US Sec of State Rice criticizes govt of US ally Egypt

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MrFun
Or maybe it's just that Condi lurks here on Apolyton, and she saw my post.

Ok, somebody search her speeches for "my words are backed by nuclear weapons"

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


What substantively did we do for eastern europe in the 80's aside from words? Yet the words were appreciated by dissidents there. Words matter in authoritarian regimes, which is why they go to so much trouble to censor them. Why Serb et al were so outraged at a few WORDS expressed by western leaders about Ukraine. Words matter in diplomacy. They carry the implied threat of greater action. Simply by implication, they change the political dynamic.

GePaps cynicism about words and diplomacy would make him fit very well among certain wingnut types I know.

Except that in NONE of the cases you mentioned was the US speaking about a crucial ally which we bankroll to the tune of 2 Billion dollars a year.

That is the simple difference.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is kind of interesting that Condi is taking all these regimes to talks, while Rumsfeld and the Pentagon are praising them. It's an interesting dicotomy. State still gets the short end, even though Rice is in charge.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that in NONE of the cases you mentioned was the US speaking about a crucial ally which we bankroll to the tune of 2 Billion dollars a year.

That is the simple difference.

if someone whos bankrolling me criticizes something im doing, with words, only, im much more likely to respond than if someone who is NOT bankrolling me criticizes me with words only.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is kind of interesting that Condi is taking all these regimes to talks, while Rumsfeld and the Pentagon are praising them. It's an interesting dicotomy. State still gets the short end, even though Rice is in charge.

where is Rummy praising the political status quo in Egypt or KSA?

There is a dispute about Uzbekistan, which weve discussed. DoD got slapped down on that one.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


if someone whos bankrolling me criticizes something im doing, with words, only, im much more likely to respond than if someone who is NOT bankrolling me criticizes me with words only.

Only if you thought there was a chance in hell they would actually stop funding you, but when, as Imran said, the true powers in the admin. praise you and this ally expects you to do things for them, no, words are just that, words.

Countries not bankrolling you and who are not friends (if not outright enemies) might do things like fund the opposition, rebels, or even attack.

None of these are worries that the Egyptians will hold for a nano second.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Only if you thought there was a chance in hell they would actually stop funding you, but when, as Imran said, the true powers in the admin. praise you and this ally expects you to do things for them, no, words are just that, words.

Countries not bankrolling you and who are not friends (if not outright enemies) might do things like fund the opposition, rebels, or even attack.

None of these are worries that the Egyptians will hold for a nano second.

Condi has only been at State these last 6 months, but the buzz i hear is that shes the true power, now, not Rummy. As i said, i see no cite that DoD has praised the political status quo in Egypt.

Yes, we do expect Egypt to do things for us. Thats inevitable, given the situation in Gaza. A week ago the Egyptian authorities thought we needed them so bad that we wouldnt criticize them in public. Now they now we will, though we will not threaten the aid (at least in public) They also know that if they act as we ask, we WONT threaten the aid.

Look, if you are an employer, and you VALUE that employee, but you want them to change, you dont start by threatening to fire them. You start by letting them know youre unhappy with something theyve done. Then you see how they respond. Ditto if you are an employee, and youre boss says hes unhappy, and wants you to change, its NOT smart to wait till hes threatening to fire you, EVEN if you have skills you know he values. Really, it isnt.

As for bankrolling the opposition, i must admit that Egypt is NOT the Ukraine. Some of the opposition refused to even meet with Condi. I think they might be very reluctant to take our funds.

Attack Egypt, when we want them to assist in the Pal peace process? That would be insane.

I wanted this admin to pressure our authoritarian allies to become more democratic. At no point did I expect the admin to make war on them (and dont go bringing up Iraq, Egypt under Mubarak is a garden of civil liberties by Saddams standards)

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Look, if you are an employer, and you VALUE that employee, but you want them to change, you dont start by threatening to fire them. You start by letting them know youre unhappy with something theyve done. Then you see how they respond. Ditto if you are an employee, and youre boss says hes unhappy, and wants you to change, its NOT smart to wait till hes threatening to fire you, EVEN if you have skills you know he values. Really, it isnt.

Employers can fire people. As you state later in your post, we have no option with Egypt at this time, period. Plus, losing 2 Billion in US aid would hurt, but an authoritarian regime's number 1 priority is staying in power. SO, if my employer said "I'll Kill you", I would not take it too seruiously, really.

I wanted this admin to pressure our authoritarian allies to become more democratic. At no point did I expect the admin to make war on them (and dont go bringing up Iraq, Egypt under Mubarak is a garden of civil liberties by Saddams standards)

One single speech from the SecState backed by nothing else is NOT real pressure. Hell the prez talked about going to Mars-what;s happened with that?

Words are just words, if no one takes them seriously.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"Employers can fire people. As you state later in your post, we have no option with Egypt at this time, period."

If Im working on an absolutely essential project, thats going to reach a major milestone in two months time, and my boss says hes got a problem i can A. Think that theres nothing he can do, he NEEDS me B. Think, ah, if he really had a problem he threaten to fire me, C. Think, wow, even WITH this essential project, hes bugging me about something else. It must be important to him.


