anyone else following Egypt on Aljazeera?

[knight66]

I have visited Egypt and been off the tourist trail. I have seen grinding poverty, eg families living in depressions in the ground, and spoken to people about how the government restrictions affected them, eg not being allowed to cross the Nile without a permi. also religious suppression, eg Coptic Christians being excluded from government controlled posts in the provinces.

If it is being implied that the US ought now to be easing Mubarak out because intolerable conditions have broken the patience of the people, then it might have been better to have eased him out in a more controlled way and somewhat earlier. Or is it mere sick fantasy that the US holds this kind or authority, I wonder. 

[Scarpia]

I have visited Egypt and been off the tourist trail. I have seen grinding poverty, eg families living in depressions in the ground, and spoken to people about how the government restrictions affected them, eg not being allowed to cross the Nile without a permi. also religious suppression, eg Coptic Christians being excluded from government controlled posts in the provinces.

If it is being implied that the US ought now to be easing Mubarak out because intolerable conditions have broken the patience of the people, then it might have been better to have eased him out in a more controlled way and somewhat earlier. Or is it mere sick fantasy that the US holds this kind or authority, I wonder.

I think the US has one knob to turn, the level of foreign aid.  Presumably pinching it off would have leave him at the mercy of his population, but that would have had other effects which might not be desirable to the US.

[knight66]

Now, I do know that the US is not alone in this kind of policy....the UK indulged in it quite fully when it was able to. But I do wonder about the idea of supporting a repressive regime because it suits us. We supported the Shah...that went well. We sponsored Sadam until it was perceived that the balance between advantage and disadvantage tipped. That also went well. Mugabe, 'our' man until he was seen for what he really was.Another one that has not gone at all well. I could go on.

While we are busy seemingly creating balance, the people of those countries are badly dealt with. Our help, keeping our creatures in or getting them out, either way the ordinary folk suffer.

This time round, we are in danger of seeing a 'moderate' Islamic government come in which will be hostile to Israel. So, will the question of turning off the support tap before the pressure elsewhere blew the entire boiler up be genuinely examined and above all, learned from? Perhaps we just interfere much too damned much.

Mike

[drogulus]

    The more realistic the scenario the more your preferred options will resemble the options the gov't is actively considering. Critics talk about how "Obama is just like Bush". Either Obama is just like Bush or circumstances reduce ideological differences. I think it's the latter in most cases.

    Which is it, we interfere too damn much or too damn little? You see, you can't win this game.

[Lethevich]

     Like Karzai?

I think that a large part of his problem was being appointed leader of a fundimentally ungovernable country. I know it looks disingenuous to keep repeating this, and I don't mean to be, but Egypt offers much more potential than Afghanistan.

[Scarpia]

Now, I do know that the US is not alone in this kind of policy....the UK indulged in it quite fully when it was able to. But I do wonder about the idea of supporting a repressive regime because it suits us. We supported the Shah...that went well. We sponsored Sadam until it was perceived that the balance between advantage and disadvantage tipped. That also went well. Mugabe, 'our' man until he was seen for what he really was.Another one that has not gone at all well. I could go on.

I'm not sure these are all "our" fault.  These countries find themselves a critical spots in the world and we have to deal with who ever is in power there.  If they were in non-critical spots in the world, events would generally be the same, but they would be hacking each other with machetes, rather than armored personnel carriers and tear gas canisters.

[drogulus]

   

I'm not sure these are all "our" fault.  These countries find themselves a critical spots in the world and we have to deal with who ever is in power there.  If they were in non-critical spots in the world, events would generally be the same, but they would be hacking each other with machetes, rather than armored personnel carriers and tear gas canisters.

     And here it comes....we gave them the weapons. Why? So the people we give them to would feel secure enough not to use them, so they wouldn't get them from someone else, so they would be dependent on us. And Egypt has kept the cold peace with Israel.

     

[knight66]

I'm not sure these are all "our" fault.  These countries find themselves a critical spots in the world and we have to deal with who ever is in power there.  If they were in noncritical spots in the world, events would generally be the same, but they would be hacking each other with machetes, rather than armored personnel carriers and tear gas canisters.

Yes, but it seems we mainly intervene when it is to ensure our advantage. It can be dressed up as helping the locals, but in the instances I listed, what happened has been disaster and worse than what was there already. People hack one another up day and daily. I agree, no easy solutions.

No one has ever successfully invaded Afghanistan. The terrain and the culture are both basically intractable. It may have been unethical, but plain flat out bribes to encourage the people we wanted to do or stop doing things would quite possibly have had a better effect and without all the deaths of soldiers we have endured in our forces. It would probably also have cost less. Unethical, yes, but our policies are anyway.

Egypt has indeed kept the peace with Israel for quite some time. Perhaps we will now see a worse backlash there than we can 'control' and mainly due to supporting, and in effect enabling suppression of an exceptionally poor population. Of course, we never asked him to act that way, but we kept the perpetrator in power.

There is a middle class in Egypt and it has substantially separated itself out from the mass of the population. So there have been chances for some people. As there always are, no matter how bad a government is.

No doubt foreign policy is complex. There are always so many hot spots that it must be a relief to just leave some clients alone with their subsidies if they are managing to keep things quiet. But it does not make for an ethical way of behaving and it demonstrably leads to ultimate hostility against the supposed foreign puppet masters.

If Islam has been demonised in the West, the US has provided a lot ammunition for it to be demonised in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent. A chicken and an egg.

Mike

[secondwind]

What Mike said.

