News Blackout in Egypt

Sounds a bit Tienanmen-like.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=1773964288 the man, the myth, the legend.

Not really. Eqypt is not expelling foreign journalists, so there is a ton of news coming out.

The U.S. is messing up with its foreign policy…they bet too early on Mubarak’s fall, and they offended their allies in the region and betrayed Mubarak. Just about anyone could have handled this better than the folks at the Whitehouse!

I wonder how President Palin would have handled it. If she could see Egypt from her house that is.

What you see now on TV has been going on for 30 years in Egypt. It just happens to be on TV now. These thugs are guns for hire, you can hire them for $10 /day to kick the shi*t out of anyone you don’t like. They’re more expensive during “elections” ( supply/demand) . If the cameras are gone, everyone on Tahrir square will be executed, no doubt about it.

True, mo, but this is why Mubarak asked for an orderly transfer of power…to avoid these kinds of unfortunate situations. The demonstrators, blame it on lack of experience, should not have kep cornering the president when he already yielded to their demands of him not running for president…open elections, changing the constitution (article 76 and 77), promising to try all thugs, etc. They should have stopped right there. As a reaction, the silent majority decided it was enough and they took to the streets. Thugs and what not jumped in as well.

unfortunately, the USA has traded security, safety, and stability in these dictatorships for freedom, and have gotten neither. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

No doubt, someone in power has at least planned a Tienanmen Square type response by now. Whether Mubarak would pull the trigger on it or not is still an open question (my guess is that he won’t, but it’s not at all out of the realm of possibility). One difference between Egypt and China on this score is that the Party in China rules as an institution, whereas Mubarak rules more as a personalist or strongman. For example, succession in China is not hereditary - the Party controls succession, but it operates as an institution, not an extension of a single man or his family. In Egypt, it was widely believed that Mubarak was grooming his son Gamal as successor, which implies that is personal rule rather than institutional rule which has dictatorial power there. Institutions are often better able to get the army to follow suit, because their power base tends to be more evenly spread through society. If the top party officials somehow are pushed out of power, the remaining party officials are still likely to command the institutions. In a personal regime, once the top is decapitated or incapacitated, it’s a free for all. This means that the military has to make more decisions about where their loyalties lie. If an institution rules, the consequences for disobediance are more likely to be punished, whereas if an individual person is calling the shots, the military only bets primarily on whether that person will continue in power or not. So Mubarak is much more likely to have trouble controling the army than the Chinese in Tienanmen. Even so, in Tienanmen, the Party had to call in troops from the countryside before they found people willing to fire on the crowds.

What I don’t understand is, why US messes up in such cases. They can go through lot of ridicule to build the perception that they don’t hate muslims and they support democracy, but when there is a critical opportunity they just do otherwise. I really don’t understand this. A little support from US this time, can cement America’s image as pro democracy power. But Obama just caught his 30 seconds of fame when Cairo’s streets were melting with power struggle. Now, Obama is back in closet, it’s only detrimental to America’s image worldwide, it gives a perception that US is supporting Mubarak’s struggle to gain power again, and if Obama comes saying “we are pro democracy” when the next clash happens on streets, that would just prove that America doesn’t give a shit about democracy, it can change sides seeing whichever is heavier. Though US has no obligation to interfere, but if you call yourself a superpower, and demands people honour your practices, then you must act like one. It’s not that it won’t affect US, this side flipping business which Obama Administration is doing currently, will only lead to an image of an opportunist administration, and America will just accelerate depletion of trust bank it has! When America loses trust, there are several beneficiaries, biggest one is Muslim Brotherhood. What worries me is that, if Mubarak’s efforts to regain power again fails, and there’s bloodshed, no doubt there will be Muslim Brotherhood coming to power. Obama administration is playing a huge gamble right now, by keeping quite on Mubarak’s efforts to kill the revolution after once supporting the revolution on it’s peak. On this forum we can talk rationally, but irrationality is by far in majority, which lead opportunists to take advantage of such situations. And yes it’s already feeding to the “perception” that you can trust communists but not America, although in reality every administration is opportunist!

Yes, but it also sends a message to other US allied dictators that the US will not support them when they need it. The US needs to balance many different perceptions when they deal with egypt.

