By Karen DeYoung and Karin Brulliard
Washington Post
Tuesday, February 8, 2011; 11:17 AM
The Obama administration has suspended all high-level dialogue with Pakistan, a key U.S. partner in the Afghanistan war, over the case of an American diplomat the Pakistanis have detained on possible murder charges, U.S. and Pakistani officials said.
The case of Raymond Allen Davis, who has admitted he fatally shot two Pakistanis he said threatened him from a motorcycle while he was driving in Lahore on Jan. 27, has severely strained relations between the two governments and threatens to scuttle a planned summit among U.S., Afghan and Pakistani leaders scheduled for the end of this month in Washington.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton canceled a meeting last weekend with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi at an international security conference in Munich to protest Allen's detention, according to officials from both countries who were not authorized to discuss the situation on the record.
The administration has twice summoned Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani to the White House for formal complaints and demands that Pakistan recognize Davis's diplomatic immunity and release him immediately. The message was repeated in a meeting in Islamabad Monday between Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter.
Davis, 36, holds a diplomatic passport and is a member of the "technical and administrative staff" at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad "entitled to full criminal immunity in accordance with the Vienna Convention," the State Department said Monday.
The administration and Congress, the statement said, "have repeatedly made clear at the highest levels that this matter must be resolved by the Pakistan government or it could impact other bilateral initiatives."
In Pakistan, the issue has become embroiled in widespread anti-Americanism and suspicions, fanned by the Pakistani media and used for political advantage, that U.S. spies and intelligence contractors are secretly operating in the country. It has also posed a challenge to Pakistan's weak civilian government as it struggles to wrest control of national security policy from the powerful military and fends off opposition political parties.
The most powerful opposition group, the Pakistan Muslim League headed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, rules Punjab province and its capital, Lahore, where Davis is being held and several hearings have taken place in the case.
Although the administration has been unequivocal in its insistence that Davis has diplomatic status, it has been less than clear on the nature of his job in Pakistan over the last two years. An early embassy statement said it was "security" related, while officials in Washington have said that he vetted questionable visa applicants. The CIA has declined to comment on the case.
On Thursday, the Lahore court extended Davis's detention for another eight days. The U.S. Embassy complained that it was given no notice of the hearing, that Davis had no attorney present, and that he was not provided with an interpreter.
"He was denied due process and a fair hearing," the statement said. "His continued detention is a gross violation of international law."
Although Zardari's Pakistan People's Party government has close relations with the administration, and depends on the billions of dollars in U.S. military and economic assistance, it fears being painted as a U.S. lackey.
A foreign ministry official said that the government itself is divided over the case. The ministry has determined that Davis is immune from prosecution based on his passport and diplomatic visa, and the fact that Pakistan "accepted" that when Davis first arrived in the fall of 2009, the official said.
Other parts of the government, he said, see some advantage in using the situation to prove the government's independence from Washington. But the Americans, he said, "have dropped hints they could go to any extent" to get Davis released.
Further complicating the situation, a Pakistani intelligence official said that the two men Davis killed were not, as he has said, armed robbers intent on stealing money, his telephone and perhaps his car, but intelligence agents assigned to tail him. This official said the two intended to frighten Davis because he crossed a "red line" that the official did not further define.
Both the military's Inter-Services Intelligence service and the Interior Ministry's Intelligence Bureau regularly use motorcycle tails to track the movement of U.S. officials, another Pakistani official said.
The Pakistani media has also suggested that Davis is being held hostage to a wrongful-death case brought in New York by family members of four Americans killed in the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India. U.S. and Indian officials have blamed the attack on the Pakistani organization Lashkar-i-Taiba, which has long-standing ties to ISI. Four senior ISI officials, including the organization's director, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, have been called as witnesses in the case.
According to his 2009 visa application, Davis was born in Wise, Va. He gave an address in Las Vegas, where he is listed in Nevada state registration records as the co-owner of a firm called Hyperion Protective Services.
On Sunday, the widow of one of the men killed by Davis committed suicide in the city of Faisalabad. According to a doctor at the hospital where she was admitted after ingesting rat poison, she said she did it because she feared Davis would be released without facing trial.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Readout of the Vice President's Call with Egyptian Vice President Omar Soliman
February 08, 2011
Vice President Biden spoke today to Egyptian Vice President Omar Soliman to reiterate the United States’ support for an orderly transition in Egypt that is prompt, meaningful, peaceful, and legitimate. Vice President Biden urged that the transition produce immediate, irreversible progress that responds to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.
The Vice President reaffirmed that the future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people. The Vice President took note of steps the government of Egypt has pledged to take in response to the opposition and urged the government to take immediate action to follow through on its commitments.
Based on our nation’s fundamental belief in the importance of universal rights and representative governments, as well as on consultations with Egypt’s opposition and a broad cross section of civil society, Vice President Biden and Vice President Soliman discussed additional steps that the United States supports, including:
•Restraining the Ministry of Interior’s conduct by immediately ending the arrests, harassment, beating, and detention of journalists, and political and civil society activists, and by allowing freedom of assembly and expression;
•immediately rescinding the emergency law;
•broadening participation in the national dialogue to include a wide range of opposition members; and
•inviting the opposition as a partner in jointly developing a roadmap and timetable for transition.
These steps, and a clear policy of no reprisals, are what the broad opposition is calling for and what the government is saying it is prepared to accept. Vice President Biden expressed the belief that the demands of the broad opposition can be met through meaningful negotiations with the government.
Vice President Biden spoke today to Egyptian Vice President Omar Soliman to reiterate the United States’ support for an orderly transition in Egypt that is prompt, meaningful, peaceful, and legitimate. Vice President Biden urged that the transition produce immediate, irreversible progress that responds to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.
The Vice President reaffirmed that the future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people. The Vice President took note of steps the government of Egypt has pledged to take in response to the opposition and urged the government to take immediate action to follow through on its commitments.
