This article is a little ridiculous...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
Slap-
I have a little problem with this article - it claims that the US doesn't believe in democracy, but then goes on to criticize Pres Bush's attempts to use Iraq to bring democracy to the region.
So which is it - does the US fear democracy or support it?
Folks like this who criticize everything the government does aren't helpful.
V/R,
Cliff
Washington Looks Clueless on Egypt?
I am sure that the Israeli reaction has appeared in the US media, although I have missed it here in the UK. So courtesy of Real Clear Politics an article 'Washington Looks Clueless on Egypt;, by Caroline Glick, of the Jerusalem Post, which scathing of US actions to date:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...on_108731.html
Indicated by these unlinked portions:
Quote:
..the character of the protesters is not liberal...According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists....it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.
Rightly the author points to elections elsewhere in the Arab World, citing the Palestinian vote in 2006 and Egypt in 2005, where when given that chance the voters voted for parties who stand for a very different agenda. Her argument falls by failing to explain how tyranny can end without some form of democracy appearing.
Mubarak rule: the context
From Abu M's Londonistani, who has lived in Cairo, a long article on the context for events of late and one funny tale about tuna:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...ak-and-me.html
Which ends with these paragraphs:
Quote:
Some of the US and UK coverage of the anti-Mubarak demonstrations happening now suggests that extremists are waiting to take over. Considering Mubarak's manipulation of feelings towards the United States and suppression of moderate Islamists and secularists, it's a surprise that the demonstrators are not all extremist Jihadis.
However, the legacy of Mubarak's rule means that there are few leaders with any of the contacts, stature and relationships that would allow government to function if Mubarak's regime was removed root and branch. Few people outside the ruling circle even have any idea of what the country's real financial situation is. Those who demand that the peace treaty with Israel be cancelled have no idea what part it plays in keeping their country solvent.
There is hope. The Egyptians who turned up to prevent the looting of the Cairo Museum, the popular committees, the Muslim-Christian cooperation show glimmers of hope that Egyptians - despite the best efforts of three decades of Mubarak - have retained the civic values that will be vital for their future.
Here you go Yanks, good luck!
Bob's World just stated:
Quote:
One more mess Great Britain cobbled together as they executed their passage of lines at the end of WWII and said "Here you go Yanks, good luck!"
Yes the British exited South Asia in 1947, ending that imperial era, although we stayed in a few other places till later (more in a moment). At no stage did we conduct a handover to the USA and wish you luck IMHO.
The UK did stay around South Asia, notably through the Cold War, remember CENTO? Effectively the UK relied on diplomacy, although we offered a nuclear umbrella to India after the Indo-China conflict (1961 IIRC) and after 1967 our East of Suez role dwindled. The USA for mainly Cold War reasons got involved in Pakistan, with a dribble of aid into Afghanistan.
IMHO the USA between 1947-1980 paid very little attention to South Asia, you had your own distractions elsewhere in South-East Asia and only returned when the USSR intervened in Afghanistan.
Release the beancounters with bad attitudes...
...it would make for an interesting international case study. :wry:
United Nations Convention against Corruption
Quote:
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) is the first legally binding international anti-corruption instrument.[1] In its 8 Chapters and 71 Articles, the UNCAC obliges its States Parties to implement a wide and detailed range of anti-corruption measures affecting their laws, institutions and practices. These measures aim to promote the prevention, criminalization and law enforcement, international cooperation, asset recovery, technical assistance and information exchange, and mechanisms for implementation.
Investment Banking backgrounder from Wikipedia
Retail Banking backgrounder from Wikipedia
From Bloomberg Businessweek: Offshore Banks Must Adapt or Die in WikiLeaks Era
Quote:
Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- You might think this is a great time for the offshore-banking industry. There is a lot of spare cash sloshing around the world. The mega-rich are still piling up money. Taxes are likely to go up as every developed country tries to cope with huge deficits, creating even more incentive to shift money to some island hideaway.
But it’s not so easy anymore.
the life of an exiled dictator isn't what it used to be
Gimme Shelter
Why is Hosni Mubarak clinging to power?
