And that sums it all up rather neatly and accurately...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CrowBat
That's the essence - also that of what's currently going on in Egypt. Stay tunned, the "Super Bowl match" between the teams of "Egyptian Opposition" led by coaches Obama and Clinton on one side, vs. "Mubarak", led by coaches Netanyahu and AIPAC on the other, is going to be continued "right after this"....
Yet one can hope we'll get a bit smarter.
Or, more to the point, hope that one team is not playing US football with a poor defensive line while the other is aiming for the FIFA World Cup and has an erratic midfield winger or two... :wry:
It's already very interesting to watch...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Assuming that the domino theory applies to the Arab world, it could become very, very interesting to see how the Europeans behave.
.
The Europeans have been, and are still busy in the Arab world. I know a bit about Iraq, so let's look there...:wry:
Boris Bollion of France has been working hard in Iraq and is now off to Tunisia. He was covering down on a couple of locations while in Iraq
Quote:
Outre celui de Bagdad, il existe un autre consulat général de France en Irak, basé ŕ Erbil.
The official French website to Iraq
Dirk Niebel of Germany, and another hard worker, recently had an unexpected ~$2,500 expense while in Baghdad.
Quote:
Entwicklungshilfeminister Dirk Niebel (FDP) ist zwei Stunden am Bagdader Flughafen festgehalten worden. Der Weiterflug wurde mit Geld erkauft.
Murat Ozcelik of Turkey, another hard worker, has been busy in Iraq as well.
Quote:
The deal between Turkey’s Calik Enerji and the Iraqi Electricity Ministry is for the construction of the 1,250 megawatt al-Hayrat [Khayrat?] plant in Karbala.
Calik Holding CEO, Ahmet Calik, and Iraq’s Deputy Electricity Minister, Salam Kazzaz, penned the agreement in a ceremony in Baghdad with the participation of Iraqi Deputy Premier for Energy, Hussain al-Shahristani, and Turkey’s Ambassador to Iraq, Murat Ozcelik.
It's a dynamic and interesting place, just like always.
And here I thought you were a deeds and words guy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Turkey isn't a European country, so that's a different story. Turks, Persians (Iran), northern Black African countries and Pakistan need to reassess their relations with the Arab region as well, but I focused on Europe and I believe that European countries have very different situations in regard to Arab countries than Turkey.
What??!!! Turkey is not European? Do you mean that you guys have just been stringing them along since 1963? I am stunned, just stunned!!! Na, so was! :eek: :rolleyes:
Quote:
Turkey's application to accede to the European Union was made on 14 April 1987. Turkey has been an associate member of the European Union (EU) and its predecessors since 1963.[2] After the ten founding members, Turkey was one of the first countries to become a member of the Council of Europe in 1949, and was also a founding member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1961[3] and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1973. The country has also been an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992, and is a part of the "Western Europe" branch of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations. Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council. Negotiations were started on 3 October 2005, and the process, should it be in Turkey's favour, is likely to take at least a decade to complete.[4] The membership bid has become a major controversy of the ongoing enlargement of the European Union.[5]
P.S.
Hopefully the Union of the Mediterranean (formerly known as the Mediterranean Union ala Sarkozy) is still supported by at least the EU's Diplomatic Corps (the European External Action Service) as vehicle for advocating for Democracy....
Quote:
The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is a multilateral partnership that encompasses 43 countries from Europe and the Mediterranean Basin: the 27 member states of the European Union and 16 Mediterranean partner countries from North Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. It was created in July 2008 as a relaunched Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the Barcelona Process) in 2008, when a plan to create an autonomous Mediterranean Union was dropped. The Union has the aim of promoting stability and prosperity throughout the Mediterranean region.
Quote:
The European External Action Service (EEAS or EAS) is a unique European Union (EU) department[2] that was established following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009. It was formally launched on 1 December 2010[3] and serves as a foreign ministry and diplomatic corps for the EU, implementing the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and other areas of the EU's external representation. The EEAS is under the authority of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), a post also created by the Treaty of Lisbon, whom it assists.