Based on our nation’s fundamental belief in the importance of universal rights and representative governments, as well as on consultations with Egypt’s opposition and a broad cross section of civil society, Vice President Biden and Vice President Soliman discussed additional steps that the United States supports, including:
•Restraining the Ministry of Interior’s conduct by immediately ending the arrests, harassment, beating, and detention of journalists, and political and civil society activists, and by allowing freedom of assembly and expression;
•immediately rescinding the emergency law;
•broadening participation in the national dialogue to include a wide range of opposition members; and
•inviting the opposition as a partner in jointly developing a roadmap and timetable for transition.
These steps, and a clear policy of no reprisals, are what the broad opposition is calling for and what the government is saying it is prepared to accept. Vice President Biden expressed the belief that the demands of the broad opposition can be met through meaningful negotiations with the government.
Monday, February 7, 2011
US and China launched space weapon tests: documents
LONDON — The United States and China both used advanced missiles to blow up their own satellites in a mutual show of military strength, documents published in Thursday's Telegraph newspaper showed.
The memos, leaked by the WikiLeaks website, revealed that the US responded to China's 2007 destruction of a weather satellite by blowing up its own malfunctioning satellite in a "test" strike.
The US insisted at the time that it undertook the operation to prevent the satellite returning to earth with a toxic fuel tank which would pose a health hazard.
A leaked cable sent from the US embassy in Beijing in February 2008, the day after the US strike, revealed that China was doubtful of this explanation.
"Teng Jianqun, Deputy Secretary General of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Department, described the shoot-down as unnecessary and simply an opportunity to test the US missile defense system," the memo said.
According to the cable, Teng said the shoot-down was "an ideal opportunity to voice their (the US) objection" and proved "the US missile defense system is also an offensive system."
Another leaked cable revealed that the US embassy in China received "direct confirmation of the results of the anti-satellite test" from the US military command in the Pacific.
The White House was shocked in February 2007 when China demonstrated its capability to strike in space by blowing up a weather satellite 530 miles above earth.
In another leaked cable sent in January 2008, it was communicated that officials working for the then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice had warned Beijing.
"A Chinese attack on a satellite using a weapon launched by a ballistic missile threatens to destroy space systems that the US and other nations use for commerce and national security," the officials said.
"Destroying satellites endangers people. Any purposeful interference with US space systems will be interpreted by the US as an infringement of its rights and considered an escalation in a crisis or conflict," they added.
A month later, Robert Gates, then US defence secretary, authorized the USS Lake Erie cruiser to fire a highly-sophisticated SM-3 rocket at the USA 193 spy satellite, the US's first such strike in 23 years.
The strike raised tensions between the two countries, with "angry" China claiming at a defence summit in 2008, that the US and themselves were "neither allies nor adversaries," the cables said.
Another memo claimed that China was worried over US plans to place defence radars in Japan and alleged the US was developing an "airborne laser system" which could "attack a missile in launch phase over the sovereign territory."
The latest memo, dated January 2010, showed that China had successfully used a SC-19 missile to destroy a CSS-X-11 missile 150 miles above earth, an action the US considered as an anti-satellite test.
The cable showed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared the previous administration's concern over China's plans and said "objections... previously delivered in January 2007 and January 2008 are still valid."
The memos, leaked by the WikiLeaks website, revealed that the US responded to China's 2007 destruction of a weather satellite by blowing up its own malfunctioning satellite in a "test" strike.
The US insisted at the time that it undertook the operation to prevent the satellite returning to earth with a toxic fuel tank which would pose a health hazard.
A leaked cable sent from the US embassy in Beijing in February 2008, the day after the US strike, revealed that China was doubtful of this explanation.
"Teng Jianqun, Deputy Secretary General of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Department, described the shoot-down as unnecessary and simply an opportunity to test the US missile defense system," the memo said.
According to the cable, Teng said the shoot-down was "an ideal opportunity to voice their (the US) objection" and proved "the US missile defense system is also an offensive system."
Another leaked cable revealed that the US embassy in China received "direct confirmation of the results of the anti-satellite test" from the US military command in the Pacific.
The White House was shocked in February 2007 when China demonstrated its capability to strike in space by blowing up a weather satellite 530 miles above earth.
In another leaked cable sent in January 2008, it was communicated that officials working for the then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice had warned Beijing.
"A Chinese attack on a satellite using a weapon launched by a ballistic missile threatens to destroy space systems that the US and other nations use for commerce and national security," the officials said.
"Destroying satellites endangers people. Any purposeful interference with US space systems will be interpreted by the US as an infringement of its rights and considered an escalation in a crisis or conflict," they added.
A month later, Robert Gates, then US defence secretary, authorized the USS Lake Erie cruiser to fire a highly-sophisticated SM-3 rocket at the USA 193 spy satellite, the US's first such strike in 23 years.
The strike raised tensions between the two countries, with "angry" China claiming at a defence summit in 2008, that the US and themselves were "neither allies nor adversaries," the cables said.
Another memo claimed that China was worried over US plans to place defence radars in Japan and alleged the US was developing an "airborne laser system" which could "attack a missile in launch phase over the sovereign territory."
The latest memo, dated January 2010, showed that China had successfully used a SC-19 missile to destroy a CSS-X-11 missile 150 miles above earth, an action the US considered as an anti-satellite test.
The cable showed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared the previous administration's concern over China's plans and said "objections... previously delivered in January 2007 and January 2008 are still valid."
United States to hold talks on tactical nuclear weapons with Russia
The United States expects to hold talks with Russia on tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) within a year after the New START arms reduction treaty comes into force, President Barack Obama said in a message to the Senate on Wednesday.
"The United States will seek to initiate, following consultation with NATO Allies but not later than 1 year after the entry into force of the New START Treaty, negotiations with the Russian Federation on an agreement to address the disparity between the non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons stockpiles of the Russian Federation and of the United States," the message reads.
Earlier on Wednesday, Obama signed ratification papers for the New START - a keystone of his painstaking effort to reset relations with Russia.
