|
Who Dictates U.S. Policies On Egypt?
Who is really setting U.S. policies on Egypt?
The NYT has the answer: How American Hopes for a Deal in Egypt Were Undercut
The Israelis, whose military had close ties to General Sisi from his former post as head of military intelligence, were supporting the takeover as well. Western diplomats say that General Sisi and his circle appeared to be in heavy communication with Israeli colleagues, and the diplomats believed the Israelis were also undercutting the Western message by reassuring the Egyptians not to worry about American threats to cut off aid.
Israeli officials deny having reassured Egypt about the aid, but acknowledge having lobbied Washington to protect it.
When Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, proposed an amendment halting military aid to Egypt, the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee sent a letter to senators on July 31 opposing it, saying it “could increase instability in Egypt and undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our Israeli ally.” Statements from influential lawmakers echoed the letter, and the Senate defeated the measure, 86 to 13, later that day.
@39:
“RAMADAN AT THE WHITE HOUSE
In the late summer of 1953, the Oval Office at the White House served as the stage for a little-noticed encounter between President Dwight D. Eisenhower and a young Middle Eastern firebrand. In the muted black-and-white photograph19 recording the event, the grandfatherly, balding Ike, then sixty-three, stands gray suited, erect, his elbows bent and his fists clenched as if to add muscle to some forceful point. To his left is a young, olive-skinned Egyptian in a dark suit, with a neatly trimmed, full beard and closely cropped hair, clutching a sheaf of papers behind his back. Staring intently at the president, he is just twenty-seven years old, but already has more than a decade of experience at the very heart of the Islamic world’s violent and passionate politics. Alongside him, some dressed in Western attire and others wearing robes, shawls, and Muslim headgear, are members of a delegation of scholars, mullahs, and activists from India, Syria, Yemen, and North Africa.
The president’s visitor that September day was Said Ramadan, a militant official and ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood. The young man even had a claim to semi-royalty in Brotherhood circles, since he had married Wafa al-Banna, Hassan al-Banna’s daughter, making him the son-in-law of the organization’s founder. As he stood at the president’s side, Ramadan appeared respectable and harmless. Yet the Brotherhood was known throughout the Middle East, since at least the late 1940s, as an organization of fanatics and terrorists. Its acolytes had murdered several Egyptian officials, including a prime minister, and just five years before Ramadan met Ike, the Muslim Brotherhood was declared illegal by the faltering regime of King Farouq of Egypt. But it didn’t disappear. Over the next fifty years, the Muslim Brotherhood would stage repeated comebacks, slowly building its power and influence, spreading its ideology and building chapters in Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, and beyond. And until his death, in Switzerland, in 1995, Said Ramadan would be its chief international organizer.
Despite the fact that Ramadan was angry, violence prone, and openly intent on remaking the Middle East according to Islamic fundamentalist specifications, he wasn’t regarded as a threat. In fact, based on a secret evaluation by the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Ramadan was viewed as a potential ally. It was the very height of McCarthyism and the Cold War, and the Muslim Brotherhood was bitterly anti-communist. Not only that, but Ramadan’s allies in the Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan’s Islamic Group,20 and similar organizations across the region were vigorously opposed to Marxists, leftwing activists on campuses, trade union organizers, Arab nationalists, “Arab socialists,” the Baath Party, and secularists of all kinds. In the latter category were pesky upstarts like Egypt’s president Gamal Abdel Nasser, whose loyalty to the American side in the Cold War was in doubt even in 1953, just a year after his Free Officers movement had ousted the corrupt and despised monarchy.”
Robert Dreyfuss, “Devil’s Game”, pp. 72 f.
Posted by: g_h | Aug 18 2013 13:57 utc | 43
“…so why assume:’Muslim Brotherhood, long shunned as a collection of dangerous Islamist extremists’ are ‘peaceful’?”
Because the people who urged that they be shunned are propagandists for imperialism.
The Brotherhood, like the Labour Party in Britain contains some “extremists” (otherwise known as principled, radical and generally youthful members) but, as its government showed (as does its long history of compromise with an Egyptian state which is one of the great examples of the comprador puppet) it is rather a moderate, if sectarian, organisation.