The EEAS manages the EU's response to crises, has intelligence capabilities and cooperates with the Commission in areas which it shares competence with. However, although the High Representative and the EEAS can propose and implement policy, it will not make it as that role is left to the Foreign Affairs Council which the High Representative chairs.[2][4]
Governance is a learned attribute!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
Noam Chomsky is a joke without a punchline; I've never seen a thing he wrote on matters political that was worth the bytes it took to distribute it. He does preach rather adeptly to a choir that seems to suspend critical thought as they approach his revelations, but if you're not a member of the choir it's generally pretty pointless. On linguistics it may be another matter; I'm told he knows something there. I'm not in a position to judge.
A transition into democracy or some semblance thereof could have all kinds of results, but the most probable is a long and difficult period for Egypt. Cultivating democracy and getting it to function on soil long occupied by a despots is a very tricky thing indeed. The threat of a takeover by the Muslim Brothers is only one scenario, another (and as likely) one is simple paralysis, with a plethora of poorly differentiated parties and candidates unable to achieve a meaningful mandate or take any meaningful action. Likely outcome might be a military coup, with or without US support, likely with support from a populace tired of dysfunction. These scenarios tend to see popular expectation sky high and government capacity dead low, a frustrating combination.
I agree with Dayuhan - it is silly to claim that the US wants to retain Mubarak. We have to work with folks we don't like sometimes - and as I've said before it is better to have some sort of relationship. Trying to prevent war in the Middle East by giving Egypt or Saudi arms packages isn't the same thing as supporting dictators. And if we had openly dumped Mubarak immediately it would have a significant impact on all of our alliances - even with democracies, for how can our word be trusted if we change our mind at the first sign of trouble? President Bush in particular tried to make democracy a priority in the region. You can scoff if you like, but the man made it the US policy. We've been warning all of these folks publicly and in private to democratize while they can - not our fault they don't listen. And allowing Iran to dominate the region or Israel and Egypt to go to war would not have helped. Suggesting that it would ignores reality.
The big point is the one on governance. It took the US 11 years from declaring independence to figure out its (somewhat) final form of government. For the first few years of that governance was extremely weak and numerous abuses of different groups occurred, to include a lot of score settling between Tories and the patriots... not all of which was politically motivated. A lot of folks didn't want to be involved.* 74 years later a full-up war occurred due to disagreements over flaws in the basic system of governance. It was only in the last 40 years that the equality we supposedly represent was finally available to all, and still in imperfect form at that. We forget our own struggles at our peril.
The problem in Egypt (or any other country emerging from totalitarianism) is that the very elements of society that would form the basis for governance have been repressed or exiled for years, and have no legitimacy. Building the institutions to provide a democratic government takes time... which is why I agree with Dayuhan that Egypt will be messy and probably experience some serious speed bumps. Anyone who thinks that things will be rosy is ignoring our own history here in the US.
That said, I have to say that I still think that folks basically want to be free. If they are constantly worrying about not dying, then they will be less likely to express this desire. But once their economic situation reaches a point where their basic needs (ie their right to "Life") are not constantly threatened and they can "pursue happiness", they will tend to want to enjoy liberty as well. We should also not confuse ourselves into thinking that this will result in their country becoming our ally. At the same time, one would hope that it will result in their not desiring to go to war with us (or their neighbors) and instead focus on improving their economic position in the world. The international system set up by the Allies after WWII has lifted more people out of poverty than anyone could have predicted, and prevented another great power war. Additionally, more countries than ever experience political change as a result of peaceful means and not violence or civil war. All of these are good things- while the US isn't perfect, can anyone name another system of governance/superpower that would have spent as many lives and as much money as we have to set up such global goods?
V/R,
Cliff
* For a good discussion of this, see Shy, John. “The American Revolution: The Military Conflict Considered as a Revolutionary War.” In Essays on the American Revolution. Edited by Stephen G. Kurtz and James H. Hutson, 121–156. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1973.
Globalization is the cause?
