What Is Next For Egypt?
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 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.
- 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.
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.
Posted by b on July 1, 2013 at 13:00 UTC | Permalink
next page »The Qataris (like the Saudis they come from) are wielding a heavy hand throughout the region affecting regime change and funding bad actors. Do a search on "Qatar influence Egypt" and you'll get an idea. I noticed last year GPS (CNN/CFR) predicted Qatari influence won't last. But the question is what goal are they funding and at what cost. Like the Saudis, they are portrayed as our allies. But is this really true?
Posted by: Curtis | Jul 1 2013 14:16 utc | 2
They should have surrounded and looted the homes of some Egyptian billionaires
The head of the Muslim Brotherhood is such a billionaire
---
Lots happening in Cairo today.
Five minister have asked to step down. The prime minister denied them their wish.
The Supreme Command of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has met for three hours without Morsi.
It will later make a public announcement.
SCAF statement is out: Army gives political parties 48 hours for them to fulfill the people demands. Or it will release a road map of its own.
So ...
The MB are critisising the police for not protecting their offices and are considering taking action to protect themselves. As if they haven't already.
Looks like the military are going to step in, they see a danger to the state.
"There is a state of division in society and the continuation of it is a danger to the Egyptian state and there must be consensus among all." Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi,last week.
Posted by: Billy boy | Jul 1 2013 14:54 utc | 5
Some simple facts:
1. Mursi is elected
2. A small percentage of the opposition, demonstrate
Still we hear from our media that the egyptian people hate mursi and that he is a dictator.
Army+police=mubarak gang/pro-protesters.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 14:58 utc | 6
I would guess that the reason the bribe list is in English in transactions between Qatar and Egypt is that English is the language of the international banking system. The oil states of the Middle East have leveraged their wealth into being big players in world banking.
Posted by: Paul Eichhorn | Jul 1 2013 14:58 utc | 7
Is that 48 hours for Morsi to step down and leave the country?
Posted by: Billy boy | Jul 1 2013 14:59 utc | 8
To the Egyptian army: Time to remove Morsi. We have to invade Syria and bomb Iran soon and we dont want mayhem in Egypt. Truly yours. USrael.
Posted by: Greggg | Jul 1 2013 15:12 utc | 9
Morsi was elected by a minority and the Brotherhood seems to think about themself as the new God-appointed dictators of Egypt. And now even many of that minority that voted him against the old regime candidate are against him too.
The Brotherhood thought that they could game the Mubarak opposition and the Army (with the backing of the western 'democracies') to rule as the new pharaohs.
And of course the Saudi funded Salafists wanted to come to power, and impose their repressive ideology on the whole of Egypt, on the backs of the Brotherhood.
Fat chance.
Posted by: ThePaper | Jul 1 2013 15:32 utc | 10
There is nothing more important to democracy than accepting election results when you lose, especially because there are future elections to win if you really have more popular support.
I feel like I'm watching anti-Mossedegh protesters in Iran in 1952.
I had hoped the army would be loyal to the elected government.
The US wants instability in Egypt if it cannot have a reliable stooge. No different from Iraq or Syria. It is very disappointing to see some Egyptians playing along with that.
If Egyptians don't like Morsi, they should vote for someone different in four years, just like if Americans don't like Obama.
This is a horrible situation.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 15:33 utc | 11
Two more things:
1) Let's say Qatar has made payments to the MB. They were bribes to do what? Qatar bribed the Muslim Brotherhood to get votes and install one of its members to the presidency? How does that narrative even work?
Qatar is a US client but the US directly pays $1.5 billion per year to the military for the express purpose of maintaining leverage over Egyptian policies.
The important thing is that regardless of bribes, if Egypt's policies offend Egyptians then Egyptians can, at least now, vote for new leadership after a regularly scheduled relatively short time. But that depends on respecting election results.
2) I don't read Juan Cole any more, but he is a reliable indicator of what the US foreign policy consensus is. It is very hostile against the MB.
This seems to me to be an attack, ultimately instigated by the United States, against Egyptian democracy.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 15:48 utc | 12
No, that's the bug of so called 'representative' democracy. Four/five/whatever years of a blank check to impose a dictatorship is not democracy.
Posted by: ThePaper | Jul 1 2013 15:50 utc | 13
The US and the MB has been allied since day one of their takeover along with the backing of the army. To thing that the current events automatically play on their hands displays a curious kind of blindness. Precisely when one of the things they really fear is instability in one of the countries which already fought wars with the western colony in Palestine.
Posted by: ThePaper | Jul 1 2013 15:54 utc | 14
Egyptian society like many societies around the world is deeply divided. It seems no one can gain legitimacy since the problems are so intractable. There is no easy way out. Productivity growth has stalled; debt continues to rise; the "easy" and "painless" solution of money printing does not seem to work except for the wealthiest. Some people believe the way out is through religion, others are concerned that that route deprives them of their way of life. From Brazil, Egypt, Syria and Turkey there is more social ferment.
The question is how long before the people in the west revolt against their ruling elites? Or are bread & circuses sufficient?
Posted by: ab initio | Jul 1 2013 16:15 utc | 15
I'm afraid it's it's more complex than some would like it to be.
For a start, whoever rules Egypt needs money; Egypt is in a lousy position financially and economically.
This translates to: Whoever is/will be in charge will be prone to strong external influence by needing to rely on external financial and economic help.
On the other side, most Egyptians will have different priorities such as pro-Sharia or anti-Sharia/pro-seacular, (more or less) pro- or at least neutral toward israel or (more or less) anti-israel, a.s.o.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 1 2013 16:24 utc | 16
If there is a scheduled contested election in four years, then it is not a dictatorship. It's a democracy whose winner you don't like.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 16:25 utc | 17
@Arnold Eveans - Qatar likely paid for Morsi to shut down the Syrian embassy and to favor the insurgents.
I find your understanding of "democracy" really weird.
If Egyptians don't like Morsi, they should vote for someone different in four years, just like if Americans don't like Obama.
So the U.S. "democracy" in its current state, in which the voters are quite obviously unable to achieve any "change", is so good that it should be an example?
Democracy is about much more than the crippled recent U.S. understanding of it. It is about consent of the governed and achieving 50.1% "win" at an election with 50% voter participation does not express such consent.
Unless in a quasi dictatorship you can't rule a country on the really big issues against the will of a majority or even against the will of a big minority. Some basic consent is needed. Morsi, like you, seems not to understand that.
Egypt and the US are democracies compared to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and other US colonies in the region.
If we get Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the other colonies to be as democratic as Egypt is today, that would be major progress.
What do you think is some really big issue that a big minority disagrees with Morsi on in Egypt? Other than that Morsi should be president?
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 16:35 utc | 19
19) what happened to the Egyptian parliament? Just curious.
How about checks and balances - usually you can impeach a president.
Posted by: somebody | Jul 1 2013 16:49 utc | 20
Arnold Evans, so I guess your take is that yesterday no one was protesting or rejecting the MB rule. Or just a handful of ex Mubarak paid goons by US/Israel/whatever other bogeyman.
I'm afraid that's also the MB take and they will regret it. The MB will only see the Army coup and not the people that rejected their overhanded sectarian rule.
