[Aberlour10]

Yesterday Tunesia, today Egypt, the arabian people seem to have enough from their autocratic regimes. I am just curious how Washington is going to make a balancing act between the human rights, freedom of speach for Egyptians and the support for the most important ally of the USA in this region >>>> dictator H. Mubarak.

[kenberg]

It would be my hope that we be very careful about anything that could be construed as a commitment to anyone. Way back, 1957 if I remember correctly, the U.S. said many encouraging words about Hungarian uprisings. When it came time to act, we did nothing. Somewhat more recently, after Gulf War I, I believe many Iraqis were expecting more support than they received. The fact that ten years later they got more help than they really wanted is another matter.
Helping might be good, staying out might be good, but if assistance will not be provided then we need to shut the whatever up and let events take their course.

[PassedOut]

The situation in Egypt looks quite serious. In my opinion, it is always a long-term mistake for the US government to support an oppressive regime, no matter how attractive that appears in the short term.

[Aberlour10]

PassedOut, on 2011-January-28, 12:20, said:

The situation in Egypt looks quite serious. In my opinion, it is always a long-term mistake for the US government to support an oppressive regime, no matter how attractive that appears in the short term.

"He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard." -this is de facto the valid policy line for decades. If so,why are the western countries so surprised about the lack of their credibility in the streets of the Arab world.

[Winstonm]

One would hope the U.S. would take into account how well support of the Shah of Iran worked out.

[kenberg]

The main thing, imo, is to realize that this is not about us. Egyptian protesters are not eagerly awaiting the latest wisdom from Obama or Clinton, they are doing as they think best. We will not be rolling in with tanks in the style of the Soviet Union in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, we will not be helping the protesters and the government find an (only in fantasy) peaceful resolution of their differences. We will, I hope, be largely minding our own business, perhaps offering assistance, if wanted, when a new government is formed.

Comparison with the Shah are not all that apt. We had a lot to do with the Shaw taking power. Mubarak came in because Sadat was assassinated and, afaik, not even the most virulent anti-American thinks that we engineered that one. As the Shah's rule came to an end we did little to help him, and if, as seems likely, Mubarak's rule is ending there is little that we could or should do. Help him get out in one piece, maybe.

[Aberlour10]

kenberg, on 2011-January-29, 07:37, said:

Comparison with the Shah are not all that apt. We had a lot to do with the Shaw taking power. Mubarak came in because Sadat was assassinated and, afaik, not even the most virulent anti-American thinks that we engineered that one. As the Shah's rule came to an end we did little to help him, and if, as seems likely, Mubarak's rule is ending there is little that we could or should do. Help him get out in one piece, maybe.

Most commentators are agreed>>> Mubarak's regime could not exist so long without all these billions of dollar the USA gives him every year as the military help and he puts into his army and secret services. Sure, Washington had nothing to do with his coming to the top... but gave and gives him deciding help for holding this power.

[kenberg]

True enough. Exactly what our approach should be with nondemocratic regimes is a fair question for debate. There is some damned if you do damned if you don't about this. The U.S. is often seen as a country of idealistic cowboys, riding to the rescue in situations we don't understand. Alternatively, we are cynical manipulators. We should force the Chinese government to respect human rights (how is never made clear) or we should accept the world as it is and deal with it as best we can. Anyway, for the current Egyptian situation, I favor recognizing that we have little control. In promoting democracy around the world, I favor coordinating with our friends. I confess I don't know what the position of the European governments has been regarding Egypt but I was not aware of any great push to try to isolate the country until it became more democratic.

[PassedOut]

Some background from the NYT: Egyptians’ Fury Has Smoldered Beneath the Surface for Decades

Quote

His focus on stability, which relied heavily on police powers and support from the West, has proved to be his greatest liability. Protesters now march through the streets chanting slogans like this: “Down, down, down Mubarak!”

The litany of complaints against Mr. Mubarak is well known to anyone who has spent time in any coffee shop or on any corner chatting in any city in Egypt. The police are brutal. Elections are rigged. Corruption is rampant. Life gets harder for the masses as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. Even as Egypt’s economy enjoyed record growth in recent years, the number of people living in poverty actually grew.

