Egypt: News/updates

[OldSolduer]

Here's hoping.  :cheers:

And I agree.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which is not exactly a gang of amateurs, offers an analysis of the regional impact in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the RUSI's website:

http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C51D6A9C7EA961/#.UdavJkHVB8F

The Regional Winners and Losers in Egypt's Military Coup
Egypt's neighbours are now counting the costs and opportunities of Mohammed Morsi's ousting as President. Will Gulf monarchies now play a more active part in Egypt's internal politics?

RUSI Analysis

5 Jul 2013

It's not difficult to see why the Arab monarchies took such great exception to the Muslim Brotherhood, for its rhetoric, organisation and claims to regional influence looked similar in their potential popular appeal to the Nasserist revolutionary storm of the 1950s and 60s. But, while during that period both Jordan and the Gulf sheikhdoms were shielded from the storm by a British security umbrella, no such protection is available now.

So, there was a real fear that, while the Nasserist 'awakening' ultimately succeeded in unseating only three Arab monarchies (Egypt itself, Iraq and Yemen), the current 'band of brothers' could render the very concept of the monarchy in the Middle East as extinct as Brontosaurus Rex. In a strange way - and although they were always loath to admit it publicly - the monarchies of the Gulf believed that the Muslim Brotherhood was omnipotent, and that it was supremely clever  in hoodwinking both ordinary Arabs and Western governments.

Egypt's military coup was therefore greeted with jubilation by the Arab monarchies not only because it removed their immediate challenge, but also because it seemed to indicate that, like Nasser, the pull of the Brotherhood could ultimately turn out to be a busted flush.

Jordan's King Abdullah, ever the consummate diplomat at such moments, said absolutely nothing after the coup, although his silence was deafening: the Jordanian monarch has spent months warning Western governments that they under-estimated the danger from the Brotherhood and vastly over-estimated President Morsi's intelligence, so he certainly felt vindicated by the turn of events.

The Gulf monarchies, however, were less restrained. Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE foreign minister, rushed to issue a statement hailing the 'great Egyptian army's role as the country's unbreakable shield', and promising 'all necessary help to the sisterly Egyptian nation'.  Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah meanwhile congratulated Mr Adli Mansour, who was appointed Egypt's interim head of state. He also praised the Egyptian military for leading their country out of a 'tunnel that only God knows its dimensions and repercussions'. The state-controlled media in the Gulf was less cryptic, giving prominence to what it called 'sensational revelations' about alleged secret dealings between the deposed Morsi administration and Iran, making it clear that Mr Morsi's fall was beneficial for the wider interests of the Arab world.

The only Gulf monarchy not to express its satisfaction at the unfolding events was, of course, Qatar, which poured an estimated US$8 billion of credits into Egypt, and has been the main Arab backer of the Brotherhood even before Mr Morsi came to power.

The ouster of Mr Morsi is a setback for Qatar, which had hoped for broader regional influence. And, in a sign of things to come, the Cairo offices of Al Jazeera, the Qatari-financed pan-Arab TV station, were reportedly ordered shut by the military. Qatar's Middle Eastern diplomacy now lies in ruins: it failed to produce dividends in Libya, backfired in Syria and now collapsed in Egypt. And many Arabs see this as sweet revenge for years of wayward Qatari behaviour: cartoons published in a number of Arab newspapers showed deposed President Morsi running towards a Qatar Airways jet, chased by a cloud of shoes thrown at him by irate Egyptians.

Yet by sheer fluke rather than design, Qatar has the ability to extricate itself from the Egypt debacle. Emir Tamim, its new and youthful ruler, can easily brush off the Egyptian adventure as the product of 'excesses' by his country's previous generation of rulers. And that's precisely what seems to be happening: Tamim sent a congratulatory cable to Egypt's interim head of state, which vowed to 'maintain Qatar's excellent fraternal relations with Egypt and work to strengthen them to serve the interests of both countries and their peoples'.

Qatar may not get its money back, but it is not in a bad position: nobody in Egypt has an interest in humiliating Qatar, and the Qataris may yet end up being hailed as visionaries should the Muslim Brotherhood ever return to power. So, contrary to the received wisdom in the Middle East, Qatar has actually achieved its objective: it has positioned itself as supporter of the radical forces for change in the Middle East without changing any of its political arrangements at home, and that image is likely to endure whatever happens either in Egypt or elsewhere in the region.

Hamas, the radical Palestinian group in control of the Gaza Strip, cannot reposition itself as quickly as Qatar, partly because it has very little to offer to the new Egyptian rulers, but also because Hamas' association with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is far closer. Still, the Hamas leadership has decided that its safest course now is to distance itself from Egypt altogether: 'We only care about stability in Egypt regardless of who is in charge', said Mr Ahmad Yousef, one of its top leaders.

Nobody bought this, and especially not the Egyptian military, who reputedly began to demolish the known smuggling tunnels between Sinai and the Gaza Strip. A return to the stance adopted by Hosni Mubarak towards Hamas is very much on the cards now, partly because the last thing the Egyptian military wants is to be dragged into a renewed conflict with Israel by a Hamas adventure, but also because the generals in Cairo now see Hamas as a key conduit for potential weapon supplies to the Brotherhood, and to the various bands of Bedouins in the Sinai.

