During the last years Qatars played an oversized role on several foreign policy issues especially with regard to Syria. The Saudis and other Persian Gulf countries were generally concerned about that but especially about Qatar’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood. Most GCC countries see the political Islam of the Brotherhood as a danger to their autocratic systems.

Some strings were pulled and the emir of Qatar was persuaded to hand power over to his son Tamim. The fall of the Muslim Brotherhood presidency in Egypt is one consequence of this. Qatar also had to hand over the “Syrian file” to the Saudis. The dysfunctional Syrian National Council, which had been led by Syrian Muslim Brotherhood members, named a new “leader” who is polygamous tribal sheik from east Syria with roots in Saudi Arabia but no connection to the MB. The SNC’s “prime minister”, a U.S. citizen and also a Brotherhood member, had to step down.

While lots of new anti-tank and some anti-air weapons arrived in Syria during the last month they have shown no decisive value. After three weeks of battle the Syrian army will now soon have kicked out the last insurgents from Homs city. Unfortunately the situation in Aleppo has become worse. The insurgents seem to have had some successes there and there are rumors, though no confirmed news yet, that some government friendly parts of Aleppo are under siege with no food supplies coming through. But in total the momentum is with the government side which explains this laughable request:

In Istanbul, the newly elected head of the opposition Syrian National Coalition told Reuters that the rebels’ military position was weak and proposed a truce for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which begins on Tuesday, to stop fighting in Homs.

The SNC has absolute no control over the insurgents and especially not over the foreign Jihadists which have grown in numbers to 5,000 men or more.

These Jihadist are taking over (vid) by force more and more towns in northern Syria that had earlier been under control of Syrian insurgents. In an interview in that video one of the Jidhadist commanders says that he buys his weapons, including the latest anti-tank and anti-air stuff, from the Free Syrian Army.

This is one reason why the Obama administration has not yet directly delivered the promised weapons and may never deliver them. Another one is resistance in Congress where several committees are unconvinced of Obama’s weaponizing strategy.

In one of the first interviews with the Syrian president Bashar Al Assad during the crisis he was asked when it would end. He said something like “when a certain the sheik stops paying” and he seemed to have meant Qatar. With its new emir the foreign policy of Qatar has changed. Its support for the Muslim Brotherhood has stopped and foreign nationals with Syrian roots are no longer welcome in Qatar.

The door is now open for private talks between Syria and Saudi Arabia which is now responsible for the “Syrian file” and the insurgents. There might be a negotiable solution there and after that the only problematic actors left will be Turkey’s Erdogan and his sidekick Dovatoglu. They have already been cut to size due to the Gezi Park protests and the loss of their friends in Egypt. There will be ways and means to convince them to shut down their border for insurgents and weapon deliveries. Shortly after that the insurgency will die down.

Over night the Muslim Brotherhood continued a sit-in in front of the Republican Guard Headquarter in Cairo. It is assumed that former president Morsi is held there.

At about 4:00am local time today a shoot out occurred there in which at least 50 people were killed and over 300 were wounded.

According to the Muslim Brotherhood the sit-in was attacked by soldiers during dawn prayers. According to the army two officers died when some "armed terrorists" attacked the soldiers which then responded to the fire.

In a video, allegedly of the incident, tear gas clouds can be seen and gun shoots are heard. At that time it is still pitch dark. According to one eyewitness account tear gas volleys by the military were responded to with bird shoots by the MB protesters.

A standoff continues around the Rafba'a mosque where the MB had held rallies. Some MB followers have retreated in the mosque while the police and military is attempting to clear the side. Gunshots can be heard in the area.

A Muslim Brotherhood statement claimed a "massacre" had taken place and said "even the Jews don't do this". It called for an intifada or "uprising" against the military.

Meanwhile the political situation is unresolved. Names put forward for a prime minister by the Tahrir protesters, now allied with the military and the Salafists, were rejected by the later. The main Salafist party has for now withdrawn from any further negotiations.

It is hard to see how the situation can be resolved. The power of the military is unchecked, a political compromise is further away than ever and the economic problems are getting worse. The Russian president Putin warned that Egypt is approaching a civil war. He may well be right with that assessment.