[Scarpia]

Yes, but it seems we mainly intervene when it is to ensure our advantage. It can be dressed up as helping the locals, but in the instances I listed, what happened has been disaster and worse than what was there already. People hack one another up day and daily. I agree, no easy solutions.

No one has ever successfully invaded Afghanistan. The terrain and the culture are both basically intractable. It may have been unethical, but plain flat out bribes to encourage the people we wanted to do or stop doing things would quite possibly have had a better effect and without all the deaths of soldiers we have endured in our forces. It would probably also have cost less. Unethical, yes, but our policies are anyway.

Egypt has indeed kept the peace with Israel for quite some time. Perhaps we will now see a worse backlash there than we can 'control' and mainly due to supporting, and in effect enabling suppression of an exceptionally poor population. Of course, we never asked him to act that way, but we kept the perpetrator in power.

There is a middle class in Egypt and it has substantially separated itself out from the mass of the population. So there have been chances for some people. As there always are, no matter how bad a government is.

No doubt foreign policy is complex. There are always so many hot spots that it must be a relief to just leave some clients alone with their subsidies if they are managing to keep things quiet. But it does not make for an ethical way of behaving and it demonstrably leads to ultimate hostility against the supposed foreign puppet masters.

If Islam has been demonised in the West, the US has provided a lot ammunition for it to be demonised in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent. A chicken and an egg.

Mubarak became president because his predecessor was gunned down by Islamic radicals in his own army at a parade.  You are suggesting that Egypt would be a pleasant place if the US had washed its hands of the matter at that point?  Benign neglect would allow Egypt to blossom as it did no so many other places, like Somalia and Sudan? 

[knight66]

Somewhere along the 28 year journey, I imagine there would have been points when the merry-go-round would have halted and given the Egyptians the opportunity to replace their increasingly repressive government. But it was sustained and strengthened with help from outside. I know why, but it was to at least the probable detriment of its citizens and if they did at all well out of it, that was collateral fortune.

In view of the supposedly stable situation between Egypt and its neighbours, what arms was it that the US was subsidising year on year? I don't think it was much that could help eliminate the Islamic extremists. That was done in a very elementary way; hunting them.

Well up the Nile we called into the small town of Esna. For the only occasion we had a guide, insisted upon as there had been some Islamic action further down the Nile about six weeks before. My 10 year old had an upset stomach. Just as we were about to be bundled into the minibus I explained my son's pretty much instant need for a toilet. The reply was...too bad there are no toilets here. I pressed very firmly for an alternative answer and said if there was nothing available, he would have to go in the gutter. But I needed a delay to help his discomfort.

Furious, the guide marched us about 50 yards to the police station. A short but intense discussion took place. We were ushered into a large room. In the middle of it was a large hole in the concrete floor. The sides of the hole were encrusted with shit. I had to hold onto my son so he did not disappear down the hole and spent some time looking round the room.

There were thick metal rings and sets of manacles on the walls. There were large hooks drilled into the ceiling. There were stains all over the room, the floor and up the walls. I drew my own conclusions over what took place in this room. Conclusions that were strengthened by stories told by locals about people simply being taken away at night and eventually reappearing badly injured. I had not asked for the stories and did not mention my visit to a police station.

We have been busy upholding the setup that sanctioned the kind of brutal treatment that surfaces as news in the West now and then, but which in truth seemed to be a day and daily occurrence. All those years of institutionalising brutality by its government, it will be all the more difficult to realign these police if a new government does come in with other ideas. These men will not just go away quietly. We have the lesson of a parallel set of events in Iraq.

Mike

[Scarpia]

What you are describing is very disturbing.  But has involvement of the US and other western nations tended to increase or diminish such things?  I don't know.

[knight66]

I agree Scarps...don't know, but we were involved through propping it all up. I guess that is my point. It would be good to think that where we do get involved we moderate these kinds of excesses; but realpolitik means we are more interested in trying to keep the larger pieces of the jigsaw in place and I understand that; I just don't like it.

Mike

[FideLeo]

Really, a disturbing sight. 

http://www.youtube.com/v/d8nH3JuBd4s

[knight66]

That man always disturbs me. They ought to be out with banners to get rid of him.

Mike

[FideLeo]

That man always disturbs me. They ought ot be out with banners to get rid of him.

Mike

Let me put it this way: I wouldn't mind as much, really, if it were Hawass damaged.

[knight66]

Yes, a glass case somewhere obscure on the third floor....stuffed and mounted with his mouth open...as usual. The man is a disgrace. Who knows, new regime, new director of antiquities.

Mike

[Lethevich]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=12809843

That fruit seller has a lot to answer for

[knight66]

In the main square in Cairo where the protests are concentrated, they are organising a three day football tournament and have invited the army officers to put forward a team.

A very unusual revolution.

But there is no direction evident, just a groundswell that has one aim and no idea of what to do even if that is fufilled.

Mike

[Scarpia]

I understand that brutality by the security forces has been a problem, but what is the problem that removal of Mubarak will solve?  Economic reform under Mubarak seems to be working, the economy is growing despite the global recession, and measures of income inequality give Egypt rather good marks, comparable to the UK, more equality than in the US.   Is Mubarak really an obstacle to the economic aspirations of Egyptians?  The most obvious result of the protest so far is a complete halt of economic activity and frantic evacuation of tourists.  That doesn't sound good to me.
 
I also hear Obama telling Mubarak not to run for another term.  Not that I am a fan of Mubarak, what what business is it of Obama's?