I listened to Hosni Mubarak’s rambling speech live on the radio yesterday afternoon. As soon as it became clear that Mubarak was not stepping down – as had been widely reported he would – but rather was still planning to stay in office through September, I remember thinking, “my God, what a foolish man. Can he possibly be so out of touch with what is happening in his country that he thinks this is going to be enough?”
I’m impressed by the Egyptian military, which so far has shown restraint and even sympathy to what the protesters are demanding. Time will tell … in light of yesterday’s confusion, it certainly seems possible that the military is itself divided and is not speaking with one voice. There’s of course still the possibility that the military will choose to crack down, or at least to try to keep the current regime in place. But it’s also possible that the military will conclude that Mubarak’s time has expired, that propping him up for six more months will do much more harm than good to the country, and that the best course would be to support some sort of transitional structure along the lines of what Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei has suggested.
I can’t stop watching. I’ve got the NY Times on auto-refresh. I’ve got a couple of Twitter feeds going – Alan Fisher and Sherine Tadros of Al Jazeera English, ElBaradei, and Google executive and unlikely revolutionary hero Wael Ghonim.
I do find it incredibly inspiring to watch a country of some 80 million people rise up, for the most part peacefully, and largely without clearly organized leadership, against an autocratic regime that for decades has kept them down. No, we don’t know what will happen, and yes, there could be consequences not entirely favorable to American interests. Some people are scared about the Muslim Brotherhood, and are lashing out, advocating that the ban on that party be kept in place. But I’ve heard a number of reports from Egyptians suggesting that, in a truly democratic election, the Muslim Brotherhood would not be expected to win more than 15% support, and that in any event, they are not the scary radicals that some would make them out to be. I don’t know – I am no Egypt expert (of course, that hasn’t stopped some from pontificating). But I do wonder whether a democratic movement can succeed if its first act is to continue a ban on a political party.
As I write this, the Twitter feeds have exploded: President Mubarak has resigned the presidency and has handed power over to a military council. Extraordinary. Here’s hoping for a peaceful transition, and that ElBaradei is right:
We are at the dawn of a new Egypt. A free and democratic society, at peace with itself and with its neighbors, will be a bulwark of stability in the Middle East and a worthy partner in the international community. The rebirth of Egypt represents the hope of a new era in which Arab society, Muslim culture and the Middle East are no longer viewed through the lens of war and radicalism, but as contributors to the forward march of humanity, modernized by advanced science and technology, enriched by our diversity of art and culture and united by shared universal values.
so goes … ?
Qadaffi must be a little nervous. If Libya were to fall the US won’t even have to pretend to like the current regime. I understand there has been unrest in Yemen lately, but that has been overshadowed by Egypt. I’d love to see a fundamental shift in Saudi Arabia as well. They can even keep their royal family for all I care if they become a European-style constitutional monarchy. Syria would also be high on my list of wishing regime change and apparently Jordan has shaken up its government recently. I’d love to see 2011-2012 in the Arab world look like 1989-1990 in Eastern Europe.
The Gulf (including Saudi Arabia) has bought the complicity of the population even more extensively than the government of the PRC. Have trouble seeing that.
<
p>Syria is an interesting prospect, not least of all as the ruling al-Assad is Allawite and doesn’t really have much of a base of support among the population. However, it’s been notably quiet there. Lebanon, of course, is unstable as heck at best.
<
p>I’d add Jordan to the list, as the population is divided between Bedouin and other Hashemites largely loyal to the kingdom, and the descendants of expatriate Palestinians who aren’t. It’s a small kingdom with a literate and somewhat comfortable population.
<
p>However, it terms of an educated and organized middle class, I see that most in Morocco and Libya. The military is closer to Qadaffi than it ever was to Mubarak, which would make Morocco my next guess. Add in the destabilization and unhappiness regarding the Western Sahara situation, the admittedly small cross-cultural influence from Spain through Cueta, and I think Morocco may well end up with people on the streets.