So moderate, in fact, that its first act in power was to sacrifice its base and its basic principles in order to curry favour with the military and its sponsors. To the usurers of the IMF it offered up the poor, to the land pirates of Israel and the Empire it offered up, in true Abrahamic fashion, its Palestinian offspring, Hamas.
And now, to prove that life is unfair, Morsi is accused of conspiring with Hamas to seize Sinai. Nothing could be more ludicrous.
There is a rough kharmaic justice in the terrible descent into barbarism led by the wretched Sisi- the Suharto/Pinochet of Egypt: which is that Egypt is now destined to suffer as Palestine has, because it sold Palestine to Israel.
What we have seen in the last few days has been a re-staging of Mubarak and Suleiman’s last gasp defence: the combined use of the secret service thugs, criminals and provocateurs, attacking peaceful protesters, and the uniformed army and police to “restore order” by killing off political opponents.
As to the fact that there is a segment of Egyptian society which supports the massacres, I do not doubt it. Such is the history of modern Egypt that there are always, as there are everywhere, willing collaborators with the powerful: there were Egyptians who met Bonaparte with gifts, their descendants attended Coronations in London.The Egyptian army fought the Mahdi at Omdurman and led Allenby’s advance on Jerusalem.
The narrative that Brian advances has one fatal flaw: the “islamic terrorists” whom he identifies with the Brotherhood are in fact led by Prince Bandar who supports the Army. In fact the terror in Egypt is the army’s terror against not just the Brotherhood but all who rose against Mubarak’s Army backed dictatorship.
What we are seeing is a restoration, a reactionary terror carried out by men who have concluded that Mubarak was insufficiently violent, and are determined to maintain their power by brute force.
The death squads are already fanning out, the concentration camps are filling, the torturers are working overtime, the spies and provocateurs are multiplying like flies on a corpse.
As to the “54 dead policemen” has nobody been at a demonstration before? Where, for every half dead civilian, the police neatly report a “wounded officer” or three and speak darkly of attacks from the crowds by “anarchists” “terrorists” or whatever (it used to be Communists).
It is not unlikely that any dead policemen were either Brotherhood sympathisers or civilians uniformed post mortem. Just as the churches were very probably fired by Sisi’s agents, frustrated by the Brotherhood’s non-violent tactics.
Those who compare Sisi to Assad in Syria, both defending against “sunni extremists” misunderstand both situations.
In Syria the Saudis and NATO are backing “religious extremists”; in Egypt the Saudis and NATO are backing Sisi and the military. This ought not to be confusing: the imperialists are defending their interests and opposing those of the people. They are acting to defend their base in their Israeli colony and to support their agents, the Egyptian General Staff, who have decided to reclaim full power and put an end to ruling class (and zionist) fears that Morsi’s government might lead, in future, to mass radicalisation.
Now the question is whether the Egyptian people who overthrew both Mubarak and Morsi can stomach Sisi. One thing they can be sure of is that the most offensive characteristics of both previous regimes- their callous exploitation of the masses and the concomitant sell out to imperialism- are unchanged.
For Syria this is very bad news, for now Israel has no need to concern itself about instability in Egypt, it can turn all its borrowed force on the resistance, while Hariri, the Phalangists and other deadly enemies of Palestine will greet Sisi as another like them, treacherous tools of imperialism.
On the other hand for the Gulf regimes, Saudi Arabia and Jordan the danger is that the scales have now been removed from the eyes of another layer of the Arab world: the Muslim Brotherhood’s supporters can no longer doubt whose side the tyrants are on, and it is not theirs. In future they can rely only on the people whose interests Morsi comprehensively betrayed.
Posted by: bevin | Aug 18 2013 14:03 utc | 45
Found it – Saudi Arabia is hedging patrons
Beyond Assad
Although Saudi Arabia is seeking the fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s rule and an end to Iran’s influence in Syria, Riyadh is however open to Russian demands and do not consider the conflict as a zero-sum relationship with Moscow. On the contrary, there is common ground between the both countries, to maintain the survival of the state institutions, including the army and security services, as both do not wish to repeat the experience of Iraq.
Saudi Arabia does not want Islamic extremist groups or terrorist control of the situation, which is a key objective in common with Russia.
