There's definitely something to be said in the opinion of many news organizations that a lot of the protesting would perhaps be stopped if President Obama and the United States began withdrawing their allegiance to Mubarak, as many protesters are simply against US involvement in Egyptian politics. This article explains that idea well: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-egypt-usa-dilemma-idUSTRE70U80420110131
However, withdrawing support can only do so much; though the U.S. is concerned of the political state Egypt will be left in once Mubarak leaves office, we really shouldn't be interfering so heavily with their politics. We're trying to inflict democracy on them, yet in a way taking away their freedom of election by trying so hard to keep our approved elected officials in power.
Although it can also be argued, I suppose, that we really aren't doing that much to keep Mubarak in power. Does anyone have any evidence of what the U.S. has done? Still, I think our mere political support can have a lot of influence.
I agree that our political support is pretty influencial in this situation not only because firstly, of America's position as a leading world power, but also because of our past support of Egypt, with Mubarak as the leader. I don't really understand the whole situation though. I can see that there are economic and political risks to withdrawing our support of Mubarak, but I'm curious to what kind of change the people are actually looking for. Can someone explain the government structure and/or nature (it's not democratic, and not a complete dictatorship, but what exactly is it?) in Egypt and the specific changes that the Egyptian public are looking for in bringing Mubarak down? From what I've gathered, one of the concerns is the economy, which has recently taken a dive for the worse (domestically), but that issue of limited food and other supplies for the people seems to be the result of the protesting itself, since farmers are afraid to enter the towns/cities in fear or violence. Of course, the public is unhappy about the use of military to restrain them, but this also seems like an issue that arose after to protesting started.
I found this article interesting: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2045278,00.html. It gives less of a view from world politics and more from the personal opinions of the people, and I may be wrong, but it seems like no one is really explaining what changes they want. The protesters gave me no idea as to what issues they are truly concerned with. For example, one man claimed the Mubarak was his enemy and his oppressor, but I couldn't tell in what way Mubarak was allegedly oppressing him. It reminds me of our discussions about politics in America and the tendency for our politicians, and even ourselves, to oversimplify issues and align themselves/ourselves with political figures or parties with little consideration of the problems at hand. So anyway, can someone explain the issues at hand now in Egypt? By that I'm not asking about the effects that our support of Mubarak or the protesters would have, or international risks here. I'm curious as to what actually started this whole mess...what is the Egyptian public dissatisfied with? (and yes, they are dissatisfied with an 82-year-old man as their leader, but why?)
The whole situation really started due to similar protests in Tunisia that overthrew the present authoritarian government there and forced the leader to flee the country. The Tunisians protests began after a vegetable seller committed self-immolation (burned himself alive) after the government confiscated his property for no reason. This immediately sparked the movement against the government. The Egyptians saw how effective this was to a government similar to their own, and began protesting. (Egypt is ranked 138th of 167 countries on The Economist's Democracy index, a measure of political freedom, and Tunisia is not far below on that list) The Egyptian government is autocratic; they have "elections," but they are rigged and result in the same leader holding power. (Mubarak has been president for over 30 years) Though many protesters seem to say that they are protesting for democracy and greater political freedom, I feel that the domestic issues the country faces are the main cause. About half of the Egyptian population makes about or less than 2 dollars a day and the unemployment rate is extremely high. I think longly held anger arising from Mubarak's ignoring of these problems and the Egyptians' needs, in addition to the government being more or less authoritarian, are the BROAD reasons as to why these protests have arisen in response to those in Tunisia.
