Egypt 2007-2016 (merged thread)

[davidbfpo]

Dr Omar Ashour's column reveals the contest in Egypt is not new, it happened in 1954 too (partly cited below) and then looks at today's scene:http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...by-omar-ashour

Egypt’s crisis has been called the worst in its history. But in fact, it bears a striking resemblance to a previous episode, almost 60 years ago.

On February 28, 1954, almost a million protesters besieged Cairo’s Abdin Palace, then being used by Gamal Abdel Nasser and other leaders of the July 1952 coup. The protesters’ main demands were the restoration of Egypt’s fragile democratic institutions, the release of political prisoners, and the army’s return to its barracks.

The two-month crisis of 1954 was sparked by the removal of Egypt’s president, General Mohammed Naguib, by Nasser and his faction. As in 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood was at the center of events, mobilizing on the side of the deposed Naguib. But, following Nasser’s promises to hold elections in June 1954 and to hand over power to civilians, one of the Brotherhood’s leaders, Abd al-Qadr Audeh, dismissed the protesters.

Nasser’s promises were empty....

He concludes that:

Any resolution to the current crisis should aim to save the remnants of the only gains made so far in Egypt’s revolution: basic freedoms and democratic institutions. That will require ceasing violent repression, stopping propaganda and incitement in pro-junta media and at pro-Morsi protests, and trust-building measures.

A credible guarantor, possibly the Obama administration, needs to be heavily involved in this process, given the absence of trust among Egypt’s main political actors (indeed, every institution is politicized and willing to cheat if it can). Finally, a referendum on any final deal is essential.

In short, the credibility of ballots and democracy must be restored in Egypt (and throughout the region); bullets and violence must not be allowed to rule.

From my armchair I cannot see the USA taking on such a role, which cannot be private.

There is a main thread on the current situation: Egypt: has the Spring ended? So a merger one day, but this article warrants it's own thread today.

[davidbfpo]

Sometimes one gets to read and contrast the depth and accuracy of reports on Egypt. Judge for yourself.

BBC analyst:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23493214

A short interview with Joel Beinin, Professor of History of the Middle East at Stanford University (California):http://www.opendemocracy.net/joel-be...tist-coalition

A longer interview with Sameh Naguib, a leading member of the Revolutionary Socialists in Egypt (who don't appear to be that revolutionary):http://www.opendemocracy.net/sameh-n...ing-your-enemy

[TheCurmudgeon]

I started with an idea, that a military, any military, is sworn to defend ( and feels a real duty towards) it citizens.

Now, reality is that whom the military considers "citizens" is a cultural matter. Further, any military, particularly in those parts of the world (like Indonesia) where the military is expected to fund its own operations (though various means) may be divided between the military's best interest and the citizen's best interest, may present a natural wedge between the military and the citizen. Despite this most military's feel duty bound to protect and defend the civilian population.

Where there is a total break down of civilian rule the military feels compelled, based on their oath, to step in. Is this so wrong? Should we not find ways to support this? If "yes" what are the parameters of our support?

[davidbfpo]

Curmudgeon,

Your last post appears to resume the discussion on another thread 'Can Military Governments be a good thing (for a while)?' :http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=18422

So mindful of this declared pondering, I think the question you pose is best answered on the other thread.

[davidbfpo]

Dr Omar Ashour's latest column, which examines broadly what could happen as the whirlwind of events spins on:http://slink.eu/xx

Note a number of comments on the current situation in Egypt, with possible implications beyond, are on two other threads: 'Egypt and the Treaty of Westphalia' and 'Can Military Governments be a good thing (for a while)?'.

If you want to read more then Shashank Joshi provides a pointer:http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2...sacre-edition/

[jcustis]

If nothing else, the Arab Spring will go dormant in Egypt because the military will come to the fore (albeit reluctantly) for the next twelve months as it re-examines what happened in the past twelve.

Unrest is all around bad for the military and its economic interests, so I can't imagine it will rush headlong into a transition of the type being advocated/instigated by the US Govt. and current administration. It is going to develop policy, get on message, and move forward deliberately.

[carl]

One thing that seems to be forgotten in all these discussions is the Egyptian Army is not acting alone. There are millions and millions of Egyptians who support their actions. This article says that one of the curious aspects of this support is that the old line liberals, the guys who opposed Mubarak and believe all the things we believe in, are almost 100% behind the army.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-military.html

This and other things I've read here and there lead me to believe this goes way beyond parliamentary niceties, definition of coups and the bleatings of the flock inside the beltway. This is a life and death thing the resolution of which won't be pretty.

It seems to me that one side views the Muslim Brotherhood as having done their best to stack the deck politically when they reached power, the object of which was to insure they never left power. And it seems to me that the reason they are viewed as having wanted to do this so they could transform Egypt into a thing dominated by one view of religion, theirs. Their opponents don't like this and obviously feel there is no way to stop it short of doing what they have done and are doing.

The Muslim Brotherhood seems to feel that they won fair and square and they are fully justified in putting the President beyond judicial review and all the other things they did or tried to do. They won. So now that they've been kicked out in a highly irregular manner, I am guessing they feel that they've tried the political route and got cheated of their just reward, the authority to reshape Egypt into the Islamic entity they wanted. If they feel that way there is no good reason to go back to open peaceful politics.

So I think it may be probable that both sides feel the other side is cheated them, is going to make Egypt into something they will not abide, is not to be trusted and must be stopped, however. If that is the case (and are the musings of somebody who only knows one word of Arabic-habibi) there will be no option other than fighting it out and crushing the opposition. This may get very bad.

It also is may be a lot bigger than Egypt. Maybe this is a reflection of the fight in the Arab/Muslim world between the secular and takfiri. If that be the case, and since it is taking place in the biggest Arab country of them all, it will have ramifications far beyond Egypt. It seems the oil states may be viewing it that way considering the money they have been pouring in on the side of the Egyptian Army.

God pity the Egyptians.