The jasmine revolution spreads?

[shifty_powers]

Well it seems that the unrest is spreading to egypt:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12311007

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexingto ... _and_cairo

Could the jasmine revolution claim another country? It's certainly an interesting development, and depending on how things go could send far bigger shockwaves through many autocratic regimes, not least in the middle east.

Reminds me of the old supposed chinese proverb may you live in interesting times

What are people's thoughts?

[BeidAmmikon]

What are people's thoughts?

Some of them are in teh "Good news from Carthage" thread

"Beid was here"

[shifty_powers]

Well yes, I am ware of the thread on Tunisia

However, the fall of the Egyptian regime would be an altogether bigger shock to the Arab world and have more far reaching consequences, hence not posting in that thread...

edit: well pfft. upto the mods what they want to do with this is suppose that'll teach me to try and post more...

[BeidAmmikon]

Since some view AlBaradai as "the man of" Israel and the US, one would replace a lackey with another, but I suppose that The People (yes, again) have wisened up enough, to spoil such a party in no time. I guess this sums up my thoughts over the entire situation.
Others say that the entire Mediterranean region is aflame now with revolutions that are designed to replace current regimes (that's a word for a tyrannical, generally bad, leadership) with ones favoured by the US, that would rally them against Iran (wishful thinking of delusional people, IMHO.)
Ah well... Once The People find that they are able to speak in their own name and don't need any leader who is being imposed over them from outside, such games are pretty much reduced to naught.
And the gamesters should, generally speaking, mind their own business, at home. That should be their priority - holding The Center that is.

[de la Serna]

Could the jasmine revolution claim another country? It's certainly an interesting development, and depending on how things go could send far bigger shockwaves through many autocratic regimes, not least in the middle east.

And maybe those shockwaves will propagate upwards as well? Like to the Balkans and Italy?

One thing I don't understand though, is what stance 'western' countries will assume if this keeps going... I mean, Egypt and the US have been pub mates for ages, and as the two journalists rightly point out:

This is a serious challenge to the regime of Hosni Mubarak. His security forces are strong, funded by billions of dollars of aid from the United States.

and

IT IS a cruel irony that Barack Obama chose Cairo as the venue for the big speech in 2009 that was designed to start to restore America's relations with the Muslim world.

And now they're suddenly being described as corrupt autocracies as in, uhm, what, "rogue states"?

I mean, it's not cool drinking Guinness with your friend military dictator one day, then supplying him with all kinds of weaponry the next, and then implying he's a, well, military dictator all of a sudden...

...not cool at all. What's the world coming to?

[RegisterMe]

I'm glad this thread is here . Partly because this is something that deserves to be discussed, and partly because, as much as I would like this to be a welcoming place, that doesn't mean that difficult issues shouldn't be discussed.

I was actually reading a report on the Beeb and thought to myself "why hasn't anybody on Ego posted about this yet...".....

Anyway.

Tunisia seems to have gone quiet. At least in terms of how it has been portrayed in the press that I have easily available to me.

Egypt is different.... larger, more complicated (politically, economically, militarily, and religiously).

Lets start with politically - it's had one party and one leader for the best part of the last thirty plus (happy to be corrected here) years. The Muslim Brotherhood (we'll come back to this in the "religious" bit) has been active for decades, off the top of my head 60+ years?

It's a police state. I have been to many countries, I have never seen so many weapons in the hands of security forces as I have seen in Egypt (outside of a war zone, which, thankfully, I have never had to experience).

Politics, economics, and strategic value merge seemlessly here, whether or not we like it. Geographically Egypt sits on the Suez Canal. The shortest sea route between Europe and Asia unless you want to go via the Cape of Good Hope. Add to which it's been a stable (and don't discount the value of stability) partner of the US in the Middle East. It's diffuclt to discuss this without side-tracking into a wall of text about the Middle East, but Egypt is..... important.

Pretend that you were an actor called the "US" for a minute - you want Israel to be safe, you want oil, you want peace and trade, you want regional stability (whilst retaining your influence) in the Middle East, you don't want any more wars, particularly in any country remotely connected with Islam, and, fundamentally, you believe that peace and prosperity come about through goverments that respect the wishes of their people.

There are some objectives that might conflict with each other, no?

Throw in the "not-Wiki-leaks" about the Palestinian approach to negotiations with Israel. Add a resurgent Hizbullah political leadership in the Lebanon (either they have it, or they'll fight over it), a truculent Syriah that on the one hand wants rapprochemant with the West and on the other hand wants to a) stay in power and b) wants to be a regional power; and then the "normal" Israeli difficulties, Iraq, Iran and a smidgen of North Korea and what would your answer be if you were Hilary?