I definitely think that both Egypt and the Obama Administration have a problem on their hands. Egypt has obvious unrest, but the Obama Administration needs to find an appropriate way to deal with it. I want to go back to when Blythe talked about America getting involved with Egypt in the first place, and I think that this presents a big, complex problem. The Obama Administration is basically in one of those rooms where there are cups of water all over the floor, and they have to get to the other side of the room without spilling any cups. Of course, this is nearly impossible, and whatever decision the Administration makes will knock a bunch of cups over. It can avoid picking sides, like it is trying to do right now, which would cause backlash due to Obama's speech in June 2009 (where he talked about the rights that most humans desired which are attained by a democratic government. It can support Egypt and a direction for a new, democratic reform, but at the same time, we can't "throw Mubarak under a bus"as Cokie Roberts says. It can decide not to be as involved in Egypt's reform at all, but not supporting Egypt's shift towards a functional republic could cause a lack of faith in our own country's motives and democracy, and perhaps even spark further terrorist attacks (according to Cokie). I can't even try to predict what the administration might do about it. It needs to decide whether to become involved or not, but either may carry their weight in negative consequences. No matter which direction that the administration goes, it simply cannot avoid spilling cups. I hope "Obama's Administration" is capitalized...
I'm not sure why, but I got a Gmail saying that Alex and Bailey have posted comments, but I'm not seeing them on the blog. To respond to their comments though:
Unlike Alex and Bailey, I'm a bit hesitant to say that I completely trust the American administration to do the right thing in Egypt. We've studied many different parts of American history and have seen the mistakes the American administration has made (ie. Watergate). Quite honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the "right" thing to do is. We think democracy is the only solution but mostly, if not only, because we live in a country whose education system is trained to teach us that democracy is right and that anything remotely close to socialism or inconsistent with democracy is purely wrong. There is a lurking arrogance of righteousness (to relate back to the quote we read way-back-when) that tries so hard to hide itself but is many times so blatant that it should be embarrassing for us not to see it. We're all repulsed by the idea of having one individual with as much governmental power as Mubarak has. The issue is reminding me of the Civil War packet we read. It explains that monopolizing and creating very general governing bodies (whether it's a party or simply a classifying title) has created a very two-dimensional system where something is either right or wrong. There's rarely any in-between. The consequence is that all the different ideas that contribute to a thoroughly considered debate are being forced into "right" or "wrong." I also like Doug's idea that the protests have sprouted from domestic issues rather than purely political reasons. Perhaps the claim of protesting for democracy is a combination of the inclination to classify right from wrong and a then a desire to summarize/label that inclination with a justified reason. That said, the question I would like to raise is, if we can all try to put our biases aside and try to ignore *our* definition of what's "right," what *do* you think is the "right thing" to do? Maybe, like Sarah mentioned, the Obama administration should avoid picking sides, or support Egypt, or try to distance itself from the whole situation. And if we can't come to a definite decision, can we weigh the consequences and benefits of each scenario?
In most recent news, Mubarak has announced that he will not be seeking re-election; President Obama's statement on this new state of affairs is expected later tonight. I think that this is best. Though a simple change in leadership for the first time in thirty years plus will not affect Egypt's political system enough to get it to where we want it to be, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
Addressing Kelly's suggestion that we should come to a definite decision about what should be done, I continue to think that this is a very good time to start withdrawing American influence in Egyptian politics. As Doug explained, Egyptian "elections" are rigged and do not show the desires of the people, therefore it can probably be assumed that future elections will continue in the same way they have been in past years. However, any contribution we tried to make in pushing them towards a true democracy would probably end up doing more harm than good. The best we can do at this point is hope that the government will slowly begin to shift in favor of the people, as protesters continue to demand change. It can certainly be said that Mubarak has been dissuaded from running again because of the protesters. Perhaps this is a sign that progress to the Egyptian political system is going to begin being made.
It's understandable that the Egyptian population wants Mubarak to step down especially after he gave only twenty of over five hundred seats in Parliament to his opposition. However (and not surprisingly), the Egyptians have failed to consider what will happen to their country if Mubarak does step down. Mubarak's exit (after thirty years of service) will create an enormous political vacuum that is unlikely to be filled by the democratic leadership Egyptians and the West are looking for. If no free election plan is created prior to Mubarak's departure, an extreme Islam group will probably step in and by force. It seems that the people of Egypt ought to wait out Mubarak's rule and let their leaders and Mubarak's administration work out a plan for truly a fair election in September.