When ratifying the New START deal in December, the United States Senate adopted a resolution obligating the government to start bilateral talks on cutting the TNW stockpiles - landmines, artillery shells and short-range missiles. Washington says Moscow has a larger number of these systems.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said January 29 that it is too early to discuss limiting TNW with the United States because Russia needs to see the way the U.S. fulfills the undertaken commitments.
The new deal, replacing START 1, which expired in December 2009, was signed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Obama in Prague in April 2010. The document slashes the Russian and U.S. strategic nuclear arsenals to a maximum of 1,550 warheads, down from the current ceiling of 2,200.
The U.S. Senate ratified the deal on December 22, 2010, but added several amendments to the resolution on ratification, including a demand to build up U.S. global missile defenses.
Medvedev signed the ratification documents January 28 after both houses of the Russian parliament ratified the new treaty adding some provisions to the ratification document and issuing two supplementary statements to the resolution on the treaty ratification.
The deal will formally come into force when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchange the instruments of ratification at a security conference in Munich on February 5. In his message to senators, Obama officially notified them that he signed the ratification papers and will implement the decisions of legislators that the ratification resolution contains.
WASHINGTON, February 3 (RIA Novosti)
"The United States will seek to initiate, following consultation with NATO Allies but not later than 1 year after the entry into force of the New START Treaty, negotiations with the Russian Federation on an agreement to address the disparity between the non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons stockpiles of the Russian Federation and of the United States," the message reads.
Earlier on Wednesday, Obama signed ratification papers for the New START - a keystone of his painstaking effort to reset relations with Russia.
When ratifying the New START deal in December, the United States Senate adopted a resolution obligating the government to start bilateral talks on cutting the TNW stockpiles - landmines, artillery shells and short-range missiles. Washington says Moscow has a larger number of these systems.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said January 29 that it is too early to discuss limiting TNW with the United States because Russia needs to see the way the U.S. fulfills the undertaken commitments.
The new deal, replacing START 1, which expired in December 2009, was signed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Obama in Prague in April 2010. The document slashes the Russian and U.S. strategic nuclear arsenals to a maximum of 1,550 warheads, down from the current ceiling of 2,200.
The U.S. Senate ratified the deal on December 22, 2010, but added several amendments to the resolution on ratification, including a demand to build up U.S. global missile defenses.
Medvedev signed the ratification documents January 28 after both houses of the Russian parliament ratified the new treaty adding some provisions to the ratification document and issuing two supplementary statements to the resolution on the treaty ratification.
The deal will formally come into force when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchange the instruments of ratification at a security conference in Munich on February 5. In his message to senators, Obama officially notified them that he signed the ratification papers and will implement the decisions of legislators that the ratification resolution contains.
WASHINGTON, February 3 (RIA Novosti)
U.S. Strategy Toward Preserving the Egyptian Regime
STRATFOR
February 3, 2011
Wednesday was another Egypt day, but the most important development did not take place in the country. Instead, it was in Washington, where White House spokesman Robert Gibbs used some pretty tough language in demanding that Egypt immediately engage in the process of transition: “The time for a transition has come, and that time is now…now is not September…now means yesterday,” Gibbs said.
Gibbs’ comments clearly show that the United States wants Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down and without much delay. Washington sees this as a way to try to defuse the street agitation. The fear is that should the unrest continue, the situation may get out of hand and even the Egyptian military might not be able to handle the situation.
“…the United States is not worried about the end of the “Mubarakian era” and is in fact demanding that the embattled president depart sooner rather than later.”
The critical element in this process is the Egyptian military, which is expected to ensure that Mubarak’s fall does not lead to a collapse of the existing order. As things stand, it seems the opposition forces would be satisfied if Mubarak stepped down, after which they are prepared to negotiate with his successors. Of course, such an event would herald the next phase when all sorts of issues (interim administration, elections, new constitution, etc.) would have to be sorted out.
But the bottom line is that regime change would not take place. Any new ruling elite — if and when it took office — would be dependent upon the military, internal security forces, intelligence service, bureaucracy and business community to govern the country. After all, these are the basic instruments of governance that any political force would be dependent upon.
A key thing to note in the case of Egypt is that the public agitation is not led by any political force. Rather, civil society is behind the protest demonstrations. So, when Mubarak throws in the towel and the public goes back home, the political parties will be left with little leverage vis-a-vis the state.
That weakens the ability of the political forces to negotiate with the regime from a position of relative strength. This is not to say that the ruling National Democratic Party sans Mubarak would be able to continue with business as usual with the military’s backing. There will be compromises but nothing that would lead to a fundamental shift in the nature of the Egyptian polity.
The important thing to keep in mind at this point is that the political forces depend upon the military for any political change. It is this dependency that will likely allow the military to ensure continuity of policy. This would be the case, even if the country’s most organized political group, the Islamist movement the Muslim Brotherhood, were to come to power.
On their own, political forces do not wield much power and in Egypt, where the political forces do not own the streets, this is all the more the case. Thus, the move toward a more democratic polity is an evolutionary process and will likely take many years to transpire — assuming, of course, ceteris paribus — all things being equal. Until then, the guarantor of state stability is the country’s armed forces, which means that the order established by Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1952 will not undergo any major change anytime soon.
It is for this reason the United States is not worried about the end of the “Mubarakian era” and is in fact demanding that the embattled president depart sooner rather than later.
February 3, 2011
Wednesday was another Egypt day, but the most important development did not take place in the country. Instead, it was in Washington, where White House spokesman Robert Gibbs used some pretty tough language in demanding that Egypt immediately engage in the process of transition: “The time for a transition has come, and that time is now…now is not September…now means yesterday,” Gibbs said.
Gibbs’ comments clearly show that the United States wants Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down and without much delay. Washington sees this as a way to try to defuse the street agitation. The fear is that should the unrest continue, the situation may get out of hand and even the Egyptian military might not be able to handle the situation.
“…the United States is not worried about the end of the “Mubarakian era” and is in fact demanding that the embattled president depart sooner rather than later.”
