Egypt: News/updates

[cupper]

Here is a comparison of the current Constitution an dthe 1971 Constitution suspended during the Army's takeover in the middle of the protests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20555478

 

[kevincanada]

Here is a comparison of the current Constitution an dthe 1971 Constitution suspended during the Army's takeover in the middle of the protests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20555478

Thanks for the links Cupper.  I had a read through the constitution.  Looking for elements pertaining to democracy, Sharia and the case of this family being jailed for 15 years.  Don't mind if I am a little ignorant on some parts this is what I gathered from it.


- They have taken many aspects of the United States methods of operating a country, called it democracy (my notes: makes sense USA is a military financial supplier to Egypt)
- They have made the system into a Hierarchy;  Sharia law ---> democratic application of the law ---> operations of the state --> personal rights and beliefs.

Of course I am lacking way to many details on the case of the jailed women.  Perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable about Egypt and Sharia Law than I am.  Can explain it better.  Since we have these two key articles from the constitution.


Article 219
The principles of Islamic Sharia include general evidence, foundational rules, rules of jurisprudence, and credible sources accepted in Sunni doctrines and by the larger community.

Article 2
Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation.



- I have to conclude that the women crime was considered as apostasy (leaving the faith) which is a crime under sharia and carries a variety of punishments under sharia ran states.
- What I find really interesting is that her application for conversion was under the old regime.  They had riots to get rid of the old regime in favour of a more democratic? Secular? State.  Now she is being punished for a crime she technically did not commit as it happened before the new regime came into existance.

Please don't mind errors, I'm trying to piece it together.  I find the subject very interesting.

 

[cupper]

Just because they have a constitution does not mean that they will follow or adhere to it's stated articles, rights and so forth.

What should be noted is that all rights and articles can be revoked by court order, in times of social unrest or in time of war. Specific articles contain a statement specific to that.

So in other words, pretty much any time the rulers feel like doing so, either for specific individuals and groups, or the population as a whole.

 

[Edward Campbell]

:goodpost:

The constitution of the late and unlamented USSR was a masterpiece, few in the world were better ... just one problem: it was the USSR.  :

 

[Haletown]

Well they have a nice new constitution.

Too bad the don't have the foreign currency reserves to buy the food and fuel the nation needs for its people and economy.


Spengler sends . . .  http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/01/22/denial-still-is-a-river-in-egypt-cross-posted-from-asia-times-online/

 

[kevincanada]

The reason for my curiosity on the constitution and the women who is jailed for 15 years was to try and get a feel if they will actually honour old arrangements.  If not then why?  According to this foxnews article on it.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/16/egyptian-court-sentences-entire-family-to-15-years-for-converting-to/

I'll clip a couple highlights.

".....He later died, and his widow planned to convert her family back to Christianity in order to obtain an inheritance from her family. She sought the help of others in the registration office to process new identity cards between 2004 and 2006. When the conversion came to light under the new regime, Nadia, her children and even the clerks who processed the identity cards were all sentenced to prison." and

"Tadros said the constitution limits the practice of Christianity because “religious freedom has to be understood within the boundaries of Sharia.”....."

I take it the people involved; their actions was not a crime under the old regime.  But since now apparently sharia law is the new regime.  Sharia law to my understanding (I could be incorrect here) does not see old arrangements as valid, It only sees what is today as valid.  Therefore it supersedes the women's old identity and what wasn't a crime is now a crime.

 

[cupper]

And we've now come full circle from almost exactly 2 years ago:

Egypt’s Morsi declares state of emergency, curfew after deadly clashes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/three-killed-hundreds-injured-in-second-day-of-clashes-between-police-protesters-in-egypt/2013/01/27/38dca0e4-68a5-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html?hpid=z1

CAIRO — Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi declared a state of emergency and nighttime curfew across three major cities Sunday after violence raged for a third straight day, leaving nearly 50 dead and hundreds injured nationwide.

The deployment Saturday of government troops to the coastal cities of Port Said and Suez, which have seen some of the worst violence, failed to quell a public backlash against a court verdict and raised doubts about whether Morsi’s embattled government could contain the situation.