In the current situation any party can easily stoke the fire with very little effort. A few shots into this direction, a few shots into that direction and the war is on.

prin·ci·ple noun \ˈprin(t)-s(ə-)pəl, -sə-bəl\:

a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle>

Leslie H. Gelb and Dimitri K. Simes, foreign policy honchos in Washington, ask in an NYT op-ed if there is A New Anti-American Axis?

They seem to believe that any cooperation between Russia and China is somewhat anti-American. There is nothing special to that. U.S. foreign policy folks are permanently constructing new boogeymen. But there is this rather weird passage in their writing:

Both Moscow and Beijing oppose the principle of international action to interfere in a country’s sovereign affairs, much less overthrow a government, as happened in Libya in 2011. After all, that principle could always backfire on them.

Since when is there a principle of interference in other countries business? There is none. The principle in international law is NOT to interfere in any sovereign state's local business.

According to international law scholar Richard Falk the principle of non-intervention is even obligatory for any state since it was incorporated into the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States adopted by the UN General Assembly resolution 2625 in 1970. The resolution notes:

The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,..

Gelb and Simes are inventing a principle that says the opposite of the real internationally codified one. One that has been part of international law since the Westphalian Peace Treaty signed in 1648.

It seems like every time the U.S. can not get its ways through the application of international law it just tries to invents a new one even when that totally contradicts the exiting ones. Who do these U.S. foreign policy people want to impress with uttering such nonsense? Claiming such fraudulent principles will only encourage Russia, China and other international actors to counter them by ever deeper cooperation.

Reading through the comments we all seem to agree that there was a military coup in Egypt and that it was, seen from a pure democratic standpoint, illegitimate in that it did not follow the law.

Now I for one have always been willing to consider illegitimate means when confronting authorities, especially right-wing neoliberal ones like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Be that through unsanctioned demonstrations, some clashes with police forces or whatever. There are projects that deserve such resistance and in some case such resistance has been successful. Legitimacy is thereby not the core question to me. Discussing legitimacy will also change nothing on the ground. The coup is done. Get over with it.

What we can do though is analyze the situation and how it came about. We can learn from it. Morsi came to power through elections with a rather small margin over the candidate of the old regime. It was obvious and foreseeable that he would be hindered in government by the old establishment. He should have recognized that from the get-go and should have acted accordingly. Unless large scale brutal force is used change in a complex society will only come in small steps.

At the beginning Morsi made peace with the army. The army in Egypt is a somewhat parallel society that has, at the higher officer ranks, lots of privileges and makes a lot of money. It is involved in all kinds of civilian businesses. That is a fact of life in Egypt and is, unless there is a real revolution, unlikely to change in the near future. Morsi considered this and when the army insisted on having its privileges written into the new constitution he agreed.

But Morsi did not really try to win the bureaucracy to his side. He did increase its wages (which is economically not sustainable) but that bribe was not enough. Over 80 years the state had been the enemy of the Brotherhood. Now the Brotherhood was supposed to lead it. There was distrust and paranoia on both sides and the first steps should have been to remove that distrust and to cooperate. Unfortunately that did not happen. Instead of elevating people from the establishment that could have helped him Morsi (or the MB) insisted on putting rather incompetent MB followers into leading bureaucratic positions.

The “renaissance” Morsi had promised for his first 100 days never got off the ground. There was no viable economic program visible and little execution. Egypt needed money and Morsi went around all possible donors and tried to get as much as possible. While doing this he sold out important foreign policy positions and did this in a rather amateurish way. That was the point that in the end pushed the army to intervene:

Cont. reading: On ElBaradei And Other Thoughts On Egypt

A big thanks to all the commentators in the recent Egypt threads. The discussion is lively and that is as it should be. Please hold off with ad hominems.

To continue, some points from today's after-the-coup news from Egypt.

There were attacks on army installations in the Sinai and some soldiers died there. This is pretty much off the radar in the news but will play a big role in the thinking and planing of the Egyptian military. Sinai is pretty wild in terms of Jihadi activities, there are lost of weapons there and is also of economic concern.