The critical element in this process is the Egyptian military, which is expected to ensure that Mubarak’s fall does not lead to a collapse of the existing order. As things stand, it seems the opposition forces would be satisfied if Mubarak stepped down, after which they are prepared to negotiate with his successors. Of course, such an event would herald the next phase when all sorts of issues (interim administration, elections, new constitution, etc.) would have to be sorted out.
But the bottom line is that regime change would not take place. Any new ruling elite — if and when it took office — would be dependent upon the military, internal security forces, intelligence service, bureaucracy and business community to govern the country. After all, these are the basic instruments of governance that any political force would be dependent upon.
A key thing to note in the case of Egypt is that the public agitation is not led by any political force. Rather, civil society is behind the protest demonstrations. So, when Mubarak throws in the towel and the public goes back home, the political parties will be left with little leverage vis-a-vis the state.
That weakens the ability of the political forces to negotiate with the regime from a position of relative strength. This is not to say that the ruling National Democratic Party sans Mubarak would be able to continue with business as usual with the military’s backing. There will be compromises but nothing that would lead to a fundamental shift in the nature of the Egyptian polity.
The important thing to keep in mind at this point is that the political forces depend upon the military for any political change. It is this dependency that will likely allow the military to ensure continuity of policy. This would be the case, even if the country’s most organized political group, the Islamist movement the Muslim Brotherhood, were to come to power.
On their own, political forces do not wield much power and in Egypt, where the political forces do not own the streets, this is all the more the case. Thus, the move toward a more democratic polity is an evolutionary process and will likely take many years to transpire — assuming, of course, ceteris paribus — all things being equal. Until then, the guarantor of state stability is the country’s armed forces, which means that the order established by Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1952 will not undergo any major change anytime soon.
It is for this reason the United States is not worried about the end of the “Mubarakian era” and is in fact demanding that the embattled president depart sooner rather than later.
Hillary Rodham Clinton Interview With Michele Kelemen of NPR
February 6, 2011
QUESTION: So, thanks for taking the time to talk to us.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely.
QUESTION: Do you think the Egyptian people can trust a transition process that is essentially in the hands of the military and former intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the Egyptian people are looking for an orderly transition that can lead to free and fair elections. That's what the United States has consistently supported. We are putting a lot of effort into making sure that the dialogue process that has begun is meaningful and transparent, and leads to concrete actions.
Now, the people themselves, and the leaders of various groups within Egyptian society, will ultimately determine whether it is or is not meeting their needs. Today we learned that the Muslim Brotherhood has decided to participate, which suggests that they, at least, are now involved in the dialogue that we have encouraged.
We are going to wait and see how this develops. But we have been very clear about what we expect.
QUESTION: But some people on the street are saying, you know, "Suleiman looks like Mubarak II," keeping a lot of the old structures in place. Is he reassuring you that he is really doing things differently?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Look, we have had numerous conversations with him and others, both the Vice President and I have spoken with him in the last several days. We hear that they are committed to this, and when we press on concrete steps and timelines, we are given assurance that that will happen.
But ultimately, we are not the arbiters. It's the people of Egypt who are the arbiters. And a number of voices that are now being heard recognize there has to be some process. And there is a desire to test this, to see how it unfolds, and we support that.
QUESTION: What about Hosni Mubarak, though? I mean is the U.S. encouraging him to leave the scene, or has the U.S. given up on that track?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Now, again, this is up to the Egyptian people. I want to make very clear that we have set forth the principles that we support. We are adamant about no violence, and have consistently reached out to the army and the government to reinforce that message. We want to see peaceful protests that are -- so far, anyway -- embodying the aspirations that are, in our view, very legitimate. And we want to see an orderly, expeditious transition.
But I think it's important for us to recognize that American or any outside interest or nation has an obligation, in my view, to make absolutely clear what we want to see happen. But ultimately, the Egyptian people are going to have to make these decisions for themselves.
QUESTION: But the Obama Administration did send a former ambassador, Frank Wisner, to Cairo to quietly tell Mubarak that it's time. Wisner was just -- told this Munich security conference last night that Mubarak's role was utterly critical in this transition process. So it sounds like the U.S. has at least accepted the fact that Mubarak is not leaving the scene any time soon.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, we deeply respect the many years of service that Frank Wisner has provided to our country. And he was asked to go and assess the positions of President Mubarak and those around him, having known them all for many years. But he does not speak for the American Government, he does not reflect our policies. And we have been very clear, from the beginning, that we wanted to see an orderly transition.
There is a debate within Egypt itself, and not just in the government, but among the people of Egypt, as to how best to ensure that. For example, under the constitution, the argument has been made by many who are in opposition, as well as in support of the government, that there would be a 60-day period to prepare for elections if he were to resign -- I am not an expert on the Egyptian constitution, I am not offering any opinion on it -- and that that doesn't give anybody enough time. I saw an interview reported this morning, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, saying it's going to take time to prepare.
So, again, I want to stress our basic point, that we have set forth our expectations: no violence; peaceful protest; orderly transition; process that is transparent, expeditious, leading to free and fair elections. And yet we know that, ultimately, these decisions lie in the hands of the people of Egypt, themselves.
QUESTION: How are other Arab rulers viewing this situation? Are they coming to you and asking you, "Do you still support us?"
SECRETARY CLINTON: They are concerned, like everyone is, about what comes next. And we have said the same things to them that we are saying to you, that we think that this has to be viewed in light of the principles that we have set forth. Some are more concerned than others.
But, as you know, I gave a speech in Doha last month where I said, "The foundations are sinking into the sand. These governments, these leaders, have to recognize that they must respond to the legitimate needs for economic and political reform that the people have, particularly young people, who represent one-half to two-thirds of the population in many of these countries."
QUESTION: And here in Munich you called it a Perfect Storm.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: So I wonder what sort of advice you give to Arab rulers to weather this storm.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we give the same advice we have given for years through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. We believe that democracies are more stable than authoritarian regimes. We believe that economic reform that spreads prosperity broadly among the population, that builds a middle class, that doesn't just enrich the elite -- we believe measures against corruption are necessary to avoid destroying trust between leaders and their citizens. We have a very consistent American view of this, in part based on our own history, but also in observing what has happened in other parts of the world. So our message, publicly and privately, has been the same.