Ironically, however, none of this seems to reassure Israel, where Morsi's overthrow was received with concern, not because Israeli leaders had any confidence in the Egyptian president but because, as so often in the past, the Jewish state instinctively regards its neighbours as countries which are incapable of producing any good, and therefore prefers the devil it knows to the unfamiliar and unknown.

So, having mourned Hosni Mubarak's departure in 2011, the Israelis ended up respecting Morsi, largely because he resisted pressure to cancel the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord and generally toned down the anti-Israeli rhetoric among his Brotherhood supporters.  Israel now fears that all these achievements may now be squandered, and that extremist Islamic groups could take advantage of the chaos to launch attacks from either Egypt or the Gaza Strip. 'Instability is bad for Israel, period', is how Eli Shaked, a former Israeli ambassador to Egypt, summed up his country's reaction. Or, to put it more crudely, Israel loves the status quo for the wrong reasons: just because it cannot think of anything else to either uphold or promote in the region.

But, as was to be expected, the most interesting reaction came from Iran. Iran welcomed the popular overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in 2011 as part of what it touted as an 'Islamic awakening' (which, needless to say, was inspired by Iran) and has sought to repair its strained ties with Egypt since Morsi's election victory last year. Morsi duly visited Tehran on one of his first official trips abroad, and more recently allowed limited tourist trips to come to Egypt on a relaxed visa programme. But the two countries have found themselves supporting opposite sides of the Syrian civil war, and Morsi often used the threat of forging a good relationship with Iran as just a blackmailing instrument in order to extract more cash from Gulf states.

Either way, Morsi's departure was a classic case of 'six on the one hand, half a dozen on the other' for the Iranians. Teheran knows that, at least for the moment, it is unlikely to find an interlocutor better than Morsi in Egypt. But at the same time, the Iranians believe that Egypt's internal troubles will mean less attention to Syria and greater chances of survival for the regime of Bashar al-Assad. So, the Iranians adopted a wait-and-see approach: they hailed the 'legitimate demands' of the 'Egyptian people' but also warned against 'foreign and enemy opportunism'. That was a change from the position the Iranians adopted last week, when an Iranian official said that the Egyptian president had been elected by the will of the nation and called on the armed forces to 'take heed of the vote of the people'.

The real question in the Middle East - and one to which a tentative answer would only be apparent in the months to come - is whether any of the region's government will get more actively engaged in influencing Egypt's internal political scene. Qatar is clearly out, at least for the moment, and wants to stay this way. Israel would want to remain utterly silent. But Hamas and Iran? And what about Saudi Arabia which frequently dangled large credit packages to Morsi in return for the Muslim Brotherhood's good behaviour, and now has a chance of delivering on these promises by supporting a transition government in Cairo?

The last question - about the House of Saud - worries me. I do not trust the Saudis and I believe America, official America is deluding itself by courting the Saudis.

 

[a_majoor]

An article with some similar conclusions to the RUSI piece (if rather less restrained rhetoric). The key deduction here seems to be the Egyptian military was impelled into action by the possibility of major food shortages and famine, as well as the knowledge that the one nation that *could* provide aid or at least enough cash to cover the shortfall was not inclined to do so so long as the Muslim Brotherhood was in a position of power. This might also have a lot to do with the mass roundups of Muslim Brotherhood leadership (and even according to one NP artice that I skimmed, some of the Salafi's as well).

Promoting the conditions for further economic hardship and humger is probably not going to wiht the Brotherhoods any friends, and it will be interesting and instructive to see if their "counter demonstrations" against the remobal of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood's leadership will have much traction.

The ultimate end will be a vast increase in the power and prestige of Saudi Arabia; the Sauds have a controlling hand in Egypt (the most populoous Arab nation) and apparently Turkey (the most economically advanced ISlamic nation in the region). What the house of Saud is going to do with its influence is anyone's guess :

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/07/04/dismiss-the-egyptian-people-and-elect-a-new-one/?singlepage=true

Dismiss the Egyptian People and Elect a New OneJuly 4th, 2013 - 6:38 am   

Update: Why can’t we get 14 million people into the streets to proclaim that Obama is an idiot like the Egyptians did? Over at ZeroHedge, Jim Quinn posts pictures of the banners in the mass demonstrations. They are inspiring. One read: “Obama you jerk, Muslim Brotherhoods are killing the Egyptians, so how come they can guarantee you the security of Israel. Hey Obama, your deal with the Muslim Brotherhood is unsuccessful. Obama you idiot, Keep in mind that Egypt is not Muslim brotherhoods and if you don’t believe that go and see what’s happening in Tahrir Square now.” Another reads, “Obama, your bitch is our dictator.” A picture of Hillary Clinton read, “Hayzaboon [ogre] go home.” Many banners simply read, “Obama supports terrorism.” Others were too harsh to mention in a family site. Happy 4th of July!

As Communist writer Bertolt Brecht offered after East German workers rose against their Moscow-backed masters in 1953, perhaps the Egyptian government should dismiss the people and elect a new one.

Don’t laugh. Mexico did this after the debt crisis of the early 1980s: it dismissed the fifth of its population that moved to the United States. China has dismissed its rural population and recreated a new urban population, by 2020 shifting the equivalent of twice the American population from countryside to city.

