food supplies running out?
Does that mean that the situation in Egypt must stabilize soon as a corrective step? Of some compromise being reached in order to return Egypt to where it was?
Most likely not... that's what happened in Russian in 1917, or Iran in 1979. More chaos, less democracy and less freedom.
-QP
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Damned if we Do, Damned if we Don't!
America is often criticized for bolstering authoritarian regimes of the most despicable type. It is frequently pointed out that America has a vested interest in its foreign policy dependencies to be repressive, brutal regimes that will strictly protect America's geopolitical aims, at whatever means.
It is true that in the past it has happened. America did help instigate coup d'etat in many cases. They supported militarily regimes of the most unsavory kind.
But is this some foreign policy conspiracy to keep other nations down while America dictates the terms?
I don't think so...
Let's look at some of America's closest allies:
Canada, UK, Australia - Westminster style parliamentary democracy. By all counts, freedom and personal liberties are fairly high.
Germany, Japan - A brutal dictatorship that was transformed under American military occupation into a very free and liberal democratic state.
And of course I can add many more... For example, Israel's typical government survival rate is probably shorter than the president's Press Secretary's typical tenure.
So why is America of bolstering dictators at the expense of the liberties of its people?
I think the answer is pretty simple... American bolsters cooperative dictators in countries where liberty and democracy are not happening, anyway. I think most would agree that the Shah's autocratic rule is much preferable to the current Islamic Republic. In fact it seems most Iranians would agree!
In the current situation, America is in a position of 'damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If they help Mubarak stay in power, they are accused of supporting an autocrat. If they don't, they will be shamed for dumping their staunchest ally in the region (Israel aside), as our favourite 'liberal democrat' Hugo Chavez did very recently.
Whichever way this revolution goes, it will be bad for Israel, bad for America and probably very bad for Egyptians.
-QP
It is true that in the past it has happened. America did help instigate coup d'etat in many cases. They supported militarily regimes of the most unsavory kind.
But is this some foreign policy conspiracy to keep other nations down while America dictates the terms?
I don't think so...
Let's look at some of America's closest allies:
Canada, UK, Australia - Westminster style parliamentary democracy. By all counts, freedom and personal liberties are fairly high.
Germany, Japan - A brutal dictatorship that was transformed under American military occupation into a very free and liberal democratic state.
And of course I can add many more... For example, Israel's typical government survival rate is probably shorter than the president's Press Secretary's typical tenure.
So why is America of bolstering dictators at the expense of the liberties of its people?
I think the answer is pretty simple... American bolsters cooperative dictators in countries where liberty and democracy are not happening, anyway. I think most would agree that the Shah's autocratic rule is much preferable to the current Islamic Republic. In fact it seems most Iranians would agree!
In the current situation, America is in a position of 'damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If they help Mubarak stay in power, they are accused of supporting an autocrat. If they don't, they will be shamed for dumping their staunchest ally in the region (Israel aside), as our favourite 'liberal democrat' Hugo Chavez did very recently.
Whichever way this revolution goes, it will be bad for Israel, bad for America and probably very bad for Egyptians.
-QP
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Revolution Until Victory!
Today I stumbled into the Egyptian solidarity demonstration that took place at Dundas Square in downtown Toronto.
The liberty lover that I am, I cannot help but being curious... so I looked around. I honestly wish will for the people of Egypt. I long for a day where Israel, my birthplace, will one day be surrounded by truly liberal Arab democracies. Since events in Tunisia and Egypt started to unfold, I developed a weird sense of optimism that perhaps the Arab World is ready for a shakedown in the right direction.
I think my observation today has brought me back to the reality of the Middle East, which is quite far removed from the mushy, touchy-feely reality of Canada.
I think the following encounter illustrates the situation well:
After leaving the protest, I got on the Dundas streetcar and overheard a young woman telling her mother on the phone "Sorry I am running a little late, there was some protest at Dundas Square... it was Egypt or Palestine (?!) I am not quiiiiite sure which one it was". "Egypt", I informed her.
"I don't know... there seemed to be a lot of Palestine stuff over there..." She answered me, still midconversation with whomever is on the other side of the line, she added: "There were lots of strange signs in the protest, 'Mossad did 9/11' was my favourite, I couldn't help it, it cracked me up!"