In a televised address Sunday night, the president said the state of emergency, which allows security forces to arrest and detain at will, would cover Port Said, Suez and Ismailia for 30 days.

“The protection of the nation is the responsibility of everyone. We will confront any threat to its security with force and firmness within the shadow of the state of the law,” Morsi said.

Thousands took to the streets of Port Said on Sunday in funeral processions for more than 30 people killed Saturday in clashes between protesters and police, after a court handed down death sentences to 21 people for their involvement in a deadly soccer riot last year.

Officials said that at least seven more died Sunday in the city, where hundreds have been wounded in two days of fighting. Residents said security forces had contributed to the violence, instead of bringing the situation under control.

Growing frustration

The strife in Port Said roughly coincided with the second anniversary of the uprising that ousted President Hosni Mubarak and with a swell of opposition to Islamist rule. In Cairo, Suez and Ismailia, clashes spawned by anniversary protests against Morsi’s government on Friday carried into Sunday, and opposition groups called for further protests Monday.

At the heart of the crisis is growing national frustration over the pursuit of justice two years after Mubarak’s fall. Egyptians across the political spectrum complain that the abusive security forces cultivated under his rule have evaded punishment for crimes committed during the uprising and since his ouster.

Egypt’s court system remains opaque and marred by allegations of corruption and politicized rulings.

Although the clashes in Port Said occurred in response to the court verdict Saturday, Michael Wahid Hanna, a Middle East expert at the Century Foundation, said the city’s crisis also reflected Egyptians’ growing dissatisfaction with Morsi and the slow pace of reforms.

“People no longer have confidence in the institutions of the state, and they are willing to exercise that rejection through violence,” Hanna said.

Only two of the nearly 170 security officials and police officers charged with using violence against civilians during the past two years have been convicted, rights groups say.

A conflict last month over the religious character of Egypt’s new constitution that pits the Islamist government against a broad liberal and secular opposition has further degraded trust in Morsi.

The president urged the nation Sunday night to respect the court’s rulings, but Egyptians have increasingly vowed to take matters of justice into their own hands over verdicts deemed unsatisfactory.

Mayhem in city

The Port Said riot in February 2012, the deadliest in Egypt’s history, followed a soccer match between Cairo’s al-Ahly club team and Port Said’s al-Masry club team and left 74 people dead. Ahly fans, who claimed most of the victims as their own, threatened violence ahead of Saturday’s verdict in anticipation of light sentences.

But when death sentences followed for the 21 Port Said residents charged in the case, it was Port Said that erupted in anger. Fifty-two security personnel also charged in the incident will not be sentenced until March.

More than two dozen people were killed Saturday in clashes in Port Said while trying to storm police stations and the prison complex where the defendants were being held.

“We either redeem them or we die like them,” protesters chanted Sunday during the funeral procession, al-Jazeera’s English-language channel reported.

Witnesses said the procession quickly turned to mayhem as the crowd approached two resorts used by the police and military and came under fire.

“The moment we got there, they started shooting at us and tear gas started coming at us from the resorts, so we started throwing rocks,” said protester Mohamed Wefky, whose friend died in the Saturday clashes. Wefky said some of the caskets never made it to the graveyard as the crowd dispersed and clashes ensued. “Some of the martyrs’ bodies are still on the ground, not buried yet,” he said.

Other witnesses reported seeing protesters and security forces exchanging fire during the clashes Saturday and Sunday. Local media reported that residents also opened fire on police stations.

Abdel Rahman al-Farah, the director of Port Said’s hospitals, said that about 200 people were injured in the unrest Sunday, most by “suffocation” in the chaos of the crowd. Ten were shot, he said.

The National Defense Council, a group of security chiefs led by Morsi, deployed military troops to Port Said and Suez on Saturday.

But as clashes erupted again Sunday, residents of Port Said said there was little sign of the police or the military on the city’s streets, beyond helicopter sightings. The troops mostly kept to their barracks and stations, residents said, as chaos reigned in the streets.