First and foremost the US wants stability here. Secondly it wants democracy, as a long term ingredient of the former.

The transition between, effectively, a short term stable dictatorship in the direction of a more long term stable (but short term unstable) somethingelse is interesting. Particularly if you don't want to manage the affairs of another country.

Anyway, let's talk nice, and forgive another drunken post by this drunken poster .

Lastly, we're all a victim of the press we consume. What's happening in Tunisia?


RM

EDIT: Blimey, I've just re-read that and, with a nod in the direction of the "drunk posting" thread, I have to say that I am mullered. Bad choice of words (where does that slang come from any way?). Religion does have a part to play in this "observation", in so much as worldviews have a part to play. And we all need to understand that, and respect it, even if we don't agree with it. I really, really, do not believe that any "religion x vs religion y" vs lack of religion z has, well, any value whatsoever (until we get into another discussion about relion ).

EDIT2: People are dying - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11777943/ . They're no more or less valuable than anybody else, but here their government is killing them. Why? To not be threatened by said people.

[philip_hughes]

Good post. I'll start by saying that I do not believe the U.S. is evil. They are just trying to protect their interests, and balancing world stability would be enough to drive anyone mental, methinks. I do think in this case they are demonstrating that they have not learned their lesson from Vietnam. Installing or supporting a despot for the sake of stability really can backfire.

[Aye Capn]

I pretty much agree with Reg and p_h.

We supported Mubarak because his predecessor's predecessor, Anwar Sadat, signed the Camp David Accords recognizing the right of Israel to exist and allowing free passage through the Suez Canal. Mubarak has kept up Sadat's end of the bargain and has made Egypt a force for peace in the region. We have an obligation to keep up our end as well.

On the other hand we have to respect democracy and on that basis oppose Mubarak. He is a dictator oppressing his people and to support him goes against everything we as individual Americans believe.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Tied for worst-case scenario is what happened to Iran: an Islamic theocracy takes over in Egypt and starts making life difficult for us. In addition to harboring and training terrorists who directly threaten the United States the border with the Palestinian territories would give a hostile Egyptian regime a great many ways to harass the Israelis and protect Palestinian terrorists.

The other worst-case scenario is if Mubarak does the very same thing because we stood on principle and stabbed him in the back.

How do we come out ahead?

Mubarak survives thanks to our help. Egyptians hate us for generations, but regional stability is preserved.

Mubarak falls and we help pro-democracy groups fend off all the wolves, dictatorial, Islamic, or otherwise. Egypt becomes a democracy and Egyptians love us for generations.

What is the likelihood of that last scenario? Is there any way we can make it happen?

[Derkylos]

If it is the path of these middle-eastern countries to install democratic governments at this time, I guess that is a good thing (evolution of government out of a feudal system can hardly be anything else).

However, western powers need to butt out. It took Europe something like 500 years (at least) to evolve into it's current (albeit, inefficient and flawed) "superior" state, Egypt has only been independant for somewhere around 50...give it time...

[Aye Capn]

Hmm, looks like we were all in on this one, or at least we are now.

[Lion Around]

Tunisia and Egypt fall. Interesting turn of events, perhaps it'll be for the good. But I predict another war is around the corner, and the US will somehow make a "bloody" mess of it.

[pjknibbs]

Egypt falls? Mubarak has dismissed his government but he's refusing to stand down himself...this must be some new definition of "fall" I was not previously aware of.

[amtct]

Good post. I'll start by saying that I do not believe the U.S. is evil. They are just trying to protect their interests, and balancing world stability would be enough to drive anyone mental, methinks. I do think in this case they are demonstrating that they have not learned their lesson from Vietnam. Installing or supporting a despot for the sake of stability really can backfire.

And what happened in Vietnam

[mrbadger]

Egypt falls? Mubarak has dismissed his government but he's refusing to stand down himself...this must be some new definition of "fall" I was not previously aware of.

I suspect he's got himself convinced that it's the people who he had in government that are really to blame for the public not liking him any more. Get rid of them and the problem will go away.

Thirty odd years in power has probably given him the idea that he's some kind of perfect but misunderstood ruler.

[imperium3]

Hmm, looks like we were all in on this one, or at least we are now.

I'm not terrifically surprised. Looks like the US has been backing both horses, so to speak - the idea being that if the regime doesn't fall, they still have friend Hosni to count on, and if it does, then there might be conveniently pro-US people scattered throughout the new government.

I'm starting to get the suspicion that, sooner or later, Mubarak will fall though.

