US Sec of State Rice criticizes govt of US ally Egypt

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


NATO did indeed do more then just use words against the communist dictators of eastern Europe. They used radio & TV to undermine the state controlled media, they provided financial & moral support for people who worked against the communist dictators. Pope John Paul's history is an excellent example of this. John Paul did everything he could to strike for religious and personal freedom in communist Poland but it was the international media and public diplomacy of his good work which got him elected Pope. That was a position where he could really bring power to bare against the dictatorships.

A famous quote was that a communist party boss and his lacky were giving a speech in Poland when they were informed John Paul had been made Pope. The communist bosses forgot that the microphone was still on and they said "God damn it! Now we must kiss his ass," to which the other said "We'll kiss his ass but only if he will let us!"

The point being that the media support, the ideological support, the promises of financial support if they broke away from the communist dictatorships, and the constient agitating for change (Reagan with his famous speech against the Berlin Wall). All of this amounted to a huge help to the people who worked towards freedom in Eastern Europe. I doubt they could have succeeded without a creditable miltary force opposing the Soviets or a realistic alternative to the communist state.

Tell me how moral support and international diplomacy differ from the things GePap dismisses as just words? as for media Egypt is already exposed to international media, including US sponsored arab language media. Egypt would get at least much financial support if they democratize. And military force is not an issue here.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"And of course, you would be wrong on both counts. Maybe you missed the "last six months" statement in your article. That means that only in the last six months has the Mubarak regime been cracking down this hard, which is interesting, since that has happened well within the timeframe of Bush';s pro-democracy stint. "

Ok, let me help you here. Lets look at the quote.


'For the first time since anti-Mubarak street protests began last December,"

Got that?? Anti-mubarak street protests BEGAN last December. Thats why the crack down began. Before that there were NO anti-Mubarak street protests. Ergo, nothing to crack down on. Egypt had some riots over bread subsidies, i think a number of years ago, and those WERE cracked down.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Got that?? Anti-mubarak street protests BEGAN last December. Thats why the crack down began. Before that there were NO anti-Mubarak street protests. Ergo, nothing to crack down on. Egypt had some riots over bread subsidies, i think a number of years ago, and those WERE cracked down.

There is always something to crack down on-its called the opposition.

[GePap]

Many things did - the march i posted about was one part of a larger movement. It was an INDICATION of the direction Iraqis were going in, at a TIME when people here said most Iraqis supported the insurgency.
Thanks for taking it out of context. How about you dig it up and actually quote what i said?

It wasn't an indication-you are ebing very loose with the history in Iraq.

Sistani was demanding elections by early 2004. The US was denying the posibility of carrying them out, and the wiseness of it. Had the admin. actually gotten its plan, then new consitution would have been drawn up by the provisional authority, then voted on by Iraqis. The idea of having Iraqis write it under a self-elected government was forced upon them. The whole putting Alawi in government (and that protest happened before that) was an attempt to slow down or forstall elections. That did not work.

So no, that protest was not an indication of anything particualrly long term, given the insurgency continues. and that protest had nothing to do with trying to get the US to move on letting the Iraqis have elections.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Tell me how moral support and international diplomacy differ from the things GePap dismisses as just words? as for media Egypt is already exposed to international media, including US sponsored arab language media. Egypt would get at least much financial support if they democratize. And military force is not an issue here.

The US sponsored Arab network does not go around putting anti-Mubarak leaders on to constantly criticize the regime.

Plus, as Oerdin stated, therew was a constant drumbeat from all members of the admin. from the bottom down.

When Bush, Cheney, and Rummy all say egypt has to improve publicly, then that might signify a real policy change.

[lord of the mark]

more facts about yesterdays demo, from AP

"The anti-Mubarak protesters apparently chose the Shoubra district build support from its residents who normally are not involved in politics. The district, far from the government buildings where such rallies usually take place, is one of Cairo's most densely populated with a mix of 7 million Muslims and Christians.

Thousands of people lined the streets and watched from windows and balconies, some joining in the chants. Passers-by joined the protest."

Only a few hundred marched, but thousands joined the chants. And this is a district chosen for its relative apathy, a place where the opposition wished to build support.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


There is always something to crack down on-its called the opposition.

" the Egyptian authorities did not deploy riot police to pen in an opposition demonstration."

We were speaking specifically of the deployment of riot police to crush street demonstrations, NOT crack downs in the abstract. Your rhetorical techniques speak for themselves.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Many things did - the march i posted about was one part of a larger movement. It was an INDICATION of the direction Iraqis were going in, at a TIME when people here said most Iraqis supported the insurgency.
Thanks for taking it out of context. How about you dig it up and actually quote what i said?

It wasn't an indication-you are ebing very loose with the history in Iraq.

Sistani was demanding elections by early 2004. The US was denying the posibility of carrying them out, and the wiseness of it. Had the admin. actually gotten its plan, then new consitution would have been drawn up by the provisional authority, then voted on by Iraqis. The idea of having Iraqis write it under a self-elected government was forced upon them. The whole putting Alawi in government (and that protest happened before that) was an attempt to slow down or forstall elections. That did not work.

So no, that protest was not an indication of anything particualrly long term, given the insurgency continues. and that protest had nothing to do with trying to get the US to move on letting the Iraqis have elections.

At the time Allawi was appointed, the CPA had already agreed to a schedule for elections, IIRC. Allawis govt was explicitly declared to be transitional, and January was the deadline for elections. January 30th was chose to delay a little bit, in order to improve the security situation before elections were held. The Allawi govt was NOT an attempt to avoid elections, except in the fantasies of certain ill informed people.