Meanwhile, violence continued to flare amid thick clouds of tear gas around Cairo’s Tahrir Square and close to government buildings, including the parliament and the state television headquarters. Those battles are a continuation of the violence that erupted between anti-Islamist demonstrators and police on Friday, as opposition groups marched through the city on the anniversary of Egypt’s revolution, calling for Morsi’s ouster.

 

[cupper]

It appears that the Army may be making a statement to both Morsi and the populous.

Egypt’s military chief says clashes threaten the state

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypts-military-chief-says-clashes-threaten-the-state/2013/01/29/8a8ee7ae-6a1b-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story.html?hpid=z4

CAIRO, Egypt — Egypt’s military chief warned of a potential “collapse of the state” on Tuesday after a fourth night of violent street battles between protesters and Egyptian security forces in Cairo and in major cities along the country’s prized Suez Canal.

“The continuation of this struggle between the different political forces . . . could lead to the collapse of the state, and threatens the future of coming generations,” Army chief and Defense Minister Abdel Fatah al-Sissi told military academy cadets, according to remarks posted on the armed forces’ Facebook page Tuesday.



At least 54 people have died, and hundreds more have been more injured, in five days of bitter clashes between anti-government protesters — many armed with rocks, Molotov cocktails and in some cases live ammunition— and the better-armed security forces.

On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported, tanks were fanned out on the streets of Port Said, a strategic city of some 600,000 at the tip of the Suez Canal. Troops in Port Said and Suez stood by as thousands took to the streets overnight, in direct defiance of a 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew and state of emergency declared by President Mohamed Morsi, the wire service said.

The violence started Friday, as protesters marched through Cairo and several other cities to voice their opposition to Islamist rule under Morsi on the two-year anniversary of the uprising that ousted Hosni Mubarak. Those protesters were confronted by government security forces.

But in Port Said, 140 miles northeast of Cairo on the Mediterranean coast, residents say their conflict with Morsi centers on a harsh court verdict handed down Saturday: death sentences for 21 locals involved in a soccer riot last year. The verdict sparked street protests that lead to clashes with police, which left 43 people dead.

As Port Said’s death toll climbed, Egypt’s political opposition, which until last week cut predominantly along religious and class lines, began to broaden.

On Monday the National Salvation Front, a loose coalition of opposition leaders, rejected Morsi’s call to a national dialogue. Leftist leader Hamdeen Sabbahi said the alliance would agree to meet only if Morsi forms a national unity government and begins to amend Egypt’s contentious new constitution, which was approved in a national referendum last month. The front called for more nationwide protests on Friday.

That a city like Port Said could turn so vehemently against Morsi in response to a single court verdict underscores the president’s increasing vulnerability, and suggests that others could just as easily shift their favor — potentially altering the nature of Egypt’s political divide and bringing new threats to the country’s already tenuous stability and rapidly sinking economy.

On Monday, many of the men and women who chanted for Morsi’s execution in the tense and battle-scarred streets of Port Said said that in last summer’s presidential election, they actually voted for the man.

A grim cycle

Morsi’s government and his backers in the Muslim Brotherhood have struggled to control the security crisis. Morsi declared the 30-day state of emergency and a nighttime curfew for Port Said, Suez and Ismailia on Sunday.

But many Egyptians in the emergency zone, spread along Egypt’s most crucial holding, the Suez Canal, said the moves only made them angrier.

Late Monday, as helicopters whirred overhead in Port Said, they gathered to bury their dead and defy the curfew. Some set fire to tires, as one angry protester explained, “to stop the police from attacking.”

Men and women carried pictures of young male relatives whom they said had been killed in the two days prior. “The people want the execution of the president,” the crowd chanted.

“We didn’t do what we did because of the 2013 anniversary. We did what we did because of the ruling,” said Mohamed Wahba, the deputy head of the city’s main cemetery. But Wahba said the grim cycle of protest and death has turned a city that was never overwhelmingly in the Islamists’ favor now decidedly against them.

“The people who come here leave very upset and frustrated, and determined to reject any decision taken by Mohamed Morsi,” he said.

