Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (39074)	4/12/2004 3:15:56 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

Our Man in Cairo Washington Post Editorial THE LARGEST OBSTACLE to President Bush's democracy initiative in the greater Middle East may be Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt. Mr. Mubarak, 75, is an unrepentant autocrat who has ruled his country under emergency law for 23 years; his repressive policies, including unrelenting persecution of Islamic political movements, have helped fuel al Qaeda, whose top leadership has included a number of Egyptians. In recent months Mr. Mubarak has waged a vigorous campaign to block, dilute or co-opt the administration's plan to promote political liberalization in the region this year. He has denounced it as an outside imposition; claimed it can't happen before an Israeli-Palestinian settlement; argued that the only beneficiaries of democracy will be Islamic extremists; and insisted that in any case Egypt is already democratic and becoming more so all the time. It would be understandable for Mr. Bush and his aides to feel deep frustration with this sandbagging. Perhaps they do. Yet all the same, Mr. Mubarak is being rewarded with the honor of a visit today to the presidential ranch in Crawford, Tex., where Mr. Bush will once again embrace him as an ally in the war on terrorism. No change or conditioning has been proposed for U.S. aid to Egypt, which this year will amount to more than $1.8 billion, including $1.3 billion in military assistance for the army that props up Mr. Mubarak's regime. Beyond terrorism, the most notable item for discussion between the two presidents will be Mr. Mubarak's favorite distraction, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Democracy, no doubt, will be mentioned, too. But will Mr. Bush insist that the Egyptian president stop obstructing political change in his own country and across the region? If he does not, the president will neatly repeat the error that he himself has repeatedly identified in past U.S. policy toward the Middle East and promised to correct. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," Mr. Bush said in November. Egypt has been at the center of that flawed policy. Since it signed a peace accord with Israel in 1979, the United States has showered the regime with some $50 billion in aid while asking for little outside a cooperative foreign policy. Mr. Mubarak's quasi-socialist economic system meanwhile has kept millions of Egyptians mired in desperate poverty, and his suppression of alternatives to his nationalist ideology has strengthened Islamic extremism. Some in the U.S. government argue that not much can be done to change this status quo, at least in the short term. In fact, Egypt -- more than Iraq -- is a natural place for a transition to democracy in the Middle East: Its moderate society, educated elite, strong national identity and long tradition of secular rule make it less vulnerable to fragmentation or extremist movements than most other Arab countries. Once, Egyptians pressing for reform were an isolated minority; now, thanks in part to the hope engendered by Mr. Bush's rhetoric, the cause has spread among private businessmen, intellectuals and parts of Mr. Mubarak's own political establishment. It's never easy to change a policy as entrenched as that of the U.S. relationship with Egypt, but Mr. Bush must do it if he is to begin the transformation of the Middle East he seeks. The key is to recognize that Egypt has its own interest in peace with Israel; that its contributions to capturing terrorists are outweighed by the damage caused by its resistance to change; and that a U.S. aid program -- especially one as large as this -- must be linked to current American interests. There is a straightforward way to do this: Mr. Bush can tell Mr. Mubarak -- not just privately but in public -- that he supports those Egyptians who call for lifting the country's emergency law and for reforming the constitution to allow for genuine democratic elections. Egyptian reformers don't say the change should happen immediately -- but they want a firm and detailed timetable. Mr. Bush should ask for one. © 2004 The Washington Post Company

To: frankw1900 who wrote (39074)	4/13/2004 2:39:05 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 793903

John the article Sam posted was disappointing . . . Frank, thanks for the questions in this post. My apology for taking a while to get back. My life in retirement is much busier these days but quite sporadically so. So, most of the time, I'm not going to be able to pop a response right back. As for the post you have in mind, the one Same posted, I simply wished to underline the "one voice" character of it. I don't argue it's right or wrong, only that it's a voice. I think that judgment covers some 90% of the posts which appear here. They are all, at best, voices which we need to listen to and take into account when we reach our own judgments. I say, so? Gimme info, gimme analysis, argue for your recommendation. For instance you want the UN in there. They haven't done well in places where there's shooting, often in places where people from my country are posted. I've got an interest. What makes it different this time? My response to Sam's post was not at all about some global recommendation for the US in Iraq. Just to listen to the voice. As for a serious answer to the questions you raise, I think I've offered short and long posts over the past several months that about cover my views on these topics. If you've got a specific question, I would be happy to offer my own views and solicit yours for a conversation. Just be warned, I may not get back for a couple of days. Good to type with you, again.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (39074)	4/13/2004 2:56:48 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 793903

Frank, The reason I posted that particular article wasn't so much to convey facts on the ground as to convey an attitude toward the US. This isn't to say facts aren't important, god knows, they are. But as the we all know, policies and actions are often done on the basis of far more than "mere" facts--they are frequently the results of innuendo, impressions, wishful thinking, fantasies about what "might" be or have been, vengeance, anger, etc. The writer is obviously an educated person, and was a prisoner under Saddam--obviously one of the people who should have been "dancing in the streets" in a post-Saddam world. When she writes, The CPA and IGC's early promises were colourful: they would build a new democratic Iraq, they said, guaranteeing human rights and freedom. But a year on, the picture they painted is fading. Car bombs, shootings and kidnapping have become part of daily life. Only 50% of the population have fresh water, compared with 60% before "liberation". Electricity is intermittent. Drugs are sold openly in the streets. Ten thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the conflict. But it is not for the security crisis alone that the majority of Iraqis hold IGC members in utter disdain. Corruption is widespread. To get a job, one needs a tazkia (letter of recommendation) from one of the IGC parties. Allocation of subcontracts only follows a payment of 5%-10% of the value of the contract to the American contractors. Nepotism starts at the very top (eight ministers are close relatives of the IGC members). Although most of the IGC members were once victims of Saddam's regime, they now turn a blind eye to the violations of human rights by occupation troops...For all the talk of democracy, opposition in any form to the IGC and the occupation is not acceptable.... The IGC has allied itself with the occupation administration. Its role is to shield occupation forces, not its own people. The gulf between it and the majority of Iraqis has widened. Away from the vulnerable majority, they stand well-protected by bodyguards driving special cars and carrying free mobile phones courtesy of the US.... The interim constitution was written behind closed doors. Iraqis were not consulted, but Paul Bremer and Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador, were. she is conveying an attitude that should be dismaying to everyone here. I make no claims as to its veracity (although, as you may have guessed, my guess is that it is more accurate than not). I present it as a voice of an individual who by all rights ought to be an ally and isn't, something we have to come to terms with and rectify if at all possible.... Sam