I doubt the MB will go wild with an armed rebellion (the Salafis on Saudis pockets on the other hand are a different matter) as rather than a real religious or political movement they are more like a clever successful capitalist elitist group (in way like the Jehova's Witness or the Mormons for Christianism which are actually quite successful on their own sphere of influence) feeding on the weakness of the people. As long as they can keep a share of power they will try to play safe and endure ... as they have been acting since their creation, they are the farthest from a revolutionary movement an organization can be. But now that many people have seen what they really are or what are their real capabilities they will just become a fringe group, influential but not the rulers of the Arab/Muslim world they dreamed off.
Posted by: ThePaper | Jul 1 2013 16:51 utc | 21
What do you think is some really big issue that a big minority disagrees with Morsi on in Egypt?
Gaza, Syria, neo-liberalism, MB taking over all quasi secular institutions of the state, monopolizing the writing of the constitution, the sellout to Qatar ...
It is not one issue just like the opposition isn't one group. But the above are the big issues that have together brought up a big enough chunk of the people to say "no longer". There were several turning points over the last year where more and more people deserted from him. His poll values are down from some 75% to 25%.
And yes there has been a big campaign against Morsi. Especially the private media were denouncing him again and again. But state media, also very big in Egypt, is pro-Morsi.
I feel like I'm watching anti-Mossedegh protesters in Iran in 1952.
That was a CIA paid for and instigated coup. What issues, in your mind, does the U.S. have with Morsi that it would like to take him down? He has factually been more pro-Israel than Mubarak (see Gaza tunnels). The U.S. ambassador and Obama today have like you pressed for the "democratic process" which means "we stick with Morsi". So is this a CIA coup? How?
Egypt's financial situation may indeed be dire, but it does it have to be? Looks to me like another example of the destructive effects of neo-liberalism. Mexico may be a good comparison.
EGYPTIAN INCOME TAX RATE
Over 10 million (US$1,657,468) - 25%
EGYPTIAN CAPITAL GAINS TAXES
There are no capital gains taxes in Egypt.
globalpropertyguide DOT com/Middle-East/Egypt/Taxes-and-Costs
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 17:01 utc | 23
Arnold Evans
democracy, or for that matter any legitimate form of government, is not simply based on "how to decide who runs it?" but also on other very impotant factors such as acceptance and implementation of constitutional rules, availability of basic human rights for everyone incl. the opposition and - ideally - involvement of and feedback by the citizens as far and continuously as possible.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 1 2013 17:05 utc | 24
Morsi won the election. He won an election that was free and fair. It's true voter participation wasn't large, its also true the left-wing and secular parties did not have a lot of time to build there own organisation vs the vast grassroots machine that powers the Muslim Brothers. It's not perfect but in the aftermath of a revolution things will be messy.
The army's demand that the MB's have 48 hours to schedule new elections is a coup threat made public. They aren't doing it because they "support the people" these are the same guys that tear gassed and strip searched and snipered "the people" last year in defence of Mubarak. They are doing it because the military knows the MB are the most powerful faction not controlled by the military. I'm sure the SCAF would love some left-wing President with no party machine behind him. They could keep him on a mighty short leash.
This is not going to end well. The Muslim Brotherhod won't just accept this coup attempt. It will prove all of their fears that after 30 years of playing by the rules of non-violence, they will never be allowed to govern. It will prove the Salafists parties right that going through the democratic system is a waste of time.
And it will divide the people. The only reason Tahrir Square succeeded was because the Left and the Muslim Brothers stood side by side against Mubarak. If the people are divided the Military will become the rulers because they will be the only force able to tip the balance in favor of either faction. They will become the referee setting the rules.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jul 1 2013 17:11 utc | 25
ThePaper:
Yesterday there were protests in Egypt that were no more or less valid than if Romney supporters today tried to force Obama to resign before the end of his term. Which is to say not valid or legitimate at all. Fundamentally disrespectful of the democratic process. The best I can say is unfortunately the protesters don't know any better as they harm Egypt benefiting Egypt's adversaries and potential adversaries.
b:
The US prefers instability to stability in Israel's region if there is not a reliable stooge. Fair contested elections in four years where Gaza can be an issue is what the US is trying to avoid.
I think the US embassy hopes it can install a new military dictator, but if it fails, instability is still preferable to stability in Egypt.
Mr. Pragma:
There is no more important issue for a democracy to determine than who is the leader. No other issue is even close. Egypt today is comparable to the US in how democratic its government is and so far ahead of the US colonies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait and others in the region that the US maintains on Israel's behalf.
I think the US has formed a temporary alliance of convenience with Egyptians who, for different reasons, also oppose democracy in Israel's region. This alliance will prove to be to the great detriment of the Egyptians.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 17:16 utc | 26
Many people here doesnt seems to grip, again Mursi is elected. Must Obama step down because Occupy Movement says so? Of course not.
Quite funny that some people that say that Assad should not step down now say the opposite about Mursi. Please be consistent. You are only playing into the hands of war profiters, Israel, US, neocons.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 17:19 utc | 27
In the name of fighting Communism, the United States has spent the last 60 years destroying every effective secular, democratic force in the Middle East. Now the region has now reached a dead-end where there is nothing except bloodshed and privation.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 17:21 utc | 28
Mr Pragma
Please dont talk about western democracy values on issues dealing with non western states such as Egypt.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 17:23 utc | 29
The winners of the election are filling the government with its supporters. Protesting that is no more or less legitimate than protesting Obama for filling the government with Democrats.
Morsi has not made lifetime or irreversible appointments. If the voters of Egypt want government filled with supporters of a different party, they just have to win an election.
These protests represent a fundamental disrespect for the democratic process, for rule by the majority. Its sad to see because the US also clearly opposes rule by the majority in Israel's region as it expresses by supporting colonies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and others.
Once you have elections, you don't need street protests any more. The graceful way to determine the relative strength of factions is at the ballot box, where the MB have won 6 different elections since Mubarak.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 17:23 utc | 30
The Constitution of Venezuela would have allowed for a recall election at exactly this point, channeling these energies into acceptable political outlets.
The MB knew that this option existed when the new Egyptian constitution was written. Why did they chose not to go with it?
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 17:36 utc | 31
All of you assholes are confusing representative republics with "democracy".
Posted by: par4 | Jul 1 2013 17:38 utc | 32
Once you have elections, you don't need street protests any more.
This is the most fucked up concept of 'democracy' or 'rule by the people' I have ever read. You and me are not talking the same language or live in the same world.
Posted by: ThePaper | Jul 1 2013 17:38 utc | 33
The first step in any modern day revolution should be to shutdown the US embassy first. This should be done peacefully, not through hostage taking, etc. They can always open it up later and resume diplomatic relationships, but its essential that they shut down the embassy for a few years while the new revolutionary government stabilizes.
Why?
Because the US embassy in these countries act as an independent local governmental body, working independently of the local government/system to manage the day-to-day affairs of these weak nations. US embassies have been converted into colonial headquarters and they are a threat to the national integrity of these nations.
Posted by: Kdr | Jul 1 2013 17:41 utc | 34
Arnold Evans (25)
There is no more important issue for a democracy to determine than who is the leader. No other issue is even close.
I'm afraid you are in a logical circle. If you reduce democracy to the question of the determination of leaders, then evidently your reduction is right - within the limits of your artificially limited frame.
You might, however, want to consider that that question (how to determine leaders) is put within a context and based on quite some preconditions, i.e. that question is merely a technicality (as are the diverse forms of implementation).