Across a shuttered city, soldiers stood guard outside government and police buildings, including the provincial headquarters and the port. But their presence did little to calm the city’s residents.

Rumors of police snipers and government conspiracy theories swirled through an agitated crowd. And by late afternoon, clashes flared again outside a city police station, amid flying stones and the sporadic sounds of gunfire.

More dissent

In Cairo, protesters clashed sporadically with police on the fringes of Tahrir Square, near the country’s Parliament, and across two major downtown thoroughfares, temporarily shutting down a bridge. One man died of a bullet wound, news agencies reported.

In Ismailia, protesters attacked a police station, injuring two police officers with shotgun pellets, local media reported.

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which is near Tahrir Square, closed to the public on Monday in anticipation of the protests, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. Canada and Britain also closed their embassies.

The seeming permanence of Mubarak’s judiciary and what critics call his abusive police force have fueled much of the anger from Cairo to Port Said, where protesters say their dissent has grown more forceful since Friday, when black-clad riot police used force against them.

The people of Port Said are angry about the way justice played out. The death sentences were politically motivated, residents reasoned, to appease the potentially violent fans of the rival al-Ahly soccer team in Cairo, which claimed most of the 74 riot victims as their own.

“The people are now ignited against anything that represents authority,” said Gharib al-Shalaqany, a retired police lieutenant.

“There is nothing that will calm the people down because they have made Port Said a scapegoat,” said Hisham Mohamed, a government bureaucrat. Last summer, he said, he voted for Morsi. Now: “I wish I could cut my hand off.”

 

[a_majoor]

More about how and why the people are protesting the regime:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/01/what-to-do-when-illiberal-anti-democratic-forces-take-power-through-the-democratic-process/

What to Do When Illiberal, Anti-Democratic Forces Take Power Through the Democratic Process

Ilya Somin • February 1, 2013 11:05 am


When Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship began to collapse two years ago, I expressed the fear that the ultimate outcome might be a new Egyptian government more oppressive than the old. The main reasons for my concern were that illiberal radical Islamists were far better positioned to seize power than liberal democrats, and that Egyptian public opinion was itself highly illiberal, which raised the possibility that radical Islamists could prevail even in a genuinely free election.

Since then, the first Egyptian presidential elections have been won by radical Islamist Mohammed Morsi, who proceeded to persecute journalists who “insulted” him, kill numerous protestors, and assume near-dictatorial “emergency” powers.

Fearing adescent into Islamist dictatorship, more liberal Egyptians have taken to the streets in protest. Harvard Law School Professor Noah Feldman, a leading academic expert on Middle Eastern law and politics, sympathizes with them, but argues that they should not undermine Morsi’s democratically elected government lest they bring on a reversion to military rule:


I hate to agree with an Egyptian general about anything, but Abdelfatah Al-Seesi, who’s also Egypt’s defense minister, had a point when he warned his countrymen on Facebook that continued violent protest in the streets might lead to collapse.

Ordinary Egyptians have plenty of reasons to be frustrated with the government of President Mohamed Mursi, which has by turns overclaimed its authority and underdelivered in establishing order. Still, it’s one thing to engage in mass protest when your target is a dictatorship — then you are a democratic revolutionary. It’s quite another to use mass protests to try and bring down a democratically elected government that you don’t like. Then you’re running the risk of becoming an unwitting agent of counterrevolution....

If Egypt’s democrats want to avoid becoming another Pakistan, in which democracy is never more than a few shots from military dictatorship, they have just one path available to them: take a deep breath, go home, and let the democratically elected government try to do its job. Mursi and his government may do well or badly. But as long as they are up for re-election in a few years, they will have laid the groundwork for democratic transition.

Patriots of Tahrir, ask yourselves: You may not like Mursi. But would you really rather have the army?