" Plus, losing 2 Billion in US aid would hurt, but an authoritarian regime's number 1 priority is staying in power."

Oh, so this is just a variant on the GePaP meme that sanctions, money etc doesnt mean much in international politics. Thanks. Gotcha. I already knew you thought that. Shouldnt have forgotten.


"One single speech from the SecState backed by nothing else is NOT real pressure."

Its more than there was a week ago. A journey of a thousand miles .......

" Hell the prez talked about going to Mars-what;s happened with that? "


Diplomacy isnt like domestic affairs. nations are soveriegns. Telling them what to do is a BIG deal. Threatening them is a VERY big deal. Its not done a helluva lot by anyone. Instead theres a dance of words - subtle and understated "there was a frank exchange of view" means they screamed bloody murder at each other, but we're damned if were gonna say so in public till we're at the point of war. Domestic affairs, the prez wants something, he puts in the pres. budget. he dont put it in the budget, he dont want it. Period.

"Words are just words, if no one takes them seriously. "

Well id be happy to hear actual data if folks in Egypt, either the govt or the opposition are taking them seriously.

[pchang]

GePap is very selective about the words he takes seriously.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by GePap


" Plus, losing 2 Billion in US aid would hurt, but an authoritarian regime's number 1 priority is staying in power.".

which is why there have never been more or less voluntary transitions from authoritarianism to democracy, huh?

methinks you are reifying "regime" here.

Theres Hosni Mubarak himself. Theres the Egyptian elite, esp in the military, which is the backbone of the regime. Now Hosni is gonna die or be incapacicted someday, at which point he wont be in power anymore. He COULD try to put his son in, which is like the mideastern thing lately, but is hardly the rule for authoritarians. Or he could decide a transition is ok, if the new regime keeps something of his legacy, which it well might depending on how he goes out.

As for the Egyptian military and other elites, they may well decide that a peaceful transition to democracy, keep the 2 billions, and general support of the US, is a better bet than going it alone and trying to keep authoritarianism. Lots of military elites have made judgements like that in various parts of the world.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"If Im working on an absolutely essential project, thats going to reach a major milestone in two months time, and my boss says hes got a problem i can A. Think that theres nothing he can do, he NEEDS me B. Think, ah, if he really had a problem he threaten to fire me, C. Think, wow, even WITH this essential project, hes bugging me about something else. It must be important to him.

Egypt is a key ally no matter what is going on in Israel. I find it strange you think the main need from Egypt right now for the US is to help with the whole Gaza withdrawl. NO, that is just one little bit of it. The single largest and most influential Arab state is certrainly an important ally in and of itself.

As for Democratization being important- given even this admins. mixed record, and their incompetence in Iraq, Egypt thinks it has done more than enough to make a show of it. Heck, were you not one of the people lauding the whole change to presidential elections,a change that in the end won't actually change anything?

Oh, so this is just a variant on the GePaP meme that sanctions, money etc doesnt mean much in international politics. Thanks. Gotcha. I already knew you thought that. Shouldnt have forgotten.

Yeah, cause the Billions we give Israel plus the loans have always made Israel do everything the US wanted of it...

Power is worth more than money.

Its more than there was a week ago. A journey of a thousand miles .......

Yeah, and in six months we can unearth this thread and I can gloat..

Diplomacy isnt like domestic affairs. nations are soveriegns. Telling them what to do is a BIG deal. Threatening them is a VERY big deal. Its not done a helluva lot by anyone. Instead theres a dance of words - subtle and understated "there was a frank exchange of view" means they screamed bloody murder at each other, but we're damned if were gonna say so in public till we're at the point of war. Domestic affairs, the prez wants something, he puts in the pres. budget. he dont put it in the budget, he dont want it. Period.

We did not tell Egypt what to do, She simply said we think Egypt should. Significant difference. That both Egypt and KSA basically shurgged it off should be more than enough proof of how much impact is actually had.

Well id be happy to hear actual data if folks in Egypt, either the govt or the opposition are taking them seriously.

Form a right wing source apt to laud Bush:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050620-125315-8214r.htm

Rice's Egypt trip gets tepid response from opposition

By Sherine Bayoumi
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 20, 2005

