The crisis in Egypt

[GWiz]

2.

Yes, you have acknowledged that "what works" for you represented a change from the previous policy that can be characterized as anything but "honest". Can't have it both ways. The truth is that depending on the issue, Canada may or may not be considered an "honest broker", particularly when narrowly focused on American policy as the benchmark.

Was PM Chretien an "honest broker" in Eastern Europe? Nope...he helped to bomb their asses.

1.

[Bitsy]

My preference thus is for Mubarak to hang on at least until September, to give time for various parties and groups to organize for an election. Even then, unless the Egyptian Army can play a stabilizing role similar to that the Turkish army has played over the years, I don't know if a moderately inclined democracy can survive without being taken over by Islamists.

If the Muslim Brotherhood somehow gains control of Egypt if Mubarak steps down, which I do not see happening, it will be due to lack of organized opposition. And, that is one of the many faults in supporting a dynastic dictator for 30 years.

There is much to dislike about the Muslim Brotherhood but I do not see them as the likely successor to Mubarak, unless many in the West continue to express the ‘better the devil you know’ approach to this crisis. If we refuse to support today’s protestors because of this fear, ultimately we will almost assure ourselves of a radical Islamist government.

Nonetheless, the Brotherhood did not arrive at this historical moment with the advantage of wide public favor. Such support as it does have among Egyptians — an often cited figure is 20 percent to 30 percent — is less a matter of true attachment than an accident of circumstance: the many decades of suppression of secular opposition groups that might have countered it. The British, King Farouk, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar el-Sadat all faced the same problem that Hisham Kaseem, a newspaper editor and human rights activist, described playing out under Mr. Mubarak. “If people met in a cafe and talked about things the regime didn’t like, he would just shut down the cafe and arrest us,” Mr. Kaseem said. “But you can’t close mosques, so the Brotherhood survived.”

If Egyptians are given political breathing space, Mr. Kaseem told me, the Brotherhood’s importance will rapidly fade. “In this uprising the Brotherhood is almost invisible,” Mr. Kaseem said, “but not in America and Europe, which fear them as the bogeyman.”

We cannot continue supporting dictators in the ME while ignoring political opposition parties, even if they are Islamists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/opinion/03atran.html?scp=1&sq=Egypt%E2%80%99s%20Bumbling%20Brotherhood%20&st=cse

Edited February 4, 2011 by Bitsy

[myata]

How do you explain the conservatives support of and delight in seeing Saddam deposed by a foreign power?

That's quite easy. The essense of conservative position is not some abstract principle ("freedom"; "human rights"; "democracy"; etc) but plain and sheer self interest. For this obvious reason, it does not matter whether the place is a democracy; semi democracy; superficial "democracy" or dictatorship of a varying degree, as long as it continues to serve my interests. And vice versa.

[pinko]

Isn't the real issue the support provided by the west to dictatorships and isn't the solution a move awy from such support?

Maybe we could send this fellow bush-cheney over to Egypt to assassinate Mubarak. It would give him something useful to do.

Edited February 4, 2011 by pinko

[bloodyminded]

Perhaps conservatives are looking at the broader picture, and looking past the immediate visceral satisfaction of seeing a dictator brought down. Perhaps they remember Iran and are extremely leery of a repeat. Perhaps it's because no one has yet determined what sort of government might take the place of Mubarak, but the odds seem high it will be far less pro-west than the current regime, while at the same time have no greater respect for human rights.

Yes, and these concerns are real enough.

And yet they magically disappear when a regime is to be toppled by some rogue, aggressive minority "coalition," as in Iraq.

What I am suggesting is that these same conservatives look to Jesus Christ--the United States--to determine the position which they should take. If the U.S. were saying "Mubarak has to go right now!", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's not just conservatives; it's dewy-eyed sycophants generally.

For example, Salman Rushdie (certainly no conservative) wrote, a short few weeks after 9/11, that he was thrilled that "wise American heads" had decided not to attack Afghanistan, "bringing suffering upon them for their masters' misdeeds."

And a couple of months later, he wrote another article, claiming success in the Afghan campaign (a little prematurely, yes? ), asserting the new government good and the Taliban gone...and sniped that all those opposed to the war were "spineless."

In other words, Mr. Rushdie, like many others, made his moral and "practical" determinations based exclusively on what the United States chose to do. If they didn't go to war, they were "wise" and made the right choice; if they did go to war, they were awesome, and those who opposed it were "spineless."

This is a similar situation.

But it's not exclusively about conservatives; my mistake. It's about commissars of any point on the spectrum. The mainstream, establishment-minded liberals are every bit as bad, and perhaps more hypocritical.

