Machiavelli wrote:Hmmm. My sources put Egyptian military spending at somewhere on the order of $3 billion yearly. If that's correct, our $1.3 billion a year plays a major role in funding the troops that keep Mr. Mubarak in power, eh MinX?

It’s good to know who your friends are and it’s good if they stick around. The same, I suspect, goes for countries. The so called creeping radicalism in many disaffected elements within Middle-Eastern countries makes experimentation with democracy rather dangerous. From a foreign policy standpoint, are not benign and long-lasting dictatorships preferable to the variable and potentially unwelcome developments that accompany democracy? Regimes that fall to rioting mobs are often replaced by weak moderates who often give way to new dictators, with whom we'll have to make friends all over again.

Reading through some of the posts, the notion has been raised that the United States should consider employing its wealth and might to meddle in the internal affairs of foreign countries. To respond briefly to this proposal, the question must be asked: why?

For the sake of discussion, what does it matter if the people of Tunis and Egypt have democracies? If a dictatorship brings stability to the country and they are open for business, then why shouldn’t we turn a blind eye? (Of course, if it is hostile, then we vilify and isolate it as an evil regime.)

Magister Equitum wrote:For the sake of discussion, what does it matter if the people of Tunis and Egypt have democracies? If a dictatorship brings stability to the country and they are open for business, then why shouldn’t we turn a blind eye? (Of course, if it is hostile, then we vilify and isolate it as an evil regime.)

Because we care about the people of those countries? Would you want to live under a dictatorship? So why be blasé about others having to do so?

And to leave them be because they are 'open for business' sounds to me like saying that making money is more important than the lives of individual people.

By the way, anyone else seeing how much it's kicking off in Egypt?

ME, I think that the answer to your question is self-evident. You know, as in all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . . etc. etc. etc.

Regarding Egypt, headlines are calling Cairo in "anarchy." Take a look at this pic of police fire-hosing praying protesters. Pretty indelible image:

http://twitpic.com/3u6gvc

My hotel tv has BBC right next to cnn and fox news on the dial...
Interesting to see what the different coverage is like... (It rained in Mo bay today)
When the tanks rolled into Tianamen Square how many of us thought that it might mean the end of the Communist regime? The situation in the middle east could still tip either way...
No matter what its bringing about reasonably non-violent regime change. (non-violent compared nto the regime change in Iraq)
I doubt it will be easy to predict what we end up with...
In Tunisia and Egypt the military are held in high regard,...but if they don't bring about some changes they won't have the continued support of the protestors
Remember when George Bush talked about democracies not making war on each other? Will that be maintained if the Muslim brotherhood democratically rises to power in Egypt? What then of Israel and Iran?
Is this the result of not pushing Mubarek towards more gradual change and instead encouraging his crack down of dissent? Probably...
I think its really the inevitable evolution to democracy....
By the way small symbols seem to have enormous power. On the BBC I've seen dozens of protestors brandishing tear gas canisters with "Made in America" on the label....

rickyp wrote:Is this the result of not pushing Mubarek towards more gradual change and instead encouraging his crack down of dissent? Probably...

Would love to see some information supporting your thesis. I know that would be unique for you. It's much easier to blame the US for everything.

Did you mean GWB?

I'm sure the Brits were more bold in their demands . . . maybe not. How about the Canadians?

The US pursuit of stability in the Middle East at the expense of democracy had "achieved neither", she admitted.

"Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people," she said.

The BBC's Frank Gardner said her comments marked a complete departure for the US, and were "immensely risky".

She criticised Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where she arrived after leaving Cairo, for cracking down on dissenters.

She also called on Egypt to ensure its upcoming election was free and fair.

Our security correspondent says the remarks not only risked alienating Cairo and Riyadh - by making such calls for democracy the US could open the way for more Islamist governments.

In her speech at the American University in Cairo, Ms Rice referred to US President George W Bush's second inaugural address, in which he said his aim was to help people find their democratic voice and not to impose a US-style government on them.


Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people
Condoleezza Rice

"For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither," she told an audience that included government officials and academics.

"Throughout the Middle East the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty," Ms Rice said.

"It is time to abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work of democracy."

Ms Rice praised Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak for allowing a contested presidential election later this year, but called for international monitors to be allowed to observe the poll.