[thetack]

everything depends on the armed forces in all these cases

if the army wants change they stand back it will happen little blood, the goverments are overthrown and a new set of corrupt power craizies get in, gives the people some blood , money or food then promises them what they want and blames the previouse leaders for everything, the population thinks they have won and goes back to its slavery.

if the army dosnt want it a blodbath happens they blame the facists, commies, christians or terrorists (delete as appropriate to country) and a general takes over gives the people some blood , money or food then promises them what they want and blames the previouse leaders for everything, the population thinks they have won and goes back to its slavery.

the western world steps in and has the arab world yelling crusaders and starts another holy war , the arab world steps in and the good old USA cries muslim extremists and declares the need to protect democracy and a war of protection starts.

the only sure thing is the poor b*****s at the bottom will still be poor , hunger and exploited.

[de la Serna]

However, leaving aside all the considerations about guilt/fault/hidden agendas for a moment, what I can easily understand is that we don't need any more countries run by crazy religious zealots than we already have... especially crazy religious zealots who encourage people to blow themselves up in every corner of the world in order to kill infidels...

And as I see it, Middle Eastern countries whose government has fallen or is on the brink of being overthrown run a relevant risk of being 'infiltrated' by such people...

[BeidAmmikon]

The most successful revolution is an insurrection. Let me try to explain.
One does not make revolution in, say, a week, or a month. It has do be done quickly, overnight. That way, groups that are waiting in the shadow to take the reins of power are prevented to make their moves.
Of course, The People would demand that the current leaders step down. But the people that are in the streets must also be proposing new leaders, people they know well, who would fulfil their wishes. They should demand change if they know for sure that they have something, and someone to change the status quo with. Otherwise, what's the rush?
So, the people might not have a leader at hand, to put it in the seat of power immediately after the regime flees to their masters', or co-lackeys' countries, but might only want to see the current leaders gone and leave them be. The army, now - that's entirely different. Unlike the angry mob, it is highly organized and disciplined, and they also know their people, therefore they know at any given time who would they impose as new leader.
The army in Egypt is on the side of Mubarak, at least some analysts say so.
A successful "revolution" (something that would topple the current leaders, and do away with the status quo) must be done with the help of the army, and in a short time. Otherwise, there's room for bloodshed and groups hijacking the cause, and the risk of repeating it all over again, like a bad dream.
AFAIK.

PS I was looking at the police cordons facing the mob, and thought that if the people put their mind to it, could roll over them like a tsunami wave.
I mean, how many of them could be killed before they win the day? That's the People Power - numbers. Also, I was thinking that if those of the police/army who have shot to kill their own people - and those who gave the order too- are ever caught, they fully deserve to be summarily executed on the spot. I mean, you may want to stay in power eternally, be it with help from DC (which would make DC accomplices to murder), but you are not allowed to kill your own people.

[brucewarren]

...but you are not allowed to kill your own people.

I really wish that were true.

Does anyone to this day have a complete count on the numbers
butchered in Tiananmen Square in 1989? As I remember it, this wasn't
even a revolution, just a peaceful protest by some students.

Before the firing began, the local tank commanders proudly proclaimed
that the "Peoples Army would never fire on the people."

It didn't take long for those in power to find someone who would.

All you have to do is declare your critics as "terrorists" and you can
do whatever you like. Especially if you control the media.

Back to Egypt. I fear a bloodbath. Clearly the authorities have no qualms
about shooting the crowd, even children. As long as the West supports
those in power, the people can do absolutely nothing.

With respect to numbers, if the bad guys have got machine guns, numbers
are irrelevent. It just means a bigger pile of bodies to be cleared away
in the morning.

[shifty_powers]

The army can certainly make a revolution a lot more bloody and possibly stop it. Depends on how determine the people are. If they are tenacious enough, most armies will back down eventually although I think we have certainly not reached that point in Egypt yet.

Egypt is a more interesting and potentially far more dangerous case then Tunisia. Tunisia was ultimately far smaller in population and importance in effect on other regimes than Egypt would. It also had a more educated and tech savvy population generally. Egypt has a large proportion of it's population as young, unemployed and in dire poverty in many cases.

I find myself torn over Egypt. My natural instinct is to support the people in overthrowing a terribly autocratic, nepotistic, corrupt and ineffective regime. (Certainly in terms of raising people out of poverty). That they should have the right to throw someone out of power and establish a democracy. The other side of me is well aware that the situation could descend into unbridled chaos, with a non-functioning state and non-existent government. (I mean, it is not as if there are good precursors for things such as an independent judiciary or effective civil service). If this were to happen it would have a far bigger effect on the region than Tunisia did, and as a driver I shudder to think what effect it would have on oil prices. I truly believe that if it went pear shaped the eventual fall-out could potentially be enough to trigger a double-dip recession. So I see a clash between the potential gain in rights, civil liberties and freedom for a downtrodden people versus the potential for conflict and conflagration which could spread across the region and destabilise the world economy....