The Supreme Guide of the Brotherhood Badie was not, as was reported yesterday, incarcerated. Two other high MB leaders were released by the police. Former president Morsi is seemingly still in army custody.

The MB staged rallies all over Egypt today. There is little news of what is happening in the periphery even though that may, in the end, be more important than what is happening in Cairo. In Alexandria MB followers clashed with other demonstrators and also with the army. In upper Egypt an MB crowd tried to storm an orthodox church but was pushed off by army soldiers. In Cairo a demonstration was held at an army place where, allegedly, Morsi is held. The army told the protesters to stand off. Most of them did and MB guides tried to hold them back. But some tried to get to the concertina wire and were shot at. One to three where, reportedly, killed.

A quite big demonstration took place at the Rabaa mosque where the MB had a big stage and where many of the MB higher ups, including the supreme guide, held fierce speeches. From the TV pictures I saw I estimate the crowd there at 100-150,000 max. While the speakers called for peaceful protests they also added quite a bit of toxic sectarian poison. Not only against Copts but also against Al-Azhar, the Islamic high university, and against some Salafist groups. The general idea: The MB are the victims and everyone else is the enemy. The crowd got fired up. No one tried to calm it down.

In the evening groups of MB followers approached the bridges at Maspero towards Tahrir Square which led to a hefty clashes with anti-MB protesters who hold on to Tahrir. Neither the police nor the military intervened at this time. This is likely to get more ugly throughout the night.

The army seems, in general, to hold back and stay defensive. But throughout the day it made a lot of "show of force" noise by sending helicopters and jets into the sky over Cairo. Wasn't there some petroleum shortage? The army's message is: "We will let you protest but be reminded that it is us who have the heavy weapons."

My general impression is that the army is not seeking a fight and allows the MB followers to let off their steam. There is no sign of any harsh suppression so far but that may change anytime.

The silence of the "west" towards this military coup may well be the end of the neoconned "democracy promotion" campaigns we have seen over the last two decades. The hypocrisy is now so obviously stinking that any future mentioning of "democratic principles" in the Middle East by some sanctimonious "westerner" will be rightfully laughed off. The fall of the MB in Cairo has already a dampening effect on the "western" backed Syrian opposition.

Was it a coup or not? The definition matters because U.S. payments to the Egyptian military are only allowed when it does not overthrow the legal government. No payment, no safety for Israel. It therefore can not be allowed to have been a coup. 

The governments of at least three countries called it a coup – Turkey, Canada and Tunisia. Other "western" countries and Arab countries called it something else. Of the international organizations only the African Union talked about "consequences".

If this military coup is not even called such it must have been successful. Who ever arrange this one had a good plan and executed well. Not taking power itself but using civilian public unrest to hand power to another group of civilians will keep the military largely out of the political fray.

The coup came on the background of a coup-like change in leadership in Qatar, seemingly forced by Saudi Arabia and the United States. Qatar had been backing the Muslim Brotherhood in several countries but is now backing away from it. Today the Qatari government said that it has "always been supportive of the will of the Egyptian people" and it "praises the [Egyptian] army role in defending Egypt's national security". This change of heart in Qatar will have serious consequences for other regional political actors. Hamas leader Khaled Mashal clearly placed his bet on the wrong horse.

The only foreign folks still supporting Morsi are sitting in the Turkish government:

“Whatever the reason is, it is unacceptable that a democratically elected government was overthrown by illegitimate means, even more, with a military coup. A national consensus politics is possible only with the participation and support of democratic institutions, actors, opposition and civil society,” Davutoğlu told reporters in Istanbul.

The Egyptian military arrested Morsi and warrants were issued for the Brotherhood’s supreme guide Mohamed Badie and his deputy Khairat Shater, the organization’s chief strategist and financier. There are also arrest warrants against some 30 other MB leaders. The MB media were closed.

This is a (temporary) decapitation strike against the Muslim Brotherhood as a party. That does not mean that the Brotherhood will not be back or that its supporters will have no political voice. If it stays largely peaceful it will be allowed back though probably under a different name. In Turkey Erdogan's AKP only grew through several iterations of such after-coup renames and comebacks. It would be helpful to let the Brotherhood know that it is welcome if it plays by the rules. Some of its elders could then call for calm.