She also said she worried about the future of reform in the country because peaceful opponents of the government had been subjected to violence.

"President Mubarak has unlocked the door for change. Now, the Egyptian government must put its faith in its own people," she said.

So, what's this about the US encouraging Mubarak to crack down on the populace? Do you mean Obama and Biden?

Because we care about the people of those countries? Would you want to live under a dictatorship? So why be blasé about others having to do so?

I likewise care for the plight of the people who suffer at the hands of their governments and certainly would not want to live under a dictatorship. I don’t want to seem nonchalant about the injustices which these people are facing and the position I raised was more as a point for consideration rather than an expression of the views I hold. Perhaps I should have rephrased the post to clarify that intent.

But, for the sake of discussion, let’s assess the matter from the perspective of international relations. Now, of course, it should be added as a caveat that the points presented herein are not necessarily consistent with my personal views. Nevertheless, if we are to conceptualize international relations as amoral – and of course, this is a conception which assuredly is contestable – then we may find ourselves obliged to consider the situation in North Africa and the Middle-East in a manner that is divorced from the values we attach to Democratic Governance.

IF then we see democracy as just another option in terms of organizing a state – along with oligarchies, monarchies, dictatorships etc. Then the question becomes whether they are allied with us or not allied with us. I’m not familiar with the details of the politics of the governments of Egypt or Tunis, but for the most part were they not pro-Western. Egypt is a voice of moderation in the Middle-East, and a valued friend of the United States. Is democracy in Egypt in the interest of the United States?

And to leave them be because they are 'open for business' sounds to me like saying that making money is more important than the lives of individual people.

If we adopt the laudable position that individuals, based on the intrinsic value of being human, have a right to certain freedoms and if we further consider it our moral duty to promote and defend these rights not only for ourselves but for all those around the world, then why don’t we stop trading with China?

That’s the thing, for all the rhetoric of supporting democracy, the West simply doesn’t care all that much whether we do business with democracies or dictatorships if the money keeps flowing. (which is unfortunate) So, while no one is going about saying that making money is more than the lives of individual people, it’s what we do that matters.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the unrest in North Africa and the Middle-East isn't likely as simple as only declaring our support for democracy. Let's imagine that we are advisors to the President of the United States of America. What advice would you give him?

danivon wrote:Because we care about the people of those countries? Would you want to live under a dictatorship? So why be blasé about others having to do so?

And to leave them be because they are 'open for business' sounds to me like saying that making money is more important than the lives of individual people.

By the way, anyone else seeing how much it's kicking off in Egypt?

Holy moly! I agree with Danvion! I guess we're all neocons now!

Magister Equitum wrote:If we adopt the laudable position that individuals, based on the intrinsic value of being human, have a right to certain freedoms and if we further consider it our moral duty to promote and defend these rights not only for ourselves but for all those around the world, then why don’t we stop trading with China?

Indeed, why don't we? And why are we flirting with trading with Cuba? The answer seems to be that we lack the political will (just as we lack the political will to rid the world of the despots who terrorise Zimbabwe and Myanmar and scores of other benighted shitholes around the world).

But it appears there may be a window for doing some good in Egypt before the cynics, the useful idiots and the blame-America-first crowd slam it shut, Seems to me we should use it. The fact that we can't fix everything should not prevent us from trying to improve the world when we can.

steve

Would love to see some information supporting your thesis. I know that would be unique for you. It's much easier to blame the US for everything.

Where did I blame the US? Your paranoia is runing wild again.

Magister and Mach

then why don’t we stop trading with China?

Because they are almost indispensible trade partners now. Because they own the most significant share of US debt. Because they are heavily invested in the US (Infrastructure and companies like Lenovo.)
Because they have a virtual lock on certain raw materials like rare earth metals...
Because, well frankly becasue in the 80's it seemed like a good idea to American corporations and the American government to make use of the labour force and increase profits at the expense of US employment.... Selling out short term profits for long term benefits, and allowing China and other eastern tigers to build a competitive industrial base in areas that make them inseperable from a modern US (and all other western nations) economies...\

mach

And why are we flirting with trading with Cuba?