Quite evidently, there are way more important issues such as, for instance, basic human rights - and democracy is supposed to be one way to implement those, namely the human right of self-determination as far as possible. Furthermore, democracy implies some kind of group, i.e. siome kind of society, because without the pretext, the whole issue of governing and the related question of who should lead would be meaningless.
It's therefore no coincidence that democracy is basically just one (of many) way to implement some system of compromise between self-determination ("I") and some kind of group-based order ("we").
Anonymous (28)
Please dont talk about western democracy values on issues dealing with non western states such as Egypt.
Why not? After all, one major reason for trouble there is the fact that the western powers try to ignorantly impose their "democratic values" (while gladly using and relying on very much non-democratic dictators).
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 1 2013 17:46 utc | 35
@Kdr "US embassies have been converted into colonial headquarters"
There's a joke in Latin America:
Q: "Why doesn't the United States have coups?"
A: "Because they're the only country without a US embassy"
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 17:55 utc | 36
Mr Pragma
Why? Because Egypt is not a western state, thus you cant demand that western values to be imposed on Egypt.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 18:09 utc | 37
Arnold Evans
Correct - these people are sore losers and cant accept the principle of democracy, Mursi won - get over it.
Just imagine if the protesters were the won the election and that it was the muslim brotherhood that were out on the streets today trying to overthrow the state. Yes imagine the western coverage, it would be NOTHING like we see now today.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 18:11 utc | 38
guest77: I guess you're claiming that somewhere in the world there is a government with a democratic feature that Egypt's government does not have. I'll grant you that. But your claim does not either transform Morsi into a dictator, Egypt into a dictatorship or protesting losing elections as a legitimate political activity.
Mr. Pragma: Who is supposed to determine which "basic human rights" are to be prioritized over which others? Basically in the Middle East, these questions can either be answered by the country's voters, and if you respect the last six election results, then the MB is the legitimate determiner of that question for Egypt until it loses an election, or that question is answered by the US embassy, which primarily respects the "basic human right" of Israel to be dominant over its region of hundreds of millions of people who are not Jewish at the cost of any amount of non-Jewish lives and interests.
Unless you vote in Egypt's elections, and more Egyptians vote on your side than the other, your ideas of what basic human rights should be respected and how they should be implemented are not relevant to the Egyptian context.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 18:11 utc | 39
@38 No, but it does possibly point to the fact that possibly the MB were less interested in creating a democracy - in its fullest-fledged form using the best available concepts created by recent practitioners seriously devoted to creating a a working democratic government - and more in just getting a hold of the mechanisms of state.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 18:18 utc | 40
"33
Let's take it to the next level. Shut down USA Embassy's in all developing countries. Or only allow the US Embassy a minimum staff of 5 people. Ambassador and support staff. Everyone else must be hired locally.
Or how about just sending a consul. The Embassy's have way too much influence and power. It's ridiculous that this should continue to be so. Ford in Syria and Stevens in Libya are some of the most egregious examples.
The Egyptian or at least a sizable portion of them have spoken. Let them eat cake!
Egypt has the canal, tourism, banking and agriculture. Plus they got plenty of sand!!!!!
Don't you need that for cement??!!! Hahaha!!!
The economy really shouldn't be that bad.
Posted by: Fernando | Jul 1 2013 18:23 utc | 41
Anonymous (36)
It seems you misunderstood me. I do not wish to impose western values to Egypt.
Arnold Evans (38)
No, there is no need to determine what basic human rights are. It's already well defined.
And no, it's not up to voters, Egyptian ones or others, to redefine that.
What *is* up to Egyptian voters is to choose one of the candidates available and ideally, to have their will implemented within the frame of a legitimate government that is, a government that is voted into power by some majority - but - that is taking into account the interest of *all* Egyptians while implementing basic rights for all to the best of its abilities.
Accordingly it seems that most Egyptians revolting against the morsi government are not against democracy but rather against the current goernment bluntly ignoring major principles of proper governing (e.g. by one-sidedly implementing and pushing Egypt toward mb.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 1 2013 18:26 utc | 42
Arnold is taking exactly the same view as Ambassador Ann Patterson. But of course the US only fetishises elections when their guy or gal wins them. We all know that. They throw all the mud they can at them when the guy or gal they don't like wins them. We all know that too. We can all reel off examples of both on the ends of our fingers. Now, what is happening here is that the MBs are the current US clients, whereas the Army is regarded, and I hope rightly, as a hotbed of Nasserism.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 1 2013 18:27 utc | 43
Morsi was elected when the choice was between him, and the vaguely benign policies he promised, and a representative of the Mubarak oligarchy. He just won: he was mandated not to be a Mubarak clone.
Since then real questions have come up and on every one of them he has shown that his government differs only marginally from the one which was overthrown:
It has no economic policies except to borrow, pledging the labour of the poor as colateral. And to beg, pledging the honour of the nation as payment. In return for a few billion from Qatar, Egypt pumps sewage into the tunnel lifelines of Gaza. In return for praise from Obama, Syria is proclaimed an enemy and armed mercenaries are sent to blow up villages there. In return for Saudi bribes shi'ites and christians are left to the mercies of lynch mobs.
Egypt's crisis, a crisis about food, fuel, water and human rights, grows worse and the "democrats" tell us to wait four years, collect funds, endure persecution (death squads, assassins, imprisonment) and canvass voters.
What is needed is not the emptiness and illusory politics of representative democracies but mass participation in the discussion needed to establish the way forward, and to save the country from enslavement and famine. Clearly the first priority must be to expropriate those who have plundered the poor and use their wealth to feed the hungry, provide medicine for the sick and lift the burden from those being sweated to premature graves.
During a revolution elections are useless: change is constant, the only institutions worth considering are councils of delegates, subject to recall by and under the constant influence of their constituents. US or British style representative systems are the most successful examples of systems designed to prevent popular democracy. This is the truth hidden in the plain sight of people who do not read their own history.
Posted by: bevin | Jul 1 2013 18:36 utc | 44
guest77:
So who should have a hold of the mechanisms of the Egyptian state, after six elections that the MB won? You?
If the opposition wins the next election, it probably will get what winners of elections get everywhere in the world. Control of the mechanisms of the state. The Democratic party has that control in the US because Barack Obama won the election.
The idea that the losers of an election cannot wait for the next election to prevent the winners from getting a hold of the mechanisms of the state is exactly the opposite of democracy.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 18:41 utc | 45
Mr. Pragma:
You can't be serious claiming basic human rights are already well defined. Much less to claim they are already well defined for Egyptians and you're not Egyptian. Let's see your definition.
What are the basic human rights? Who chose them?
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 18:44 utc | 46
bevin
The protesters are pro-US.
Mr Pragma
Ok it seems that you think democracy meant the same in the west as in egypt.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 18:44 utc | 47
The Guardian are saying that Morsi is defying the threat of a military coup. He says it can't go ahead without the approval of the US.
Perhaps the recent 1.3 billion in military aid could be seen as approval. Instability R Us strikes again?
Posted by: BillyBoy | Jul 1 2013 18:44 utc | 48
bevin:
Since then real questions have come up and on every one of them he has shown that his government differs only marginally from the one which was overthrown:
It has no economic policies except to borrow, pledging the labour of the poor as colateral. And to beg, pledging the honour of the nation as payment. In return for a few billion from Qatar, Egypt pumps sewage into the tunnel lifelines of Gaza. In return for praise from Obama, Syria is proclaimed an enemy and armed mercenaries are sent to blow up villages there. In return for Saudi bribes shi'ites and christians are left to the mercies of lynch mobs.