Edited February 4, 2011 by bloodyminded

[pinko]

http://www.amnesty.ca/iwriteforjustice/take_action.php?actionid=637

[Scotty]

Sure, go to the link BC posted a couple of posts up to get an idea of Canada's diplomatic role in the world and as it regards the Israeli - Palestinian issue... Thanks BC...

Okay, i went and looked. There was not a single instance there of when or where Canada had played an "honest broker" with regard to anything. All there was was breathlessness that Canada had, for once, voted "no" against a particularly one-sided denunciation of Israel. Which is basically all that has changed. We're doing that more often.

So what? Playing may, might, could, is a muggs game at this point... Whatever happens it's not "the west's" call to make... At best "the west" (read USA) can influence "what happens down the road" as long as they remember they are walking on egg shells doing it...

I'm not sure what you mean by the above. The question asked was why some conservatives might be less than wholeheartedly in support of instant regime-change in Egypt. Saying it's not the West's call to make really doesn't seem relevent to that. We still have preferences, and we still express those preferences. And playing "might could" is what everyone does preceding most decisions, if one is thoughtful.

So therefore, the answer is that some people considering current events in Egypt and past events in the middle east are less than enthusiastic about this because they believe that on the basis of their knowledge a regime change is likely to result in a worse government, not a better one.

[Scotty]

Yes, and these concerns are real enough.

And yet they magically disappear when a regime is to be toppled by some rogue, aggressive minority "coalition," as in Iraq.

What I am suggesting is that these same conservatives look to Jesus Christ--the United States--to determine the position which they should take. If the U.S. were saying "Mubarak has to go right now!", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's not just conservatives; it's dewy-eyed sycophants generally.

Gee, thanks...

Except the US HAS said "Mubarak has to go right now" So now where is your argument?

This characterization of conservatives as selfish and thoughtless in comparsion to the caring and compassion of the liberal side has its exact counterpart in an equal cliche - namely that conservatives think about things in a hard headed way and liberals are all just naive, weepy and emotional waifs.

In other words, the cliche 'the left cares, the right doesn't' is the equivilant of 'the right is shrewd, the left is stupid'.

That is about as shallow as political discourse gets.

[bloodyminded]

Gee, thanks...

Except the US HAS said "Mubarak has to go right now" So now where is your argument?

Obama and his British and French allies have called for an "orderly transition"...broadly accepting Mubarak's proposal to wait several months, so that he can suppress dissent, and help his paymasters install a US-friendly regime.

This sort of hatred for democratic principles is nothing new, unfortunately.

You still haven't drawn up the bizarre distinctions for me--why the support for Western overhrows of tyrants, and not the support for the overthrows of tyrants who are friendly to the West?

That is about as shallow as political discourse gets.

What is "about as shallow as political discourse gets" is drawing an equivalence--as you explicitly did--between the supporters of a brutal dictator oppressing his people with American made weapons, and the citizens who object to this.

But then, the Egyptian people don't understand the world the way the "voices of moderation" here in the West do, right?

As if a murderous dictator is a "moderate"!!

"Moderate" is code for "obedient to Washington."

Edited February 4, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Isn't the real issue the support provided by the west to dictatorships and isn't the solution a move awy from such support?

No...active engagement has proven to be the best policy. Canada "supports" US policies in ways that you can't even imagine.

Maybe we could send this fellow bush-cheney over to Egypt to assassinate Mubarak. It would give him something useful to do.

Quite to the contrary....Bush asked Mubarak to lead a transition to democracy in Egypt post Iraq invasion. Mubarak got insulted and stopped his annual visits to Washington.

[GostHacked]

Gee, thanks...

Except the US HAS said "Mubarak has to go right now" So now where is your argument?

That quickly changed from what Biden and the like were saying over the past weekend.

This characterization of conservatives as selfish and thoughtless in comparsion to the caring and compassion of the liberal side has its exact counterpart in an equal cliche - namely that conservatives think about things in a hard headed way and liberals are all just naive, weepy and emotional waifs.

In other words, the cliche 'the left cares, the right doesn't' is the equivilant of 'the right is shrewd, the left is stupid'.

That is about as shallow as political discourse gets.

When will people start to realize that there is no left/right when it comes to government.

[bud]

if a child rapist is abusing his children, you don't wait to separate them until a proper guardian is found.

the dictator's presence until september will not help egypt transition into a democracy. he should get the fuck out just like the tunisian president did.

[GostHacked]

if a child rapist is abusing his children, you don't wait to separate them until a proper guardian is found.

the dictator's presence until september will not help egypt transition into a democracy. he should get the fuck out just like the tunisian president did.

As long as they don't come to Canada as well. That one idiot from Tunisia should have his money seized and then dropped in a life raft in the middle of the ocean.