…that celebrations broke out in several other countries in the region when today’s news out of Egypt. Remains to be seen whether this morphs into calls for change in those countries.
and it remains to be seen whether this is a “fall of the Berlin Wall” moment for much of the region. It already has disproved several assumptions about Arab societies — namely that people in the Arab world will not rise up against oppressive governments in any significant numbers. Another blow to overly simplistic cultural explanations, to be sure.
<
p>As an aside, I really do wish that fools like Jeff Jacoby would stop writing so confidently about things that they know nothing about. While there are some legitimate concerns about the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in a future Egyptian state, equating them to al-Queda style Islamic fundamentalism is an inaccurate reading of both the Brotherhood’s history and current operations. The Muslim Brotherhood is considered a (relatively) moderate organization that is willing to engage (rather than attempt to supplant) the secular world, and can and likely has to be a part of any democratic society. Again, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t concerns about the MB’s future role — there certainly are — but the way Jacoby writes about it, it makes it seem like they are equivalent to radical Wahhabi groups. One of the purposes of the media is to educate. I know I want to learn much more about the region and prospects for the future from people who know what they are talking about. That Jeff Jacoby gets to pontificate on this issue on the pages of the Globe reflects poorly on that organization.
<
p>Anyway, I’m glued to all this as well. It really is quite dramatic, reminding one of those historic days back in November 1989.
What happens now? Military governments aren’t known for stepping aside easily.
<
p>But for now, good for Egypt.
Hopefully Obama and Clinton are in touch with Egypt’s military leaders, perhaps initiating a friendly conversation about when elections will be scheduled.
… that’s already happened. But whatever deal made, if it was, can be rewritten as things proceed in Egypt.
It could shake out very badly. At least part of the protests were protests over the rising price of food. The Mubarak government had loosened or eliminated many price controls. Will a new populist government reinstate them? If they do, then that will destroy farmers and other producers leading to shortages and black marketeering. If they don’t, they will be deposed. Any liberal government will not have the power to crack down, force producers to sell at a loss, and terrorize black marketeers. A totalitarian government could though.
<
p>Ludwig Von Mises formulated many years ago the understanding of monetary inflation in which prices for some things go up before prices for other things. Food (and other commodities like oil) go up first. The USA has been devaluing its currency for domestic purposes and that has led to price increases in food and oil. Here in the USA we shrug this off, as food doesn’t have a very large proportion of the economy. However I would bet that food costs are a much higher proportion of the average Egyptian’s budget.
<
p>That is why we need to pay more attention when Ben Bernanke proposes Quantitative Easing 2 (or 12). It has a much wider effect on the world than we realize. Unless Obama takes the money situation under control, I predict that any liberal government of Egypt will be short-lived.
So at least we got that going for us
Very, very amusing CMD. You made my night.
Someone at Blue Hampshire pointed that out, not me. But I feel like we should hear more about that aspect.
<
p>
said something about that today:
<
p>
<
p>
Isn’t there a French phrase that describes this kind of event, but without the dawning-of-a-new-age soaring rhetoric.
<
p>This seems a lot less like Eastern Europe, 1989, than it does Pakistan, 1999. Or Pakistan, 1977. Or Pakistan, 1958. Or Egypt, 1952. Or the “revolutions” that resulting in the rise of Saddam Hussein or Quadaffi.
It is probably fair to say that the military has been a liberalizing (if not democratic) influence on, among others: Egypt, Pakistan, and, in particular, Turkey.
The end of the Soviet Union happened at the behest of the military, who turned their guns from the crowd as Yeltsin stood on the tank. The soldiers at Tahrir Square have done the same…they want democracy, too.
and the people. Most of the apparatchik generals/beaurocrats didn’t; and to this day many of them long for a return to the old days.