CAIRO -- A high-profile visit today by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may be less blessing than a curse for Ayman Nour, an opposition candidate in Egypt's upcoming presidential elections.
The defensive tone with which Mr. Nour's Al Ghad Party agreed to the meeting suggested that the candidate -- whose detention in late January prompted Miss Rice to cancel an earlier visit -- fears that the meeting might cost him more votes than it produces.
"In a meeting of the High Council ... it has been decided that the Al Ghad Party will accept to enter into a dialogue with or exchange ideas with any person from within Egypt or from outside of Egypt whether a governmental official or not, except for people from or representing Israel," said party spokeswoman Gamila Ismail.
"As such, we welcome discussions with any American or non-American official."
In Cairo neighborhoods where Mr. Nour's party is popular, posters and fliers regularly appear branding the candidate as a "stooge" of the Americans, who are widely mistrusted in Egypt and in much of the Arab world.
U.S. pressure helped persuade the government to release Mr. Nour in mid-March after six weeks of detention and let him run for president. But he still faces trial this month on charges of forging signatures to register his party -- a trial that could disqualify him as a candidate in the September election.
Since coming to power with the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, President Hosni Mubarak has been unopposed in four presidential elections.
He is widely expected to seek a fifth term in September, and Egyptian officials acknowledge that he faces only token opposition.
In addition to Mr. Nour, Miss Rice is expected to meet with at least two others who have been publicly critical of the government's democratic reforms. She also will meet with Mr. Mubarak and make a major policy speech at American University in Cairo.
Miss Rice rarely speaks in public without offering a ringing endorsement of democracy, a major focus of the White House in its drive to defeat global terrorism.
The Bush administration has been cautious in its criticism of Egypt, where until the late 1990s, Muslim terrorism included attacks on civilians and foreign tourists, the lifeblood of Egypt's economy.
Although the nation is widely criticized for human rights abuses, its success in its war on terrorism in the 1990s was so complete that al Qaeda relies heavily on Egyptian leaders who fled to Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Before her departure last week on a six-day tour that includes stops in Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Belgium and Britain, Miss Rice attempted to set the tone for today's stop in Cairo.
She called Mr. Mubarak's democratic reforms an "important first step." But she added: "Is it enough? I think on an absolute scale, 'no.' More needs to be done."
Both government and opposition figures are waiting to see how far Miss Rice will go today in both her public and private criticism of Egypt.
"I am glad that Rice is visiting so that she may assess for herself the realities on the ground," said Mostafa El Fikki, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in Egypt's parliament.
"My only concern is that it seems that she is concentrating ... on meeting with the opposition, and I wish that she would make the time to meet with other objective members of Egyptian society, so that she may form a more accurate picture."
The officially outlawed, but tolerated Muslim Brotherhood is the most powerful opponent of Mr. Mubarak and his government. It operates openly with a headquarters in downtown Cairo, and its officials are critical of any U.S. involvement in Egyptian politics.
"We do not place much weight on Rice's visit to Egypt. We are careful to ensure that the Egyptian opposition movement in Egypt follows a path that is not dependent upon pressures from outside Egypt," said Mohamed Habeeb, the brotherhood's No. 2 official.
Police and pro-government thugs backed by police have regularly attacked opposition protests and arrested hundreds -- both Islamist and secular opponents of the government.
Another opposition group, Kifaya, represents an eclectic mix of intellectuals. Although it includes some Islamists and former Islamists, its focus is primarily secular.
Like the Muslim Brotherhood, Kifaya has no interest in meeting with Miss Rice, insisting that there be no outside interference in Egypt's democratic development, especially from the United States.
"We have nothing to do with Condoleezza Rice's visit. She has been sent by the American government to meet with people from the Egyptian government. This is of no concern to us," said George Ishak, a spokesman for Kifaya.
Egypt's ruling National Democratic Party controls nearly 90 percent of the seats in parliament, with the remainder divided among a smattering of small parties and independents.
Last week, just as Miss Rice was preparing to leave Washington, parliament passed new rules for presidential candidates, including one requiring that any candidate must prove he has a "clean financial record."
With Egypt plagued with endemic corruption and only token opposition, critics fear that the government will use the rule to veto any candidate it has reason to fear.
"We do suffer bitterly from tyranny, but the people have to move and have to pressure the regime into changing its practices. Without the people mobilizing, no amount of external pressure will result in real change," said the Muslim Brotherhood's Mr. Habeeb.

Not even the Moonie rag thinks it will challange the Egyptian government.

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang
GePap is very selective about the words he takes seriously.

That's called "analysis"

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
which is why there have never been more or less voluntary transitions from authoritarianism to democracy, huh?

And how many of those have occured in which the authoritarian regime allowed a transtion voluntarilly? I can think of only 1. Chile. And there, the military men gave themselves full immunity.

methinks you are reifying "regime" here.

Methinks I am using the accepted PolSci definition. What are you using?

Theres Hosni Mubarak himself. Theres the Egyptian elite, esp in the military, which is the backbone of the regime. Now Hosni is gonna die or be incapacicted someday, at which point he wont be in power anymore. He COULD try to put his son in, which is like the mideastern thing lately, but is hardly the rule for authoritarians. Or he could decide a transition is ok, if the new regime keeps something of his legacy, which it well might depending on how he goes out.

Or the people who come after Mubarak decide. That is more likely.

As for the Egyptian military and other elites, they may well decide that a peaceful transition to democracy, keep the 2 billions, and general support of the US, is a better bet than going it alone and trying to keep authoritarianism. Lots of military elites have made judgements like that in various parts of the world.

And how would that be better if that money ends up in the hands of people not them, who might not let them keep their elite position? Cause being the elite in a poor state is better than non-elite in a rich state.

[GePap]