Some leaders listen better than other leaders. But all leaders have to recognize now that the failure to reform, the failure to open up their economies and their political systems, is just not an option any longer.
QUESTION: But over the years the U.S. has relied on autocratic governments in the Middle East to support U.S. policies that are very unpopular in the region. So I wonder. You know, a lot of analysts are telling me now, regardless of how any of this plays out, you're going to have Middle Eastern leaders that have to listen to their publics more. And that might be problematic for the U.S. on all sorts of policies. And I wonder if you are ready for that sort of new Middle East.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Michele, I think the forces that are at work, particularly because of the advances in communications technology, are not reversible. And the United States understands that. And we want to play a constructive role in helping countries move in the direction of more openness and more democracy and participation and market access, and the things that we stand for.
But it is the case that some countries will move at different paces. And we have historically had relations with a lot of countries whose governments we did not approve of. That is the case still today. There is no easy answer to how we pursue what's in America's interests. Because, ultimately, my job, the President's job, is to protect the security and the interests of the United States.
And do we do business with, do we have relations with, do we support governments over the past 50 years that we do not always see eye to eye with? Of course. I mean that's the world in which we live. But our messages are consistent about what we think is in the best interest of the United States, which is to have more democracy, more openness, more participation. And that is a consistent principle, and we then have to deal with what comes of that.
QUESTION: We are going to have to leave it there. Thank you very much for your time, especially on a trip -- I understand you've just broken a record of most traveled Secretary of State in your first two years.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that's what I'm told. And many days I feel it. Thanks.
QUESTION: Thanks for taking time.
QUESTION: So, thanks for taking the time to talk to us.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely.
QUESTION: Do you think the Egyptian people can trust a transition process that is essentially in the hands of the military and former intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the Egyptian people are looking for an orderly transition that can lead to free and fair elections. That's what the United States has consistently supported. We are putting a lot of effort into making sure that the dialogue process that has begun is meaningful and transparent, and leads to concrete actions.
Now, the people themselves, and the leaders of various groups within Egyptian society, will ultimately determine whether it is or is not meeting their needs. Today we learned that the Muslim Brotherhood has decided to participate, which suggests that they, at least, are now involved in the dialogue that we have encouraged.
We are going to wait and see how this develops. But we have been very clear about what we expect.
QUESTION: But some people on the street are saying, you know, "Suleiman looks like Mubarak II," keeping a lot of the old structures in place. Is he reassuring you that he is really doing things differently?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Look, we have had numerous conversations with him and others, both the Vice President and I have spoken with him in the last several days. We hear that they are committed to this, and when we press on concrete steps and timelines, we are given assurance that that will happen.
But ultimately, we are not the arbiters. It's the people of Egypt who are the arbiters. And a number of voices that are now being heard recognize there has to be some process. And there is a desire to test this, to see how it unfolds, and we support that.
QUESTION: What about Hosni Mubarak, though? I mean is the U.S. encouraging him to leave the scene, or has the U.S. given up on that track?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Now, again, this is up to the Egyptian people. I want to make very clear that we have set forth the principles that we support. We are adamant about no violence, and have consistently reached out to the army and the government to reinforce that message. We want to see peaceful protests that are -- so far, anyway -- embodying the aspirations that are, in our view, very legitimate. And we want to see an orderly, expeditious transition.
But I think it's important for us to recognize that American or any outside interest or nation has an obligation, in my view, to make absolutely clear what we want to see happen. But ultimately, the Egyptian people are going to have to make these decisions for themselves.
QUESTION: But the Obama Administration did send a former ambassador, Frank Wisner, to Cairo to quietly tell Mubarak that it's time. Wisner was just -- told this Munich security conference last night that Mubarak's role was utterly critical in this transition process. So it sounds like the U.S. has at least accepted the fact that Mubarak is not leaving the scene any time soon.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, we deeply respect the many years of service that Frank Wisner has provided to our country. And he was asked to go and assess the positions of President Mubarak and those around him, having known them all for many years. But he does not speak for the American Government, he does not reflect our policies. And we have been very clear, from the beginning, that we wanted to see an orderly transition.
There is a debate within Egypt itself, and not just in the government, but among the people of Egypt, as to how best to ensure that. For example, under the constitution, the argument has been made by many who are in opposition, as well as in support of the government, that there would be a 60-day period to prepare for elections if he were to resign -- I am not an expert on the Egyptian constitution, I am not offering any opinion on it -- and that that doesn't give anybody enough time. I saw an interview reported this morning, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, saying it's going to take time to prepare.
So, again, I want to stress our basic point, that we have set forth our expectations: no violence; peaceful protest; orderly transition; process that is transparent, expeditious, leading to free and fair elections. And yet we know that, ultimately, these decisions lie in the hands of the people of Egypt, themselves.
QUESTION: How are other Arab rulers viewing this situation? Are they coming to you and asking you, "Do you still support us?"
SECRETARY CLINTON: They are concerned, like everyone is, about what comes next. And we have said the same things to them that we are saying to you, that we think that this has to be viewed in light of the principles that we have set forth. Some are more concerned than others.
But, as you know, I gave a speech in Doha last month where I said, "The foundations are sinking into the sand. These governments, these leaders, have to recognize that they must respond to the legitimate needs for economic and political reform that the people have, particularly young people, who represent one-half to two-thirds of the population in many of these countries."
QUESTION: And here in Munich you called it a Perfect Storm.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: So I wonder what sort of advice you give to Arab rulers to weather this storm.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we give the same advice we have given for years through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. We believe that democracies are more stable than authoritarian regimes. We believe that economic reform that spreads prosperity broadly among the population, that builds a middle class, that doesn't just enrich the elite -- we believe measures against corruption are necessary to avoid destroying trust between leaders and their citizens. We have a very consistent American view of this, in part based on our own history, but also in observing what has happened in other parts of the world. So our message, publicly and privately, has been the same.
Some leaders listen better than other leaders. But all leaders have to recognize now that the failure to reform, the failure to open up their economies and their political systems, is just not an option any longer.
