Riots in Egypt

[Роберт]

The pro-Mubarak protesters apparently liked punching Anderson Cooper in the head. I'm not sure why they are there, but I am not shocked at reports that the government is organizing them and police are participating.

Could be a clever tactic in some scenarios. If the regime doesn't want to be seen as directly responsible for clashes with protesters--or wants to make those protesters seem like they're less representative of the public--then they can organize and send in "pro-regime civilians" to clash with them.

Heh, feels like this should be a joke of some sort: you can tell they're Mubarak supporters because they try and destroy cameras and attack foreign media.

And because of the police identification they still had on them.

In the video, Anderson Cooper says it was the pro-Mubarak crowd that he was in, in case you missed that and though I was assuming.

[Iulus Cofield]

There were rumors last week that Mubarak was going to hire thugs to violently attack the protesters for him, so that he wouldn't look like the bad guy.
Not that there is a proven link between the government and the anti-anti-government mobs, but it certainly is highly suspect. Especially with those reports of anti-antis being found with police IDs on them.

[M.C.]

There are always those that make profit under tyranny. The are protesting to protect the environment which favors themselves, over one which favors everyone else.

[Greyarcher]

And because of the police identification they still had on them.

In the video, Anderson Cooper says it was the pro-Mubarak crowd that he was in, in case you missed that and though I was assuming.

Nah, I didn't think you were assuming. I just thought it was funny, because attacking foreign media so clearly fits the regime's recent behavior. Clamping down on media, clamping down on communications.

I'm hoping the protesters keep storming around and force Mubarak out soon. If the regime is still pulling stunts like sending "pro-Mubarak civilians" to fight with the protesters, then I don't really trust any of their promises of reform.

[Iulus Cofield]

Al Jazeera is reporting gunfire pretty much constantly, and at least one anti-government protester shot in the head, while the army does little to disperse them. This on top of molotovs having been thrown for hours.

Unfortunately, it looks like this revolution is finally turning violent.

[Retne]

That's sad. I was hoping this could be a great example of peaceful protest getting results. It's also sad to see a needless loss of life.

[EsotericWombat]

I was just watching what looked an awful lot like a lynching of a man suspected to be a plainclothes police officer who had been posing as a pro-Mubarak activist.

Reports are that people have been paid the equivalent of about eight dollars to carry pro-Mubarak signs.

It's time for the United States to demand that the Egyptian Army roll its tanks to the Presidential Palace and end this, lest they be utterly cut off from military aid.

[Thesh]

It's time for the United States to demand that the Egyptian Army roll its tanks to the Presidential Palace and end this, lest they be utterly cut off from military aid.

It's time for the US to stop getting involved in the internal politics of foreign countries.

[EsotericWombat]

"Internal politics" is a curious way to describe thugs sent by Mubarak killing members of what was until then a peaceful protest.

[Thesh]

Whatever you want to call it, we shouldn't get involved.

[EsotericWombat]

Ok, fine. Let's sit back and wait for Mubarak to order the Army to roll over the protesters in the tanks that we fucking gave them.

Making foreign aid contingent upon the given country's head of state not being a murdering shitbag is what people who don't have their heads up their asses refer to as the responsible use of diplomatic power.

[Thesh]

I don't think the US should be giving anyone military aid.

[Hawknc]

So you agree the US should stop providing military aid to Egypt immediately then?

[Thesh]

Yes, and whether Mubarak is overthrown or not, we should not try and get involved.

[EsotericWombat]

We ARE involved. There's no un-ringing that bell. Our aid to Egypt is the result of a fairly massively important peace agreement we brokered between Egypt and Israel. If we want that peace to continue, we're going to have to make sure that we're on friendly terms with whatever regime replaces Mubarak

If we want to have allies in the Middle East-- and we so fucking do-- we can't be isolationists.

[sudhaa]

hi.

I don't think the protesters are going to give up easily. Whether or not they manage to do anything, this is going to continue for a while. I suspect it will get bloodier the longer it goes on.

[Zamfir]

There was an interesting interview on the radio, with someone in the tourist industry in an Egyptian beach town where there were protests. She said the pro-Mubarak protests were organized and paid by the local hotel owners and shopkeepers, who really liked Mubarak and the way the tourist industry had grown under his rule.

