Egyptians protesting across the country

[Broomstick]

"It's done" assuming the army is willing to go along with such orders. Sometimes armies do, sometimes they don't. I'll admit I don't know enough about the situation to predict either way in this case. That, and at a certain numbers can overwhelm guns.

I find it troubling that we know nothing at this point. This is how it used to be, of course - you knew Something Was Happening but didn't get the details until days or weeks later - but like everyone else I"ve come to take instant communication and images for granted.

[K. A. Pital]

They are the largest political organization that's not more or less intertwined with the Mubarak regime, which means that they are going to be an important player in the politics after Mubarak.

Do we know that as a fact, or is it simply because they're the most vocal opponent? The most vocal opponent is not the largest and most powerful opponent.

This isn't just about Israel vs Palestine, and the US is definitely concerned about conflict between Egypt and Israel. The last time a major war happened between them (1973), the US was extremely active in bringing it to an armistice, along with the efforts to establish a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.

No, Bass, once again you are wrong. The US was concerned the Israel-Egypt war could escalate into something bigger, like a US-Soviet war:

Later in the evening (9:35pm) of October 24–25, Brezhnev sent Nixon a "very urgent" letter. In that letter, Brezhnev began by noting that Israel was continuing to violate the ceasefire and it posed a challenge to both the US and USSR. He stressed the need to "implement" the ceasefire resolution and "invited" the US to join the Soviets "to compel observance of the cease-fire without delay" He then threatened "I will say it straight that if you find it impossible to act jointly with us in this matter, we should be faced with the necessity urgently to consider taking appropriate steps unilaterally. We cannot allow arbitrariness on the part of Israel." The Soviets were threatening to militarily intervene in the war on Egypt's side if they could not work together to enforce the ceasefire.

Kissinger immediately passed the message to Haig, who met with Nixon for 20 minutes around 10:30 pm, and reportedly empowered Kissinger to take any necessary action

It was extremely active because the USSR was also active. Right now, no war in the Middle East poses a threat of large-scale nuclear war or intervention by another superpower.

And to keep them abiding by the peace treaty with Israel.

Perhaps, although you could never know for sure. During the Yom Kippur war (see above) Israel effectively blackmailed the US into supporting by threatening to use nuclear weapons. Sadat starting to lick American boots was a quick and easy way for the USA to get another client state in the Middle East.

Or do you think it's immoral for a country to use monetary aid to develop better relations with the internationally recognized regime of a country? Would you prefer that we meddled in their sovereignty to try and create a "more democratic" outcome?

No, I do not believe it is immoral. I merely said that looking out for what's best for Egypt is not the same as looking out for what's best for the "predictable" Mubarak. For a long time, it seems the US treated the two as one and the same. Perhaps a time comes when it will no longer be that way.

I find your lack of concern over the possibility of Islamic fundamentalists taking power rather striking, considering all the trouble they've given Russia in places like Chechnya.

Islamic fundamentalists would go nowhere in Russia (and neither in Egypt and elsewhere, actually!) were these nations not corrupt oligarchies with a pauperized and opressed population. Attacking the symptom only exacerbates the problem. Perhaps the removal of the Mubarak oligarchy in Egypt will be beneficial in the long term. And perhaps removing the Russian oligarchy is the key to solving problems in Chechnya.

[Broomstick]

Aren't one or some of the groups calling for a two-term limit to the presidency in Egypt? Mubarek has been president for 30 years? That seems too long for any one man to hold the top job outside of a monarchy (which, frankly, is not a form of government I'm terribly thrilled with), that would seem to promote stasis at best rather than progress. And makes me wonder about vote rigging and fraud (apparently I'm not the only one).

Yep, Egypt is probably past due for some changes.

[Phantasee]

They've been under martial law for IIRC 30 years now. That's not a normal situation that can be indefinitely sustained.

[Broomstick]

I'd say 30 years under martial law is remarkable. But not in a good way.