I would love to see somebody do a better job than Morsi, after Morsi loses an election. I would love to see Morsi's record scrutinized in a campaign.
I don't want to see the military, which receives $1.5 billion per year from the US - with that aid explicitly aimed at proving the US leverage over Egyptian policies - restore the military dictatorship.
I also don't want to see elections, whether Morsi or the MB wins or loses, invalidated by the losing side. If you don't respect election results, you are an adversary of democracy.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 18:50 utc | 49
I think bevin@43 got it right: "Egypt's crisis, a crisis about food, fuel, water and human rights"
That's the real issue: 90 million people restricted to living not more than just 10km alongside river Nile, the Nile delta and some patches of land at the coastlines, fighting for the scarce ressources of water, food etc. Its not very much about an issue of democratic behaviour, its about life or death and nobody has an answer to that, neither the opposition parties nor the West nor the rest of us.
95% of Egypts 1 mill skm is of absolutely no use to them
Posted by: thomas | Jul 1 2013 18:58 utc | 50
"The protesters are pro-US."
This is certainly a simplistic way of looking at things.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 19:01 utc | 51
A few facts:
- the Muslim Brothers have always been very good at spreading rumours ahead of elections; in the case of the elections since the fall of Mubarak, the most common would be "Egypt has gold mines and oil and the Suez canal, every Egyptian should be as rich as a Saudi, and the Brothers will make it happen".
- in the months of chaos following the fall of Mubarak, the police was ordered to stay invisible, and the army was not able to control every road of the country, as a result the Brothers organized a massive traffic of gas to Gaza; the result was that for the presidential election, it was difficult and/or dangerous to find gas and transports (there were fights in front of gas station in addition to the normal fights and tension that is palpable before any election in Egypt)
- Morsi has behaved exactly like Mubarak in his speeches (starting 2 hours late for example; accusing and raising his finger several times.. no that even Mubarak didn't do), his refusal of negociation about amending the constitution which they "islamized" etc.
- The people who say "he was democratically elected" should check the wiki page on "Presidential elections in Egypt": first tour, not even 25 percent; 2nd tour won with 14 million votes, and now a petitition against him that gathered 22 million signatures in 2 months. The Tamarrud movement who has managed to achieve this has more intelligence than the people who believe the Brothers can ever understand what is democracy (since they refuse the idea of equality).
Only a few days ago, Morsi made a speech in a stadium calling the EGyptians to go for holy war in Syria and promessed to send 1 million people; when Salafi sheikhs next to hom started to incite the crowd against the Shiites, he didn't do anything; after the lynching and death of 4 shiites in a suburb of Cairo last week, he condemned the next day but no mention of it in the TV speech he gave 2 days later.
When a few months ago 2 kids of 15 and 16 were lynched and killed by a mob in the Delta region, just because they were looking for gas to buy in a neighbouring village and were wrongly accused by a woman in the street of being kidnappers, neither Morsi nor anyone of his goverment paid a visit to the village or called the families.
The Egyptians are far more intelligent than Western commentators...
Neither Le Monde nor the BBC reported yesterday the simultaneous anti Morsi demonstrations in Italy, the UK, etc. Why? As many believe, Obama has got too close from the MB lobby in the US.
Posted by: Mina | Jul 1 2013 19:05 utc | 52
Mina
A few facts for you
1. Muslim Brotherhood havent "spread rumours"
2. The army is pro-mubarak and isnt authorized by Muslim Brotherhood
3. There is no "islamization", thats islamophobic nonsense.
4. Yes he was democratically elected, do you know what democratically elected means? It doesnt mean you have to get 90% it doesnt mean you need 70% it means you get the MOST of the votes. Apparently you too cant accept the principle of democracy.
5. There is no muslim brotherhood "lobby" sigh. If you knew anything about the situation you would know that the protesters are PRO-US!
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 19:14 utc | 53
Mina, if everything you say is true, and the Muslim Brotherhood still wins elections, then the Muslim Brotherhood should be the party that sets policy in Egypt.
If you disagree with that, then you disagree with democracy.
I'd like to know in your words, why can't Egypt wait for the current term to end to replace Morsi with the winner of an orderly contested election after a campaign?
Once a Romney supporter establishes that Obama is a socialist welfare president who is making Americans dependent on food stamps, that supporter still has to answer the question: why can't you wait for the term to be over and tell the truth to Americans in the next election? There is no good answer to that.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 19:15 utc | 54
The US prefers instability to stability in Israel's region if there is not a reliable stooge. Fair contested elections in four years where Gaza can be an issue is what the US is trying to avoid.
I think the US embassy hopes it can install a new military dictator, but if it fails, instability is still preferable to stability in Egypt.
Arnold Evans | Jul 1, 2013 1:16:34 PM | 25
There's a harmonious ring to AE's perception.
The US seems able to engineer this kind of 'uprising' in almost any country at the drop of a hat. This one looks like an all-too-convenient deflection from Obama's reputation as the amoral leader of an imploding ex-superpower.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 1 2013 19:16 utc | 55
One can add: most people who voted for Morsi did not even know that
1) during the revolution which ousted Mubarak, he was in jail;
2) his children have US citizenship and two of them still work and live there.
For those who claim that "a small percentage of the opposition demonstrate", that would be the BBC takes on events yesterday, trying to sell that there were anti-Morsi demos of the same size... But 14 million people in the streets, that's a lot, especially considering the dangerosity of being openly against people who call for djihad every day.
It's hard to read the comments here of people who talk about democracy and stability and the next elections when the country is on the verge of civil war not because of polarization (that is already plan B) but because: no jobs, kidnappings, thefts, poors getting poorers (2 million street kids of Cairo getting poorer than they were already under Mubarak, do you understand what it means? how many journalists do you want raped in front of a crowd of men that does not do any move to protect her to understand?)
Posted by: Mina | Jul 1 2013 19:20 utc | 56
#55:
I think the statements I wrote are correct. Which statement that I wrote do you believe is not true, if any?
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 19:23 utc | 57
Mina:
1) Who would be doing a better job than Morsi in ending poverty, and what would that person be doing?
Morsi has to deal with a hostile West and is dependent on imports.
(I think this actually is also why, despite his sympathy for the Palestinians, he is cooperating to some degree with Israel's efforts to impose hunger on Gaza.)
I don't think you have an answer to that. If there was a simple way to make solve the problem of poor children on the streets of Cairo Morsi would do it just as fast as whoever you'd prefer.
If Morsi had lost, do you think the MB would or should have done what your side is doing now?
Are elections ever going to mean anything? Or whatever side loses will ask the army to overturn the elections from now on?
You don't believe in democracy. It's really that simple.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 19:31 utc | 58
Arnold, you keep making the same, very limited, formal argument over and over again. You have given no indication why, in this particular case, you regard the election of Morsi as an absolute, and I do not believe for a moment that you would take this attitude to each and every 'democratic' election anywhere else in the world. You have an official agenda, I think, like Ambassador Ann Patterson does. You want the signed and sealed US client to stay in office. If this was Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, for example, you would be saying the opposite: that the election was rigged. You're an official voice.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 1 2013 19:32 utc | 59
Nobody should have to die to cause a change in policy in Egypt from now on. Campaign peacefully, and the side that convinces the most Egyptians to vote for it should be put into position to make decisions and the side that loses should refine their positions and electoral tactics to win next time.