“I graduated from the university about 16 years ago, and the only jobs open to me were cleaning other people’s houses,” said Ali Suleiman one day last week as he stood in the center of the city, offering a common lament. “I am lucky I was able to start selling newspapers. I have three daughters, and I make about 20 pounds,” or $3.50, a day.

That is Mr. Mubarak’s Egypt, a place where about half the population lives on $2 a day or less, and walled compounds spring up outside cities with green lawns and swimming pools and names like Swan Lake. It is a place where those with money have built a parallel world of private schools and exclusive clubs, leaving the rundown cities to the poor.

I like to travel, and I do hate to see oppression maintained by taxes I pay in the US. Wherever you go, you find smart, perceptive folks who take note of the contradiction between the official rhetoric supporting freedom and democracy and the actual practice of propping up brutal regimes. Despite the counterweight of positive things the US does that can be used as talking points, those conversations are increasingly difficult. Wonderful places in the world are becoming dangerous to visit.

One of the things we are up against in the US is that rich and powerful people here view the Egyptian model as a positive one that the US itself should aspire to. Class warfare here has been pushing the US in that direction for three decades. Those class warfare people (and the politicians they own) view the use of US tax dollars to promote that type of society as a good thing, not a bad thing. That's one of the big political battles being fought in the US these days.

[Aberlour10]

kenberg, on 2011-January-29, 08:23, said:

I confess I don't know what the position of the European governments has been regarding Egypt but I was not aware of any great push to try to isolate the country until it became more democratic.

The position of the leading European countries is easy to describe. They see nothing, hear nothing, so long as the dictator guarantees the stability and protects their interests. At the moment they bury heads in the sand ( as so often) hoping secretly the Pharao will survive somehow. A few are concerned, some speak about demoracy, human rights etc, but of course not very loud.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2011-January-29, 09:28, said:

Some background from the NYT: Egyptians’ Fury Has Smoldered Beneath the Surface for Decades


I like to travel, and I do hate to see oppression maintained by taxes I pay in the US. Wherever you go, you find smart, perceptive folks who take note of the contradiction between the official rhetoric supporting freedom and democracy and the actual practice of propping up brutal regimes. Despite the counterweight of positive things the US does that can be used as talking points, those conversations are increasingly difficult. Wonderful places in the world are becoming dangerous to visit.

One of the things we are up against in the US is that rich and powerful people here view the Egyptian model as a positive one that the US itself should aspire to. Class warfare here has been pushing the US in that direction for three decades. Those class warfare people (and the politicians they own) view the use of US tax dollars to promote that type of society as a good thing, not a bad thing. That's one of the big political battles being fought in the US these days.

The odd part about this class warfare you so aptly describe is how so many of the middle class politically support their own demise.

[hrothgar]

Aberlour10, on 2011-January-29, 13:44, said:

The position of the leading European countries is easy to describe. They see nothing, hear nothing, so long as the dictator guarantees the stability and protects their interests. At the moment they bury heads in the sand ( as so often) hoping secretly the Pharao will survive somehow. A few are concerned, some speak about demoracy, human rights etc, but of course not very loud.

Here's an alternative view: Ex-colonial powers who got thrown out on their asses have a very limited ability to influence policy.

Here in the West, we talk about the "Suez Crisis". In the Arab world, its referred to as the "Tripartite Aggression" and its viewed as an attempt by the West to overthrow a popular Arab regime that was committed to modernization and nationalization.

For better or worse, the Europeans hands are tied. The Turks hands are tied in much the same way for much the same reason and the American's have pissed away any legitimacy they once had.

Even if the Europeans motives are as pure as snow, people aren't going to trust them...

In any case, rather than pissing and moaning that the Europeans aren't doing the right thing, how about positing some kind of positive agenda...
Just what do you think the Europeans should be doing and can do effectively?

[Aberlour10]

hrothgar, on 2011-January-30, 07:07, said:

Just what do you think the Europeans should be doing and can do effectively?

EU could do a lot, if they only want to do it. For example >>> Europen Union is the most important trading and economic partner of Egypt. There is an EU/EGYPT Action Plan that offers Egypt a lot of important economic privileges in the relationships with Europe.
These privileges and other cooperation could be make conditional on efforts concerning liberal and democratic reforms in Egypt. Real efforts not these that exist only on paper.
Europe doesn't do it, being deeply contended with Mubarak's regime. Brussels babbles only about "western values" etc etc...Its simply seekening hypocrisy for me.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-January-29, 09:28, said:

One of the things we are up against in the US is that rich and powerful people here view the Egyptian model as a positive one that the US itself should aspire to.

link?