Quote:
So why is Mubarak trying to squeeze a few more months out of his three-decade career in office and avowing his intentions to stay in Egypt rather than packing for the Riviera? It may be because exile isn't what it used to be; over the last 30 years, things have gotten increasingly difficult for dictators in flight. Successor regimes launch criminal probes; major efforts are mounted to identify assets that may have been stripped or looted by the autocrat, or more commonly, members of his immediate family. I witnessed this process myself, twice being asked by newly installed governments in Central Eurasia to advise them on asset recovery measures focusing on the deposed former leader and his family.
We used to give Israel and Egypt $4 billion each
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
The question is, will we be able to swallow our pride and work with them if they are more closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood than with the current regime? I hope so.
So we should have worked with democratically-elected Hitler and today should embrace democratically-selected Hezbollah in Lebanon? And of course if President Carter had told the Shah that he needed to resign now, that would have made all the difference...
Instead, seem to recall it was the promised threats of a new Presidential candidate who was unprepared to deal with Iran diplomatically that finally got our hostages released after 444 days of diplomacy.
Quote:
I suspect we did not work too hard to leverage the need to maintain their "made in the USA" equipment as a rationale to establish and maintain relations with the new government. We should have. It would have saved a lot of the silliness between the west and Iran that has gone down since.
So if we imposed no sanctions today, Iran's government would cease funding Hezbollah and developing nuclear weapons?
Quote:
That is too bad, as Iran is arguably the most pro-US Muslim populace and is a true nation that will endure into the foreseeable future.
And Iran is a perfect example of a nation whose people may appear secular and appear to like the U.S. but whose government is just the opposite. The NEW government is the problem no matter how much we try to placate the citizenry by appearing to be on their side during their ill-considered revolution.
Sanctions and focused aid in support of allies aligned with our interests has arguably saved us considerably more than the money we gave/give Egypt and Israel each year. Which is more dangerous...appearing to abandon allies which drives Israel and Saudi Arabia to work together to attack Iran, or telling a 30-year ally that we understand his stated need for a smooth transition, and our past relationship will remain intact until you retire in September.
Good point on arms for hostage, I raise you non-appeasement of the USSR
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
Having a little trouble understanding what you are trying to say here. How does focused aid in support of allies save us money, exactly? Also, your second sentence is a bit confusing. Are you saying abandoning the "allies" will drive Israel and Saudi Arabia together to attack Iran? Or that abandoning them will separate this partnership?
The war in Afghanistan is costing us $100 billion a year these days. The $4.7 billion in foreign aid we gave Israel and Egypt last year is considerably cheaper. How much did the last round of bail outs and stimulus cost the U.S.? Would you allow that $150 a barrel oil due to this short-sighted people's revolution spreading to Saudi Arabia or an attack on Iran would cause a repeat recession far more costly than foreign aid?
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/poli...oreign-aid.htm
Yes, I'm saying that our government's appearance to abandon a long time ally will not go unnoticed. Abandoning an ally who has kept peace for 30 years and has enhanced the economy of one of the few Arab nations without much oil revenue constrasts with our assurances to Israel to "trust us," when we ask you to give Iran sanctions (and STUXNET) a chance. The Saudi Arabia reference in that context is a wink on Israeli use of their airspace. Think we could stay out of that war after the Straits of Hormuz get blocked?
Seriously, please cite Mubarak's major crimes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
I will note a few things. First off, our aid has not exactly prevented instability in Egypt. Secondly, Saudi Arabia is not Egypt. Observers of Egypt already knew that Egypt was primed to blow --- if not quite in the dramatic way it has done so, but the disastrous attempt to implant Gamal on the throne alienated Mubarak's base and lent energy to the opposition. Tunisia was the spark on a quite dry field. The KSA, OTOH, has no such legitimacy crisis.
You mention perceived intent to get his son elected. Is that the horrible human-rights violation that led to this crisis? What else is he responsible for on par with the likes of Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il? Or was it the youthful, utopian, inexperienced views of unemployed internet users fueled by 24/7 news coverage that led to this mess. Do you really believe the replacement government will do better for the Egyptian people's lives?
Quote:
Sorry, but circumstances change. Our "30-year ally" made his own bed. I was completely unaware that we were married to Hosni Mubarak or any other country or leader. The interests of the United States come first, not Mubarak's or Israel's. From a pure realpolitik standpoint, Mubarak has proven that his regime is no longer a guarantor of regional stability if it ever was (see: Ayman al-Zawahiri). The agreement between the Egyptian people and the regime has broken down - the only thing that can preserve him is brute force, and what kind of "stability" is that?