Because being a one country embargo has had zero political effect?
And because it allowed competitors like Spain and Canada to dominant the partnered businesses in Cuba? (mining and tourism)
And because, as in China, moving to democracy has always meant the creation of a middle class that holds the government to account.
Without a healthy middle class, democracies don't grow and succeed. When the middle class has been disrupted by dictators in the dictatorship doesn't last all that long.
The reason countries should care about creating economies that are self sufficient, have a healthy educated and prosperous middle class is that they are interested in stability.
When the middle class becomes threatened and income disparity becomes too great - dictatorships generally and eventually fall. Sometimes to more benign dictatorships. Eventually, to democracy..
The tunisian revolt was lead by the middle class. So has the Egyptian uprising....
In fact the 1979 Iranian revolution was started by university students (middle class). Letss do hope religion doesn't take hold of the Egyptian uprising the way it did the Iranian revolution...

rickyp wrote:steve

Would love to see some information supporting your thesis. I know that would be unique for you. It's much easier to blame the US for everything.

Where did I blame the US? Your paranoia is runing wild again.

Not hardly. It's your inability to grasp what you wrote, which supports my thesis that you don't actually think about things, thus shocking you to later discover what you wrote. I'll help you:

rickyp wrote:Remember when George Bush talked about democracies not making war on each other? Will that be maintained if the Muslim brotherhood democratically rises to power in Egypt? What then of Israel and Iran?
Is this the result of not pushing Mubarek towards more gradual change and instead encouraging his crack down of dissent? Probably...

Gee, who did you think failed to "(push) Mubarak towards . . . change," Japan? China?

You may have just set a new Guinness World Record for "Give me a break."

Steve

Gee, who did you think failed to "(push) Mubarak towards . . . change," Japan? China?

The democracies... All of them.
The UK and France had some history that still resonates negatively in Egypt, so perhaps they couldn't really have influence, but every democracy, including Japan, can exert influence. Do you know of any who did?

I'm not sure what your point is about my reference to Bush's worldview. I'll put it down to your myopia.

rickyp wrote:Steve

Gee, who did you think failed to "(push) Mubarak towards . . . change," Japan? China?

The democracies... All of them.
The UK and France had some history that still resonates negatively in Egypt, so perhaps they couldn't really have influence, but every democracy, including Japan, can exert influence. Do you know of any who did?

I'm not sure what your point is about my reference to Bush's worldview. I'll put it down to your myopia.

Maybe you should place the blame where it belongs: your dishonesty OR your inability to express yourself. I'll let you choose. However, there was no hint of you blaming all democracies in your prior post--you only mentioned Bush.

Morality of Trade

then why don’t we stop trading with China?

When I posed the question I wasn’t aiming at soliciting a response which outlined the economic benefits derived from the relationship. I hoped to highlight that if there is a moral basis to international trade and if we believe that supporting undemocratic regimes is wrong, then we likely shouldn’t be trading with China.

Of course, accepting the possibility of morality accompanying actions is not something that is universally acknowledged. Essentially, if we are saying that Hosni Mubarak is a dictator whom we shouldn’t support, then are we willing to apply the same line of reasoning to our other partners both in the region and further afield? The answer to that question, I think, is quite simply: no.

Bearing this in mind, Machiavelli raised the important point that because we trade with China (which may be a moral wrong given the absence of democracy coupled with the grievous abuse of human rights in that country) does not mean we need to support Mubarak. Essentially, accepting one wrong as a necessity does not mean embracing all wrongs as an inevitability.

But this still leaves us with the observation presented by Danivon:

And to leave them be because they are 'open for business' sounds to me like saying that making money is more important than the lives of individual people.

China and Egypt are open for business. In the former case are we saying that making money is more important but in the latter case are we giving precedence to the lives of individual people? If this is so, then we are rejecting the idea of the inviolable value of human beings, for to accept such an idea there would have to be some unknown threshold at which point it seemingly becomes fine to support dictatorships (through trade and whatnot) at the expense of solidarity with the oppressed people.

Evolution towards Democracy

I think its really the inevitable evolution to democracy....

An interesting statement. What would you say is the path which countries take in their evolution towards democratic government? I’m not sure if I agree with the notion of a trajectory when it comes to systems of government but I’m willing to be convinced.

- post moved to forum on Egypt -