This article was just posted about an hour ago: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/01/obama-talks-egypt-hosni-mubarak-cairo-protests/?ncid=webmail
According to the article, Obama "said Tuesday that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak must begin a transition immediately toward a new government and assured protesters demanding the ouster of their longtime leader that 'we hear your voices'." Apparently, though Mubarak said that he would be gone by September, Obama is urging him to leave office even sooner. He even called the protestors "an inspiration to people around the world." However, despite his opinions about Mubarak's role in the Egyptian government, Obama stated his belief that "It is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt's leaders."
It seems to me that Obama has made a sudden and strong change of heart after having compared the article that Mrs. Schager posted yesterday to this one; instead of remaining generally ambivalent about what to do, it seems as though he waited for Mubarak to declare that he would leave office (or wouldn't leave office) before saying his more explicit opinion. I find this kind of strange. I wonder if Obama has seen Mubarak's decision as a signal of weakness and has decided that America does have more power and should be able to try to influence, not decide, other countries' governments. He did say that "it was essential that the process [of electing future Egyptian leaders] 'lead to elections that are free and fair' and responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people," which sounds like a push for democracy in Egypt.
However, I don't want to say that Obama's decision to wait to act up more now was cowardly. In fact, it may have been much smarter than making a decision about whether or not to intervene yesterday because it has given America a better chance to keep a more positive relationship with Egypt and its people.
If you have not seen, things are really getting out of control now. Pro Mubarak supporters have come out strong,and the conflict has reached a point of violence. In Tahrir Square,in Cairo, thousands of Pro Mubarak supporters rushed past the neutral line of Egyptian Soldiers, towards the anti Mubarak protesters, while the army did virtually nothing. An abundance of Molotov cocktails were thrown, multiple people died, and hundreds are injured. Generally, the clash seems to be between those who have some economic stature, and those who live in poverty (the average sallary in Egypt is around $1700 a year). Protesters of Mubarak, and even officals in the current government have asserted that the Mubarak supportes eleciting violcence are policemen who left their positions in the state of chaos, as well as workers for the government, who's bosses are alledgedly threatning to cut their jobs if they dont fight. The government has directly created this economic void between corrupt and rich politcal figures and the average citizens- the economy is largely run by the government in a way where public officals are personally profiting from oil companies, and tax payer money.
The major question is how the American Government will respond if and when the Mubarak regime collapses. The Obama administration understands that the cause for political equaility and greater economic equality is a side which America must take, if it wants to be on the good side of the future Egypt. I find it very hard to believe that Egypt would be able to rebuild by itself- the current govenrment is too corrupt and militarily based to do so. It is easier said than done, but if strong democracies like England and the United States have an influentual(not authoritative)diplomatic role in building the new government, then beneficial change is possible. It is less of a concern that Islamic extremists will come into power, as the majority of the opposition are not islamic extremists, but more of a worry that this revolution will end up with the same type of corrupt government which was established after the Egyptian Revolution of the mid 20th century.
( I hope I am allowed to ask questions on this blog...) What do you guys think about Mubarak stepping down after he said he wouldn't until the end of his term in September? Do you think it was a good idea to leave the military in control and how does this reflect upon the United States?
Adding onto Olivia's question, there are now similar uprisings in Algeria that began suspiciously close to Mubarak's stepping down. Personally, I don't know much about the U.S.'s relationship with Algeria and if it's anything like that with Egypt, but how do you guys suggest the government handle this situation in comparison to how we handled Egypt?
Referring back to Olivia's question, I do have a concern about the military controlling the government. Egypt does need the military as of now because they have to be able to keep some order in Egypt. I just fear that if the military runs long enough, it will get too powerful, experiencing a "coup d'etat" (blow to the state), which will take away Egypt's chance to create a democracy that the people want. If the military does become too powerful and controlling, it won't be easy for the people to rebel against it. After all, the military has all the powerful weapons.
