BF2S Forums Egypt Unrest.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Go find those figures and we'll see.

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

yawn

Really, don't ask questions if you're not going to be able to understand the answer.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Still waiting on the fap question.

For most of recent diplomatic history, American policy in the Mideast has tended to emphasize the stability of friendly regimes over the democratic aspirations of Arab populations. This approach is sometimes called foreign policy realism. The reality on the streets in Egypt is one result.

In the week since demonstrations began against Hosni Mubarak's regime, that U.S. ally and the Arab world's largest state has been gripped by disorder and uncertainty. Mr. Mubarak said last night he won't seek re-election later this year, though he intends to remain in power until then to negotiate a peaceful transition. This announcement is welcome, though it may not be enough at this late date to satisfy an opposition that now controls the streets. Other than the army, the group best organized to run Egypt if order breaks down is the Islamist and anti-American Muslim Brotherhood.

So much for that vaunted stability.
***

No one knows how all of this will unfold in the coming weeks, but as we watch it's worth looking back at how we got to this unhappy pass. A succession crisis in Egypt was not unforeseen, and many people saw the need to develop alternatives to Mr. Mubarak and radical Islam.

No less than President George W. Bush put it this way in 2003 in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe—because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export."

This became known as his "Freedom Agenda," and in his second inaugural Mr. Bush committed America to carry out "the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments."

It is hard to overstate how roundly this agenda was denounced by the U.S. foreign policy establishment on both the left and right. Headlines captured the derision: "The Freedom Crusade" (National Interest) and "Freedom Fraud" (American Prospect). "Historical, ideological and political claptrap," wrote Les Gelb, former head of the Council on Foreign Relations, in 2005 in remarks typical of the liberal realist school.

In spite of his detractors, Mr. Bush persevered for the first part of his second term. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice even took the theme to Cairo in 2005 with a pointed speech. "For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East—and we achieved neither," she said. "Now, we are taking a different course." That same year, she cancelled a trip there as a protest against the jailing of opposition presidential candidate Ayman Nour. The Egyptians released him.

Journalist Eli Lake, who lived in Egypt at the time, recounts on The New Republic website what happened in the next few months. Mr. Mubarak routed Mr. Nour in a presidential election and then allowed a relatively free round of parliamentary elections. But in the second and third rounds, police ambushed polling stations and used tear gas to disperse voters. The U.S. State Department said almost nothing.

Mr. Nour was soon back in prison. When U.S. ambassador to Egypt at the time, Frank Ricciardone, was asked about Mr. Nour's case at a Cairo "model American Congress," he replied: "Do you know I would actually like to ask all of you in this room that question. Because I bet if there are a hundred people, I bet I'd get a hundred different answers." After some rambling, he added: "You know, if Egyptians are not sure what to make of this, then I hope you will forgive Americans for not understanding the complexity of this case."

Mr. Mubarak knew whose side the Americans were really on.

The difficult war in Iraq, the GOP wipeout in the 2006 midterms and Hamas's election victory in Gaza all turned the Bush Administration's gaze elsewhere. Ms. Rice preferred to focus on the realist holy grail of the Mideast "peace process," and she was soon back in Cairo singing a softer tune on political freedom. Still, relations with Mr. Mubarak were strained, and he didn't visit the White House through the end of the Bush Presidency.

Enter Senator Barack Obama, who wrote in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 2007 that "In the Islamic world and beyond, combating the terrorists' prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy." Mr. Obama's form of realism was different from the traditional kind that at least consistently extols the pursuit of raw national interest. Instead, he stressed America's own moral weaknesses and that "to build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people."

As President, his foreign policy has focused instead on renewing relations with the world's nastier characters—Russia's Vladimir Putin, the Chinese Communists and Arab governments.

The Egyptians quickly responded by telling the new Administration to drop the Bush emphasis on political reform. "Wherever [Mr. Mubarak] has seen these U.S. efforts, he can point to the chaos and loss of stability that ensued," reported current U.S. ambassador to Cairo Margaret Scobey in a 2009 diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

Speaking before an audience at Cairo University in June 2009, President Obama called for a "new beginning" between the U.S. and the Muslim world. He repeated some Bush talking points, expressing his commitment "to governments that reflect the will of the people" and "freedom to live as you choose." He even used the word "democracy."

But around the same time, the Administration sent a different signal. The U.S. cut support for democracy promotion programs in Egypt by more than half, after Ambassador Scobey advised that such programs annoyed Mr. Mubarak. This past November, the regime waved off U.S. calls for international monitors for parliamentary elections and cracked down on the opposition and media. The election was a fiasco of fraud, and again the U.S. said little.
***

This record couldn't be more of a contrast with how the Reagan Administration pursued reform under dictators friendly to U.S. interests in the Philippines and South Korea. There, the Administration spent years promoting open elections, building ties to leaders across society, and protecting opposition leaders from harm. When the public revolts eventually came, U.S. officials had credibility with all sides and were able to press a peaceful and stable transition. Reagan was a realist who understood that reality had to accommodate human aspirations for freedom.

In Egypt, by contrast, the Obama Administration has been caught on its back foot, scrambling to keep up with events. Some of the same people who reviled Mr. Bush for pushing democracy—Senator John Kerry—are now even saying the U.S. should demand Mr. Mubarak's ouster. Yesterday in advance of Mr. Mubarak's remarks, White House officials leaked that Mr. Obama had urged the Egyptian not to run for re-election—another frantic effort to get some political credit for events that were already inevitable and still may be too little, too late.

Now our policy choices are few and risky. How much better positioned would we be in Egypt today if we were able to take some credit for the calls for freedom and democratic change?

Dilbert_X wrote:

dayarath wrote:

What the fuck Dilbert? Are you trying to argue that economic growth doesn't benefit a country?

Anyway, I heard that while the economy has grown 7%, there was 10% inflation aswell, how does this work out?

I'm arguing that if the economy is shit to begin with and most of the population in poverty 6-7% growth barely matters.

Depends on a lot of things, but say wages went up 7% and prices went up 10% then in fact they're 3% worse off than before.

Alternatively, say wages did not go up but the 7% expansion went entirely into reducing unemployement then the average egyptian will be 10% worse off than before - but a few will be better off as they are now working.

Another alternative, say the economy expanded 7%, large companies retained much of that as profit and the govt took a big slice to buy more tanks and fighter jets - the average egyptian would be 10% worse off and the unemployed still pissed with the govt.

No doubt it will actually be much more complex than the above but 6-7% growth with 10% inflation is probably not win for Adbul the Plumber - hence he wants a new govt and a second hand Merc in Gold metallic so he can get into the taxi business.

Mekstizzle wrote:

You guys are so retarded in your view that this is a terrorist/islamic uprising, you guys would believe anything as long as it helps you belittle other people in the ways you love doing so

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-02-02 09:12:02)