An interesting Thomas P.M. Barnett article over at World Politics Review on Egypt. He lays out some good considerations for the likely winners and losers on Egypt, and why he thinks the US should let Mubarak stay till September.
I'm inclined to agree with him on the youth bulge and economic issues. I'm not sure if waiting till September will work, though I agree that that would probably make the outcome better for all concerned. Big question is how you would enforce any such deal... Like I said before, they need time to build governance.
V/R,
Cliff
Again straying OT, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
91bravojoe
Confuses tactics and strategy. If Professor Pape and his group at the University of Chicago can be believed, the goal and the strategy are crystal clear: get the troops of "western democracies" out of Islamic countries.
Possibly some confusion among tactics, strategy, and policy here.
Certainly AQ's long term "policy goal" (or fantasy, possibly a more appropriate word) would be to expel the west and all who associate with them from the Middle East, establish a Caliphate, etc. By the late 90s, though, the operative goal was a lot simpler: survival. Pursuit of that goal required a jihad against an infidel invader in Muslim lands, and there wasn't one. AQ tried desperately to sell the idea of the US presence in Saudi Arabia in that role, but it didn't work, at least not in a sense widespread enough to make a difference.
The sequence that began with the 1998 fatwa and culminated in 9/11 were, as far as I can see, less about driving the west out or building a Caliphate than about provoking military occupation and providing AQ with the raison d'etre it lost with the Soviet withdrawal.
The beliefs of suicide bombers do not necessarily reflect the goals of AQ. The actual goals and the pitch used to persuade suicide bombers and jihad footsoldiers were likely very different. This is often the case: soldiers are always told that they are fighting for the noblest of motives. Hard to get people to blow themselves up by telling them that fundraising is way down and if we don't get the Americans to invade somebody it's gonna dry up completely.
The brotherhood... in or out?
Was looking at Google News this AM, good way to see what's being said about things in other parts of the world. Came on this:
http://www.jpost.com/International/A...aspx?id=207553
Quote:
Congress members wary of Muslim Brotherhood role in Egypt
Defense Minister Barak holds meetings in Washington with top officials to discuss Cairo crisis; legislators slam Obama administration for suggesting Islamist group should have some role in government.
WASHINGTON – Members of Congress warned about the risk posed by the Muslim Brotherhood’s participation in a new Egyptian government Wednesday and scolded the Obama administration for suggesting an openness to the Islamic group having some role in its composition.
“The Muslim Brotherhood had nothing to do with driving these protests, and they and other extremists must not be allowed to hijack the movement toward democracy and freedom in Egypt,” declared Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, at the start of a hearing Wednesday.
Natural I suppose for the Jerusalem Post to play up that angle. The more I think about it, though, the more I think the US should be pushing for inclusion of the Brotherhood in Government, ideally in a substantial role. The reason why:
When Mubarak goes there's going to be huge euphoria and great expectations. Ding, dong, the witch is dead, Mubarak was the problem and Mubarak is gone, so the problems are over and everything's gonna be ok. All that is going to come to a crunching head-on collision with reality very quickly.
Very early in the new government's term some poor SOB is gonna have to crunch some numbers on revenues and expenses, assets and liabilities. Those numbers will be beyond ugly. The new government will have to manage a civil service, local government apparatus, military, and police that are riddled with patronage and an entrenched culture of corruption. They will not be amenable to reform. Prices of food and fuel will still be high. There will still be a huge demographic bulge of unemployed youth, and "create jobs" is easier said than done. Domestic investment will be constrained for years: I haven't seen figures on capital flight but you can bet Mubarak's cronies have been getting everything they can get their hands on out of the country, and that's plenty. Most of it won't come back. The foreign investment climate is not exactly hopping. Foreign aid may be sustained, but donor countries have their own issues and it's not likely to be increased. The new government is likely to be a coalition of groups that have little in common but opposition to Mubarak, and there will be all kinds of infighting and gridlock. I could go on (and on, and on) but that's enough. it will be very difficult, and there will be a lot of disappointment and frustration.