There's definitely something to be said in the opinion of many news organizations that a lot of the protesting would perhaps be stopped if President Obama and the United States began withdrawing their allegiance to Mubarak, as many protesters are simply against US involvement in Egyptian politics. This article explains that idea well:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-egypt-usa-dilemma-idUSTRE70U80420110131
However, withdrawing support can only do so much; though the U.S. is concerned of the political state Egypt will be left in once Mubarak leaves office, we really shouldn't be interfering so heavily with their politics. We're trying to inflict democracy on them, yet in a way taking away their freedom of election by trying so hard to keep our approved elected officials in power.
Although it can also be argued, I suppose, that we really aren't doing that much to keep Mubarak in power. Does anyone have any evidence of what the U.S. has done? Still, I think our mere political support can have a lot of influence.
I agree that our political support is pretty influencial in this situation not only because firstly, of America's position as a leading world power, but also because of our past support of Egypt, with Mubarak as the leader. I don't really understand the whole situation though. I can see that there are economic and political risks to withdrawing our support of Mubarak, but I'm curious to what kind of change the people are actually looking for. Can someone explain the government structure and/or nature (it's not democratic, and not a complete dictatorship, but what exactly is it?) in Egypt and the specific changes that the Egyptian public are looking for in bringing Mubarak down? From what I've gathered, one of the concerns is the economy, which has recently taken a dive for the worse (domestically), but that issue of limited food and other supplies for the people seems to be the result of the protesting itself, since farmers are afraid to enter the towns/cities in fear or violence. Of course, the public is unhappy about the use of military to restrain them, but this also seems like an issue that arose after to protesting started.
ReplyDeleteI found this article interesting: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2045278,00.html. It gives less of a view from world politics and more from the personal opinions of the people, and I may be wrong, but it seems like no one is really explaining what changes they want. The protesters gave me no idea as to what issues they are truly concerned with. For example, one man claimed the Mubarak was his enemy and his oppressor, but I couldn't tell in what way Mubarak was allegedly oppressing him. It reminds me of our discussions about politics in America and the tendency for our politicians, and even ourselves, to oversimplify issues and align themselves/ourselves with political figures or parties with little consideration of the problems at hand. So anyway, can someone explain the issues at hand now in Egypt? By that I'm not asking about the effects that our support of Mubarak or the protesters would have, or international risks here. I'm curious as to what actually started this whole mess...what is the Egyptian public dissatisfied with? (and yes, they are dissatisfied with an 82-year-old man as their leader, but why?)
The whole situation really started due to similar protests in Tunisia that overthrew the present authoritarian government there and forced the leader to flee the country. The Tunisians protests began after a vegetable seller committed self-immolation (burned himself alive) after the government confiscated his property for no reason. This immediately sparked the movement against the government. The Egyptians saw how effective this was to a government similar to their own, and began protesting. (Egypt is ranked 138th of 167 countries on The Economist's Democracy index, a measure of political freedom, and Tunisia is not far below on that list) The Egyptian government is autocratic; they have "elections," but they are rigged and result in the same leader holding power. (Mubarak has been president for over 30 years) Though many protesters seem to say that they are protesting for democracy and greater political freedom, I feel that the domestic issues the country faces are the main cause. About half of the Egyptian population makes about or less than 2 dollars a day and the unemployment rate is extremely high. I think longly held anger arising from Mubarak's ignoring of these problems and the Egyptians' needs, in addition to the government being more or less authoritarian, are the BROAD reasons as to why these protests have arisen in response to those in Tunisia.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that both Egypt and the Obama Administration have a problem on their hands. Egypt has obvious unrest, but the Obama Administration needs to find an appropriate way to deal with it. I want to go back to when Blythe talked about America getting involved with Egypt in the first place, and I think that this presents a big, complex problem. The Obama Administration is basically in one of those rooms where there are cups of water all over the floor, and they have to get to the other side of the room without spilling any cups. Of course, this is nearly impossible, and whatever decision the Administration makes will knock a bunch of cups over. It can avoid picking sides, like it is trying to do right now, which would cause backlash due to Obama's speech in June 2009 (where he talked about the rights that most humans desired which are attained by a democratic government. It can support Egypt and a direction for a new, democratic reform, but at the same time, we can't "throw Mubarak under a bus"as Cokie Roberts says. It can decide not to be as involved in Egypt's reform at all, but not supporting Egypt's shift towards a functional republic could cause a lack of faith in our own country's motives and democracy, and perhaps even spark further terrorist attacks (according to Cokie). I can't even try to predict what the administration might do about it. It needs to decide whether to become involved or not, but either may carry their weight in negative consequences. No matter which direction that the administration goes, it simply cannot avoid spilling cups.