Egypt’s problem is that it has no practical way of acting on Brecht’s advice. The Egyptian people are dying; the question is whether they will die slower or faster. I prefer slower, so I am pleased by this turn of events.

Starvation is the unstated subject of this week’s military coup. For the past several months, the bottom half of Egypt’s population has had little to eat besides government-subsidized bread, and now the bread supply is threatened by a shortage of imported wheat. Despite $8 billion of aid from Qatar and smidgens from Libya, Turkey, and others, Egypt is struggling to meet a financing gap of perhaps $20 billion a year, made worse by the collapse of its major cash earner — the tourist industry. Malnutrition is epidemic in the form of extreme protein deficiency in a country where 40% of the adult population is already “stunted” by poor diet, according to the World Food Program. It is not that hard to get 14 million people into the streets if there is nothing to eat at home.

Nearly half of Egyptians are illiterate. Seventy percent of them live on the land, yet the country imports half its food. Its only cash-earning industry, namely tourism, is in ruins. Sixty years of military dictatorship have left it with college graduates unfit for the world market, and a few t-shirt factories turning Asian polyester into cut-rate exports. It cannot feed itself and it cannot earn enough to feed itself, as I have explained in a series of recent articles. Someone has to subsidize them, or a lot of them will starve. Unlike Mexico, Egypt can’t ship its rural poor to industrial nations in the north.

Egypt’s people embraced the military because they remember that the military used to feed them. In fact, the military probably can alleviate the food crisis, because — unlike the Muslim Brotherhood– Egypt’s generals should be able to count on the support of Saudi Arabia. Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz congratulated Egypt’s military-appointed interim president on Wednesday night, while the United Arab Emirates expressed “satisfaction” at the course of events. Only the crazy emir of Qatar, the patron of al-Jazeera television and an assortment of Islamist ideologues, had backed the Brotherhood — and his son replaced him last week. The Saudi monarchy hates the Brotherhood the way Captain Hook hated the crocodile: it is the only political force capable of overthrowing the monarchy and replacing it.

Former President Morsi seized power from the military in August 2012, the day that the visiting emir of Qatar appeared in Cairo with a $2 billion pledge to the regime. At the time I warned (in a note for the Gatestone Institute) that “Qatar’s check to the Muslim Brotherhood makes Egyptian stability less likely.” I argued at the time:

Qatar’s $2 billion is a drop in the bucket; it just replaces the reserves that Egypt lost last month. So is a $3.5 billion IMF loan, under discussion for a year. The Obama administration has been telling people quietly that the Saudis will step in to bail out Egypt, but the Qatari intervention makes this less likely. The eccentric and labile Emir is the Muslim Brotherhood’s biggest supporter; its spiritual leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (who supports suicide bombings against Israel) lived in exile during the Mubarak regime. Qatar funds al-Jazeera television, the modern face of Islamism. The Saudis hate and fear the Brotherhood, which wants to overthrow the Saudi Monarchy and replace it with a modern Islamist totalitarian political party. Qatar has only about $30 billion in reserves and can’t sustain Egypt for long.

Qatar is something of a wild card: it is ruled by an Emir without even the checks and balances that arise from having a large family behind a monarchy, as in Saudi Arabia. The whimsical Emir just bought the Italian firm of Valentino as a gift for his fashion-conscious second wife — not a dress, but the entire company. His support evidently emboldened the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to take on the military in the aftermath of the Sinai crisis. But that makes stability in Egypt less rather than more likely, because it gives the Saudis, the only funder capable of bailing out Egypt, reason to stand aside.

Qatar has spent nearly a third of its foreign exchange reserves in a Quixotic effort to project power in Egypt, which might explain why the old emir abdicated in favor of his son. With the Muslim Brotherhood out of the way in Egypt, the Saudis have uncontested influence with the military. Presumably the military will suppress the Brotherhood unless it chooses to dissolve spontaneously. No one should mourn the Brotherhood, a totalitarian organization with a Nazi past and an extreme anti-Semitic ideology.

The notion that this band of Jew-hating jihadi thugs might become the vehicle for a transition to a functioning Muslim democracy was perhaps the stupidest notion to circulate in Washington in living memory.

The Saudis have another reason to get involved in Egypt, and that is the situation in Syria. Saudi Arabia’s intervention in the Syrian civil war, now guided by Prince Bandar, the new chief of Saudi Intelligence, has a double problem. The KSA wants to prevent Iran from turning Syria into a satrapy and fire base, but fears that the Sunni jihadists to whom it is sending anti-aircraft missiles eventually might turn against the monarchy. The same sort of blowback afflicted the kingdom after the 1980s Afghan war, in the person of Osama bin Laden. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been fighting for influence among Syria’s Sunni rebels (as David Ottaway reported earlier this week at National Interest). Cutting off the Muslim Brotherhood at the knees in Egypt will help the KSA limit potential blowback in Syria.

Egypt probably can be kept on life support for about $10 billion a year in foreign subsidies, especially if the military regime can restore calm and bring the tourists back (although that is a big “if” — one of President Morsi’s last acts was to appoint as governor of Luxor province an associate of the Islamist terrorists who massacred 62 tourists in Luxor in 1997). With about $630 billion in foreign exchange reserves, Saudi Arabia can carry Egypt for a couple of years while the Syrian crisis plays out. Saudi Arabia also has covered a good part of Turkey’s huge payments deficit during the past couple of years, which means that Ankara will dance to Riyadh’s tune.

