The situation in Egypt

[marharth]

@ Stardusk

Sorry, missed your question while dealing with the kiddies. Yes, we did prop up a dictator (Murbark) for geopolitical reasons much as we did on many occasions in South America for Cold War imperatives. Strategically defensible but not morally defensible. Is that sufficient response? Foreign Policy rarely has anything to do with morality but more to do with geopolitical necessity an unfortunate reality that America has trouble coming to grips with, but the Europeans with their longer history have. It would be nice to wear the white hat all the time but that is not how power politics works. But and this is a big But, the recent events had nothing to do with American Foreign Policy and everything to do with Egyptian internal affairs, they wanted change and achieved it.

 

I am not comfortable with this term but I will leave it at that.

 

The question remains though, should the US be involved in Egypt n the future and if so, to what extent?

I don't think anyone can say for sure until everything is settled down and some kind of democracy is set up.

 

For now the USA needs to keep out entirely.

[HappyHerring]

@ Stardusk

Sorry, missed your question while dealing with the kiddies. Yes, we did prop up a dictator (Murbark) for geopolitical reasons much as we did on many occasions in South America for Cold War imperatives. Strategically defensible but not morally defensible. Is that sufficient response? Foreign Policy rarely has anything to do with morality but more to do with geopolitical necessity an unfortunate reality that America has trouble coming to grips with, but the Europeans with their longer history have. It would be nice to wear the white hat all the time but that is not how power politics works. But and this is a big But, the recent events had nothing to do with American Foreign Policy and everything to do with Egyptian internal affairs, they wanted change and achieved it.

 

I am not comfortable with this term but I will leave it at that.

 

The question remains though, should the US be involved in Egypt n the future and if so, to what extent?

I don't think anyone can say for sure until everything is settled down and some kind of democracy is set up.

 

For now the USA needs to keep out entirely.

 

So when the Egyptian government asks "why are you removing vital subsidies which we need to sustain our move to democracy"? The US and by extension all western states are to quote the prime directive!

Sorry Star Trek fans but the world should not run on such silly precepts. Non interference and moral cowardice were contributing factors to Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Sudan.

Economic need is the basis of geopolitics. Would you want another recession due to chaos reducing the Suez Canal to it's wreck strewn condition of the seventies and jumpy dictatorships fearing the mob even more due to reductions of subsidies, which could be obtained from other places than the west, eyeing up another risky adventure against Israel to curry popularity with the masses.

All nations try to protect interests, some with more subtlety than others. I suspect that many unpopular dictators fear the Swiss banking industry more than they do the opprobrium of western governments who like to flash weapons about.

[Aurielius]

@ Stardusk

Sorry, missed your question while dealing with the kiddies. Yes, we did prop up a dictator (Murbark) for geopolitical reasons much as we did on many occasions in South America for Cold War imperatives. Strategically defensible but not morally defensible. Is that sufficient response? Foreign Policy rarely has anything to do with morality but more to do with geopolitical necessity an unfortunate reality that America has trouble coming to grips with, but the Europeans with their longer history have. It would be nice to wear the white hat all the time but that is not how power politics works. But and this is a big But, the recent events had nothing to do with American Foreign Policy and everything to do with Egyptian internal affairs, they wanted change and achieved it.

I am not comfortable with this term but I will leave it at that.

The question remains though, should the US be involved in Egypt n the future and if so, to what extent?

 

I think that we should treat Egypt much as we did the eastern European countries after the fall of the Soviet Union. Meaning send advisors to help craft political infrastructure but stay out of the way of trying to foment actual internal policy. The Egyptian idea of representative government will probably not match ours but that is not our call, the Suez Canal is too important to allow political instability to reign there, so assist them and then get the hell out of their way when they do have a path to constitutional government and let them form one. Once there is a stabilized government deal with the facts on the ground at that point. Like the concept of 'Geopolitical Necessity', I am a pragmatist.

[SpellAndShield]

@ Stardusk

Sorry, missed your question while dealing with the kiddies. Yes, we did prop up a dictator (Murbark) for geopolitical reasons much as we did on many occasions in South America for Cold War imperatives. Strategically defensible but not morally defensible. Is that sufficient response? Foreign Policy rarely has anything to do with morality but more to do with geopolitical necessity an unfortunate reality that America has trouble coming to grips with, but the Europeans with their longer history have. It would be nice to wear the white hat all the time but that is not how power politics works. But and this is a big But, the recent events had nothing to do with American Foreign Policy and everything to do with Egyptian internal affairs, they wanted change and achieved it.