[Zaune]

I'd say 30 years under martial law is remarkable. But not in a good way.

For a country that's arguably Middle Eastern and African, it's barely worth a raised eyebrow. I'm sure the fact we owned the place for a bit didn't exactly help.

[K. A. Pital]

I'd say 30 years under martial law is remarkable. But not in a good way.

For a country that's arguably Middle Eastern and African, it's barely worth a raised eyebrow. I'm sure the fact we owned the place for a bit didn't exactly help.

Depends on whom it did or didn't help. It surely didn't help Egypt much - not only it had a hundred thousand forced labourers die to build the Suez Channel that would serve the economic interests of the European empires, but later have a war when it tried to take that back. It surely did help Britain and France colonize Africa... yeah, I know.

[Guardsman Bass]

They are the largest political organization that's not more or less intertwined with the Mubarak regime, which means that they are going to be an important player in the politics after Mubarak.

Do we know that as a fact, or is it simply because they're the most vocal opponent? The most vocal opponent is not the largest and most powerful opponent.

Their candidates (running as independents, since the party itself is officially banned) won the largest number of opposition seats in Egypt's parliamentary elections in 2005. Those elections are a joke, but the fact that they won the largest number of them says something about their size in terms of the opposition movements in Egypt. Their actual size in terms of number of members is an open question (and tricky to answer, since, again, the party is banned), but everything I've read about them points out that they have both widespread branches as well as social services assistance that no other opposition party comes close to matching.

This isn't just about Israel vs Palestine, and the US is definitely concerned about conflict between Egypt and Israel. The last time a major war happened between them (1973), the US was extremely active in bringing it to an armistice, along with the efforts to establish a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.

No, Bass, once again you are wrong. The US was concerned the Israel-Egypt war could escalate into something bigger, like a US-Soviet war:

Later in the evening (9:35pm) of October 24–25, Brezhnev sent Nixon a "very urgent" letter. In that letter, Brezhnev began by noting that Israel was continuing to violate the ceasefire and it posed a challenge to both the US and USSR. He stressed the need to "implement" the ceasefire resolution and "invited" the US to join the Soviets "to compel observance of the cease-fire without delay" He then threatened "I will say it straight that if you find it impossible to act jointly with us in this matter, we should be faced with the necessity urgently to consider taking appropriate steps unilaterally. We cannot allow arbitrariness on the part of Israel." The Soviets were threatening to militarily intervene in the war on Egypt's side if they could not work together to enforce the ceasefire.

Kissinger immediately passed the message to Haig, who met with Nixon for 20 minutes around 10:30 pm, and reportedly empowered Kissinger to take any necessary action

It was extremely active because the USSR was also active. Right now, no war in the Middle East poses a threat of large-scale nuclear war or intervention by another superpower.

That doesn't really apply in the case of the Camp David Accords. Assuming the peace treaty talks had failed (and they almost did), it was still quite possible for the US to keep Sadat in their camp, if not quite as well as they would be if they got the Sinai back. At worst, Sadat runs back to the Soviets, and we just end up in the same situation that we were in before the Yom Kippur War.

Or do you think it's immoral for a country to use monetary aid to develop better relations with the internationally recognized regime of a country? Would you prefer that we meddled in their sovereignty to try and create a "more democratic" outcome?

No, I do not believe it is immoral. I merely said that looking out for what's best for Egypt is not the same as looking out for what's best for the "predictable" Mubarak. For a long time, it seems the US treated the two as one and the same. Perhaps a time comes when it will no longer be that way.

The US isn't really looking out for what's best for Egypt. Mubarak is favored, but that's because he's the existing guy as well as a US client, and less risky than some unknown Egyptian government that might arise from elections/coup/whatever. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's good for Egypt.

I find your lack of concern over the possibility of Islamic fundamentalists taking power rather striking, considering all the trouble they've given Russia in places like Chechnya.