Bernanke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I don’t understand is, why US messes up in > such cases. They can go through lot of ridicule to > build the perception that they don’t hate muslims > and they support democracy, but when there is a > critical opportunity they just do otherwise. I > really don’t understand this. > > A little support from US this time, can cement > America’s image as pro democracy power. But Obama > just caught his 30 seconds of fame when Cairo’s > streets were melting with power struggle. Now, > Obama is back in closet, it’s only detrimental to > America’s image worldwide, it gives a perception > that US is supporting Mubarak’s struggle to gain > power again, and if Obama comes saying “we are pro > democracy” when the next clash happens on streets, > that would just prove that America doesn’t give a > shit about democracy, it can change sides seeing > whichever is heavier. Though US has no obligation > to interfere, but if you call yourself a > superpower, and demands people honour your > practices, then you must act like one. > > It’s not that it won’t affect US, this side > flipping business which Obama Administration is > doing currently, will only lead to an image of an > opportunist administration, and America will just > accelerate depletion of trust bank it has! > > When America loses trust, there are several > beneficiaries, biggest one is Muslim Brotherhood. > What worries me is that, if Mubarak’s efforts to > regain power again fails, and there’s bloodshed, > no doubt there will be Muslim Brotherhood coming > to power. Obama administration is playing a huge > gamble right now, by keeping quite on Mubarak’s > efforts to kill the revolution after once > supporting the revolution on it’s peak. > > On this forum we can talk rationally, but > irrationality is by far in majority, which lead > opportunists to take advantage of such situations. > And yes it’s already feeding to the “perception” > that you can trust communists but not America, > although in reality every administration is > opportunist! Why does America have to get involved in everything. To some people (like you) we can’t do anything right. “America is getting too involvled.” “America is not showing support.” We have to straddle the fence on this one. Mubarak has said he wont run again. That’s a start. Lets put down the pitchforks and see if this leads to some improvements. All I really care about is that Egypt doesn’t go about starting wars with Israel or funding terrorism. If that means supporting a dictator then so be it. Besides democracy in Arab countries has been proven to not work. Eventually hardline Islamic fundamentalists will seize power, and be another pain in our side.

mo34 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What you see now on TV has been going on for 30 > years in Egypt. It just happens to be on TV now. > These thugs are guns for hire, you can hire them > for $10 /day to kick the shi*t out of anyone you > don’t like. They’re more expensive during > “elections” ( supply/demand) . > > If the cameras are gone, everyone on Tahrir square > will be executed, no doubt about it. Mo, I don’t necessarily agree with this. I was in Egypt for several weeks December 2009. We were staying in cheap local hotels and spent a lot of time out in the streets of Giza at night, so it’s not like we were barricaded in some resort. Definitely made some Egyptian friends (they haven’t been posting on facebook lately) and listened to them talk politics (it was weird to hear the one say he thought Saddam was a great leader). Their laws and penalties are very harsh (Muslim nation), but I wouldn’t have described the atmosphere as dangerous or militarily oppressive and they didn’t see it that way either. However, there was some dissent about the quality of the government, but ultimately, I think it all really comes down to the high food prices right now. I had a history teacher in high school who would consistently point out that failure to feed the people will result in upheaval and well fed people will always be easily contained. I think that holds true more times than not. I just question if a new government will be able to change that or if they’re just making empty promises. Their economy is built on tourism which revolves around their distant past. Everywhere you go, every conversation you have is filled with stories of the greatness of ancient Egypt and how the rest of the world is just imitating ancient Egyptian methods, etc. My travel companion and I both found this constant theme irritating. Their economy needs a long term structural overhaul and re-balancing to include a future. This can take decades to develop. But more importantly, such an overhaul will never succeed until the people change their mentality and begin to pull their attention away from the distant past and look to the future. I don’t think this is a theme any party over there is talking about, instead it’s a lot of “we want improvements now”. As long as they stick to quick fixes, dissension will continue and progress will not occur.

The government’s attitude toward foreign policy is no different than their attitude towards fiscal policy. It has a short-term focus. Egypt will be worse off in the short to medium term when Mubarak leaves. But no president wants to go through the potential turmoil that will arise. Keeping someone that prones stability is a safer option than the alternative.

Dreary Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > True, mo, but this is why Mubarak asked for an > orderly transfer of power…to avoid these kinds > of unfortunate situations. The demonstrators, > blame it on lack of experience, should not have > kep cornering the president when he already > yielded to their demands of him not running for > president…open elections, changing the > constitution (article 76 and 77), promising to try > all thugs, etc. They should have stopped right > there. As a reaction, the silent majority decided > it was enough and they took to the streets. Thugs > and what not jumped in as well. Dreary, Let me clarify why the pro-democracy groups are still fighting: 1 - When Mubarak came to power he promised on TV that he would run for a maximum of 2 terms. He’s been around for 5 and was getting ready for number 6. So taking this guy by his word does not make sense. People gave their lives for change and this would not be change. Most Egyptians see a scenario where come September, pro-Mubarak paid protesters take over the streets and ask for him to “Please save Egypt and run one more time …” You see the picture. 2 - When he declared that he will ask the Parliament to change the constitution to allow more people to run for president and to put terms limits back in the constitution, you have to remember two things: a - This Parliament is 95% ruling party members who have all been “elected” through thugs and other intimidation tactics ( Police, no one running against them, …) and thus can not be trusted with making any meaningful change since they have profited handsomely from the status quo. b - In 2005 with the G.W Bush push for democracy, Mubarak asked the Parliament the same request ( Please change the constitution to allow open elections rather than a referendum on him - where he averaged 90% of YES votes off-course). They came back with disaster changes where the new conditions to run for President apply only to him and his Son . So you can see where this is going as well. 3 - He did not mention anything about allowing the Judicial branch to monitor elections, which was the case before 2005. Currently NDP affiliates are the ones in charge of monitoring elections, so you can see how having free and fair elections under the current system is almost impossible. I am Egyptian and I can tell you that what people are fighting for now is not Mubarak per se, but for an Egypt that belongs to the ranks of developed and enlightened democracies and not the garbage life we currently have.