I did NOT post that the march was focused on getting the US to move on elections - elections were already scheduled when the march took place - I posted it to show that Iraqis opposed the insurgency, at a time when many folks here and elsewhere claimed that most Iraqis DID support the insurgency. The insurgency later attempted to get Iraqis to boycott the election. They did not, but voted in large numbers, for parties opposed to the insurgency. Anyone who had paid attention to the march I posted, and to the other indications of Iraqis hostility to the insurgency, would have been less surprised than some people were at the events of Jan. 30.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The US sponsored Arab network does not go around putting anti-Mubarak leaders on to constantly criticize the regime.

Plus, as Oerdin stated, therew was a constant drumbeat from all members of the admin. from the bottom down.

When Bush, Cheney, and Rummy all say egypt has to improve publicly, then that might signify a real policy change.

I would rather hope that Rummy stops trying to play alternate Sec of State, and instead focuses on making sure US troops overseas are adequately equipped, that the training of Iraqi soldiers is being done competently, and other tasks more appropriate to the Dept of Defense.

I would also prefer that Cheney recede in prominence, not increase.

As for Bush, that will depend on how Egypt reacts to what Rice has said.

[Ramo]

lotm, how do you think Solidarity would've felt about Reagan's pro-democracy rhetoric if we gave the Soviets an amount equivalent to .41% of their GDP in military aid annually (and that ratio was significantly higher thirty years ago)? How would the Czechs have felt if the tanks rolling through Prague in '68 were Shermans?

Yes, Rice's remarks are totally meaningless.

And as I wrote in the other thread, the MB are the opposition to Mubarak. There's no such thing as a real election without their participation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
lotm, how do you think Solidarity would've felt about Reagan's pro-democracy rhetoric if we gave the Soviets an amount equivalent to .41% of their GDP in military aid annually (and that ratio was significantly higher thirty years ago)? How would the Czechs have felt if the tanks rolling through Prague in '68 were Shermans?

Yes, Rice's remarks are totally meaningless.

And as I wrote in the other thread, the MB are the opposition to Mubarak. There's no such thing as a real election without their participation.

Look, Ramo, this is obviously a different situation than eastern europe. I was pointing to eastern europe as a counter example to GePaps cynicism about the ability of small protests to ignite major changes, NOT as a parallel US policy.

Once again. This is a difficult tradeoff, given our need for Egyptian assistance, esp wrt to the Israel/Pal peace process. And again, this speech is farther than ANY US admin has gone before on Egypt. And the demo yesterday, though small - and maybe they'll go back to busting heads once Rice is far away - seems to indicate some further change.

Is MB THE opposition? Not Ayman Nour? Not Kifaya? I dont know. Id appreciate cites from reputable sources.

[Ramo]

I was referring to this:

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.

As for the MB:

Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazief is explaining to a small group of reporters his government's commitment to democracy. He promises that restrictions on political parties will soon be eased to allow for real political competition.

But when asked if the regime will legalize the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's most popular and best-organized opposition group, a bit of steel creeps into his congenial tone. "Never,'' he says. The Brotherhood "will never be a political party."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0607/p01s04-wome.html

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
At the time Allawi was appointed, the CPA had already agreed to a schedule for elections, IIRC. Allawis govt was explicitly declared to be transitional, and January was the deadline for elections. January 30th was chose to delay a little bit, in order to improve the security situation before elections were held. The Allawi govt was NOT an attempt to avoid elections, except in the fantasies of certain ill informed people.

Actually, no, they had not shceduled the elections just then, IIRC. They did it soon after, but not when Allawi took over, as some ill informed people might think.

I did NOT post that the march was focused on getting the US to move on elections - elections were already scheduled when the march took place - I posted it to show that Iraqis opposed the insurgency, at a time when many folks here and elsewhere claimed that most Iraqis DID support the insurgency. The insurgency later attempted to get Iraqis to boycott the election. They did not, but voted in large numbers, for parties opposed to the insurgency. Anyone who had paid attention to the march I posted, and to the other indications of Iraqis hostility to the insurgency, would have been less surprised than some people were at the events of Jan. 30.

Again, no, those elections had not yet being scheduled. As for your second part, the group most connected to the insurgency, the Sunnis, DID BOYCOTT the election, and their turnout was miniscule compared to the Shia and the Kurds.

No one here was surprised by the events of Jan. 30. 60% turnout, not including the Sunnis, vast turnout in the Kurdish areas, as everyone expected, and since the Ayatallahs had made it a duty to vote, large turnout in the Shia areas as well.

Then the Iraqis were late in forming a government, no one knows yet if the consitutional vote wll be delayed by 6 months, and if we measure the insurgency in bodies, the election did not change that.

You have a very variable memory, obviosuly.

[lord of the mark]

The CS Monitor article goes on to say:

"And in this restless Arab spring, the 77-year-old organization, which favors Islamic law and says it's committed to democracy, has been roused from a public slumber. Worried that the proactive steps taken by secular Egyptian reformers like the Kifaya (Enough) Movement could cost the Brotherhood its position as Egypt's leading opposition movement has stirred the organization into action.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Thousands of people lined the streets and watched from windows and balconies, some joining in the chants. Passers-by joined the protest."

Only a few hundred marched, but thousands joined the chants. And this is a district chosen for its relative apathy, a place where the opposition wished to build support.

"Some joining the chants". From where does htis become thousands? All of a sudden you know exactly what the author meant by "some"?

If you are psychic, you should have won that 10 Million already.