I suppose that's a pattern that might be the same in other places: the country has been doing pretty well for decades, so there must everywhere be lots of businessmen who like Mubarak and do not want the risk of an uncertain alternative.

[EsotericWombat]

Which is a pretty freaking great example of how what's good for local businesses is often terrible for everyone else.

[Triangle_Man]

Which is a pretty freaking great example of how what's good for local businesses is often terrible for everyone else.

Businesses have their interests and desires like everyone else.

Unfortunately they don't share the same desires as everyone else in a lot of cases, leading to problems.

[Princess Marzipan]

I mean this in the least rude way possible, but that post didn't say anything.

[Diadem]

Yes, and whether Mubarak is overthrown or not, we should not try and get involved.

We ARE involved. There's no un-ringing that bell. Our aid to Egypt is the result of a fairly massively important peace agreement we brokered between Egypt and Israel. If we want that peace to continue, we're going to have to make sure that we're on friendly terms with whatever regime replaces Mubarak

If we want to have allies in the Middle East-- and we so fucking do-- we can't be isolationists.

Quote apart from strategic considerations, there's moral ones. I know morality has never stopped any politician, but they should at least be considered in discussions such as these.

The US has been supporting Mubarak for 30 years. They are partly responsible for any crime he commits. So they have a duty to make sure he commits as few as possible.

[EsotericWombat]

You know, I didn't say that, but I totally meant it.

[Zamfir]

The US has been supporting Mubarak for 30 years. They are partly responsible for any crime he commits. So they have a duty to make sure he commits as few as possible.

Not to imply you would, but I wouldn't put that just on the US. Military aid might have been the clearest example of support, but friendly relations with the EU and income from mostly European tourists have probably been at least as important to the stability of the regime as military aid.

[EsotericWombat]

Sure, there are other factors, but the US gives them about a third of their military budget. And they buy so many of our Abrams tanks that we decided to just send them the parts and let them put them together in Egypt, which winds up being a huge bargain for them. The political capital all that hardware confers is pretty godsdamned critical for a military dictatorship

[Zamfir]

Sure, but don't overestimate the size of such things compared to the entire country. US military aid is 1.3 billion, other forms of aid in the order of 500 million or so. In a 220 billion dollar economy, that's a noticable but not critical amount. Egyptian economic growth is about 5% a year. So if the US stopped sending money, it would require just a few months of growth to be back where it started.

Back in the 1980s, the situation was different. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the US was sending a similar amount of military aid and far more other forms of aid. To an economy several times smaller than the present one. So when the deal was struck in 1979, it was much more important to Egypt, and as result to Sadat and Mubarak, than it has been in the last 10 or 20 years.

[EsotericWombat]

is that 5% adjusted for population growth?

[Dream]

US military aid is 1.3 billion, other forms of aid in the order of 500 million or so. In a 220 billion dollar economy, that's a noticable but not critical amount. Egyptian economic growth is about 5% a year. So if the US stopped sending money, it would require just a few months of growth to be back where it started.

And if the US stopped granting export licences? For some reason, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt all have modern, potent military hardware, while no one else does, even though they could buy it from Russia or China. Being on one side of that fence or the other is a very big deal.

[Zamfir]

That's (inflation-corrected) GDP, not GDP/capita. But that doesn't matter for the size of military aid relative to the economy. The US doesn't give tanks on per capita basis either. Per capita growth is of course a bit less.

And if the US stopped granting export licences?

Sure, that would hurt*. My point isn't that military aid makes no difference. Just a counterpoint to the idea that US military aid is a big, critical reason Mubarak is still in power.

Arguably, the big issue is good relations with both the US and Europe on the whole, with military aid as just one facet of it. But there's also all kinds of non-military trade including access to technology, foreign investment and smooth relations with the wider financial system, and of course tourism. Iran is an example of a country without good relations, and that really hurts their economy. Then again, Iran has a lot more oil to sell as compensation.

All of those, not just military aid, could have been used in the past as leverage to force Mubarak to hold fair elections. No guarantees that it would work, but no one tried either.

So i think it's a bit unfair to focus on the US alone, while other countries could have done things too, but didn't.


