People Power Shakes The Arab World!

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The entire region is on fire. Whatever, let it burn...

[Frdm920 50]

If it wasn't for the fact that said region is important to global interests, I'd be happy to. As it is, that's not the case so you can rest assured America will be trying to put out the flames before they hit elsewhere...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Frdm920

If it wasn't for the fact that said region is important to global interests, I'd be happy to. As it is, that's not the case so you can rest assured America will be trying to put out the flames before they hit elsewhere...quote>

America should mind its own business.  Other than words of encouragement, why should they horn in?  Iran is a good example of American interference, so why cause more grief?  Let the people get the governement they deserve.  Don't be surprised if it comes with its own version of the Savak.

Dipolmatic negotiations (veiled threats if needed) will sort it all out later.  Meanwhile, America needs to sort out those drunken sailors who have been spendthrifting the country into bankruptcy.

[Athanasius 0]

Originally posted by: Odainsaker

How inevitable is radical Islam's victory in Egypt's democracy?quote>

Too inevitable for comfort, which is the real quandry.  While we all might despise authoritarian regimes and have no particular love for President Hosni Mubarak, that doesn't mean a sudden popular overthrow will bring free democracy, human rights, and sweet roses of peace and love from Egyptian hippies.  The biggest opposition group is not the liberal Greens, but the Muslim Brotherhood, who will see a golden opportunity for their long dream to establish of an even more reactionary Islamist regime in the Arab world's most populous and most dynamic state.

quote>

what if there was a democracy in place and everybody voted for Sharia law anyway, would that be acceptable?

for some reason "democracy" and "liberalism" are constantly confused with each other. a country with a very conservative population might want a theocracy? i don't claim to know what Egypt wants but i'm saying that people always assume that democracies must be secular atheist - anything else isn't "good enough"

after all, Hamas won an election

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Athanasius

what if there was a democracy in place and everybody voted for Sharia law anyway, would that be acceptable? quote>

I have difficulty in seeing a fair democratic election resulting in sharia law because I have difficulty seeing women choosing to live that way.  On some level, I believe that women who chose to live under sharia law do not know that there are other options.  That could be lack of imagination on my part

for some reason "democracy" and "liberalism" are constantly confused with each other. a country with a very conservative population might want a theocracy? i don't claim to know what Egypt wants but i'm saying that people always assume that democracies must be secular atheist - anything else isn't "good enough" quote>

I see what you are saying.   To me, it's about human rights.  I would like to see everyone on the planet have the same rights and freedoms that I do but that would be a huge leap for many countries to make.  I will be stunned if I see it in what's left of my lifetime.

For the most part, it is not for one country to judge if another country's system is "good enough".  (Obviously there are exceptions to that or Hilter's kids would probably be running a chunk of the world.)

But there are plenty of examples where something other than a secular atheist democracy is "good enough".   The UK has an official religion, a monarchy, and lots of socialist programs but no one is telling them to change their ways.  The population seems happy with it so what's it to anyone else?

after all, Hamas won an election quote>

Which was a very puzzling development to many people, including myself.   Why would anyone vote for a terrorist organization?   As with many things, it depends on your point of view.  To quote an old article about Hamas

For many, it is made up of terrorists bent on the destruction of Israel, the main obstacle on the so-called road map to peace. For many others in the occupied territories and across the Arab and Muslim world it is a legitimate organization that fights a brutal military occupation and extends a helping hand and social welfare to Palestinian people. quote>

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Meg

 I see what you are saying.   To me, it's about human rights.  I would like to see everyone on the planet have the same rights and freedoms that I do but that would be a huge leap for many countries to make.  I will be stunned if I see it in what's left of my lifetime. quote>

  Why would people even want to decide on whether to reopen an old railway line before they can get food on the table or stop their kids dieing from simple diseases like diarrhea?  Would they be qualified to make such a decision? Obviously not. What you refer to as "human rights" in America or Europe, are tools of oppression in much of the world.