Egypt right now has a constitution that, if most Egyptians decide they want a secular president, will produce a secular president in the next election who can undo whatever damage you think Morsi is doing.
For people to be dying in Egypt weakens Egypt and is good for Egypt's enemies, including the United States.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 19:35 utc | 60
Mina
Seems like you have watched too much CNN mixed with some Pam Geller.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 19:40 utc | 61
Frightening that Egypt's sovereignty is only up to our approval,neh?Come home America,and right your own ship.
And of course the MB are not western approved,but we do love those military men,with all those prizes(Order of Tahrir Sq)on their chests.
And,as an American,I'm a mushroom man(always in the dark)as to the real workings of Egyptian politics,sheesh,we don't even learn anything about the history and workings of our two closest neighbors,Canada and Mexico.Weird.
Posted by: dahoit | Jul 1 2013 19:41 utc | 62
@53 "If you knew anything about the situation you would know that the protesters are PRO-US!"
I'm gonna need to see some pics or youtubes of at least a few protesters waving aloft the Stars n Stripes or shouting USA! USA! before buying that.
Posted by: ruralito | Jul 1 2013 19:58 utc | 63
@#61
The MB not Western-approved? Are you kidding! They're a creation of the West as much as the Army is. Moreover, the army is a mojor corporate owner, it has a vested interest in the neoliberal model. Unless a genuine socialist alternative emerges that has the public's support, it''l be 1848 all over again. These are not revolutions but insurrections, there's a vast difference.
Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 1 2013 20:04 utc | 64
The genuine socialist alternative has already emerged; Hamdeen Sabahi made more than 20 percent at the 1st tour of presidential election.
But you can imagine the Gulf would never let a socialist win. He has actually now more chances to win than the day dreaming Shafiq, whatever the latter says today on TV from Abu Dhabi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_presidential_election,_2012
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/1/75429/Egypt/Muslim-Brotherhoods-reign-in-Egypt-will-end-within.aspx
A problem of the 2012 election was that there was no daily programmes on the radio to inform the people about the different parties. There were some talk-shows here and there but most people are busy watching a few Turkish and Brasilian soaps everyday on satellite channels, so they usually have no idea about politics.
Posted by: Mina | Jul 1 2013 20:12 utc | 65
# 57.
I submitted #55 and haven't a clue why you posed the question in #57.
I've re-read what I wrote and still think I was endorsing the cites I reproduced.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 1 2013 20:13 utc | 66
The slogan, in Egypt, was a year ago, and remains? Bread, dignity and social justice.
Bread (a metaphor), as we know, cannot be delivered, the price of energy etc. is too high, Egypt has no oil/gas left to speak of... the economy is sputtering, failing. Imports become unaffordable, strife, insecurity, unpredictable legal enviro, scotches the tourist trade, international investment, local enterprise, etc.
So, inflation, budget deficit, soaring debts, not much left for education, health, investment, leading to inequality - not that these problems are new (they caused the downfall of Mubarak..) but they have worsened.
telling. ex. Egypt Seen Asking France for Delayed Payment for Grain Imports:
Unemployment bites hard. Sometimes, just a little less input or minor difficulties brings collapse to a family, a business, a town, a commercial sector, a region, etc.
Is Morsi responsible? He was elected in part as a ‘technocrat’ who could handle the economy, and as a ‘centrist’, or consensual person, acceptable to the Internationals, if that makes sense in the Egyptian scene. A very hot seat..bound to lead to criticism, opposition...
As for dignity, and social justice, these are notions that are hard to define in the abstract and depend on the cultural context. Both concepts imply a participation in the State, or its ruling ideology (like religion), very solid shared values and cohesion, community sharing, state regulated or not.
Schisms in the Egyptian population will, are, preventing that. Deep and wide.
What is absent, in this neo-lib landscape, is the defense of labor.
==========
fluff link, a song, a recipe, a poem, a picture, a video, things have gotten so dire, there you go, self-indulgence, a distraction.
Break on through to the other side, the Doors. Raucous. Not the best from the Doors. The deep and wide theme.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BIjCW2_Uik
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 1 2013 20:18 utc | 67
For the MB and the Salafis, a woman should not be allowed to vote unless her husband (if around) or another male relative lets her to, and brings her to the polling station. What kind of democracy can you talk about which such a starting point?
Democracy in the case of Egypt would mean allowing only people who have been to school a least until the age of 12 to be allowed to vote. Shall I remind you that in Athens only the "citizens" and neither the slaves nor the women were participating? This is the sad conclusion that was reached even by Ala al Aswani. The reason being that what you have in Egypt (and already under Mubarak) are local thugs hiring buses and bringing 50 people large families to vote, while making it impossible by different threats/rumours to people who may vote for the wrong candidate to reach the polling station.
Since you ask how the poverty problem could be solved, I though it should be simple: by encouraging education of women and kids, rather than organizing "calls for djihads" fiestas in the stadium and inviting Qardawi and other Gulf sheikhs make long speechs explaining that the sole problem of Egypt are the Shiis! Strangely you did not answer on lynching/kidnappinds/rapes becoming a daily activity in Egypt.
Anonymous, if you think only CNN has seen rapes in Cairo, just start watching Bassam Youssef show and search for the week where he invited some activists who are working on helping the victims.
Posted by: Mina | Jul 1 2013 20:23 utc | 68
Arnold Evans (46)
You can't be serious claiming basic human rights are already well defined. Much less to claim they are already well defined for Egyptians and you're not Egyptian. Let's see your definition.
Egypt was, in fact, one of the states voting pro Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the UN.
Sorry, but kindly play your distraction games with someone else.
Ad (58)
Just more distractions from you.
Correct, nobody, not morsi and not someone else can just magically make problems like hunger vanish.
But morsis agenda of pushing Egypt closer and closer to mb ideals is sure enough not solving problems like hunger.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 1 2013 20:29 utc | 69
Just a short summary of why Egyptians are ashamed of Morsi (and the guy did his stadium show and brought Qardawi yesterday again thinking that the 22 million signatures were going to vanish into thin air? no doubt he must be on the same hard drugs as Ahmadinejad)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbGx-tW8sNg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ5sgr41kGU
http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/06/15/egypt-to-aid-syrian-rebels/
Posted by: Mina | Jul 1 2013 20:37 utc | 71
I find Anonymous 53 particularly interesting in that he ends up telling Mina: "If you knew anything about the situation you would know that the protesters are PRO-US!" This reminds me of the Syrian rebels saying that Assad (and Hezbollah) are really PRO-ISRAEL. And the Syrian rebels do say this, it's basic to their propaganda to keep repeating it; they say Assad and Hezbollah are really protecting Israel. And presumably Sunnis who are politically uninformed but have a kneejerk religious loyalty which dictates the more or less simplistic pictures of politics they accept, so that if for instance Qaradawi says it, in a video, they just cannot imagine that he is a paid, systematic liar; their reverence for Sunni Sheikhs is overwhelming. But fortunately this is not that environment, so Anonymous 53 can try to bliff Mina but is most unlikely to succeed.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 1 2013 20:48 utc | 72
Rowan
Apparently you too lack knowledge.