*Depending on else would boycot weapons sales. There were always rumours that military aid to Egypt was mainly about pork for US military manufacturers, as much as about relations with Egypt. If the US didn't give money to them, let alone a boycot, Egypt might have bought decent tanks from other countries.

[Oregonaut]

<snark>But it's so much easier to say that the US has to fix all of the problems, because we cause all of the problems. Didn't you know?</snark>

We cut off military aid, and it doesn't do much to change the current situation.

We don't cut off military aid, it doesn't make us look involved.

So that's a pretty simple solution right there.

But cutting off military aid is not going to be a panacea. We can not do much more than tell Muby that we're going to rescind all aid and investment in his nation as a result of any proven physical aggression taken against peaceful protests. Anyone recommending that we send in the 101st has their head stuck up their ass.

[omgryebread]

Geopolitical and national security questions aside, it seems a bit of an odd moral position to say that a powerful country like the US shouldn't use it's soft power, and the threat of it's hard power, or even in some cases it's outright hard power to promote human rights. Obviously getting too eager to go bouncing around the globe fighting for Truth and Democracy leads us to quagmires like Iraq, but I fail to see how providing military aid to countries in order to help keep peace is a bad thing, and I also fail to see how threatening to suspend that aid when those countries violate human rights is a bad thing.

[Oregonaut]

I'm not saying we shouldn't suspend aid. I'm very much pro suspending aid. But beyond that, what other tools do we have in the box?

We CAN NOT send in the military. That'd be idiotic even by Bush standards.

[omgryebread]

I'm not saying we shouldn't suspend aid. I'm very much pro suspending aid. But beyond that, what other tools do we have in the box?

We CAN NOT send in the military. That'd be idiotic even by Bush standards.

Oh, yeah. Don't get me wrong, you're totally right there. Though I think the only reason we haven't seen suggestions of it is because all the neo-cons are on Mubarak's side because of Israel.

[EsotericWombat]

The snark tag doesn't make that statement any less douchey, if you were wondering.

You're right though. The only military with the authority to depose Mubarak is the Egyptian military. We should be using what leverage we have with them to see to it that they do.

[Diadem]

You're right though. The only military with the authority to depose Mubarak is the Egyptian military. We should be using what leverage we have with them to see to it that they do.

I agree on practical grounds. The only military that can remove Mubarak without causing a major war is the Egyptian military.

But if you meant authority as in moral authority, then I disagree. Fuck the peace of Westphalia.

[Oregonaut]

I honestly don't care if it comes across as douchey. I want less US interventions across the damn globe. We are not the only nation propping up Mubes. We are not the only nation benefiting. People don't want us to intervene everywhere, they may want to do something radical, like step up to the damn plate.

[EsotericWombat]

I mean "authority" in the sense that all legitimate governing authority comes from the will of the people

[Belial]

We are not the only nation propping up Mubes. We are not the only nation benefiting.

So the argument is that since other people are doing it, it's okay for us to keep it up?

[bigglesworth]

No, I don't think Oregonaut's argument is that at all.

[Belial]

Well the status of things is that we are already intervening in the form of aid. The "intervention" wombat suggests is to make that aid conditional on things not being awful: because as long as we're intervening, we have a partial responsibility on what is done with our help.

As near as I can tell, Oregonaut's response is "yeah, well, we're not the ONLY ones helping the dictator, so we shouldn't have to care or do anything about it".

And, well, bullshit.

[Oregonaut]

No, Belial. My argument is that we should retract foreign aid, then if there is a general consensus for a foreign invasion in order to maintain peace, we should then consider sending in troops and police to help restore order. I've said, repeatedly, that I'm pro-withdrawal of aid. I'm also anti-foreign invasion. The Egyptian military is showing its hand, and is stepping in to stop the more heavily powered aggressors. If you throw foreign military might into the mix, we may just spark the violence we wish to prevent.

There's also the fact that the current rebel faction dislikes foreign intervention into soveriegn Egyptian affairs. That doesn't scream to me of a situation that would be receptive to US troops on the ground.

Now, if we withdraw our aid, tell Muby he's on his own, we've done all we can. If other nations do the same, he may step down. He might not. However, the matter would be in the Egyptian people's hands. Where it damn well belongs.

And Belial, that looks like you're deliberately misinterpreting my position.