Today many of them are ultra-rich. Typically, the soldiers on the spot support the protesters (same thing happened in Tienanmen and Burma). One smart thing about the protests was that they broke out nationwide is Aswan, Suez, Alexandria, etc., so the army was tied down around the country. The main weakness in Tienanmen was that it was only on one site.
…but your analogies may also be too pessimistic.
<
p>The other coups d’état you note were born and executed by factions within the military, unlike in Egypt, where the populace pressured the government to exit. The Egyptian military had an opportunity for the past three weeks or so to stage a coup, but refrained until it became clear that Mubarak could no longer hold power. Indeed, it may ultimately not be a bad thing that the military has taken over, given the alternative of a leadership vacuum and resultant mass chaos. This could be true if the military plans on only maintaining temporary receivership of the government.
<
p>That is a big “if” of course, and I could see this going in two very different directions. It is at least plausible, however, that this could be the beginning of a major shift in the Arab world. The sometimes breathless rhetoric surrounding these events is at least understandable given the global significance if that possibility becomes reality.
about the military playing a stabilizing role. No one wants chaos or the spread of violence and it seems like the protest movement is content for the military to serve as a bridge to a more democratic future.
<
p>I must say, I find watching these events riveting – when a country has to essentially be reborn, when no one is quite sure who is in control, what the rules of the game are, what the law is and who has the power to enforce it.
<
p>The whole concept of the “rule of law” is one we take for granted, but is really only as strong as people’s willingness to accept it. It can be a terribly fragile thing when people don’t or question the legitimacy of those who exercise it. Six weeks ago, Egypt was quiet. Now, its France circa 1789, although without the guillotine.
<
p>Its hard to say how it will play out. But, the eyes of the world are on Cairo. Getting twitter feeds from actual participants as things are happening is pretty amazing. All the attention makes it more difficult for the military to crack down violently or seize power. That said, even today autocrats, would be autocrats like Hugo Chavez can corrupt the institutions of state to their own devices. Time will tell but its inspirational what is happening – watching people protest for those most basic human rights.
I wonder if it says something about our own heightened opinion of the military (every US soldier is a hero etc).
<
p>Daniel Larison has a blog that I’m following for it’s Egypt commentary.
http://www.amconmag.com/lariso…
<
p>
<
p>… That it was (it appears) the military that made Mubarak realize his time was up, yes, this was a ‘coup’. The question remains as to what motivated the generals to do so… and the answers will determine, I think, if the coup succeeds in holding power, or is merely transitional.
<
p>My belief, based upon the sole fact that not a shot was fired is that when the order to fire upon the crowds came, it was refused. From the little I know about the military hierarchy in Egypt, the sense I get is that the ‘Generals’ all side with Mubarak and the regime and would love to seize power and the the ‘Colonels’ all side with with the people. (and by ‘Colonel’ I mean all those with rank of Colonel and below… This is, I note, purely conjectural on my part… But I also note that the ‘ Generals’ have promised to lift the 30 year ‘state of emergency’ only after all the protesters go home. A gambit on the belief that the unity of the protesters can be broken if they are physically dispersed…
<
p>What happens next? There are two elections, that of President and that of Parliament. The present parliament is wholly a creation of Mubarak. Last I heard is that the Generals wish to move up the date of the election for the Presidency but not that for Parliament… and so this might be seen to favor incumbent members of the regime. I think the Parliementary election ought to be held as soon as possible and the Presidential election postponed as long as necessary. Then the parliament ought to draft a new constitution to be ratified by the people.
My feeling is that Mubarak was going to wait it out. And I think he probably could have. Lack of food would seem to place a pretty hard limit on how long the protests could go on.
… that the order to shoot never came. It’s possible that it was never given because they had already realized it would never be obeyed. I don’t really know. I do know, as do you, the timeline: Mubarak tried to usher in some tepid change and, scarcely 24 hours later he was done and the changes he tried to usher in were completely obviated by the military. I think the military had to have some reason to give Mubarak a shove AND I think the military has to have some reason for it’s actions.