The last place we want to see the Muslim Brothers in all this is outside the tent in a pure opposition role, with no responsibility or accountability, blaming, criticizing, and building their own constituency and influence around that disappointment and frustration. Far better to have them sharing the hot seat, making their share of the mess and taking their share of the blame.
So we should make sure, IMO and as much as we can, that they are in the tent. The Israelis will have a cow and some Americans will shriek "who lost Egypt", but it may be time to do something sensible for a change. Fearful breach of precedent, yes, but some are worth breaching.
Case studies supporting inclusiveness...
Steve,
For what it's worth, I agree with this analysis...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
I think you rather overstate the influence he has, especially now, in his dotage and with his world sliding apart around him. Even in his prime no despot rules alone: he needs the army, the police, the business elite, all kinds of key sectors around him, and he needs to keep doling out to feed and keep the barons in balance. When the edifice starts to shake there is little or no loyalty. Everyone in the picture knows Mubarak is gone, whether next week or in September makes no difference. The people around him may still be kissing ass in front of him, but the moment his back is turned they are plotting ways to turn the situation to their personal advantage and ways of covering their exits if things go badly. There will be lots of deals being cut behind his back.
...as well as this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
Very early in the new government's term some poor SOB is gonna have to crunch some numbers on revenues and expenses, assets and liabilities. Those numbers will be beyond ugly. The new government will have to manage a civil service, local government apparatus, military, and police that are riddled with patronage and an entrenched culture of corruption. They will not be amenable to reform. Prices of food and fuel will still be high. There will still be a huge demographic bulge of unemployed youth, and "create jobs" is easier said than done. Domestic investment will be constrained for years: I haven't seen figures on capital flight but you can bet Mubarak's cronies have been getting everything they can get their hands on out of the country, and that's plenty. Most of it won't come back. The foreign investment climate is not exactly hopping. Foreign aid may be sustained, but donor countries have their own issues and it's not likely to be increased. The new government is likely to be a coalition of groups that have little in common but opposition to Mubarak, and there will be all kinds of infighting and gridlock. I could go on (and on, and on) but that's enough. it will be very difficult, and there will be a lot of disappointment and frustration.
The last place we want to see the Muslim Brothers in all this is outside the tent in a pure opposition role, with no responsibility or accountability, blaming, criticizing, and building their own constituency and influence around that disappointment and frustration. Far better to have them sharing the hot seat, making their share of the mess and taking their share of the blame.
We both agree that the journey towards equilibrium in Egypt will take some time, 'grown' in your paradigm and 'built' in mine. I am curious as to the shape of your predicted equilibrium and the steps it may require, beyond encouraging inclusiveness. From what I have observed Darwinian fights for power are often characterized by no holds barred struggles which usually occur behind a facade of adherence to socially acceptable mores. To me, grown implies a genetically defined endpoint, whereas built captures some of the 'creative tension' which is part and parcel of collective social experiences.
Some of the steps on the way towards equilibrium that I see include media access, technocratic transparency, and room for political discourse...however all of these require a powerful team of referees...perhaps a regulated MMA vs. 'Vale Tudo' MMA match analogy applies. I would say that the population of Egypt, who are but ‘one’ of the participants in this struggle, has a better chance of meeting some of it's aspirations because of the role that international/new media has assumed in acting as a referee (part of a team of referee's which still includes, from this armchair, the Egyptian Military). 'Neutral' technocrats, backed by power brokers/barons (building and maintaining bases of power and negotiating agreements), can also use new media as a tool to provide transparency into corruption and thus leverage public outrage in order to influence politicians. Democratic structures can act as relatively safe (as compared to war) arenas for political brawls among interested parties.
Like many others I am thinking about Indonesia as well as some of the Eastern Block countries in Europe, during their transitions to democracy, as case studies. Any recommendations?
Steve
Causes of Egyptian Unrest
Found this analysis of why the Arab Regimes are falling on the World Politics Review media roundup. The author is a professor of political science at Cairo University and Central Michigan.
Touches on the varied sources of the unrest, especially the demographic ones.
V/R,
Cliff