[g_bambino]

the dictator's presence until september will not help egypt transition into a democracy. he should get the fuck out just like the tunisian president did.

And then what?

[bud]

And then what?

an interim government, just like in tunisia.

i'm sure mubarak is already packing his suitcases and will be on his private jet to england soon.

[pinko]

bush/cheney:

You state:

"No...active engagement has proven to be the best policy. Canada "supports" US policies in ways that you can't even imagine."

What is a sand nigger?

What specific ways should/would Canada support the US in this current circumstance?

One of the impediments to progress is Mubarak's insistence to stay on until September. As you know this is an impediment to a move to more democratic institutions being put in place.

In your view what steps, if any, should be taken in hastening Mubarak's departure?

Edited February 4, 2011 by pinko

[Guest American Woman]

Obama and his British and French allies have called for an "orderly transition"...broadly accepting Mubarak's proposal to wait several months......

So has Canada.

The Harper government has endorsed the go-slow transition plan set out by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s regime, signalling that Mideast stability and peace with Israel are its paramount concerns while other Western nations push for faster change. link

[myata]

Quite to the contrary....Bush asked Mubarak to lead a transition to democracy in Egypt post Iraq invasion. Mubarak got insulted and stopped his annual visits to Washington.

Yes he asked.. there's no question about it. And then he kept giving egyptian dictator money and arms with which to suppress that same democracy. So here's the question: which of the two acts speaks the true intention: the talk or the walk? And when are we finally going to attend to that highly contageous obtusion in separating of word from actual deed?

[bloodyminded]

So has Canada.

The Harper government has endorsed the go-slow transition plan set out by Egyptian President Hosni Mubaraks regime, signalling that Mideast stability and peace with Israel are its paramount concerns while other Western nations push for faster change. link

Just so.

Harper views a dictator oppressing his people with the help of Western weapons to be "stability."

Edited February 4, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes he asked.. there's no question about it. And then he kept giving egyptian dictator money and arms with which to suppress that same democracy.

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that...peace tribute for several nations in the region preceded Bush by several administrations for several other reasons. Bush wanted Mubarak to make a bold move in the wake of Saddam's downfall.

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/CIA-Hayden-Mubarak-Bush/2011/02/02/id/384802

So here's the question: which of the two acts speaks the true intention: the talk or the walk? And when are we finally going to attend to that highly contageous obtusion in separating of word from actual deed?

Never...the purist of goals cannot survive on just good intentions. It's like asking when Canada will severely sanction the United States...not gonna happen for obvious reasons.

Edited February 4, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[pinko]

"Well, it's a bit more complicated than that...peace tribute for several nations in the region preceded Bush by several administrations for several other reasons. Bush wanted Mubarak to make a bold move in the wake of Saddam's downfall."

Psst this is 2011. Talk is cheap.

[bush_cheney2004]

Psst this is 2011. Talk is cheap.

Pssst....Bush left office 2 years ago. Obama is playing catch-up.

[pinko]

Where is Dumbya these days?

[jbg]

You complained to the CJC?

That's an oddly Canadian thing to do, jbg: to complain to the authorities about (perceived) bigotries.

No, I was complaining about restrictions on use of the word "Jew" and "Israel".

Didn't you agree with me about the essential awfulness of Canada's HRC? Well, it isn't about the HRC, so much as the impulses that allow such a thing to come into being.

Sure did.

Letting a private organization in the marketplace of ideas know of a suppression is far different from supporting an HRC which has the power to restrict the free flow of ideas. Aiding the CJC in discussing the issue of bigotry on the merits does not equal suppression.

[GWiz]

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that...peace tribute for several nations in the region preceded Bush by several administrations for several other reasons. Bush wanted Mubarak to make a bold move in the wake of Saddam's downfall.

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/CIA-Hayden-Mubarak-Bush/2011/02/02/id/384802

Bottom line: When you have an annual income coming in of about $1.5 BILLION you're not likely to be too anxious to give it up...

Mubarak family assets: $40 BILLION

Hosni's personal wealth: $17 BILLION +

Never...the purist of goals cannot survive on just good intentions. It's like asking when Canada will severely sanction the United States...not gonna happen for obvious reasons.

Intentions, inshemsions, who cares, I'm just happy right now that the Egyptian military, mainly because they KNOW which side is gonna be around to keep them well fed, isn't putting the rebellion down...

When Mubarak leaves is the time to make sure as little as possible changes when it comes to Egypt's finances... I'm hoping that's your country and MINE along with other "western" countries and not the alternative... Wars can be awfully expensive, a LOT more than shelling out a few Billion a year to keep the peace...