Posts
….which comes as no surprise seeing as how much President Obama has turned to loving the status quo.
U.S. Siding With Egyptian Regime (Updated)
by david mizner Sat Feb 05, 2011
The central demand of the Egyptian protestors, the one unifying the disparate factions, is that Mubarak leave, and leave soon. They didn't rise up and risk their lives so that the primary cause of their anger and misery could remain. With Mubarak still in power, there would no reason for the reformers to trust the forthcoming pledges of reform. What's more, the protestors are counting on the momentum and publicity that a Mubarak departure would create. If they have a nonnegotiable demand, this is it.
So it's hardly a surprise that protestors are opposing this plan, which would leave Mubarak in power while his hand-picked VP negotiates with them. And it's impossible not to conclude that in backing the plan, the U.S is siding with the regime over the protestors. The signs are ominous.
Instead of loosening its grip, the existing government appeared to be consolidating its power: The prime minister said police forces were returning to the streets, and an army general urged protesters to scale back their occupation of Tahrir Square.
Protesters interpreted the simultaneous moves by the Western leaders and Mr. Suleiman as a rebuff to their demands for an end to the military dictatorship led for almost three decades by Mr. Mubarak, a pivotal American ally and pillar of the existing order in the Middle East.
Just days after President Obama demanded publicly that change in Egypt must begin right away, many in the streets accused the Obama administration of sacrificing concrete steps toward genuine change in favor of a familiar stability.
“America doesn’t understand,” said Ibrahim Mustafa, 42, who was waiting to enter Tahrir Square. “The people know it is supporting an illegitimate regime.
There was some debate earlier this week about the meaning of Obama's statement, which was construed by some as supportive of the protestors. What does it mean for a transition to begin "now." Nothing, of course. It doesn't matter when a transition begins. It matters when it ends.
Yesterday I wrote a diary objecting to a plan to install CIA-backed thug Omar Suleiman as the leader of the interim government. I'm feeling a little silly now for getting ahead of myself and portraying that as a worst case scenario. The worst case scenario, which seems to be playing out as I write this, is that Mubarak stays in power until the fall, at which point another sham election gives the presidency to a Mubarak ally, and the regime carries on in only slightly reconfigured form.
There's ample historical precedent for this kind of American backed dictatorship protection plan, but it's nonetheless bracing to be reading about it in real time. Unless the protest movement finds a way to keep surging and make this plan untenable, then my guess is, change in Egypt will be negligible.
UPDATE: (h/t Muggsy)
Mohamed ElBaradei said on Saturday it would be a "major setback" if Washington backed Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak or his deputy to lead a new government and warned that protests could grow "more vicious."
ElBaradei, a veteran diplomat, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leading opposition activist, was asked about remarks from senior U.S. officials that Washington could support Mubarak or his new Vice President Omar Suleiman to lead a transitional government in Egypt.
"If that were true ... that would be a major setback, I can tell you that," he told Reuters in a telephone interview from Cairo.
"If things that I hear today (are true), that would come down like lead on the people who have been demonstrating," he said.