This is the background to the Saudi monarch’s enthusiastic statement of congratulations to the Egyptian military, released almost immediately after the takeover was announced:In my own name and on behalf of the people of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, I congratulate you on assuming the leadership of Egypt at this critical point of its history,” said the king in a cable carried by the Saudi Press Agency (SPA). “By doing so, I appeal to Allah Almighty to help you to shoulder the responsibility laid on your shoulder to achieve the hopes of our sisterly people of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

At the same time, we strongly shake hands with the men of all the armed forces, represented by General Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, who managed to save Egypt at this critical moment from a dark tunnel God only could apprehend its dimensions and repercussions, but the wisdom and moderation came out of those men to preserve the rights of all parties in the political process.

Please accept our greetings to you and deep respect to our brothers in Egypt and its people, wishing Egypt steady stability and security.

I expect Saudi Arabia to offer Egypt subsidized oil as well as cash for urgent food purchases, allowing the military to appear as national saviors — at least for the time being. It is not clear what the Muslim Brotherhood will do, but apart from seeking martyrdom, there is not much that it can do.

In the Beltway, to be sure, the same folk on left and right who thought the “Arab Spring” would usher in a golden era of Muslim democracy are wringing their hands over the tragic fate of Egypt’s first democratically elected government. These include Republicans as well as Democrats, whom I qualified as “Dumb and Dumber” in a May 20 essay for Tablet. The sequel — call it “Dumb and Dumberer” — is still playing on CNN and Fox News. No matter: the important matters are now in the competent hands of Prince Bandar, whose judgment I prefer to that of John Kerry or Susan Rice or John McCain any day of the week. The best-case scenario would be for the grown-ups in the region to ignore the blandishments of the Obama administration as well as the advice of the Republican establishment, and to do what they have to do regardless.

Americans who want to conduct a great experiment in democracy will have to take their laboratory somewhere else.

 

[GAP]

I think the bottom lines kinda point it all out....

The best-case scenario would be for the grown-ups in the region to ignore the blandishments of the Obama administration as well as the advice of the Republican establishment, and to do what they have to do regardless.

Americans who want to conduct a great experiment in democracy will have to take their laboratory somewhere else.

 

[Nemo888]

Having the military in the driver seat will not stop the revolution. The Egyptians I knew did not think it was a real election last time. It was a choice between Islamo-fascists and old fashioned military fascists. Basically choosing what flavour of boot you want on your neck.  The 33 million who took to the streets are not interested in either. For many chaos is preferable.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Actually, I think the opposite is true- 33 million want the chaos to end, regardless who is in charge.

 

[kevincanada]

I remember reading the Charter Morsi had drawn up when he won the election.  My reaction to it was from one dictator to the next.  Some statistical data from pew if that's your thing.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/05/16/egyptians-increasingly-glum/

Quickly looking through statistical data only the numbers  show Morsi and the Muslim brother hood did have the support of the people.  Mean while the numbers also show In the terms of economic conditions the people felt Morsi was overwhelming a failure and expect conditions to get worse and not better for the country.  Also 2/3's as of May 2013 wish for Islamic rule, and 1/3 do not. (approximates)

The views in the report swing quite wildly in different directions on various subjects.  Maybe the report help shed some light on why Morsi was ousted.

 

[a_majoor]

Walter Russel Mead has some interesting analysis on the situation. Perhaps the two take aways are the idea that a dictatorial government can be taken down by passive resistance (much of the economic free fall was people essentially downing tools in the face of imposed Islamic rule), and the fact that Egypt is not now, nor will it in the short or medium run, "transitioning to democracy". There is no real cultural or institutional basis for this belief, rather what we are seeing in Egypt is a crisis in authority, since there is no singular institution or group that can impose its will on Egypt at this time. This would seem ti indicate a long transitional period with unstable coalitions (perhaps mostly supported by the Army) trying to run things:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/07/04/still-wrong-about-egypt-and-wrong-about-the-world/

Still Wrong About Egypt—and Wrong About the World
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD

Both the Armed Forces of Egypt and President Obama made important statements last night. The Egyptian statement justifying the overthrow of President Morsi is here, and President Obama’s statement of concern is here. Looking carefully at both statements, it appears that the non-coup coup or whatever we want to call it may not create too much tension in US-Egyptian relations. Looking forward, President Obama wants Egypt’s military to move swiftly toward the restoration of civilian rule. That is pretty much what the Egyptian brass also wants. There are no gaps here that good diplomats (and both the US and Egypt have plenty of those) cannot paper over.

There are two flies in the ointment. On the Egyptian side, while there are no references to the suppression of opposition in the military statement, there are reports that news stations have been closed down, and both reporters and hundreds of pro-Morsi politicians have been arrested. On the American side, President Obama’s statement referenced provisions in US law that would require aid cuts in the event of a military coup:
Given today’s developments, I have also directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of Egypt.

That will certainly get some attention from Egypt’s new government; besides the army’s keen interest in US aid, the country is in the midst of a cascading economic disaster and aid of all kinds has never been more necessary, or harder to come by.