QUESTION: But over the years the U.S. has relied on autocratic governments in the Middle East to support U.S. policies that are very unpopular in the region. So I wonder. You know, a lot of analysts are telling me now, regardless of how any of this plays out, you're going to have Middle Eastern leaders that have to listen to their publics more. And that might be problematic for the U.S. on all sorts of policies. And I wonder if you are ready for that sort of new Middle East.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Michele, I think the forces that are at work, particularly because of the advances in communications technology, are not reversible. And the United States understands that. And we want to play a constructive role in helping countries move in the direction of more openness and more democracy and participation and market access, and the things that we stand for.
But it is the case that some countries will move at different paces. And we have historically had relations with a lot of countries whose governments we did not approve of. That is the case still today. There is no easy answer to how we pursue what's in America's interests. Because, ultimately, my job, the President's job, is to protect the security and the interests of the United States.
And do we do business with, do we have relations with, do we support governments over the past 50 years that we do not always see eye to eye with? Of course. I mean that's the world in which we live. But our messages are consistent about what we think is in the best interest of the United States, which is to have more democracy, more openness, more participation. And that is a consistent principle, and we then have to deal with what comes of that.
QUESTION: We are going to have to leave it there. Thank you very much for your time, especially on a trip -- I understand you've just broken a record of most traveled Secretary of State in your first two years.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that's what I'm told. And many days I feel it. Thanks.
QUESTION: Thanks for taking time.
more on egypt
Where Egypt military's loyalties lie remains unclear
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020407140_pf.html
Toward a soft landing in Egypt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020407140_pf.html
Crisis in Egypt Tests U.S. Ties With Israel
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/world/middleeast/05israel.html?hp
Toward a soft landing in Egypt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020305173_pf.html
An Exit Plan for Mubarak
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/opinion/04masoud.html?pagewanted=print
Israel ponders border security, enlarged military amid Egypt unrest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020305929_pf.html
Amid Arab protests, U.S. influence has waned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020306882.html
Egypt crisis: David Cameron to call for sanctions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8303050/Egypt-crisis-David-Cameron-to-call-for-sanctions.html
Some Fear a Street Movement’s Leaderless Status May Become a Liability
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/world/middleeast/04opposition.html?_r=1
Muslim Brotherhood seeks end to Israel treaty
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/3/muslim-brotherhood-seeks-end-to-israel-treaty/
Egypt has Obama cautiously shifting world view on democracy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020307130.html
Government officially revokes Galant as IDF chief nominee
Haaretz
Cabinet continues to discuss new nominee for the role, Maj. Gen. Benny Gantz; Galant had earlier demanded his case be reviewed by Turkel Committee.
The government officially revoked the nomination of Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant to the role of Israel Defense Forces chief of staff on Sunday.
Galant's nomination had been postponed afte he was accused of improperly seizing public land near his home on Moshav Amikam.
Earlier on Sunday, Galant petitioned the High Court of Justice demanding that his case be reviewed by the Turkel Committee, which vets senior civil service appointments. In the petition, he also demanded that discussion over the new chief of staff nominee, Maj. Gen. Benny Gantz, be postponed until his case was reviewed.
The court rejected Galant's request that debate over the new IDF chief be delayed.
Later on in the day, the government cabinet voted to formally withdraw Galant's name as a nominee for the position.
His petition to the High Court will be examined later in the week.
The petition came as a surprise on Sunday, as the cabinet was getting ready to discuss Gantz, Barak's new nomination for the role.
Netanyahu, in announcing Gantz's appointment, said that he understood where Galant was coming from.
"He went through something that is not simple and I understand the enormity of his disappointment," Netanyahu said.
"The IDF's stability is especially important in light of the turmoil in the region," Netanyahu added to explain why he was nominating Gantz for the position of IDF chief.
Galant made clear over the weekend that he would not give up on the role of IDF chief and insists that his name be included on the new list of candidates.
He claims that his appointment was unjustly canceled and that he had not been given sufficient time to respond to the accusations directed against him.
The decision to cancel Galant's nomination came after Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein announced he would not be able to defend the appointment before the High Court of Justice.
Cabinet continues to discuss new nominee for the role, Maj. Gen. Benny Gantz; Galant had earlier demanded his case be reviewed by Turkel Committee.
The government officially revoked the nomination of Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant to the role of Israel Defense Forces chief of staff on Sunday.
Galant's nomination had been postponed afte he was accused of improperly seizing public land near his home on Moshav Amikam.
Earlier on Sunday, Galant petitioned the High Court of Justice demanding that his case be reviewed by the Turkel Committee, which vets senior civil service appointments. In the petition, he also demanded that discussion over the new chief of staff nominee, Maj. Gen. Benny Gantz, be postponed until his case was reviewed.
The court rejected Galant's request that debate over the new IDF chief be delayed.
Later on in the day, the government cabinet voted to formally withdraw Galant's name as a nominee for the position.
His petition to the High Court will be examined later in the week.
The petition came as a surprise on Sunday, as the cabinet was getting ready to discuss Gantz, Barak's new nomination for the role.
Netanyahu, in announcing Gantz's appointment, said that he understood where Galant was coming from.
"He went through something that is not simple and I understand the enormity of his disappointment," Netanyahu said.
"The IDF's stability is especially important in light of the turmoil in the region," Netanyahu added to explain why he was nominating Gantz for the position of IDF chief.
Galant made clear over the weekend that he would not give up on the role of IDF chief and insists that his name be included on the new list of candidates.
He claims that his appointment was unjustly canceled and that he had not been given sufficient time to respond to the accusations directed against him.
The decision to cancel Galant's nomination came after Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein announced he would not be able to defend the appointment before the High Court of Justice.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Transcript of President Obama's Super Bowl Interview with Bill O'Reilly
February 6, 2011
[*] O'REILLY: Mr. President, thank you very much for doing this. And I must thank you on behalf of the FOX News Channel for helping out Greg Palkot and Mr. Wiig who got roughed up in Cairo. That was you, it was Robert Gibbs, and the State Department, who really saved them --- and we all thank you very much.