Feldman certainly knows more about Egyptian politics than I do, and he may be right in his bottom conclusion. But the issue is more complicated than his description suggests. If Morsi continues to persecute his political opponents and establishes an Islamist dictatorship, his government might not be “up for re-election in a few years,” at least not a free election in which opposition parties are allowed to compete on equal terms. If Morsi is not overthrown now or at least forced to accept tight constraints on his authority, Egypt’s “democratic transition” could easily turn into a case of “one man, one vote, one time.”

Even if Morsi retains a relatively free democratic process, the illiberal nature of majority Egyptian opinion could still lead to severe oppression of women, liberals, religious minorities, and others. Democracy is an important value. But it is not the only value that matters and not necessarily the most important. A modestly repressive authoritarian regime might be a lesser evil compared to a democracy governed by a sufficiently oppressive illiberal majority.

Egypt is not the first nation that has transitioned to democracy under the shadow of powerful illiberal political forces that threaten to seize power. Some new democracies have dealt with the problem by banning illiberal political parties or otherwise making it harder for them to seize power through the democratic process. For example, post-World War II West Germany banned the Nazi and Communist parties (the latter was legalized only in the 1970s, while the former remains illegal to this day). After the fall of communism, several Eastern European nations adopted “lustration” laws banning many former communist officials from holding public office. Such laws create genuine injustices and also carry slippery slope risks (if we ban the communists, why not moderate socialists or liberals?). But if the threat of an illiberal takeover is severe enough, they might be the lesser of the available evils. In some extreme cases, the only way to save democracy or other important liberal values is to impose severe limits on the democratic process itself.

Egypt’s liberal democrats face a genuinely difficult dilemma. Confronting Morsi’s government in the streets may indeed risk the return of military rule. But failing to do so might pave the way for an even more oppressive Islamist government, possibly one that blocks future democratic elections once it has consolidated its power. If it were my choice, I would probably rather live under a junta of corrupt generals who are in it for money and power than under radical Islamists who want to force all of society to obey their version of Sharia law. The former might only impose enough repression to hold onto power and enrich themselves and their cronies. The Islamists, by contrast, might seek to impose brutal control over all aspects of society. Better to be ruled by crooks than quasi-totalitarian ideologues. But liberal Egyptians have to consider the relative likelihood of the two dangers as well as the relative severity. A high probability of moderately oppressive military government might be worse than a much lower probability of severely oppressive Islamist rule. Regardless, the right answer to the problem – assuming one even exists – can’t be determined simply by the fact that Morsi was democratically elected.

UPDATE: In this recent Washington Post article, Fareed Zakaria argues that Egypt is in danger of sliding into Islamist rule because it ” chose democratization before liberalization.” He notes that Egypt’s new Islamist-influenced constitution is highly illiberal and points out that “[m]ore journalists have been persecuted for insulting Morsi in his six-month presidency than during the nearly 30-year reign of Mubarak.”

and Instapundit comments:

Remember: Democracy is a means, not an end. It’s valuable as a means of protecting those unalienable rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But those rights are unalienable — incapable of being alienated, that is, bought, sold, or given away — which means that even if you live in a democracy, you haven’t surrendered them to the majority. A majority that wants to take away your unalienable rights isn’t a legitimate government. I’m gratified by how many Egyptians seem to grasp that; it’s more than I expected, though perhaps not as many as it needs to be. It’s clearly more than the Muslim Brotherhood expected, too.

 

[GAP]

Canada closes Cairo embassy
07/02/2013  Erin Criger and Reuters
Article Link

Canada closed its embassy in Cairo, Egypt, on Tuesday due to security reasons, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

The announcement was made over Twitter.

The closure comes as opponents of Egyptian president Mohamed Mursi continued an all night celebration in Tahrir Square on Tuesday, after the army gave the Islamist president a 48-hour deadline to compromise with protesters.

Mursi’s liberal opponents brought millions out onto the streets to demand that he step down and that early presidential elections be held.

On Monday night, Mursi rejected the ultimatum, saying he had not been consulted and would pursue his own plans for national reconciliation.

But while Mursi’s supporters are calling the army’s move a military coup, his opponents are celebrating, saying the army has rightly brought the president into check after he failed to properly govern the country and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to dominate all of the institutions of state.