There seems to be an implicit tradeoff being suggested here; it might be necessary to make some short term arrests when the streets are aflame and civil order has broken down. But if the army overplays its hands and keeps prominent political figures in jail once normality has returned, then the US would begin to twist arms. President Obama won’t do anything to cut off aid right this minute — after all, those dratted bureaucrats are sometimes very slow when it comes to processing paperwork — but if the generals go too far, the option of aid cuts down the road remains open.

The President is right to keep this card up his sleeve. One should never forget that over the years a great many Muslim Brotherhood members have been tortured, raped and otherwise abused in Egyptian prisons. Many of those being led to prison tonight have been there before, and the memories aren’t good. No US president of whatever party could remain wholly indifferent to evidence that these tactics were being used deliberately and on a large scale in a political dispute of this kind.

But again, if the Egyptian armed forces mean what they say in their statement, and President Obama means what he said in his, then US-Egyptian relations should survive this storm, as they have survived others in the past.

Where the American President’s statement becomes more troubling is at the end. Concludes President Obama:

No transition to democracy comes without difficulty, but in the end it must stay true to the will of the people. An honest, capable and representative government is what ordinary Egyptians seek and what they deserve. The longstanding partnership between the United States and Egypt is based on shared interests and values, and we will continue to work with the Egyptian people to ensure that Egypt’s transition to democracy succeeds.
One hopes the President understands what drivel this is. It is not at all clear that Egypt is in the midst of a transition to democracy. It is in the midst of a crisis of authority and has been wallowing for some time in a damaging crisis of governance, but is Egypt really in a transition to democracy? And is democracy really what “ordinary” Egyptians want?

Right now one suspects that most Egyptians fear that the country could be in a transition to anarchy, and that what ordinary Egyptians (who are extremely poor by US standards and earn their bread by the sweat of their brow with very little cushion against illness or a bad day at the market) want most of all right now is security. They aren’t fretting so much about when they will have a government more like Norway’s as they are terrified that their country is sliding in the direction of Libya, Syria or Iraq.

As is often the case, Washington policymakers seem to be paying too much attention to the glibbest of political scientists and the vaporings of the Davoisie. Egypt has none of the signs that would lead historians to think democracy is just around the corner. Mubarak was not Franco, and Egypt is not Spain. What’s happening in Egypt isn’t the robust flowering of a civil society so dynamic and so democratic that it can no longer be held back by dictatorial power.

Virtually every policeman and government official in the country takes bribes. Most journalists have lied for pay or worked comfortably within the confines of a heavily censored press all their careers. The Interior Ministry has files, often stuffed with incriminating or humiliating information about most of the political class. The legal system bowed like a reed before the wind of the Mubarak government’s will, and nothing about the character of its members has changed. The business class serves the political powers; the Copts by and large will bow to the will of any authority willing to protect them.

And Americans should not deceive themselves. While some of Morsi’s failure was the result of overreaching and dumb choices on his part, he faced a capital strike and an intense campaign of passive resistance by a government and business establishment backed by an army in bed with both groups. Their strategy was to bring Morsi down by sabotaging the economy, frustrating his policies and isolating his appointees. Although Egypt’s liberals supported the effort out of fear of the Islamists, the strategy had nothing to do with a transition to democracy, and it worked.

This is not to say that Morsi or his movement had a viable alternative policy or governance model for Egypt. They didn’t. The Muslim Brotherhood had no clue how Egypt could be governed, and a combination of incompetence, corruption, factionalism and religious dogmatism began to wreck Morsi’s government from Day One.

If American policy toward Egypt is based on the assumption that Egypt is having a “messy transition” to democracy and that we must shepherd the poor dears to the broad sunny uplands, encouraging when they do well, chiding when they misstep, Washington will keep looking foolish and our influence will continue to fade. If that is the approach our foolishness compels us to take, look for more cases in which American good intentions just make us more hated—not because we are wicked, but because we are clueless.

The White House needs to purge all short or even medium term thoughts of promoting Egypt’s transition to democracy. There aren’t enough “good guys” in Egypt to Americanize or even to Malaysianize the place. Democracy in Egypt right now is an “if we had some eggs we could have some ham and eggs—if we had some ham” kind of dream. Our first goal must be to help prevent Egypt’s descent into starvation, misery, anarchy and despair.
We can’t take for granted that we or they will succeed in this; Egypt’s economic problems are pressing. It’s likely that the non-coup will lure some Egyptian money back into the country, but if violence continues and Islamist terrorists foment disorder and attack, for example, tourists, bad things can happen fast. Egypt is much closer to being a basket case than it is to becoming a democracy.

Less study of the fine print of the Egyptian constitution, more concern about a strategically important country headed over Niagara Falls in a bucket, please.

Beyond that, we need a fundamental rethink of our approach to the promotion of democracy abroad. It is neither racist nor orientalist nor any other ugly thing to say that different societies around the world are at different degrees of readiness for the rise of genuine democratic institutions. Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are not going to be building modern states anytime soon, much less democratic ones. China seems closer to building a stable and working democracy than Egypt is, and the obstacles facing democracy in China are immense and intimidating.
Many people who came of age politically in the late 1980s and 1990s have a warped sense of history. They lived at a time of rapid democratic advance: East Asia, Latin America, South Africa and above all Central and Eastern Europe hosted a galaxy of new democratic stars. One belief uniting the administrations of Presidents Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama is that this democratic revolution would irresistibly sweep the rest of the world.
But it didn’t and it won’t, at least not anytime soon. The low hanging fruit has been picked; the fruit higher up in the tree isn’t ripe, or has been pecked by the birds. In many places, the “irresistible tide” has rolled back. In others, the clear streams of liberal revolution have been polluted and fouled by ethnic and religious hate.