OBAMA: Well, listen, those guys showed enormous courage, as so many journalists do around the world. And so, not only was it important for us to make sure they were safe for them and their families, but to uphold the basic principle of free speech and freedom of the press. That's a universal value we cared about. And I know FOX cares about. So, I'm just glad these guys are --
O'REILLY: Those guys could have died.
OBAMA: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: And I just want everybody to know that, you know, the State Department really saved them.
All right. Mubarak, is he going to leave soon?
OBAMA: Well, he's -- only he knows what he's going to do.
But here's what we know: is that Egypt is not going to go back to what it was. The Egyptian people want freedom. They want free and fair elections. They want a representative government. They want a responsive government.
And so, what we've said is: you have to start a transition now. Mubarak has already decided he's not running for re-election again. His term is up this year. And what we've said is: let's make sure that you get all the groups together in Egypt, let Egyptian people make a determination on what's the process for an orderly transition, but one that is a meaningful transition and that leads to a government that's --
O'REILLY: So, you don't know when he's going to leave?
OBAMA: Well, you know, ultimately, the United States can't absolute dictate --
O'REILLY: You can't force him to leave.
OBAMA: But what we can do, Bill, is we can say that, "The time is now for you to start making a change in that country."
O'REILLY: He's already done that. But the longer he stays in, the more people are going to die. And the other problem is, Mubarak knows a lot of bad things about the United States. I'm sure you're aware of that. OBAMA: Well, let me say this: the United States and Egypt have been a partner for a long time.
O'REILLY: Right. He's done the bad things.
OBAMA: He's been a good partner when it comes to the peace with Israel. There have been counterterrorism efforts that he's been very supported of. But we've also said consistently said to him both publicly and privately is that trying to suppress your own people is something that is not sustainable. And part of the message that I think we're seeing all around the world is, when you resort to suppression, when you resort to violence, that does not work.
O'REILLY: Yes, but it worked for 30 years. So, he had his run. But he knows a lot of bad things about us, rendition and all of that. And I'm sure you know that. So, I'm just worried that he might go off the reservation.
The Muslim Brotherhood, a great concern to a lot of people. Are they a threat to the USA?
OBAMA: I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don't have majority support in Egypt. They are --
O'REILLY: Are they a threat?
OBAMA: But they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S. There's no doubt about it. But here's the thing that we have to understand, there are a whole bunch of secular folks in Egypt, there are a whole bunch of educators and civil society in Egypt that wants to come to the fore as well. And it's important for us not the say that our only two options are either the Muslim Brotherhood or a suppressed Egyptian people.
O'REILLY: But you don't wan the Muslim Brotherhood...
OBAMA: What I want a representative government in Egypt. And I have confidence that if Egypt moves in an orderly transition process, that we will have a government in Egypt that we can work with together as a partner.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/06/transcript-of-president-obamas-pre-super-bowl-interview-with-bi/
[*] O'REILLY: Mr. President, thank you very much for doing this. And I must thank you on behalf of the FOX News Channel for helping out Greg Palkot and Mr. Wiig who got roughed up in Cairo. That was you, it was Robert Gibbs, and the State Department, who really saved them --- and we all thank you very much.
OBAMA: Well, listen, those guys showed enormous courage, as so many journalists do around the world. And so, not only was it important for us to make sure they were safe for them and their families, but to uphold the basic principle of free speech and freedom of the press. That's a universal value we cared about. And I know FOX cares about. So, I'm just glad these guys are --
O'REILLY: Those guys could have died.
OBAMA: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: And I just want everybody to know that, you know, the State Department really saved them.
All right. Mubarak, is he going to leave soon?
OBAMA: Well, he's -- only he knows what he's going to do.
But here's what we know: is that Egypt is not going to go back to what it was. The Egyptian people want freedom. They want free and fair elections. They want a representative government. They want a responsive government.
And so, what we've said is: you have to start a transition now. Mubarak has already decided he's not running for re-election again. His term is up this year. And what we've said is: let's make sure that you get all the groups together in Egypt, let Egyptian people make a determination on what's the process for an orderly transition, but one that is a meaningful transition and that leads to a government that's --
O'REILLY: So, you don't know when he's going to leave?
OBAMA: Well, you know, ultimately, the United States can't absolute dictate --
O'REILLY: You can't force him to leave.
OBAMA: But what we can do, Bill, is we can say that, "The time is now for you to start making a change in that country."
O'REILLY: He's already done that. But the longer he stays in, the more people are going to die. And the other problem is, Mubarak knows a lot of bad things about the United States. I'm sure you're aware of that. OBAMA: Well, let me say this: the United States and Egypt have been a partner for a long time.
O'REILLY: Right. He's done the bad things.
OBAMA: He's been a good partner when it comes to the peace with Israel. There have been counterterrorism efforts that he's been very supported of. But we've also said consistently said to him both publicly and privately is that trying to suppress your own people is something that is not sustainable. And part of the message that I think we're seeing all around the world is, when you resort to suppression, when you resort to violence, that does not work.
O'REILLY: Yes, but it worked for 30 years. So, he had his run. But he knows a lot of bad things about us, rendition and all of that. And I'm sure you know that. So, I'm just worried that he might go off the reservation.
The Muslim Brotherhood, a great concern to a lot of people. Are they a threat to the USA?
OBAMA: I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don't have majority support in Egypt. They are --
O'REILLY: Are they a threat?
OBAMA: But they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S. There's no doubt about it. But here's the thing that we have to understand, there are a whole bunch of secular folks in Egypt, there are a whole bunch of educators and civil society in Egypt that wants to come to the fore as well. And it's important for us not the say that our only two options are either the Muslim Brotherhood or a suppressed Egyptian people.
O'REILLY: But you don't wan the Muslim Brotherhood...