Some "western" media are depicting the conflict as Islamists versus Secularists. But that is the wrong view. The Egyptian electorate is largely pro-Islam and pro-Sharia. The question is about "how much" and about "inclusive" versus "exclusive". That is where Morsi failed. His call for war against Syria in extreme sectarian terms was the straw that broke the camels back. But there were many more reason why, in the eyes of many Egyptians, Morsi failed and had to go.

The coup was supported by Al-Azhar, Islams highest institute of learning, and by the Salafi parties which came in second in the last Egyptian election. With such support it is very likely that a decent majority of Egyptians will consent to what happened.

There are now reports about some clashes between some Morsi supporters and the Egyptian military near Cairo University. I do expect these to calm down within a day or two. There may be some further incidents, especially in the Sinai where Jihadis have been in attacking the army on several occasions. These are the guys to watch out for.

Those now in power should hold back on any unreasonable prosecution and be generous to those who feel disappointed. Shutting the Brotherhood down for a few days may help to avoid immediate big clashes. Suppressing it for long guarantees them to happen.

Update:

Egypt's news agency: Sheikh of Al Azhar, head of Coptic church and opposition leader Elbaradei to announce the political roadmap soon.

Original post:

Though not yet officially confirmed some kind of military coup is taken place in Egypt right now.

The military has taken over the state television studios but has yet to issue any statement. Allegedly a travel ban was issued against the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood and president Morsi is said to have been moved to the Ministry of Defense. While the opposition to Morsi is somewhat partying in the very well filled Tahrir Square pro-MB demonstrators are protesting around the University and some other places. The military has deployed infantry carriers and soldiers in riot control outfit throughout Cairo and other cities.

Throughout the day negotiations were held between the various parties. At a point the military had invited all parties to a talk and all but the Brotherhood's FDJ came. There was no news release about the meeting nor is there yet any release about the coup.

The ministry of the interior, which controls the police, had announced that it would cooperate with the army. Several ministers and governors have resigned. It seems that the Islamist are now up against everyone else.

The military had earlier announced that it does not want to stay in power but wants to reset the process towards a democratic, civilian ruled state with a new constitution, a new parliament and new presidential elections.

It is not only the economic situation and the seemingly fumbling of Morsi's government that brought many, many people into the streets to move against him, the cultural element may be just as big. A significant part of Egyptians do not want to live in a country that is under the strict Islamic rule the Muslim Brotherhood strives to implement.

This is where both sides part: Does winning the election give the Muslim Brotherhood a right to change the society into what they want or is winning the election a much smaller mandate to rule but within the confines of a common non-majoritarian society?

The Muslim Brotherhood view: Because they won the majority (of the minority that voted) they are allowed to rule and implement the state and society as they see fit. The current coup, based on significant public support, is to them an assault on a right they had gained by being elected. I recommend to read the above link to understand their thinking. Here just this one ominous excerpt that seems to announce violence:

Cont. reading: Egypt: The 2013 Military Coup

With its unprecedented and totally overarching spying the U.S. has thoroughly pissed off its allies in Europe:

In the pages the German tabloid Bild, President Barack Obama on Tuesday had been renamed OHRbama (Ohr is the German word for ear). He was pictured leaning over to listen to German Chancellor Angela Merkel with a grossly oversized ear.

Bild is the most pro-transatlantic paper one can think of here and it is extremely influential. Such anti-U.S. writing by Bild is unprecedented. Maybe the people in the U.S. do not understand the mood behind this as there was only little written about in U.S. media over the size of the spying:

According to the reports, first detailed by the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the U.S. National Security Agency is monitoring 500 million German communications each month and has classified Germany as a target on a level with China and Saudi Arabia. The United States also allegedly is bugging European Union offices, monitoring EU communications, and scooping up the emails and phone calls of EU nations’ citizens.

Why, do Germans and others ask, does the U.S. need to collect 6 billion(!) German communications each year? What is going on here? Even the Stasi would have settled for 600,000.