This doesn’t mean our work is done or that we must despair of democracy’s future. But it does mean we need to shift strategy. Less money for sock-puppet NGOs whose leaders obligingly tell us everything we want to hear, and more, for example, to help Egypt reform and develop an educational system that could give future generations a chance. I will be writing about democracy promotion in a difficult time; America is not and never will be a purely realist power and our foreign engagement can and must respond to great moral and political truths.

But if George W. Bush’s failures at democracy promotion in the Arab world weren’t enough of a lesson, surely Barack Obama’s failures should bring home the reality that our whole approach to this region needs some deeper, wiser, and more practical ideas.

 

[CougarKing]

??? I would have thought McCain would support the Egyptian military for ousting Morsi and the Islamists...

Quote:
Republican Senator John McCain called for a suspension of United States military aid to Egypt following the army ouster of Islamist president Mohammed Morsi.

“I’ve thought long and hard about this, but I believe that we have to suspend the aid to the Egyptian military, because the Egyptian military has overturned the vote of the people of Egypt,” McCain said Friday, according to the AFP news agency.

“We cannot repeat the same mistakes we made at other times in our history by supporting the removal of freely elected governments,” the 2008 presidential candidate said.

“So I believe that the aid has to be suspended, that the Egyptian military has to set a timetable for elections and new Constitution, and then we should evaluate whether to continue the aid or not.


more: link

 

[Edward Campbell]

??? I would have thought McCain would support the Egyptian military for ousting Morsi and the Islamists...

He's actually just advocating that America obey its own laws which require that aid is suspended after an elected government is overthrown in a military coup.

According to §7008 of the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74), aid administered by the State Department and USAID is banned to the government of any country where a military coup or decree has overthrown a democratically-elected government.


Edit: to add link and ref to PL 112-74

 

[GAP]

I am sure that was pointed out to the Egyptian military and was the cause of the rapid transition to civilian rule

 

[CougarKing]

Laws regarding foreign coups and precedents (e.g. the Chile coup against Salvador Allende) aside, as opposed to McCain, other US Republicans lauded the Egyptian military's actions:

Quote from the CBC:

Republicans also voiced strong support for Egypt's military, whose close ties to Washington stretch back to the 1979 Israeli-Egypt peace accords.

"The Egyptian military has long been a key partner of the United States and a stabilizing force in the region, and is perhaps the only trusted national institution in Egypt today,"  said U.S. Representative Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House.

"Democracy is about more than elections," he said.

Cantor has a point. While a leader may be popularly elected, the country itself may not be true, liberal democracy. Didn't the last Egyptian election result in Morsi being elected by an ignorant mob who listen more to the ravings of intolerant imams who want nothing more than to install shariah law at the expense of other moderate groups (e.g. Egyptian moderates and Coptic Christians)? Perhaps because of the barbaric culture of this region as pointed out by Mr. Campbell earlier, the countries there are not ready for true, Western-style, liberal democracy because they will just end up voting for the party that is the most Islamic?

There is a political theory called "the Democratic Peace theory", which holds that democratic nations will never go to war (or at least hesitate to go to war) with each other because of similar values or interests.

Frankly I think that theory is rubbish, since in a number of that region's nations, much of the electorate is ignorant and religion (or hatred of an enemy) is more of a factor in how people vote than the actual issues in their lives. (e.g. Hamas' political wing winning the majority of seats in Palestine's legislature while they blame Israel for all their poverty and other woes)

In the case of Egypt, if the Muslim Brotherhood regained power somehow and eradicated all of the moderate opposition groups, what's to stop them from becoming like Iran and instigating a war against Israel?

 

[cupper]

This is why the Administration is not using the term "coup", and the Egyptian Military is saying "It's not a coup".

And really, it isn't a coup.

They only removed a democratically elected albeit highly unpopular government which overstepped it's perceived boundaries and replaced it with temporary caretaker government until a more favorable government can be installed.

But it's not a coup. :nod:

 

[a_majoor]

More fighting in Egypt. One odd effect may be to slow the flow of Egyptian radicals from Egypt to fight against Assad in Syria in order to concentrate of fighting the secularists and "liberals" in Egypt to impose an Islamist state. Look for an escalation in violence as the situation deteriorates:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/violent-clashes-in-egypt-leave-at-least-40-dead-and-chill-negotiations/2013/07/08/ca788168-e7a2-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_print.html

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood calls for ‘uprising’ after troops shoot protesters
By William Booth, Michael Birnbaum and Abigail Hauslohner, Published: July 8

CAIRO — Egypt lurched into dangerous new terrain Monday as an angry and bloodied Muslim Brotherhood called for an “uprising” against the new order, and the head of Egypt’s top Islamic authority warned that the country was headed toward “civil war,” after security forces opened fire on supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi in the early morning hours.