Protester Rida Abdul Malek said that army had responded to the public’s demands.

“No, the army did not carry out a coup. [Defence minister and army chief] al-Sisi gave him a 48 hour warning, in order for things to be done legally. This is the people’s will. They [the Muslim Brotherhood] have failed, they failed to govern,” he said.

Another protester, Ahmed Essawy, said the army had given people hope after more than two years of turmoil and despair.

“This [the army's statement] has reassured people even more, and people feel that the army is with them and that the revolution is still strong. It has lifted everyone up,” he said.

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood have used the word “coup” to describe the military manoeuvre, which carries the threat of the generals imposing their own roadmap for the nation.

President Mursi’s supporters, most from Islamist parties such as his Muslim Brotherhood, have rallied on his behalf, and on Tuesday morning, several hundred continued an ongoing sit-in at Cairo University.
More on link

 

[jollyjacktar]

Morsi was on the TV moaning at the cameras and pleading his case.  Tomorrow will be interesting to see who blinks first, if at all.

 

[cupper]

The news here had a clip in which he supposedly claims that he is prepared to die to defend the Presidency.

I wish him all the best in the afterlife.

 

[old medic]

Going to be interesting to watch.


The Associated Press
03 July 2013

CAIRO, Egypt -- Egypt's military moved to tighten its control of key institutions Wednesday, sending troops backed with armoured vehicles to the heart of Cairo and slapping a travel ban on President Mohammed Morsi and top allies in preparation for an almost certain push to remove the Islamist president with the expiration of an afternoon deadline.

Just before the military's deadline expired, Morsi repeated a vow not to step down, and one of his top advisers decried that Egypt is experiencing a military coup.

For the second time in 2 1/2 years of political upheaval, the powerful army appears to be positioned to remove the country's leader. But this time, it would be ousting a democratically elected president, the first in Egypt's history -- making its move potentially explosive......................

..........The troops, including commandos and in full combat gear, deployed just as darkness fell across much of the Egyptian capital at key facilities, on bridges over the Nile River and at major intersections. They also surrounded rallies being held by Morsi's supporters -- an apparent move to keep them contained if a final move on the president is made...........

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/egyptian-soldiers-in-full-combat-gear-deploying-around-cairo-1.1351212

 

[old medic]

Moving quickly ...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/world/meast/egypt-protests/index.html

Cairo (CNN) -- Egypt's military deposed the country's first democratically elected president Wednesday night, installing the head of the country's highest court as an interim leader, the country's top general announced.

Gen. Abdul Fattah Al-Sisi said the military was fulfilling its "historic responsibility" to protect the country by ousting Mohamed Morsy, the Western-educated Islamist leader elected a year ago. Morsy failed to meet demands to share power with opponents who thronged the streets of Cairo, and those crowds erupted as the announcement was made.

Ahead of the statement, troops moved into key positions around the capital and surrounded a demonstration by Morsy's supporters in a Cairo suburb. Citing an unnamed presidential source, the state-run newspaper Al-Ahram reported that "the General Command of the Armed Forces told President Morsy around 7 p.m. (1 p.m. ET) that he is no longer a president for the republic."...............

 

[Kilo_302]

This is definitely a dangerous situation. The Muslim Brotherhood has been in the political wilderness for 60 years, and now only one year into being in power, it has been ousted by the military. It won't be too difficult for them to spin as this as a US backed coup, given the fact that the Egyptian Army is rolling around in M1s.  If the Brotherhood arms itself  Egypt could make Syria look like a walk in the park. It would have been preferable for a civil society to form, and peaceful democratic resistance to build in order to take on Morsi next time around. Of course, Morsi was already making moves that would have made it difficult for real elections to be held down the road. The problem is all of these actors have their own agendas and define themselves in opposition to each other. Thus the Muslim Brotherhood became the main form of opposition against a largely secular US backed military dictatorship for 50 years. Whatever you think about an Islamic based political party, the Egyptian government was no champion of democracy, and committed numerous human rights abuses,all with US acquiescence. I would argue that much of the radicalization of the MB came from the fact that there was no democratic political option for them to oppose Mubarak. And now we have a situation where the forces of liberal democracy are forced into an alliance with the military who is most certainly undemocratic, all against a theocratic, undemocratic party who in this situation is actually defending the results of a democratic election and constitution. Very complex indeed.