ReplyDeleteI hope "Obama's Administration" is capitalized...
I'm not sure why, but I got a Gmail saying that Alex and Bailey have posted comments, but I'm not seeing them on the blog. To respond to their comments though:
ReplyDeleteUnlike Alex and Bailey, I'm a bit hesitant to say that I completely trust the American administration to do the right thing in Egypt. We've studied many different parts of American history and have seen the mistakes the American administration has made (ie. Watergate). Quite honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the "right" thing to do is. We think democracy is the only solution but mostly, if not only, because we live in a country whose education system is trained to teach us that democracy is right and that anything remotely close to socialism or inconsistent with democracy is purely wrong. There is a lurking arrogance of righteousness (to relate back to the quote we read way-back-when) that tries so hard to hide itself but is many times so blatant that it should be embarrassing for us not to see it. We're all repulsed by the idea of having one individual with as much governmental power as Mubarak has. The issue is reminding me of the Civil War packet we read. It explains that monopolizing and creating very general governing bodies (whether it's a party or simply a classifying title) has created a very two-dimensional system where something is either right or wrong. There's rarely any in-between. The consequence is that all the different ideas that contribute to a thoroughly considered debate are being forced into "right" or "wrong." I also like Doug's idea that the protests have sprouted from domestic issues rather than purely political reasons. Perhaps the claim of protesting for democracy is a combination of the inclination to classify right from wrong and a then a desire to summarize/label that inclination with a justified reason. That said, the question I would like to raise is, if we can all try to put our biases aside and try to ignore *our* definition of what's "right," what *do* you think is the "right thing" to do? Maybe, like Sarah mentioned, the Obama administration should avoid picking sides, or support Egypt, or try to distance itself from the whole situation. And if we can't come to a definite decision, can we weigh the consequences and benefits of each scenario?
In most recent news, Mubarak has announced that he will not be seeking re-election; President Obama's statement on this new state of affairs is expected later tonight. I think that this is best. Though a simple change in leadership for the first time in thirty years plus will not affect Egypt's political system enough to get it to where we want it to be, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteAddressing Kelly's suggestion that we should come to a definite decision about what should be done, I continue to think that this is a very good time to start withdrawing American influence in Egyptian politics. As Doug explained, Egyptian "elections" are rigged and do not show the desires of the people, therefore it can probably be assumed that future elections will continue in the same way they have been in past years. However, any contribution we tried to make in pushing them towards a true democracy would probably end up doing more harm than good. The best we can do at this point is hope that the government will slowly begin to shift in favor of the people, as protesters continue to demand change. It can certainly be said that Mubarak has been dissuaded from running again because of the protesters. Perhaps this is a sign that progress to the Egyptian political system is going to begin being made.
It's understandable that the Egyptian population wants Mubarak to step down especially after he gave only twenty of over five hundred seats in Parliament to his opposition. However (and not surprisingly), the Egyptians have failed to consider what will happen to their country if Mubarak does step down. Mubarak's exit (after thirty years of service) will create an enormous political vacuum that is unlikely to be filled by the democratic leadership Egyptians and the West are looking for. If no free election plan is created prior to Mubarak's departure, an extreme Islam group will probably step in and by force. It seems that the people of Egypt ought to wait out Mubarak's rule and let their leaders and Mubarak's administration work out a plan for truly a fair election in September.