In one of the deadliest days of political violence since Hosni Mubarak was overthrown more than two tumultuous years ago, Egyptian soldiers on Monday fired on protesters as they massed in front of a military building where they believe Morsi — ousted by the military on Wednesday — is being held under house arrest, according to witnesses and security officials.

A Health Ministry spokeswoman said 51 people were killed and 435 were wounded in the shootings. Military officials said that they responded after being fired upon by protesters and that one soldier was killed and 42 were injured.

Interim President Adly Mansour issued a decree late Monday that set the parameters for a referendum on a revised constitution within about 41 / 2 months, parliamentary elections within about six months and presidential elections after that.

The measures appeared aimed at lending some stability to a situation that threatened to spiral out of control. But a prime ministerial appointment that had been expected Monday never came, and the day was consumed with news of the violence and an immediate debate about its causes and meaning. Both the military establishment and the Muslim Brotherhood pleaded their cases to the Egyptian people, each swearing it was the innocent victim.

Islamist witnesses, including many members of the Muslim Brotherhood, said the shootings started unprovoked as protesters were reciting dawn prayers in front of Cairo’s Republican Guard headquarters.

Security officials said members of the pro-Morsi camp attacked first.

“We did not attack protesters; we were rather defending a military facility,” said Ahmed Ali, a spokesman for the military. “They moved on us to provoke our soldiers and create this violent scene.”

Regardless of who fired the first shots, the violence shocked Egyptians and threw the nation’s shaky post-coup order into further disarray, as important factions pulled out of the coalition that lent broad unity to the effort to oust Morsi, who led the country for 368 days.

The ultra-conservative Salafist Nour party, the only Islamist political bloc to support Morsi’s ouster, said it would abandon negotiations over who should take over as prime minister to protest what it called a “massacre.”

Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb of al-Azhar, Egypt’s top Islamic authority, had expressed support for Morsi’s ouster. But Monday, he appeared on state television and said he would remain in seclusion at his home “until everybody takes responsibility to stop the bloodshed, to prevent the country from being dragged into a civil war.”

Another Islamist, former presidential candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, who had met with Mansour two days ago, called for him to resign after the violence.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm urged “an uprising,” using the language of the Palestinian struggle against Israel.

Dramatic funeral marches were expected by the dozens Tuesday, creating more potential flash points for conflict.

Bloodshed and panic

The violence on Monday started before dawn, witnesses said, and continued as the sun rose above Cairo. Morsi supporters said they had been praying when the tumult began.

Witnesses described a scene of panic, with live fire, birdshot and tear gas seemingly coming at them from all directions. A doctor directing a field hospital for the wounded said many of the dead had gunshot wounds to the head and back, and sticky pools of blood were visible on the ground at the scene hours after the attack.

Abdel Naguib Mahmoud, a lawyer from the Nile Delta town of Zagazig, said he and fellow protesters had knelt to the pavement for the second time, their backs to the Republican Guard headquarters, when he heard shouts from the perimeter that security forces were encroaching.

“So we finished our prayer rapidly,” Mahmoud said. He said he heard the boom of tear-gas canisters being fired and the crackle of gunfire. Running toward the entrance of the sit-in area, he and several friends began to pick up the wounded, Mahmoud said. More shots rang out, and the men lay down on the pavement.

Mahmoud said he saw forces in military fatigues and police officers dressed in black. Moments later, he said, an officer stood over him and kicked him, telling him to move. When he ran, gunmen opened fire. He said he was hit in the back with birdshot, and he lifted his shirt to reveal a scattering of small bloody wounds.

To support their assertions that they were defending against an assault, military officials played video footage at a news conference that sought to show an increasing ferocity of attack by Brotherhood supporters at the scene.

The footage showed at least one man with a short rifle and another with a handgun firing at soldiers in the daylight after the initial conflict started. The military said armed men on motorcycles had started the assault, but it offered no evidence to back up the assertion.

Individuals in the crowd are shown hurling rocks at the troops and later launching pieces of broken toilet bowls from rooftops and chucking what appear to be spears.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party issued a statement calling for an “uprising against those who want to steal the revolution with tanks” and asking the world to prevent a “new Syria.”

At an emotional news conference at the Rabaa al-Adawiya Mosque, where Morsi supporters have camped since he was deposed last week, a doctor and others said protesters had been shot in the back as they knelt to pray.

Brotherhood ban sought

Meanwhile, the main Tamarod activist group, which organized the massive protests last week that led to Morsi’s removal, called for the Brotherhood’s political wing to be dissolved and its leadership barred from political life.

That treatment, Tamarod said on Twitter, would echo the ban placed on former president Hosni Mubarak’s political party after the 2011 Egyptian revolution. A ban on the Brotherhood and other religious parties also would fall in line with Mubarak’s policy, under which many of the Brotherhood’s leaders spent decades moving in and out of prison.

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo announced Monday that it would be closed to the public Tuesday. Later in the day, popular television host Tawfiq Okasha called for a peaceful protest Tuesday in front of the embassy. Many Morsi opponents view the United States as having sided with the Islamists.

Amro Hassan and Sharaf al-Hourani in Cairo contributed to this report.

 

[CougarKing]

US still planning to send F16 jets to Egypt

The announcement came as the military pledged to crack down jihadist activity in Sinai near the border with Israel.