Islamic fundamentalists would go nowhere in Russia (and neither in Egypt and elsewhere, actually!) were these nations not corrupt oligarchies with a pauperized and opressed population. Attacking the symptom only exacerbates the problem. Perhaps the removal of the Mubarak oligarchy in Egypt will be beneficial in the long term. And perhaps removing the Russian oligarchy is the key to solving problems in Chechnya.

Removing the Mubarak regime will be beneficial in the long term (unless they just end up with another military dictator). In the short term, though, it's a source of instability and unpredictability in a very tense neighborhood for the US. Why shouldn't they be uncomfortable and wary about whether or not this will threaten their interests?

[Guardsman Bass]

On further thought, I agree that the predominant reason for the US working with Egypt and Israel to work out a peace treaty was to gain a new client state at the expense of the Soviets. I do think the US still has an interest in keeping the peace between Israel and Egypt, since they didn't scale back funding after the end of the Cold War to Egypt (which could have happened - look at what happened to Pakistan in the wake of the end of the Cold War in terms of US support, and they were a US ally longer than Egypt).

[Jadeite]

Apparently the situation in the Suez is escalating pretty rapidly. The only link I have available at the moment is very poor english, so it's not worth reposting. In summary, police shot a Bedouin protester, and his tribe/clan/whatever retaliated by peppering a police station with gunfire and RPG rounds. A lot of pictures coming out of Suez look like an urban battlefield.

The Guardian's blog reports police in Cairo are dumping gasoline on the streets in an attempt to control the imminent protests.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I rather shocked that the US--citadel of freedom, democracy, freedom, liberty, freedom, jutsice, freedom and also freedom--supported a 30-year police state under a ruthless despot.

And by shocked I mean, not surprised at all.

It would be nice if a bloodless revolt could bring this shithead to heel, but obviously that ship has sailed, and all I can really do now (being a powerelss, fat, Black kid from the US fuming on the internet) is wish the protestors and anti-government forces the best and hope they win the day. As "unstable" as it may be, if it ends up with something even slightly less malevolent at least the Egyptian people will be better off.

30-fucking-year martial law, fucking absurd.

I heard the Tunisian uprising that sparked this was over a guy who killed himself after the government fucked with him. I guess if you get pushed hard enough eventually you either die or push back, or both in this case.

[Broomstick]

I rather shocked that the US--citadel of freedom, democracy, freedom, liberty, freedom, jutsice, freedom and also freedom--supported a 30-year police state under a ruthless despot.

And by shocked I mean, not surprised at all.

The US acts in the interests of the US, not in the interest of the Egyptian people. Hell, the US government often doesn't act in the best interests of the American people, much less anyone else.

[18-Till-I-Die]

"Acting in your interests" is one thing, supporting a brutal dictatorship because it's convenient to do so is absurd. But then again, as you said, the government scarcely even tries to help the american public let alone someone else.

And really I am genuinely not surprised at this. I just get very tired of conservitives constantly saying what a wonderful country we all live in and how the Founding Fathers believed so much in freedom and shit. Meanwhile people in Arizona are dying without organ transplants because the governor is a sociopath, and we're propping up dictatorships. It's bullshit, and it irks me when people bullshit, especially so shamelessly.

[Broomstick]

Uh... I say this with a heavy heart, but... welcome to adulthood, when you find out the world can be a truly shitty place.

[D.Turtle]

Unfortunately, the US isn't alone in doing that. The EU, and especially France, supported the dictatorship in Tunisia for quite a long time.

Here from an interview in Spiegel:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The European Union hasn't exactly excelled itself in its handling of Tunisia. The deposed president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, was fawned over for decades as the supposed guarantor of political stability, while the EU simply turned a blind eye to torture and repression. Do you regard Europe as being complicit?