You think that 1. young, 2. mostyl secular, anti religious groups, 3. western minded protesters are not pro-US?
Dont be a wiseguy.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 20:57 utc | 73
Mina
Instead of using emotional and xenohpobic arguments, use facts. Again you seems to have watched too much CNN and read to much by Pam Geller & co.
Approach my replies to you instead.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 21:00 utc | 74
Morsi and the protesters seem to agree in something. Everything is the US ambassador fault ...
Posted by: ThePaper | Jul 1 2013 21:04 utc | 75
If they are anti-Morsi they are anti-US because the US supported and still supports Morsi.
TribLive, Jun 29
Egyptian liberals, moderates angry over American support for Muslim BrotherhoodThis most-populous Arab nation is still considered a key U.S. ally, despite its Islamist turn after a 2011 revolution ousted dictator Hosni Mubarak.
It pockets about $1.3 billion annually in U.S. military aid and $250 million in other U.S. assistance.
For months, Egyptian liberals and moderates have grown angrier over what they say is inexplicable U.S. support for Islamists.
In Tahrir Square, Cairo's epicenter of protest since 2011, graffiti near the Egyptian Museum declares: “Down with the Brotherhood, Down with America!”
On a downtown building, a poster shows a distorted portrait of U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson over the words, “Crone, Go Home.” On a nearby corner, another poster says, “Obama supports terrorism.”
Syria and Afghanistan are similar, because Obama supports terrorism there too.
Mina,
I get that you don't like Morsi. You think all kinds of bad things about him and his supporters.
I don't get what makes you think the election he won should be revoked rather than following the graceful and bloodless procedure outlined in the constitution for retaining or removing him after his term is over.
Can you explain that?
Mr. Pragma,
If you think Morsi's being president of Egypt is somehow incompatible with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the people of Egypt do not, then the voters of Egypt should win and you should lose.
Anything otherwise is you opposing democracy.
Egypt's voters spoke, and any excuse you come up with not to listen is you opposing democracy.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 21:16 utc | 77
@71 Yeah, since the accusation of "PRO-US" was repeated with such zeal, I'll repeat, with equal zeal that that SEEMS A BIT SIMPLISTIC.
After all, what could be more PRO-US than offering to send your young men to fight along with the US proxy army in Syria while submitting your country to debt peonage to the United States' favorite Gulf dictators all while maintaining the privileges of the big business? I don't think the US is losing any sleep over having Morsi in power.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 21:22 utc | 78
"Anything otherwise is you opposing democracy."
When the argument is presented as this black and white, something is wrong.
Clearly the people are upset, you don't get millions in the streets out of petty spite and party politicking.
You can pout and say "you're not following the rules" I guess. But is really the answer you're going to give to 22 million people demanding a change?
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 21:27 utc | 79
30% of the population voted in the presidential election and Morsi got a little bit more than half of the votes.People voted for him,aside from the MB constituency,for 2 reasons:some gave their vote to Mursi out of the feeling that the MB had been the underdog of Egypt for too long and others in panic as to not let the previous regime contender Sharif win the elections.
Watching the local Jon stewart show,the Bassem Yussef "Program"(the most watched program in the arab world) was extremely revealing of the egyptian mindset two days before the June 30 demos:Yussef had a collection of snippet of the various MB speeches ,political shows,demos etc..in all of them MB and affiliated were threatening the others with beheading,eating their livers etc..the hole program they actually realized in Syria!!!Well even the "kanaba party"e.g..the couch people as the silent majority is called in Egypt couldn't take anymore any MB medicine.....the brutality of their language with the consequence of killing 4 innocent people including an old and invalid Shiia cleric with sticks and knives a few days ago didn't contribute to their cause.The mass meeting hold by Morsi last week to support the pseudo syrian revolution in very sectarian terms insulting iranians,shias,Hezbollah as apostate left a terrible impression as well as Morsi demand to sent people and army to fight in Syria.The army responded immediately in very strong terms.The sectarian tone of MB and Salafists isn't passing in Egypt considering that one of their most glorious historical moment was under the Fatimid,that
Cairo was build by this dynasty and that it is home to one of the most important Imam Hussein shrines.
Not to be underestimated was the humiliation that Morsi 's travels abroad brought on Egypt,
like when he was standing on a podium during a press conference with Merkel and while she was speaking he was watching with bore his watch or with Ashton if I remember well he was scratching his crotch.His visit to Teheran during the Non aligned meeting and the public insult in his speech toward the host country with terrible sectarian terms.The press and tv reported all this and more...
And then the economical misery he brought on Egypt ,12 billions $$ loans in 12 months.No gaz to cook,inflation,no water,no fuel,millions more unemployed,servitude under all the worst US stratagems,IMF,Qatar,Saudis.And the talks of loaning the pyramids to that qatari beast,and the project of loaning the Suez channel to..Qatar and dissociate the Suez province administratively so as to make it a paradise for corporate sharks and associate,renouncing de facto Egypt sovereignty on the jewel of Abdel Nasser...
Last but not least his calling Peres in a letter "my dear friend",the destruction of tunnels in Gaza,the changes introduced in the educational program considering Zion a mere neighbor,the indifference even vocal toward Alqods.
This is the beginning of the end of the MB in the region and the "Great Middle East",darling of the likudniks,neocons and affiliates in the US...
Syria started it remember with her rejection of political Islam and her alter ego Egypt is starting to clean its own house...
Posted by: Nobody | Jul 1 2013 21:27 utc | 80
Egypt's voters should decide, according to the law the people of Egypt ratified in the constitution, exactly how pro-or anti-US Egypt should be.
However, the US gives $1.5 billion per year to the Egyptian military exactly so that the military will not do things like threaten to take control of the country in 48 hours without US approval and permission.
And yes, the US would prefer a military dictatorship, accountable to the US embassy, rather than Morsi who can only remain in power if he wins reelection from Egypt's voters.
The US has a lot of leverage over Egypt, for example the IMF loan and other forms of dependency. But Egypt's voters should, in an orderly and legal fashion, determine the best way to manage the US' leverage.
Morsi is a much more legitimate figure to decide how to manage Egypt's relationship with the US than the military that has been receiving bribes to make policy accountable to the US for more than a generation.
But if you have someone better than Morsi, by all means, have that person run against Morsi and prevent Morsi from being reelected.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 21:31 utc | 81
Arnold Evans (76)
Ok, I get it. You have a weird sense of humor ...
If you think Morsi's being president of Egypt is somehow incompatible with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the people of Egypt do not, then the voters of Egypt should win and you should lose.
So, you think picking pieces of what others write and mixing it up, tinkering strange illogical constructs out of it is a basis for discurse?
And it seems you also think that a "manly" statement - "Period." - sonstruction in association with the arrogance to pass judegement replaces insight and reasoning?
Wrong. On both accounts.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 1 2013 21:34 utc | 82
guest77,
A small minority is demonstrating, again, these are the losers of the elections, they obviously dont accept the principle of democracy.
Just because people demonstrate doesnt mean the reasons are legit or that the president needs to step down as you seems to believe.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 21:35 utc | 83
guest77 (78)
One of the basic points AE just doesn't get is the fact that while the majority votes the leaders into power, these leaders once in power must be leaders for *all* of their country and people.
Accordingly he isn't disturbed that much by the fact that millions of Egyptians are on the street and strongly and increasingly forcefully opposing morsi. To AE they are probably just "sour losers" and should subject their rights and needs to the majority.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 1 2013 21:40 utc | 84
@guest77. why would they use a German date stamp on the bribe sheet?