I am not comfortable with this term but I will leave it at that.

The question remains though, should the US be involved in Egypt n the future and if so, to what extent?

 

I think that we should treat Egypt much as we did the eastern European countries after the fall of the Soviet Union. Meaning send advisors to help craft political infrastructure but stay out of the way of trying to foment actual internal policy. The Egyptian idea of representative government will probably not match ours but that is not our call, the Suez Canal is too important to allow political instability to reign there, so assist them and then get the hell out of their way when they do have a path to constitutional government and let them form one. Once there is a stabilized government deal with the facts on the ground at that point. Like the concept of 'Geopolitical Necessity', I am a pragmatist.

 

Well, if I live as long as you maybe I will feel the same way; until them I shall remain mired in disappointed apathy. :confused:

[ginnyfizz]

Marharth, the case went to court originally in 2004 which is certainly within the living memory of us old fools. I would hardly call that dated. Furthermore, albeit that the article related mostly to North America, it is STILL the same organization that could now get its tentacles into Egypt. No wonder the Egyptian people, especially the women, are alarmed. The Muslim Brotherhood are a world wide, Jihadist organization who have been found by courts of law to be linked to terrorism. I suspect that, their detestation of the dictator Mubarak notwithstanding, the Egyptian people are mostly rather content with peace with Israel and have no particular desire for Jihad, no wish to have their young men thrown into a war on the whim of the fanatics. There is a substantial Christian minority there, and one of the most moving parts of the recent protests was the way in which at one point, the Christians stood watch whilst the Muslims in the crowd took part in Friday prayers.

 

@happypig, some very pertinent points. If the USA doesn't interfere, others will and they may not be friendly. We have had issues as you describe with the Suez canal before. And I also entirely take your point about the endemic corruption, nepotism and cronyism in many states, of which Egypt under Mubarak was a sample. Will what they get be any better? We shall see.

[marharth]

Marharth, the case went to court originally in 2004 which is certainly within the living memory of us old fools. I would hardly call that dated. Furthermore, albeit that the article related mostly to North America, it is STILL the same organization that could now get its tentacles into Egypt. No wonder the Egyptian people, especially the women, are alarmed. The Muslim Brotherhood are a world wide, Jihadist organization who have been found by courts of law to be linked to terrorism. I suspect that, their detestation of the dictator Mubarak notwithstanding, the Egyptian people are mostly rather content with peace with Israel and have no particular desire for Jihad, no wish to have their young men thrown into a war on the whim of the fanatics. There is a substantial Christian minority there, and one of the most moving parts of the recent protests was the way in which at one point, the Christians stood watch whilst the Muslims in the crowd took part in Friday prayers.

 

@happypig, some very pertinent points. If the USA doesn't interfere, others will and they may not be friendly. We have had issues as you describe with the Suez canal before. And I also entirely take your point about the endemic corruption, nepotism and cronyism in many states, of which Egypt under Mubarak was a sample. Will what they get be any better? We shall see.

They have links to terrorist groups yes, I don't think they have done any violent acts though.

[JimboUK]

The west need to back off, we can't support the Egyptians right to self determination while at the same time interfere. If they make a bad choice then we can deal with that when the time comes, until then they should be left alone to choose their own destiny.

[Nadimos]

I just heard this. Actually, most of the big oil tankers go around africa. Tho they have a pipeline near suez,

that has oil (and gas?) goin for some of the more southern parts of europe.

[HappyHerring]

I just heard this. Actually, most of the big oil tankers go around africa. Tho they have a pipeline near suez,

that has oil (and gas?) goin for some of the more southern parts of europe.

 

 

Hmmmm I suppose that in that case they would go past that paragon of stability, where of course there is absolutely no developing piracy or Islamist problem, Nigeria.

Anyone choosing to avoid the canal does so purely to avoid risk not to save time or money. Therefore avoidance of east africa and the canal contribute to world inflation and

the continuance of the current unpleasant economic situation.

Edited February 15, 2011 by happy pig

[JimboUK]

I just heard this. Actually, most of the big oil tankers go around africa. Tho they have a pipeline near suez,

that has oil (and gas?) goin for some of the more southern parts of europe.

 

It makes sense not to rely on one route for something so important.