Washington officials say they are going ahead with the provision of four F16 fighter aircraft under an aid deal agreed in 2010. The decision appeared to answer to a debate within the Obama administration about whether to designate the military’s removal of President Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government a “coup”.

If it was officially deemed a “military coup” all military aid would have to stop under US law. At a press conference, the White House spokesman did not make a definitive ruling but said: “We do not believe it is in the best interests of the United States to make immediate changes to our assistance programmes.”

Earlier, the state department spokesman went further. “It’s clear that the Egyptian people have spoken,” she said. “There’s an interim government in place. This is leading the path to democracy. We are hopeful.”

more: Telegraph link

 

[CougarKing]

link

U.S. Navy ships in Red Sea move close to Egypt as precaution

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two U.S. Navy ships patrolling in the Middle East moved closer to Egypt's Red Sea coast in recent days, the top Marine Corps general said on Thursday, in what appeared to be a precautionary move after the military overthrow of President Mohamed Mursi.

The United States often sends Navy vessels close to countries in turmoil in case it needs to protect or evacuate U.S. citizens or take part in humanitarian assistance. Their presence does not necessarily mean the United States is preparing to carry out military action.

"Egypt is (in) a crisis right now," Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos told the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. "When that happens, what we owe the senior leadership of our nation are some options," Amos said. He did not say what the options were.

U.S. Navy and Marine Corp officials said the two ships, part of a three-ship amphibious readiness group, had been in the region since May, patrolling the Red Sea, Horn of Africa, the Gulf and the Arabian Sea, and that there were no new orders to prepare for a possible conflict in Egypt.

Washington has walked a careful line, neither welcoming Mursi's removal last week nor denouncing it as a "coup." U.S. defense officials on Wednesday said they still planned to send four F-16 fighter jets to the Egyptian government as planned in coming weeks.

Amos said the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport dock, and the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault ship, had moved further north in the Red Sea two or three nights ago to better respond if needed.

U.S. Marine Corps officials said moving amphibious ships closer to shore would enable easier movement of helicopters and other equipment, if it were needed.

"Why? Because we don't know what's going to happen," he said.

Navy officials said the third ship in the group, the USS Carter Hall, remained off the coast of Bahrain in the Gulf.

 

[CougarKing]

Now the delivery of the 4 F16s to Egypt has been halted for now.

Obama halts delivery of four F-16 jets to Egypt amid unrest

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has delayed the delivery of four U.S. F-16 fighter jets to Egypt because of the country’s political unrest, officials said Wednesday - reversing earlier assurances from the Pentagon.

Pentagon spokesman George Little said the U.S. no longer believes it is "appropriate to move forward with the delivery" of the jets.

Read more at ...

NBC News link

 

[cupper]

Was listening to a news report while driving back from a business trip.

Apparently the head of the Egyptian Army called for nation wide rallies indicating popular support for the Army to protect Democracy and the People from an Islamist agenda.

Meanwhile a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood called for counter rallies filling every square in the country at the same time, and that if ay blood is shed, it will be on the Army.

What could go wrong?

op:

 

[a_majoor]

What indeed?

It is interesting that both sides are calling for filling the public spaces at this time. I suspect that there are two reasons for this:

a. A means of measuring their respective support, and
b. because the public institutions are breaking down

Since it is estimated that crowds of up to 20 million had filled the streets of Egypt to drive the Muslim Brotherhoods from power, the Army probably has a large support base, but the Brotherhoods and other extreme Islamist sects are better organized and much more willing to "do what it takes" to battle for power. The Muslim Brotherhoods have somewhat of an advantage in factor "b" as well, they have created a system of parallel governments over a period of decades which can actually run towns, villages and neigbourhoods. When people become tired or fearfull of the chaos engulfing Egypt, they may well turn (or turn back to) anyone who can offer a sense of security and relief; "The Man on the White Horse".

This is what allowed the Taliban to overrun Afghanistan in the first place; they offered to fight and overthrow the warring Mujahideen factions and bring order to Afghanistan. The Afghans enthusiastically embraced the Taliban, at first.....

 

[cupper]

What indeed?

It is interesting that both sides are calling for filling the public spaces at this time. I suspect that there are two reasons for this:

a. A means of measuring their respective support, and
b. because the public institutions are breaking down

Since it is estimated that crowds of up to 20 million had filled the streets of Egypt to drive the Muslim Brotherhoods from power, the Army probably has a large support base, but the Brotherhoods and other extreme Islamist sects are better organized and much more willing to "do what it takes" to battle for power. The Muslim Brotherhoods have somewhat of an advantage in factor "b" as well, they have created a system of parallel governments over a period of decades which can actually run towns, villages and neigbourhoods. When people become tired or fearfull of the chaos engulfing Egypt, they may well turn (or turn back to) anyone who can offer a sense of security and relief; "The Man on the White Horse".

This is what allowed the Taliban to overrun Afghanistan in the first place; they offered to fight and overthrow the warring Mujahideen factions and bring order to Afghanistan. The Afghans enthusiastically embraced the Taliban, at first.....

One pundit / expert posited that the Army call is a move to show that there is popular support for a crackdown on Islamists, thus giving them a mandate to move against the Brotherhood and like minded organizations.

Where have we seen this before? Where ...