Also, if an Israeli attack on Iran was truly the imminent and drastically costly threat that you describe, it is quite easy for the U.S. to deter it in a number of ways.
Have circumstances really changed? I have no special Middle East insight other than an unworthy-by-today's-standards Sinai year-long tour during the Intifada. I had a female relative who went to Egypt in that timeframe and was never seen again. Speed boats were assaulting Tel Aviv's coast. Folks were blowing themselves up all over Israel before they built the walls. Rockets land all over Israel. Yet overall, Egypt has been remarkably stable in contrast, and the economy actually appeared pretty healthy. There was no war with Israel despite extensive Palestinian unrest then and trouble to the north during Israeli occupation of Lebanon.
Mubarak had already announced he would not run again. He may hand over power now to his vice president. Why did Obama feel the need to overreach his authority and tell him to leave now? He must have known how Mubarak would react to such external pressure. The other reasonable autocratic ruler in Jordan is also in peril. And you think we can pressure Israel not to act in its own defense?
Agree with you that had we spent more earlier, Afghanistan would not be as tough now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CrowBat
I think you're forgetting the following equatation:
- The war in Afghanistan costs 100 Billion a year now, because the USA failed to invest perhaps a few hundred of millions in Afghanistan, and instead left the country to the mercy of the ISI, back in the early 1990s.
True enough, the US never really "run" the Mujjs in Afghanistan: it was the ISI that did - with help of US and Saudi money. But then, perhaps the USA could've said ISI at least in 1992, that it's an American issue how they spend their taxpayer's money, and not that of the Pakistani military intelligence...
- Furthermore, paying Israel and Egypt not only 4.7 billion annually now, but actually much more (then, this amount accounts only for officially provided military aid, not for all the other sorts of aid, like large-scale deliveries of grain, various US-granted loans etc.) is equal to curing the effects of a desease, but not curing the desease itself.
"So, Egypt got a cancer in form of the Brotherhood? No problem: provide arms to Mubarak so he can better kick their backsides. And never mind if it's granted he can't do that forever: my term lasts only four years - eight, if I convince the Congress Mubarak needs another 40 F-16s from Lockmart to counter the Brotherhood..."
If Wikipedia is correct, 12.8 million tourists visited Egypt in 2008 spending $11 billion and employing 12% of the workforce. When I saw the horses/camels running through the crowd, it was not difficult to imagine them as irritated workers losing tourism revenue rather than paid thugs. I'm sure there are plenty of those courtesy of the Interior Ministry, but an objective observer would probably admit that many more are unhappy with the economic disruption this is causing and the starvation it risks.
Spent an hour watching C-SPAN with Egyptian experts who met today talking at The Frontline Club in London (Mod added podcast link:http://frontlineclub.com/events/2011...nesday-10.html ). Highly recommend it if you can catch a rerun. Several admitted there is no clear leader ready to take power in either Tunisia or Egypt. A student getting his masters in London said none of the organizers of the protests were remotely qualified to govern. The interesting thing to me was several Iranian men in the audience who compared the protesters to teen-agers talking back to their parents.
Another point of interest was a reporter saying that the Muslim Brotherhood has not hurt Turkey. A second Turkish economist agreed while others were less sure that has been a positive Turkish influence on what was once an extremely secular country. At 25-30%, it is pretty easy to see some coalition including the Muslim Brotherhood eventually ending up in power...along with communists, socialists, and all those other fun groups.
Finally, while I have been as addicted as most to watching the chaos on TV, I had to chuckle when Pierce whatever-his-name-is asked an Israeli observer about attacks on the press. He answered honestly that the American press was guilty of "professional narcissism." Anderson Cooper is going for the record of showing himself getting beat up over and over from "an undisclosed location," while I noted Christiane Ammanpour being snooty on camera.
While the press needs to be there, there is little doubt that they are accessories to some of the violence. Plus, one tires of hearing networks claim to be objective as they repeatedly interview Fouad Ajami from Johns Hopkins who can't say enough bad about Mubarak in flowery language.