I think this summarizes the entire screwed up mentality that unfortunately prevails in the Arab world. First of all... why the hell is the 'Palestinian Cause' hijacking everything? Unlike the Palestinians, the Egyptians are a people with a long and proud history of self governance... there are almost 90 million of them, with many issues of their on... many of them are significantly worse than that of Palestinians that ever head to endure the Israeli presence. No wonder the Palestinians are treated like crap by the rest of the Arab world, every time Arabs wish to deal with their own very real social and political issues, it's the Palestine Problem that jumps to the front of the line. It's quite ludicrous.
Second of all, for a group of people that are supposedly fighting for freedom and democracy in their homeland, getting their civic education in perhaps the most tolerant and civil democracy in the world; Canada, much of what appeared on the surface seemed quite far removed from the democracy as Americans, Canadians, Brits, Western Europeans and Israelis see it.
That's what we need... a democracy at the hands of group of vehemently antisemitic 9/11 truthers? Is this going to bring peace, liberty and stability to the Middle East? Is this what's going to turn Egyptians into free and proud people, ready to face their modern problems?
I don't think so...
Frankly I think that a much longer period of transition is needed... Currently the best non Islamist opposition group in Egypt is quite radically antisemitic and anti-American. The best real opposition group is a radical Islamist group that believes in creating something analogous to the Taliban in Egypt as the ideal state for the country.
With the best of intentions, the current revolution in Egypt is likely to lead into a Taliban style Muslim Brotherhood theocracy, if let run its full course.
No Thank You!
-QP
The liberty lover that I am, I cannot help but being curious... so I looked around. I honestly wish will for the people of Egypt. I long for a day where Israel, my birthplace, will one day be surrounded by truly liberal Arab democracies. Since events in Tunisia and Egypt started to unfold, I developed a weird sense of optimism that perhaps the Arab World is ready for a shakedown in the right direction.
I think my observation today has brought me back to the reality of the Middle East, which is quite far removed from the mushy, touchy-feely reality of Canada.
I think the following encounter illustrates the situation well:
After leaving the protest, I got on the Dundas streetcar and overheard a young woman telling her mother on the phone "Sorry I am running a little late, there was some protest at Dundas Square... it was Egypt or Palestine (?!) I am not quiiiiite sure which one it was". "Egypt", I informed her.
"I don't know... there seemed to be a lot of Palestine stuff over there..." She answered me, still midconversation with whomever is on the other side of the line, she added: "There were lots of strange signs in the protest, 'Mossad did 9/11' was my favourite, I couldn't help it, it cracked me up!"
I think this summarizes the entire screwed up mentality that unfortunately prevails in the Arab world. First of all... why the hell is the 'Palestinian Cause' hijacking everything? Unlike the Palestinians, the Egyptians are a people with a long and proud history of self governance... there are almost 90 million of them, with many issues of their on... many of them are significantly worse than that of Palestinians that ever head to endure the Israeli presence. No wonder the Palestinians are treated like crap by the rest of the Arab world, every time Arabs wish to deal with their own very real social and political issues, it's the Palestine Problem that jumps to the front of the line. It's quite ludicrous.
Second of all, for a group of people that are supposedly fighting for freedom and democracy in their homeland, getting their civic education in perhaps the most tolerant and civil democracy in the world; Canada, much of what appeared on the surface seemed quite far removed from the democracy as Americans, Canadians, Brits, Western Europeans and Israelis see it.
That's what we need... a democracy at the hands of group of vehemently antisemitic 9/11 truthers? Is this going to bring peace, liberty and stability to the Middle East? Is this what's going to turn Egyptians into free and proud people, ready to face their modern problems?
I don't think so...
Frankly I think that a much longer period of transition is needed... Currently the best non Islamist opposition group in Egypt is quite radically antisemitic and anti-American. The best real opposition group is a radical Islamist group that believes in creating something analogous to the Taliban in Egypt as the ideal state for the country.
With the best of intentions, the current revolution in Egypt is likely to lead into a Taliban style Muslim Brotherhood theocracy, if let run its full course.
No Thank You!
-QP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)