OBAMA: What I want a representative government in Egypt. And I have confidence that if Egypt moves in an orderly transition process, that we will have a government in Egypt that we can work with together as a partner.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/06/transcript-of-president-obamas-pre-super-bowl-interview-with-bi/
Egypt's real parallel to Iran's revolution
Washington Post
Monday, February 7, 2011
A specter is haunting the West. In 1979, the United States watched a street revolution in the Middle East and saw its stalwart ally, Iranian Shah Reza Pahlavi, ousted, only to be replaced by a theocratic Islamic Republic. Now, watching another street revolution in another Middle Eastern country, many people seem spooked by this memory. Fears of an Islamic takeover are not limited to Glenn Beck, with his predictions that the fall of Hosni Mubarak will lead to the rise of an Islamic caliphate bent on global domination. (Beck's policy recommendation to Americans was even more out there: "store food.") Serious conservative politicians such as Mitt Romney and John McCain describe Egypt's Islamic opposition in terms not so dissimilar from Beck's. On the left,The Post's Richard Cohen writes, "The dream of a democratic Egypt is sure to produce a nightmare." Leon Wieseltier believes the Islamists will attempt a Bolshevik-style takeover.
All these things may indeed come to pass, but there is little evidence so far to support the scare scenarios. The Egyptian protests have been secular; the Muslim Brotherhood is one of many groups participating, all of whom have demands that are about democracy and human rights. Egypt is not Iran in a dozen important ways. Its Sunni clergy play no hierarchical or political role the way they do in Iran. Perhaps most important, the current Iranian regime is not a popular model in the Arab world. Egyptians have seen Mubarak and the mullahs and want neither - Pew polling in 2010 found that a large majority supports democratic governance.
Fears of this imagined future are drawing American eyes away from the actual problem in Egypt: military dictatorship. Egypt is not a personality-based regime, centered on Mubarak, despite reports of his wealth and efforts to establish his son as his successor. Since the officers' coup in 1952, Egypt has been a dictatorship of, by and for the military. The few presidents since then have emerged from the officer corps; the armed forces have huge budgets and total independence, and are deeply involved in every aspect of society, including owning vast tracts of land and hundreds of companies.
Right now, the military is consolidating its power. Mubarak's efforts since 2004 to bring civilians and business leaders into the cabinet have been reversed over the past week - in fact, the businessmen have been turned into scapegoats, sacrificed so that the generals can continue to rule. The three people running Egypt - the vice president, prime minister and defense chief - come from the army. Half of the cabinet are military men, and about 80 percent of the powerful governors are drawn from the armed forces. The military seems to have decided to sacrifice Mubarak but is trying to manage the process of change, to ensure that it remains all-powerful. Egypt, remember, is still ruled by martial law and military courts.
Many commentators have made parallels to Turkey, where the military played a crucial role in modernizing the country. But the military in Turkey has yielded power very reluctantly, and only because the European Union has persistently applied pressure to weaken the military's role in politics. The danger is that Egypt will become not Turkey but Pakistan, a sham democracy with real power held in back rooms by generals.
The Obama administration is right to work to produce a smooth transition. The danger of chaos is real: The views of the Muslim Brotherhood are retrograde and pernicious. Without a new constitution and legal protections there are risks of "illiberal democracy," or free and fair elections under Egypt's current laws that would lead to bad outcomes for minorities, human rights and other freedoms. The transition should be not just from Mubarak but from the whole system he headed.
It's worth remembering what has led to the rise of Islamic extremism and anti-American rage in the Middle East. Arabs see Washington as having supported brutal dictatorships that suppress their people. They believe that it ignored this suppression as long as the regimes toed the line on American foreign policy. If Washington is now perceived as brokering a deal that keeps a military dictatorship in power in Egypt, de jure or de facto, the result will be deep disappointment and frustration on the streets of Cairo. Over time, it will make opposition to the regime and to the United States more hard-line, more religious and more violent. That might be the real parallel to the forces that led to the Iranian revolution.
Fears of this imagined future are drawing American eyes away from the actual problem in Egypt: military dictatorship. Egypt is not a personality-based regime, centered on Mubarak, despite reports of his wealth and efforts to establish his son as his successor. Since the officers' coup in 1952, Egypt has been a dictatorship of, by and for the military. The few presidents since then have emerged from the officer corps; the armed forces have huge budgets and total independence, and are deeply involved in every aspect of society, including owning vast tracts of land and hundreds of companies.
Right now, the military is consolidating its power. Mubarak's efforts since 2004 to bring civilians and business leaders into the cabinet have been reversed over the past week - in fact, the businessmen have been turned into scapegoats, sacrificed so that the generals can continue to rule. The three people running Egypt - the vice president, prime minister and defense chief - come from the army. Half of the cabinet are military men, and about 80 percent of the powerful governors are drawn from the armed forces. The military seems to have decided to sacrifice Mubarak but is trying to manage the process of change, to ensure that it remains all-powerful. Egypt, remember, is still ruled by martial law and military courts.
Many commentators have made parallels to Turkey, where the military played a crucial role in modernizing the country. But the military in Turkey has yielded power very reluctantly, and only because the European Union has persistently applied pressure to weaken the military's role in politics. The danger is that Egypt will become not Turkey but Pakistan, a sham democracy with real power held in back rooms by generals.
The Obama administration is right to work to produce a smooth transition. The danger of chaos is real: The views of the Muslim Brotherhood are retrograde and pernicious. Without a new constitution and legal protections there are risks of "illiberal democracy," or free and fair elections under Egypt's current laws that would lead to bad outcomes for minorities, human rights and other freedoms. The transition should be not just from Mubarak but from the whole system he headed.
It's worth remembering what has led to the rise of Islamic extremism and anti-American rage in the Middle East. Arabs see Washington as having supported brutal dictatorships that suppress their people. They believe that it ignored this suppression as long as the regimes toed the line on American foreign policy. If Washington is now perceived as brokering a deal that keeps a military dictatorship in power in Egypt, de jure or de facto, the result will be deep disappointment and frustration on the streets of Cairo. Over time, it will make opposition to the regime and to the United States more hard-line, more religious and more violent. That might be the real parallel to the forces that led to the Iranian revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)