Besides; people think differently in other parts of the world. And who are we to tell them that a particular mindset, in a human rights perspective, is wrong? If people want the opportunity to make millions through no real work other than a few keystrokes and a computer whilst working class families are going bankerupt because they had an operation, then let them. It has taken the US more than 200 years to even recognise human rights within its borders where these were even pretended to be expressed wishes of the state, so why there be requirements for other nations to do what they wish?

 

after all, Hamas won an election quote>

Which was a very puzzling development to many people, including myself.   Why would anyone vote for a terrorist organization?   As with many things, it depends on your point of view.  To quote an old article about Hamasquote>

Very puzzling to anyone that hasn't had their home blown up by missiles, lived through the rampant corruption of the authorities, been denied access to jobs and investment not only abroad but also at home, etc., etc. – or are able to trying to even fathom such conditions. What does it matter, that the hand that feeds you have killed some people at a checkpoint abroad? You don't bite it, at least, everyone knows that. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The youth of Egypt speak.  Since they are the majority, cooler heads may not prevail.  They want what everyone wants, namely freedom from want.  This is going to be a long row to hoe. 

I am afraid I don't see the military giving up power because of a mob or two in the square.  They just have to pet them, and keep on with the "There, there, everything will be alright" tactics until things quiet down.  They will be patient, and eventually put up some kind of puppet regime.  Meanwhile, if I was a plutocrat in Egypt, I would be seeking an exit strategy.

If the Muslim Brotherhood is being honest, they don't want an Islamic state.  The examples around them are too graphic, and they are somewhat in the middle of the road.  The efforts of these 'moderates' might just be the coming of age of Islam, if they can separate the sectarian hatreds, especially between the Sunni and the Shi'a.

Remember, this is a hot country, with hot tempered people.  They don't tend to introspection much because it is too damned hot most of the time.  We, of the frozen north, cannot imaging the conditions in which they live, nor the resulting mores, nor thought.  The "first world" needs to butt out.

[mightygoose 92]

Originally posted by: Athanasius

[

after all, Hamas won an election

quote>

well so did that other famous H

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Now there are elections and then there are elections.  One should be aware that in the elections in some of the middle eastern countries there is only one candidate.  While an election may be held, it is a rather transparent fraud aimed at resetting the dictator.

Current news reports are stating that the velvet revolutions seen in Tunisia and Egypt were some kind of fluke.  The repressive regimes are fighting back and bloodily.  We'll see how determined Arab youth really is, as things unfold.  Maybe it really is time for the people to get the government they deserve.  Want does not equal get. 

From our point of view, the Lincoln maxim of "government by the people, of the people and for the people" may never come about in the Med.  Even now, we haven't seem much change in either Tunisia or Egypt.  Both are in some sort of interregnum.

[Odainsaker 2,137]

Originally posted by: mightygoose

Originally posted by: Athanasius

after all, Hamas won an election

quote>

well so did that other famous H

quote>

Actually, he lost the presidential race to Hindenburg (hey, another famous "H"), but then he was appointed chancellor in the backroom haggling, for coalition governments formed when no parties have a majority make for strange bedfellows and lots of sausage grinding.  Still, it was pretty much the last election in Weimar Germany...the Reichstag was arsoned, emergency security laws were enacted, poor old senile Hindenburg keeled over, and then the presidency and the chancellery were merged via overwhelming plebiscite into the new office of "Führer."  All apparently seen as seemingly reasonable steps at the time, too...well, I suppose the brownshirts in the streets played their role, too.

Which tells us that it is not enough to merely have an election, or to have the first election as the last election.