Posted by: josef1 | Jul 1 2013 21:44 utc | 85
The Mubarak era-court, almost certainly in coordination with the US embassy, revoked the election of a house of Egypt's parliament.
An Egyptian judge involved in the decision openly said it was to enable the military to remain outside of democratic control, so that the military can remain accountable to the US, rather than to Egypt's voters.
Now we have protesters cheering the military's threats to remove Egypt's elected president without regard to any law. Even if a majority of Egyptians favored that, which there is no indication, a president has a right to remain in office even if unpopular until the constitutional mechanism for removal has been met.
Those protesters are practically acting in support of the US' agenda, how exactly this came to be we may learn more over the next generation as archives are released. The US does support in various ways organizations like those inciting the protests.
It is sad to see, but to support this process is to oppose democracy. Which the US clearly does, in Israel's region. Most notably in the case of its effective colonies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait and others.
For any of Morsi's faults, he is, according to the constitution, accountable to the voters of Egypt. This cannot be said for the military which instead is accountable to Barack Obama.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 21:47 utc | 86
Mr Pragma
So why is there opposition parties in democracies? After all according to yourself, there cant be no opposition in democracies, that means the ruling party have failed to fullfill every citizens goals and demands.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 21:52 utc | 87
If you argue that because Egypt's voters chose the Muslim Brotherhood for its leaders that justifies the military - which has been receiving constant bribes from the US for more than a generation - voiding every election that put them into power and by fiat assuming power then you are arguing in favor of the anti-democratic colonial relationship the US had with Egypt until Morsi came to power, as well as the relationship the US still has right now with its other colonies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and others on behalf of Israel.
There is one mechanism that confers legitimacy to a government in an democracy. That mechanism is not street protests. That mechanism is elections. You either respect them or you are advocating pro-US colonial dictatorship.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 1 2013 21:54 utc | 88
Press Round Table with Secretary Panetta and Ambassador Patterson in Cairo, Egypt, July 31, 2012
SEC. PANETTA: Okay. I mean, first of all, I think it's clear that Egypt, following the revolution, is committed to putting in place a democratic government.And a democratic government represents I think all of the constituencies and interests that are here in Egypt. And for that reason, I am confident that -- that the democracy here will fully represent, you know, a number of views. My own country is an example of democracy where there are sometimes very different views as to how issues ought to be dealt with.
But in the context of the democratic institutions that we have put -- put in place, there is a free and fair debate over those issues and what course of action should be taken. And I'm confident that the same thing will happen here in Egypt.
For that reason, there is continuing support for a strong mil-to-mil relationship because security for Egypt is important to the stability of this country as it implements this democratic transition. We have -- we have a history of working together in a cooperative way with the Egyptian military leadership. We will continue to provide whatever aid or assistance we can to try to help them in this effort.
Arnold, as always your points are very logical and well argued. I'm largely in agreement. If the brothers are expelled from power, they will simply feel cheated out of a victory they won fair and square. It is doubtful they will accept this passively.
However, regarding Egypt's foreign policy, Morsi seems to go beyond even Mubarak in trying to ingratiate himself. Gaza is still closed. The Israelis are praising the "security cooperation they are getting. Had Morsi left it at that, I might have been persuaded that he was compelled by Egypt's economic predicament.
But it got much worse. Morsi has now gone along with the most pernicious and perfidious plans of the U.S., namely the Sunni-Shia' divide and conquer strategy. He has now openly called for a NATO implemented no fly zone. (Note that he did that shortly after the fall of Qusair when the Syrian army was turning the tide.) He has essentially invited Egyptian salafists to travel to Syria and fight the Assad government. Now, with Gulf Arab money, western weapons and tonnes of Egyptian manpower, the Syrian war can last forever. Thanks a lot Morsi.
So if this protest movement is a plot to bring someone who is EVEN MORE(!) of a U.S. puppet, I shudder to think what he would be like.
Posted by: Lysander | Jul 1 2013 22:21 utc | 90
Arnold Evans (85)
So why is there opposition parties in democracies? After all according to yourself, there cant be no opposition in democracies, that means the ruling party have failed to fullfill every citizens goals and demands.
You just don't get it - or it doesn't fit your agenda.
Your question is an easy one, I'll explain it to you:
*If* a governments takes care of and addresses the needs and rights of *all* citizens then there will be citizen who consider the governments way of deciding and doing things OK (pro) and there will be citizens who disagree (Opposition) - with both groups living in (more or less) freedom and enjoying their rights, incl. the right to dislike the government and to formulate that position and to suggest other ways.
If, however, a government, elected or not, does not take care of and address the needs and rights of the citizens, *all* citizens and such violates basic principles of proper government and basic citizens/human rights, then revolution will arise and will be justified.
The problem in Egypt isn't the fact that many citizens have different views from the government. The problem is that the government abuses it's power and does not take of the needs and rights of *all* citizens. One example is that many Egyptians do not want their country to become a pawn of an alledgedly extreme and violent prone religious movement, namely the muslim brotherhood and that many Egyptians do not want their country to be sold out to external interests like qatari or american ones.
The fact that one is voted does not somehow magically justify *any and every* action. If you have problems to grasp that concept just think back to Hitler Germany with Hitler enjoying a majority, too. Quite evidently having a majority does not justify and legitimate everything and other rules and frames are still applicable.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 1 2013 22:22 utc | 91
I certainly have been appalled at the refusal of the opposition parties to cooperate with the Morsi government. It did seem that he was willing to compromise. But whatever has led to the present situation, it does look like he may very well lose his mandate to rule. At some level, a national leader, no matter how partisan the road he took to gain power, still has to rule all of the people.
I wish things had turned out differently. But it is not up to me to lecture the Egyptian people on what they should do next. Unfortunately, what started out looking like it could be a revolution is turning into a civil war. A war between those who believe religion should guide national affairs and those who don't is not going to turn out well. I think we might very well end up with an Islamic Republic of Egypt. Iran got there without full scale civil war, but many 10s of thousands leftists and other secular forces, died during that process.
Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 1 2013 22:38 utc | 92
Mr Pragma
Apparently you dont get it.
As I recently pointed out the protesters demands or arguments dont have to be legit at all. If this same group say, "oh we want Egypt to paint all cars pink" you would still buy their claims.
Just take the absurd demand that Mursi must step down, if not, the protesters will get violent. Thats the anti-democratic view you support.
Again just because you have people demonstrating doesnt mean their demands are legit. Again did Obama step down during Occupied movement? Did Merkel? Hollande? Did Hague? No they didnt. And its the same principle here.
Just look how you writes: 'government violates/abuses' etc. You are just stating propaganda.
Apparently you dont understand the logic of democracy and apparently you dont understand that it takes more than a few months to change a near dictator-regime to a more fitting kind of state for the egyptians.
Again instead of reading CNN get your own view of the situation.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1 2013 22:39 utc | 93
@83 josef
I have no idea. Please forgive my inane question about the English. It stood out to me because It is remarkable how much of the protest signs and other propaganda (not using the word negatively) shows up in English.
It is likely meaningless.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 23:09 utc | 94
I give AE and Anon their point about elections and following constitutional procedure in a normal situation.