[Winstonm]

Quote

I am just curious how Washington is going to make a balancing act between the human rights, freedom of speach for Egyptians and the support for the most important ally of the USA in this region >>>> dictator H. Mubarak.

Perhaps I am romantacizing, but my perception is that the vast bulk of the world's population understands that the U.S. does not represent in actuality what it portrays herself to be in rhetoric, that the only ones who continue to buy into a connection of political rhetoric with reality are the ignorant Americans themselves.

We may well have reached a point where no action by the U.S. can be effective, as any credibility the U.S. had in such matters has been shredded by the repercussions of the War on Terror.

First things first. It is my belief that the physician needs to heal himself first, before attempting world cures. It is imperative to reestablish the rule of law above the opinion of men. Otherwise, we will continue to be ruled by opinion.

[y66]

From Ross Douthat's op-ed in today's NYT:

The memory of Nasser is a reminder that even if post-Mubarak Egypt doesn’t descend into religious dictatorship, it’s still likely to lurch in a more anti-American direction. The long-term consequences of a more populist and nationalistic Egypt might be better for the United States than the stasis of the Mubarak era, and the terrorism that it helped inspire. But then again they might be worse. There are devils behind every door.

Americans don’t like to admit this. We take refuge in foreign policy systems: liberal internationalism or realpolitik, neoconservatism or noninterventionism. We have theories, and expect the facts to fall into line behind them. Support democracy, and stability will take care of itself. Don’t meddle, and nobody will meddle with you. International institutions will keep the peace. No, balance-of-power politics will do it.

But history makes fools of us all. We make deals with dictators, and reap the whirlwind of terrorism. We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine. We leap into humanitarian interventions, and get bloodied in Somalia. We stay out, and watch genocide engulf Rwanda. We intervene in Afghanistan and then depart, and watch the Taliban take over. We intervene in Afghanistan and stay, and end up trapped there, with no end in sight.

Sooner or later, the theories always fail. The world is too complicated for them, and too tragic. History has its upward arcs, but most crises require weighing unknowns against unknowns, and choosing between competing evils.

The only comfort, as we watch Egyptians struggle for their country’s future, is that some choices aren’t America’s to make.

[Hanoi5]

I sincerely hope that Libya goes next, just to see how Chavez deals with it. He was criticizing the States just yesterday on how they're dealing with the Egypt situation. But the same thing could occur to his ally in Libya... And Iran?

[PassedOut]

One of the things I like about David Brooks' columns is that he usually takes a long-term view of policies: The Quest for Dignity

Quote

Protesters invariably say that their government has insulted their dignity by ignoring their views. They have a certain template of what a “normal” country looks like — with democracy and openness — and they feel humiliated that their nation doesn’t measure up.

Moreover, the protesters tend to feel enormous pride that they are finally speaking up, even in the face of danger. They feel a surge of patriotism as the people of their country make themselves heard.

This quest for dignity has produced a remarkable democratic wave. More than 100 nations have seen democratic uprisings over the past few decades. More than 85 authoritarian governments have fallen. Somewhere around 62 countries have become democracies, loosely defined.

The experiences of these years teach us a few lessons. First, the foreign policy realists who say they tolerate authoritarian government for the sake of stability are ill informed. Autocracies are more fragile than any other form of government, by far.

Ill informed and dangerous: supporting an autocratic regime inevitably creates a bigger problem in the future than the one being solved in the present.

That does not mean that the US should go in with guns blazing to overturn those regimes. The people who live there will do that for themselves when ready. But when those people decide to do that, they should not have to face weapons supplied to their oppressor by the US government.

[Winstonm]

Quote

...overturn those regimes. The people who live there will do that for themselves when ready. But when those people decide to do that, they should not have to face weapons supplied to their oppressor by the US government.

I would keep a close eye out for any plain, unmarked cars cruising in your neighborhood - Lockheed Martin is rumored to have an ultra-secret program to locate and deliver "promising managerial candidates" to its Tunisia assembly plant.