Q for Egyptians - has Egypt always identified itself as an Arab nation? To me it seems like it has more in common with other nations of the Maghreb like Algeria/Tunisia than countries of the Persian Gulf/Arabia/Iraq. Also, do Egyptians culturally identify with the ancient Egyptians or is their national identity considered only formed after the Arab invasion? Curious because in some countries (Pakistan), national identity is certainly not a continuation of the pre-Islamic culture.

I’m not Egyptian, but I have colleagues who are Egypt specialists, know the politics, history, language (Arabic), etc… They report that today’s Egyptian identity basically begins with the Arab conquests. The Pharonic, Ptolmaic, Roman, and Byzantine periods are treated more as “interesting things that happened there,” much the same way that most US nationals believe that US history begins with the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock (or possibly the Jamestown colony). Obviously the Native Americans disagree with that.

thepinkman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Why does America have to get involved in > everything. To some people (like you) we can’t do > anything right. “America is getting too > involvled.” “America is not showing support.” > > We have to straddle the fence on this one. > Mubarak has said he wont run again. That’s a > start. Lets put down the pitchforks and see if > this leads to some improvements. > > All I really care about is that Egypt doesn’t go > about starting wars with Israel or funding > terrorism. If that means supporting a dictator > then so be it. Besides democracy in Arab > countries has been proven to not work. Eventually > hardline Islamic fundamentalists will seize power, > and be another pain in our side. PS: following commentary is only for thepinkman, who “thinks” that people outside America rely on America for actions on their behalf. That’s what even I care, and that’s precisely what the point is. America ditches the revolution, and it’s a certainty that Muslim Brotherhood will gain power in case of failed efforts to restore dictatorship through proxy govt. If that happens, it’ll be terribly costly to America again, doesn’t matter to me any bit, neither do I care whatever happens to US or Isreal or Egypt or whatever, I’m just trying to understand if there really isn’t any other solution than supporting dictatorship. Neither I’m saying Obama should get in to install proper democracy, no, but a whitewash with proper propaganda to install a proxy govt can be really helpful rather than supporting outright dictatorship. To what people will turn to in case of a revolution fails?.. Islamic Fundamentalism, which has proved it’s ability to seize power with remarkable accuracy, fundamentalists aren’t corrupt and you can’t buy them against their ideals. So Fundamentalists have lot of plus points to attract the depressed crowd. People hate fundamentalism anywhere, it’s the hopelessness which fuels it. People would rather support Muslim Brotherhood than Mubarak, if they feel hopeless even after a revolution. Majority of people living in these emerging countries are poor and has nothing more in life than dignity and hope, they are extremely easy to manipulate, you won’t experience this in US. We can talk about what’s rationally correct to support world economy without giving a shit about depressed people, same way they can support fundamentalists without giving a shit about world economy. Seriously, they have literally noone else to turn to in case the revolution fails, human rights and things like that are just a whitewash at such places. And really they don’t give a shit about, what the GDP is, what the unemployment rate is, what the deficit is, they don’t even know if it’s a recession or boom, or whatever happens to those bond yields, it really doesn’t affect them much, boom or bust they are licking the dust, they can support anyone who offers them even a little right to dignity. They are well adept to live in restriction too, doesn’t matters to them if the fundamentalists impose few other restrictions too. I have travelled a lot outside metros in my country, in towns and villages… and frankly you’ll be surprised by knowing how little they know about what is happening in their country and world, and how easily they can be manipulated. Revolution might have started by young people in Cairo, but it has installed Muslim Brotherhood’s root in cities. To topple the govt they just need to apply the standard formula, take money from cities, operate from outside the cities where even American missiles can’t find them, all they needed were connections which the revolution has offered them irrespective of it’s success. That’s what I’m worried about, not about American policy, or what America does or doesn’t.

thepinkman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have to straddle the fence on this one. > Mubarak has said he wont run again. That’s a > start. Lets put down the pitchforks and see if > this leads to some improvements. > This was the same attitude which created Taliban, and Castro and Chavez… and what not, short term solutions can be insanely costly in long term!

Dreary Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The U.S. is messing up with its foreign > policy…they bet too early on Mubarak’s fall, > and they offended their allies in the region and > betrayed Mubarak. Just about anyone could have > handled this better than the folks at the > Whitehouse! This situation has yet to play out so it is far too early to come to that conclusion.