But there is some definite disconnect between comparing what is happening in Egypt - a country on the brink of absolute financial disaster preparing for war against an old ally and neighbor - with the political goals of some decrepit "Romney Supporters" who have little to actually complain about.
We are talking about tens of millions of people in what appears to be the biggest political protests ever held. Surely the scope of the crisis and the sheer magnitude of the people's response gives this more legitimacy than some dopey protest in the West.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 23:17 utc | 95
I feel the protests has more to do with daily ‘life’ and the attraction of Western influences over the decades, social life and that freedom other than ‘Political Democracy', (I refrain from the word ‘Democracy’ as it does not exist) more so when not many can comprehend the term, be it here in the post or in our respective Countries, as it all too often bastardized - People are born into their status, it’s not an option, no one is born equal; take the son of a crack whore with a father called ‘Bloods or MS-13’ as she was gang raped, the probability of him being a stand-up citizen is pretty slim, that has fuck all to do with democracy, it's social status and enviroment.
As for being Pro US, this is very much a love/hate issue, like Pro any country ideal, it must have a ‘sticky effect’, in that, go on Holiday to Egypt, they will love you as long as they are getting a return, but you do get genuine people that display both extremes. The point is civil society discontent; People enjoy Malls, fashion, reading, cinema without restrictions, and they are less hardcore on religion, Islamic rule pushes are like slaps and reprimands, they are rarely happy, or inclusive to make all feel joy - Its strict, and restrictive, the culture has changed and so must religion.
As for the US, it's aid leans heavy on military aid, Egypt is also a regional balance; Morsi may have been the option, but he swayed away from his paymasters, the outcome; back to better the devil you know(MB), and importantly the 'investment needs it's RoI, lastly the West now know 100% the ultimate power is with the people and the military, and Morsi is not that man who has a connect with either.
Posted by: kev | Jul 1 2013 23:17 utc | 96
Anonymous
Wow. Implying that I read cnn and assuming that I don't understand democracy ... I'm impressed by those rhetorical qualities.
Well, I did *not* say that (all) their demands are legit nor would I consider weird demands like "paint all cars pink!" as legitimate - although strictly speaking they would be legitimate; what would not be legitimate were to use force to succeed.
I do, however, not consider the demand for morsi to step down as absurd. What should they do? Should they say "Please, pretty, pretty please, Mr. Morsi do not seel out our country and pleeaaze, Mr. president. do not consider israels interests as being above the interests of a considerable part of your citizens"?
The Egyptians have the right to *demand* that their president balances the diverse groups and their interests and that he does not abuse his power to bend and change Egypt into a mb extremist state. It's not the opposing Egyptians but morsi who acts illegitimate.
And it's not new. morsi *knew* that there are different major groups when he accepted the election results and, more importantly, he *knew* that the most important point for most Egyptians was *not* to become a mb state and a whore to qatar, zusa and israel.
Voting for morsi was in many cases *not* a vote for muslim brotherhood but a vote for a better Egypt and the man who seemed to be the most promising, based on many reasons.
While I have a tendency to mistrust armies the egyptian army put it quite straight and correct "The concerns of the citizen must be heard and taken seriously".
And, very importantly, while elections are fundamental in democracies and happen to be held every 4 or 5 years they are *not* a carte blanche for the period in between elections. If a very considerable part of the citizens are angrily opposed to a government it is necessary or at least wise to closely listen to those citizens rather than bluntly pushing ones agenda.
Besides those fundamental issues and factors it's quite simple: morsi sold his country to qatar, zusa and israel, i.e. he didn't deliver the change su much desired by so many Egyptians. Subserviantly turning against the palestinians in Gaza wasn't a popular position neither. And patting erdogans back during and after erdogans brutal terror regime (while he openly supported terrorists in Syria) might have been the break point.
That can not be compared to hollande or merkel who more or less do what they said they would do and who didn't take over a country after decades of a brutal dictatorship.
In the end it's simple: Whatever is bad for israel and zusa is good for the world.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 1 2013 23:18 utc | 97
How does the Egyptian constitution protect the rights of the minorities (assuming by his election Morsi is supported by a majority)and protect them from having to be ruled by an emerging religious dictatorship with no future elections as the dictatorship solidifies itself during the current Morsi term?
Posted by: GulfCoastPirate | Jul 1 2013 23:28 utc | 98
Which specific policy does someone claim is leading Egypt to financial disaster? The financial crisis, meaning the Western withholding of funds, is externally imposed precisely to pressure Morsi.
Which specific policy does someone claim is going to prevent a non-MB candidate from winning the presidency after Morsi's term if that candidate is more popular?
The US still has colonies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait and others and they make it more difficult than it would be otherwise for Egypt to remain independent and accountable to Egypt's voters. But again, that's not Morsi's fault.
Every country in the US' string of colonies would be better for its people if its people could vote for their leaderships and choose whoever they want as long as after the term they vote again.
But if the losers of elections don't respect the outcome, then parties or factions accountable to the US, such as Egypt's military, can piggyback on the heartfelt if naive complaints of those election losers to undo the results of elections.
Morsi doesn't have to be good, but he won the election. He also has not taken a single specific step toward establishing a dictatorship. The only way Egypt can have a better next president is if there is a competitive process free of outside/US influence to select Egyptian leaders. The protesters are moving strongly and rapidly away from such an outcome.
It's disappointing to see people cheering the destruction, probably by the US, of Egypt's democratic system it seems out of some kind of anti-Islamist bias.
Egypt's voters don't share that anti-Islamist bias, but that does not mean Egyptians should not choose their own leaders and have the leaders they choose serve their terms to stand for reelection.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 0:05 utc | 99
Lysander:
I've been disappointed by a lot of Morsi policies, but I'm trying to be careful not to blame the victim and I'm trying to defer to Egypt's voters. The whole point of being against colonialism is saying the local viewpoint is more important than any set of values held by anyone outside, including me.
Does anyone really think the US has wanted a democracy in Egypt all this time? Americans have been open throughout the Mubarak reign that they prefer a pro-US dictator to one accountable to Egypt's voters. They've said it openly repeatedly.
There really is no Morsi dictatorship. The constitutional court - heldover from the Mubarak era - voided the election and tried to void the constitutional assembly. None of that is Morsi's fault. It would be great if Morsi could purge the court which is clearly really anti-democratic but he has not been able.
But to the degree Morsi is actually not in line with Egypt's values, hold elections, again stalled by the constitutional court and beat Morsi at the polls, then find a candidate who can beat him for the presidency.
I don't think after six election losses, people like Mina really believe they can win a fair election against the Islamists, because Egypt is an Islamic country and that is important to many Egyptians. She doesn't know she's working for the Americans to make Egypt less like a country accountable to voters and more like the US' other colonies in the area, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and others but she is.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 0:19 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
Once again, working classes at each others throats. They should have surrounded and looted the homes of some Egyptian billionaires and the offices of a few multinationals.
Morsi of course is a good target because he is just the mask on the neo-liberal beast that is eating Egypt from the inside out, but still... this is all fine in the grand scheme of things. The textile factories are still cranking out the cheap products at starvation wages. The multinationals are still using the canal to transport their products.
Burn the MB offices, kill a few liberals. Nothing changes. The REAL scam still rolls on unabated - if not abetted - but such events.
_________
I'm not disputing the validity of the bribe sheet, but why would something like that be in English?
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 1 2013 13:37 utc | 1