Alvaro de Vasconcelos: I have to agree there. The European Union, and especially the member states geographically closest to Tunisia, accepted Ben Ali's regime for far too long. They saw the status quo as a safer option than experiments with democracy. The underlying reason for this is the Europeans' fear that Islamists could gain power. Many still consider authoritarian Arab regimes to be the lesser evil.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Ben Ali used this fear very effectively to win support for his own dictatorship.

De Vasconcelos: The question is which Islamists we're talking about here. The largest Islamist movement in Tunisia, the Ennahda party, is comparatively moderate; it has nothing in common with extremist and jihadist groups at the other end of the spectrum. Political Islam is not a homogeneous bloc. There are significant ideological differences between, say, the Justice and Development Party (PJD) in Morocco, the AKP (Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party) in Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Apart from that, Ben Ali did not only repress the religious opposition, he also did away with the secular opposition. He nipped any possible manifestations of democracy in the bud -- which actually tended to strengthen the extremists as a result.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: One EU member state had especially close ties to the Tunisian dictator, namely France. French Foreign Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie even offered Ben Ali "the know-how of (France's) security forces" to help control the uprising. Isn't that embarrassing for Paris?

De Vasconcelos: Well, the northern EU member states also cooperated with Ben Ali, even if the southern states certainly benefited more directly. When it comes to France, it seems to me the fundamental question is how a former colonial power should interact with its former colony. I'm Portuguese, and my country has very similar difficulties in finding a balanced relationship with its former colonies.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But who should have used its ties to Tunisia to push for more reforms, if not France?

De Vasconcelos: Of course former colonial powers are always more present and influential. They're the ones who need to defend the EU's values on the frontlines. But on the other hand, this is not just about France. In fairness, we have to acknowledge that nearly all the EU's members discussed the "Tunisian model," with its mixture of authoritarian rule and halfway solid economic development, as a model for success. Even in Morocco, some people were starting to praise Ben Ali. But no one in Europe or North Africa can do this seriously anymore after the revolution in Tunisia. The Ben Ali model has failed permanently.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Does that mean it's high time for the EU to concern itself with the observance of human rights on its own doorstep, and not only with setting up functioning market economies?

De Vasconcelos: We need both. It's wrong to focus only on economic cooperation and then to hope that a sufficiently stable system will become democratic more or less by itself. The EU needs to urge its neighbors to pursue both economic stability and political modernization in equal measures.

[Zed]

If the European Union pushes for political reform in its former colonies, it will be accused of imperialism. Belgium has repeatedly criticized the dictatorial regime and the corruption that are present in the Congo, and that has only induced a great deal of tension, including a temporary suspension of diplomatic relations. Interference from the former colonizer is not generally accepted in former colonies.

[Broomstick]

Unfortunately, the US isn't alone in doing that. The EU, and especially France, supported the dictatorship in Tunisia for quite a long time.

Every nation does this, it's just that US is big enough and strong enough that it can have more effect. Soviets were the same way. So were the British back in their Imperial days, and every other major power all the way back to Ancient Egypt and Sumer.

If the European Union pushes for political reform in its former colonies, it will be accused of imperialism. Belgium has repeatedly criticized the dictatorial regime and the corruption that are present in the Congo, and that has only induced a great deal of tension, including a temporary suspension of diplomatic relations. Interference from the former colonizer is not generally accepted in former colonies.

True. Sometimes a country without a history of being a colonizer in a region can pull it off, but in many places ANY European or country largely Euro-descended will simply not be trusted at all.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Uh... I say this with a heavy heart, but... welcome to adulthood, when you find out the world can be a truly shitty place.

I don't know, I would personally disagree with that. My experience, however impressive or unimpressive it may be, the world isn't a shitty place unless people let it be shitty, when people care enough about what's going on to change things the situation can very rapidly and dramatically change. For better or worse, that's another story.

This is actually a fairly good example. Now whatever comes next is still up in the air but at least things are going to shift somewhat and possibly for the better. I'm sure six months ago they never thought they'd get to even this point.