<
p>But what I can’t imagine is that the military just rolled over without at least discussing a brutal crackdown. Nor can I believe that they would be so tentatively open towards the idea of democracy and people power if they had an army they could wield effectively
The Egyptian economy is dominated by militrary interests– not just for military products, but for all products. The military manufactures dishwashers, bottles beverages, owns resorts; it is as much a massive business interest as it is a military. The military was not going to create chaos, and is not going to permit an end to the oligarchy. It will allow the oligarchy to have a fresh new face.
I’m as inspired by this apparent surge of freedom and majority rule as anyone. Nevertheless, what about The Elephant In The Room?
<
p>”Majority rule” in the Middle East has at least the following three top priorities:
<
p>1. Destroy Israel
2. Eject the United States
3. Make a regional leader, if not super-power, of Iran.
<
p>These three enormously widespread sentiments have motivated our support for oppressive governments and monarchies in the region for decades.
<
p>An attractive aspect of a military government in Egypt is that it is unlikely to break any china, especially with the US (a major benefactor of the Egyptian military).
<
p>So it seems to me that the question of the day is whether America will allow the Egyptian military to transfer power to a civilian government that does, in fact, represent the will of the Egyptian people?
<
p>The same is true for the other tottering monarchies and authoritarian regimes in the region.
<
p>Is America prepared to live peaceably with a Middle East comprised of popularly-elected governments that despise Israel, despise America, and support Iran?
the bs being spead around by the media.
is going to be headed down the same path as Egypt? They have already shown some backbone in this area. The success in Egypt is undoubtedly going to have an exhilarating effect on the Iranian youth. Don’t be so sure Iran will remain stable.
An overwhelming majority of Iranians, like their counterparts throughout the ME, share the same three priorities I noted above. It seem to me that a popular uprising against the current government of Iran will, if anything, make Iran more hostile towards Israel, more hostile towards the US, and more committed to regional leadership.
<
p>It seems to me that we Americans have some serious changes headed our way. Our petroleum-based products are going to be far more expensive. Our commitment to defend Israel is going to be tested.
<
p>
sought. I guess I’m not understanding. Seems to me that Americans are over-thinking this whole thing. I think the Egyptian youth are leading very every-day lives and ended up saying they’ve had enough, they want change, and they’ll worry about what that looks like in the future. There’s no reason to think that Iranian youth don’t or won’t feel the same way. Eqypt is the 15th or 16th most populous nation in the world (depending on your metric) and is quite a bit larger than Iran which ranks about 19th–a difference of about 18 million people.
<
p>I disagree, too, on your read about an uprising in Iran. Iranian youth are educated, secular, and have much more in common with Egypt than any other nation.
I doubt there have been good polls, but I suspect that most of them ultimately prioritize survival necessity like everyone else. Frankly your list sounds like the talking points of the despots we prop up – you’d better support us because the democratic alternative will be worse. Iran is in no way allied naturally with the rest of the Arab world. For starters it’s not Arab and secondly they practice the other type of Islam. As a matter of principle we should support free and fair elections and be prepared to live with the result. Plus nobody dares try to destroy Israel; if they did both it and the USA will come down like a ton of bricks. Maybe they will eject the US in the short term, but we would be well-advised to gracefully back off if they tell us to. That will ultimately put us in a better light and lead to constructive relationships with those nations.
It’s very easy to assume that the majority of people in, say, Egypt hold the priorities that Tom suggests. But what evidence do we actually have of that? Sure, there have been demonstrations in the past – but they could easily have been choreographed by the local regimes. And a remarkable feature of the current demonstrations in Egypt was, as far as I know, the total absence of anti-Israel or anti-American signs or chants.
seems rather solipsistic to me. I don’t buy that every Arab youth gives much of a rat’s ass about the U.S. or Israel, for that matter. They care about the food on their plates and their future prospects for a meaningful and rewarding life. United States? Israel? Who cares?