ReplyDeleteThis article was just posted about an hour ago:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/01/obama-talks-egypt-hosni-mubarak-cairo-protests/?ncid=webmail
According to the article, Obama "said Tuesday that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak must begin a transition immediately toward a new government and assured protesters demanding the ouster of their longtime leader that 'we hear your voices'." Apparently, though Mubarak said that he would be gone by September, Obama is urging him to leave office even sooner. He even called the protestors "an inspiration to people around the world." However, despite his opinions about Mubarak's role in the Egyptian government, Obama stated his belief that "It is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt's leaders."
It seems to me that Obama has made a sudden and strong change of heart after having compared the article that Mrs. Schager posted yesterday to this one; instead of remaining generally ambivalent about what to do, it seems as though he waited for Mubarak to declare that he would leave office (or wouldn't leave office) before saying his more explicit opinion. I find this kind of strange. I wonder if Obama has seen Mubarak's decision as a signal of weakness and has decided that America does have more power and should be able to try to influence, not decide, other countries' governments. He did say that "it was essential that the process [of electing future Egyptian leaders] 'lead to elections that are free and fair' and responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people," which sounds like a push for democracy in Egypt.
However, I don't want to say that Obama's decision to wait to act up more now was cowardly. In fact, it may have been much smarter than making a decision about whether or not to intervene yesterday because it has given America a better chance to keep a more positive relationship with Egypt and its people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you have not seen, things are really getting out of control now. Pro Mubarak supporters have come out strong,and the conflict has reached a point of violence. In Tahrir Square,in Cairo, thousands of Pro Mubarak supporters rushed past the neutral line of Egyptian Soldiers, towards the anti Mubarak protesters, while the army did virtually nothing. An abundance of Molotov cocktails were thrown, multiple people died, and hundreds are injured. Generally, the clash seems to be between those who have some economic stature, and those who live in poverty (the average sallary in Egypt is around $1700 a year). Protesters of Mubarak, and even officals in the current government have asserted that the Mubarak supportes eleciting violcence are policemen who left their positions in the state of chaos, as well as workers for the government, who's bosses are alledgedly threatning to cut their jobs if they dont fight. The government has directly created this economic void between corrupt and rich politcal figures and the average citizens- the economy is largely run by the government in a way where public officals are personally profiting from oil companies, and tax payer money.
ReplyDeleteThe major question is how the American Government will respond if and when the Mubarak regime collapses. The Obama administration understands that the cause for political equaility and greater economic equality is a side which America must take, if it wants to be on the good side of the future Egypt. I find it very hard to believe that Egypt would be able to rebuild by itself- the current govenrment is too corrupt and militarily based to do so. It is easier said than done, but if strong democracies like England and the United States have an influentual(not authoritative)diplomatic role in building the new government, then beneficial change is possible. It is less of a concern that Islamic extremists will come into power, as the majority of the opposition are not islamic extremists, but more of a worry that this revolution will end up with the same type of corrupt government which was established after the Egyptian Revolution of the mid 20th century.
( I hope I am allowed to ask questions on this blog...)
ReplyDeleteWhat do you guys think about Mubarak stepping down after he said he wouldn't until the end of his term in September? Do you think it was a good idea to leave the military in control and how does this reflect upon the United States?
Adding onto Olivia's question, there are now similar uprisings in Algeria that began suspiciously close to Mubarak's stepping down. Personally, I don't know much about the U.S.'s relationship with Algeria and if it's anything like that with Egypt, but how do you guys suggest the government handle this situation in comparison to how we handled Egypt?
ReplyDeleteReferring back to Olivia's question, I do have a concern about the military controlling the government. Egypt does need the military as of now because they have to be able to keep some order in Egypt. I just fear that if the military runs long enough, it will get too powerful, experiencing a "coup d'etat" (blow to the state), which will take away Egypt's chance to create a democracy that the people want. If the military does become too powerful and controlling, it won't be easy for the people to rebel against it. After all, the military has all the powerful weapons.
ReplyDelete