I believe there will be major serious consequences over this in the relations between Germany, other European countries and the United States.

But having pissed off major European partners is not enough for Obama. This is unprecedented:

The plane carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales was rerouted to Austria after various European countries refused to let it cross their airspace because of suspicions that NSA leaker Edward Snowden was on board, Bolivian officials said Tuesday.

…
A furious Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca said France and Portugal would have to explain why they canceled authorization for the plane, claiming that the decision had put the president's life at risk.

…
In a midnight press conference, Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia said that not only France and Portugal, but also Italy and Spain were denying the plane permission to fly through their airspace.

He described Morales as being "kidnapped by imperialism" in Europe.

The countries who denied overflight certainly did so because they were pressured by Washington. All of South America's countries will blame the U.S. before they will blame those why denied their airspace.

This absurd behavior, and the willingness of some European leaders to support it, will cost the U.S. not only the proposed trade treaty with Europe but will also reflect on the puppets chance to get reelected. The people in France will see this as an affront and an insult to their sovereignty – bye, bye Hollande.

Being anti-U.S. was so far somewhat derided in European countries. It will now become chic and a major new political trend.

The sole purpose of going after Snowden is vengeance. Determent does not work with whistle-blowers. Snowden came forward not despite but also because of what is happening to Bradley Manning.

The secrets Snowden carried are out of his hand anyway. Insulting the world carries a high price. Why then is U.S. willing to risk the bit of goodwill that is left towards it over so little potential gain?

News & views …

Yesterday’s very large Tamarrod protests against the Muslim Brotherhood and president Morsi in Egypt were mostly peaceful. But following those protests an attack on the Muslim Brotherhood’s party building led to casualties on both sides:

Members of the group inside the headquarters started firing live ammunition, according to Mada Masr’s reporter, who also noticed a variety of arms held by protesters including guns. All lights were shut off in the surrounding streets.

The building was stormed, looted and burned just like the building of former president Mubarak’s NDP party had been destroyed in the 2011 revolution. Six or eight people were killed. A reporter said of the looting: “I thought they would carry away everything but the kitchen sink. Then I saw one carrying a kitchen sink.” A video from inside of the building confims that.

The loot included this seemingly genuine list of large bribes paid by the government of Qatar to the leading heads of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The police was not seen while the building was attack but came back to “guard” it after the looting was finished. The Muslim Brotherhood is now considering to create “self defense units”, something that other say it already has build up, though secretly so far.

The big clash that was expected yesterday did not happen. The numbers of anti-Morsi demonstrators were  too large for the other side to attack. But as smaller protests and the demand for Morsi to stand down will continue further strife seems inevitable. Issandr El Amrani looks at the possible alternative outcomes:

• The army will wait it out to the last minute (possibly
  disastrously so as early intervention might be better in cases of
  large-scale violence) and may be internally divided about how to proceed
  (hence the hesitation).
• Should Morsi be toppled, it will create
  an enormous problem with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists for
  years to come. They will feel cheated of legitimately gained power and
  Egyptian politics will only grow more divisive and violent. 
• Whatever
  alliance came together behind the Tamarrod protests will fall apart the
  day after its successful, because its components are as incompatible as
  the alliance that toppled Hosni Mubarak.
• The leadership around
  the NSF (ElBaradei, Moussa, Sabahi etc.) has followed rather than led
  Tamarrod and will not be able to provide effective leadership in the
  coming days. Only the army can. 
• If Morsi remains and the
  protests are repressed or simply die out, the country will nonetheless
  remain as difficult to govern considering Morsi’s lack of engagement
  with the opposition.

The United States and its elephant-in-a-china-shop ambassador Anne Patterson have so far be standing behind Morsi. Anti-Americanism was therefore a large theme in yesterday’s protests. One wonders how that is compatible with the protesters calls for the U.S. backed army to take over.

That is indeed what I now find likely to happen. Rumors say that the army has already informed the U.S. that Morsi will be gone by the end of the week. Then a new cycle of writing a constitution and elections will begin. This time in an even more loaded atmosphere and under worse economic conditions.