Stability in Egypt
King Abdullah came out strongly to support the new regime in Egypt. The Saudi King called on Arabs to stand together against “attempts to destabilize” Egypt. “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its people and government stood and stands by today with its brothers in Egypt against terrorism,” he said.
It is clear that Russia and Saudi Arabia prefer stability in Egypt, and both are betting on the Egyptian military prevailing in the current standoff, and are already acting on that assumption. Here, Riyadh believes that Russian’s political and economic (shipments of wheat) support is vital for the new regime in Cairo, as it will provide it with the flexibility to stand up to the Western pressure, especially the American one.
Turkey’s political agenda
Although Turkey has strong political and economic ties with Saudi Arabia and Russia, both countries have their doubts about Turkey’s real agenda in the region.
Saudi Arabia is not comfortable with Turkey championed the so-called political Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. While Moscow sees the Turkish behavior as directly threatening Russian interests in both the Middle East and Caucasus.
It is becoming a clear view to both countries that Ankara is working to promote the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, and perhaps the Ankara’s position towards the recent events in Egypt reinforce the fears of Turkey intentions.
Reasonable oil prices
It is in the interest of both countries, Russia and Saudi Arabia, that the prices of oil remain high to balance their budget. Saudi Arabia, the largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, requires an average crude price of $98 a barrel this year to break even, up from $94 last year, the Arab Petroleum Investments Corp., Apicorp, said recently in a report.
Russia will probably require an average Brent oil price of $117.8 a barrel this year to balance its budget, according to Deutsche Bank AG.
Iran’s nuclear program is yet another issue. Exactly like Saudi Arabia, Russia does not want to see Iran become a nuclear power. Yet Moscow and Riyadh want to keep their options open as a hedge policy towards Iran.
There are many possibilities for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program; one of them a political deal between the West and Iran that could jeopardize both countries interests.
Russia and Saudi Arabia share a common set of interests based on common threats such as terrorism and extremism.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia’s donation of $100 million for supporting the international counter-terrorism center is an important indicator that Saudi Arabia views with great concern the growing influence of terrorist groups.
Saudi Arabia itself has suffered a series of terrorist attacks, and here Riyadh fears that with the deteriorating situation in Yemen, and even in Syria and Egypt, al-Qaeda would be able to exploit the situation to carry out terrorist operations against the countries of the region. Those Saudi concerns have great resonance in Moscow because the Russian state itself is threatened by terrorist attacks from al-Qaeda.
New Afghanistan
Next year, it is expected the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan. Riyadh here want to achieve a number of goals, Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for al-Qaeda, weaken the organizations that are trying to attack the neighboring countries such as India, China and even Russia, as the kingdom has growing strategic interests with both China and India.
To achieve these goals, Riyadh is interested in supporting stability in Pakistan. Those Saudi goals are consistent with the Russian policy towards Afghanistan.
There are also other strategic issues which could push Moscow and Riyadh closer. Irina Zvyagelskaya, a senior fellow at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences summaries Russia’s interests in the Middle East as “the prevention of instability that might come close to the Russian borders, protection of Russian business interests, and in terms of its military-industrial complex, supply of arms to countries in the region.”
Dropping population
While Russia’s overall population is dropping, the number of Muslims in the country is on the rise. Russia’s population has declined from 148 million in 1990 to 142.5 million in 2010, and is expected to fall to 137 million by 2020.
In contrast, the population of indigenous Muslims, mainly hailing from the Russian Caucasus, in Russia has risen since the fall of the Soviet Union. Their number has risen from 13.6 million in 1990 to 16.7 million in 2010 and it is expected to hit about 19 million or about 14% of Russia’s total population by 2020, according to official Russian data.
Thus, the accelerated process of Islamization in the region that threatens to spill over towards the borders of Russian interests and toward the territory of Russia. In order to achieve those goals, it makes sense that Moscow seeks to boost relations with Riyadh and the countries of the region.
Of course, the above points do not mean in any way that there is a coming alliance between Riyadh and Moscow, but it is certain that the two sides no longer trust American intentions in the region. Consequently, both countries are hedging towards any political developments that may threaten their strategic interests.
Posted by: somebody | Aug 18 2013 14:40 utc | 55
|