 

[Kilo_302]

I would add that given the fact that the US backed Mubarak for so long, and then Obama backed Morsi, Washington may just want to sit this one out. I actually feel bad for Obama, all those years of stable dictatorships are finally coming to an end as a result of the Arab Spring, and there's not much anyone can do about it but allow the people to decide what they want.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I would add that given the fact that the US backed Mubarak for so long, and then Obama backed Morsi, Washington may just want to sit this one out. I actually feel bad for Obama, all those years of stable dictatorships are finally coming to an end as a result of the Arab Spring, and there's not much anyone can do about it but allow the people to decide what they want.

Two points:

    1. You're right, there's not much anyone can do about any of this; and

    2. "The people" are not some monolithic whole; "the people" don't know what they want; given a reasonably free and fair choice a plurality (not a majority) of "the people" (in Algeria and Egypt, at least) want some kind of
          fundamentalist Islamic regime. Other elements of "the people" want something else and since 30% of Egyptians are illiterate, a good proportion of "the people" probably just want food and shelter and peace and quiet.
          There's little change "the people" will get any of those things any time soon. And Egypt is the "best" state in the region, next to Jordan.

 

[GAP]

It won't be too difficult for them to spin as this as a US backed coup, given the fact that the Egyptian Army is rolling around in M1s.  If the Brotherhood arms itself  Egypt could make Syria look like a walk in the park. It would have been preferable for a civil society to form, and peaceful democratic resistance to build in order to take on Morsi next time around. Of course, Morsi was already making moves that would have made it difficult for real elections to be held down the road. The problem is all of these actors have their own agendas and define themselves in opposition to each other. Thus the Muslim Brotherhood became the main form of opposition against a largely secular US backed military dictatorship for 50 years.

The Brotherhood had been grooming people for years as an aid to the people, et al.....there were some shenanigans preceding/during the initial election that made the Brotherhood win not go down well with the majority of the people.

The antics of Morsi since elected has not endured him to the general populous, especially after Mubarak's reign...they simply were not going to replace one with another. Let this be a lesson to whomever follows....

something about "you can fool some of the people some of the time........"  :

 

[Kilo_302]

Yes I didn't mean to imply that the "people" are homogenous in their political beliefs (or lack thereof). But it is obvious to me that there are diminishing returns for the West in trying to keep friendly governments in power no matter how despotic or undemocratic they are. It's fashionable to point out how far "behind" many "Islamic" nations are, but the reality is we had something to do with it. There were plenty of democratic movements in the region in the 50s, and instead of supporting them, we chose to support regimes more friendly to our interests. The Soviets did the same, but then again they never claimed to be champions of democracy as we did. These policies made sense in the context of the Cold War, but this current situation is undeniably one result.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes I didn't mean to imply that the "people" are homogenous in their political beliefs (or lack thereof). But it is obvious to me that there are diminishing returns for the West in trying to keep friendly governments in power no matter how despotic or undemocratic they are. It's fashionable to point out how far "behind" many "Islamic" nations are, but the reality is we had something to do with it. There were plenty of democratic movements in the region in the 50s, and instead of supporting them, we chose to support regimes more friendly to our interests. The Soviets did the same, but then again they never claimed to be champions of democracy as we did. These policies made sense in the context of the Cold War, but this current situation is undeniably one result.

We are, I think, in violent agreement.

What's happened in Egypt is that, given a fairly free choice "the people," or a plurality of them, anyway, chose the Muslim Brotherhood. The moderate army disapproves ... exit Morsi. It appears, to me, that the Egyptian army doesn't want to rule, directly. The question is: can they convince a plurality to elect someone who will govern as the army sees fit? More important can that person, following a fair enough election, hand over power, peacefully, to someone else who will have the army's approval?