[Broomstick]

When revolution comes it can seem rather sudden. Remember the Berlin Wall? It seemed eternal then suddenly *>POOF!<* it's down and historians are saying "Wait! Wait! Give us a piece for a museum before it's all gone!"

Of course, when the historians go back and really look there's a period of bottled up unrest before that moment, which might be decades long. We just don't see it in real time.

Sure, the world is not all bad, but there are enough shitheads with enough power to make things icky for the rest of us on at least a part time basis.

[Raj Ahten]

Frankly I've been disgusted with the US news coverage of the situation in Egypt. They keep mentioning how "vital" Mubarak is without really talking about what a piece of shit he is. Basically as I see it our interest here is paying Egypt billions to not attack Israel. And this can't continue after the dictator is gone because......? Always the fear about the Muslim Brotherhood and the militants. Well maybe the people have turned to the militants because they are the only options in the oppressive states we support? Our ability to shit all over our core values is on full display.

[Steven Snyder]

Reports are coming in that the army is entering the capital and the populace is cheering them. Gunfire reported at government buildings. Obvious impression is that the government is about to fall.

[Broomstick]

Frankly I've been disgusted with the US news coverage of the situation in Egypt. They keep mentioning how "vital" Mubarak is without really talking about what a piece of shit he is. Basically as I see it our interest here is paying Egypt billions to not attack Israel.

Yes, I'd say that's a fair assessment.

And this can't continue after the dictator is gone because......?

It's not that it can't continue, it's that our government is afraid it won't. If Mubarak does fall I have no doubt the US will prattle something about "the people have spoken" and try to make nice with whoever winds up in charge. The question then becomes whether or not the new guys want to play ball with the US. The US government fears a repeat of the overthrown of the Shah of Iran or Batista of Cuba, where the successors absolutely wanted nothing to do with the US and the result was an allied nation became an enemy.

This in no way implies that the US has no responsibility for that result, or that it does. (It does have some, of course, if it's meddling at all. How much varies on the situation and the level of US involvement)

[Dartzap]

There was a interesting bit on the Beeb earlier where the area editor was talking to one of the BBC Arabic reporters. He went off to check something, and came back covered in blood from a head wound. Apparently the undercover police were attempting to spirit reporters away from the protests.

Theres remarkably little religious element to this as well, the Coptics and the Muslims are getting on quite well at the moment...

[Gerald Tarrant]

A blogger/editor for the Atlantic posted this letter from one of her readers.

excerpt.

This insistence on staying in power comes against the backdrop of widespread unemployment, corruption, high levels of poverty, high levels of illiteracy, and failure to providie the basic services--from decent transportation, to clean streets, to workable traffic, to basic education.

What is worse is that all this is coupled with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the streets, the schools, the offices, the mosques, and the increased number of religious TV stations to which the regime has turned a blind eye. This has led to sectarian problems and repeated violence against the Copts, the Christian minority in Egypt that numbers about 15% of the population according to a recent statement by the prominant writer Mohammad Hassanein Heikal. The regime failed in preserving the national unity between the Muslim majority and the Coptic minority, which was strong in the Nasser era and before it. This led to the increasing anger of the Copts against the regime who failed to protect them. At the end the regime had no support except among the few high profile business people who accomulated huge wealth.

Link

[Guardsman Bass]

I've got the live-blogging by both The Guardian and Al Jazeera English open in separate tabs. Interesting stuff.

The ruling party's headquarters was set on fire (unfortunately, it's close to the national museum), and Mubarak has extended the curfew to the entire country as well as sending the army into several of the cities.

We'll have to see what the Army's main reaction is. If they side with the protestors, then Mubarak is finished - the police haven't been able to quell the protests. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we'll see him flee the country in the next couple of days.

EDIT: It looks like the Army is still siding with Mubarak in Cairo. The Guardian is reporting that it drove off protestors attempting to seize the main building of the state television network in Cairo.