And with what Arab youth have you discussed this topic recently?
and sometimes I miss the point, too.
<
p>Lightiris is saying it is solipsistic on the part of Americans to imagine that our very own central concerns about the Middle East are, of necessity, central concerns of Arab youth. Stated differently: we’re projecting.
<
p>In the case of Egypt, complaints about policy with Egypt or orientation toward the U.S. were not prominent among the protestors’ complaints.
Arab youth in order to justify your opinions? Yes, as KBusch admits: “We’re projecting.” (sorry, I forgot that it is perfectly ok for liberals to “project.”)
So to get her to answer it, you’re going to ask it even more obnoxiously than the first time, piling insult upon misunderstanding.
that I, along with JohnD and others, have been obnoxiously treated on this site. I don’t think that it is an insult to ask someone to back up her generalities. Again, I find it most amusing to read all of these posts, sincere as they may be, from people who have never lived in Egypt, let alone met any Arab youth. Ironically, to me the ones who have made the most sense have been Somerville Tom and Sabs, both of whom I rarely agree with. I even agree with Lightiris on most of her posts, so I hope that she is not offended by an occasional diaagreement.
must I have had a conversation with a principal player? That seems rather a high bar for anyone posting on this site. We all have opinions on issues about which we get information from informed sources and analysis by those who are experienced in certain matters.
<
p>For example, I have never had a conversation with Sharron Angle. I have had conversations with undocumented immigrants, though, but I’ve never met her specifically. I think I can assess her through her own words and actions as well as read the analysis of people who are rational and informed on these matters. That’s what journalists are for. So is my opinion of her political desires illegitimate because I’ve not had a “real” conversation with her?
<
p>Having said that, then, after I’ve watched Al Jazeera/English Live for the past 19 days for hours every day, listened to the commentary of the educated and informed ME experts who have been opining on the topic extensively on AJE, listened to the Egyptians themselves who have been extensively interviewed in Tahrir Square, read the thoughts and feelings on the connected tubes known as the Internet of educated Egyptian youth and young adults who have blogs and Twitter accounts, and exchanged a few notes with AJE/Live journalists on the ground in Tahrir Square during the past few days, I’d say that, unless all of these people are wrong, that my assessment of the wants and desires of Egyptian young people is spot on and that, in the main, we, the U.S., don’t figure much in their daily calculus.
<
p>What have you got that refutes that other than your “real” conversations with thousands of Egyptian youth? I’m all ears.
In the long term, however, when they realize that their “revolution” has not necessarily provided more jobs, money or bread (or opportunity) they may revert to those prejudices and hatreds which accompanied their education and upbringings (namely hatred for Israel and its allies). I want to believe that the best of alternatives will come to pass; indeed, of all the Moslem countries which I have visited Egypt was the most secular and modernized (especially in that women there were treated equally). And most Egyptians that I met liked America and Americans. But eventually we will have to face up to the question(s) which Tom has posed.
So it seems my path towards the enlightenment that lead me to use the word “solipsistic” as it applies to a uniquely American view of the sensibilities and values of Egyptian youth and young adults passes muster?
<
p>I must say I’m a bit bemused if not confused by your challenge. I know what solipsism means–have you read Wallace Stevens’ poem “A Rabbit as King of the Ghosts”?–but concede that perhaps I wasn’t as clear in my original post as I might have been. I highly recommend the Stevens poem, btw.
<
p>Your response to me seems, well, anti-climactic. I was expecting a showdown at the Cairo Corral or something.
most certainly will read “A Rabbit as King of the Ghosts.”
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem… I have to read a poem several times, and then out loud to begin to understand all the possible meanings.
you have been “schooled” by a skilled and competent English teacher/professor at some point in your life or you are a naturally intuitive reader. Whichever the case, enjoy. “Rabbit” is a wonderful poem.
I have a hard time imagining that a revolution as thorough and as peaceful as this one is most focused on destroying a people and it’s government. In my experience, the people of Cairo are for more interested in talking about American cities and selling me their goods than are the people of Quebec.
I sincerely hope you’re right about this. Perhaps I am hearing my own guilty conscience speaking about the way America has treated the region during my lifetime, rather than the actual voices of the actual people of the region. I hope this is the case.
<
p>For fifty years, we have treated the suffering of the peoples of the ME as insignificant “collateral damage” of our collective hunger for cheap petroleum and of our collective guilt about our role in the Holocaust. America was NOT welcoming to German Jews during the Great Depression. Our right wing welcomed their attraction to radical elements of Islam because our right wing desperately needs a great big bad scary bogeyman to replace the big bad communists who so marvelously played the villain during the fifties and sixties. As George Orwell so eloquently taught us, every authoritarian and exploitative government needs a powerful “enemy” to keep its people distracted from the reality of its abuses against its own people. The prior administration’s “war on terrorism” nearly worked, and too many Americans (sadly, across the political spectrum) are still in thrall to it.
<
p>So perhaps we are seeing the veils come off of the genuine humanity of the ME. Perhaps we will now deal with the emerging nations of Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia (yes, that monarchy will fail), Tunesia, Jordan, and the rest as genuine partners with legitimate governments that represent legitimate self-interests. Perhaps we will be more responsive to their complaints of Israeli intransigence (and vice-versa).
<
p>Most of all, perhaps we will recognize that the ME is NOT a petroleum colony, and perhaps we will therefore take this as a wake-up call to begin the massive investments needed by our own economy to break our own petroleum addiction. If this revolution accomplishes this, it will be good for Egypt, good for the ME, good for America, and good for humanity.
<
p>you’ve been duped by the media, both by that in the US which is sensationalist in the extreme, and by that in the middle east which is largely controlled and dictated to by the dictators. Such media has two purposes (in both places): to roil the sensibilities to the point of cognitive dissonance for those invested in it and to create apathy in those others who choose not to foam at the mouth.
<
p>Neither one represents the priorities of a majority of the people. By the definitions I posit above, they cannot even do so accidentally.
<
p>
<
p>If there is any elephant in the room it is the map itself: Egypt is singular in the region for the fact that it’s border was drawn by neither the French, the British Empire or the UN. It is a country in and of itself and Egyptians regard themselves as Egyptians and have done so for at least 10 thousand years. In other parts of the region they are more likely to regard themselves as Sunni, Shia, Turk, Kurds,Palestinian, etc who happen to be living in a place called something else by someone else.
that this did not occur under the Bush Presidency. Anti-americanism has ebbed under Obama.
To the extent that people trying to put food on their plates the next week care, you think the average Arab, Arabic-speaking, Sunni Muslim wants a nation of Persian Farsophone Shias to be a superpower? No more than South Koreans are rooting on the Japanese.
<
p>As for ejecting the United States, I imagine that as with most people, the average Middle Easterner would like to see foreign troops leave their neighborhood. That doesn’t mean rejecting the United States, unless we refuse to leave when our welcome is clearly worn a la Mubarak. Fact remains many GCC states are more than happy to have us around.
I cannot help but notice that all my liberal friends on facebook are watching the events of the last few weeks with hope and joy–and there seems to be absolutely no recognition of what I see to be historic and powerful changes in the arab world coming from conservative and tea party friends that are usually vocal in any political moment. Any insight into their silence? I would think they would be excited to see movement toward democracy, but I am often naive.
Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck have been among those loudly complaining about what is happening in Egypt. Why do they hate freedom?
I don’t think it is worth paying much heed to reports about how the Muslim Brotherhood is really interested in freedom.
<
p>The history of the region suggests that the Egyptians will have traded a bad government for a worse government.
“The history of the region suggests that the Egyptians will have traded a bad government for a worse government.”