Originally posted by: Athanasius

what if there was a democracy in place and everybody voted for Sharia law anyway, would that be acceptable?

for some reason "democracy" and "liberalism" are constantly confused with each other. a country with a very conservative population might want a theocracy? i don't claim to know what Egypt wants but i'm saying that people always assume that democracies must be secular atheist - anything else isn't "good enough"

after all, Hamas won an electionquote>

There was never a viable democracy in place from the outset if the system allows itself to be voted away.  People are not truly free if at any moment some majority can vote them into slavery.  Thus was the classic failure of the Weimar Republic above, as well as of the Taisho Democracy, the PRC, apartheid South Africa, and even modern Egypt, all of which had seemingly democratic constitutions on paper protective of their people, but which had built-in and exacerbating short-circuits that allowed procedural circumventions of the system by the opportunisitic powerbrokers.  They are transitory governments, often leading to unhappy dictatorships...afterall, if the system allowed you to vote for Sharia law to keep the womenfolk in their place, then it would also allows us to vote for Enabling Acts to keep political opponents in their place, and for Forced Resettlement and Evacuation laws to put other undesirables in their place.  We've strayed far from democracy, no matter how many token votes we take in rigged elections.

This issue is not whether the democracy is "secular atheist," but whether it can continue to endure as a democracy.  Hence, the structure of the system has to be setup such that all the rights of the people are fully constitutionally protected, that no group is able to make monopolized power institutional and permanent, and that no one can rewrite or bypass the constitution in a way that changes those restrictions.  This is not easy to juggle, as past history has shown, and we still have to get the main groups to buy into this system with the confidence that they can wield power responsibly and not fear for retributive bloodletting when it is their rivals' turn to wield power.  For the most part, Egypt and the whole Arab world do not have this history, and so politics is still an all-or-nothing traumatic affair were opposition equates to treason.  Anyone really think Hamas will allow any future elections in which it stands to lose, let alone actually step down properly if results don't go their way?  Even Turkey has to threaten rolling in the army from time to time to keep the scales in balance.  This is why I am only a rather hesitant supporter of the mass protest movements calling for regime topplings, for the path set down is going to be very messy for a long time, fraught with many hidden pitfalls and wolves lurking in the darkness, and I am not entirely sure that any supposed enthusiasm for democracy will outweigh other issues like religious fevor or nationalist strife or even tribal hatreds.  We need only look at other democratic republics around the world to see how easily and often they implode as they evolve, and no one has yet has outlined a system that could maintain continuance after, say, a Hamas-style administration.

I suspect, in the interim as Arab states make their slow journey to oneday potential democratic states, that we will get moments when they do things like nationally enact Sharia law, much as the early U.S. had legalized slavery and counted blacks as 3/5 a person merely for apportioning representation among white property owners.  Those states will go through generational trauma shaking out their own internal contradictions, and we will still have to deal with them nonetheless as yet another part of the globalized community.  The best we can hope for is that we have tried from the outside to make the process as painless as possible, a la South Africa, or that, in case of another Weimar, we can contain the fallout.

Perhaps I am reading too much into all this, and that from the outset democracy or human rights were not the necessary or desired outcomes.  Err, what is the point of the exercise then?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Democracy is a buzz word.  In its origins it means rule by the Demes, who were the land-holding class of Ancient Athens.  You wouldn't want Periclean democracy, I can assure you.  There were three classes, of which only the Demes has the vote, and only the men.  The other classes were the slaves (Helots), and the common people (Idiots) who had no say whatever in running the country.  Additionally, the Helots were property, and could be bought, sold, disposed of, or whatever.

As I said above, I really like Mr. Lincoln's definition.  But this truly iimplies a lot more self-reliance than you will find in the middle east's common people.  Most of them are happy to be taken care of if they can only find a patron.  They do a lot of talking about freedom, but they don't understand it.  They don't even understand that freedom is not free, but they all have to pay for it, and it won't give you much, if anything. 

Allah helps those who help themselves.  It doesn't matter what the name of God is.  If you are a believer in a single supreme being or god, you have a lot of company, and they all  want the same thing:  enough food, clothing and shelter; a source of wealth to keep the wolf from the door.  If you disrupt your economy in the process of becoming "free", expect short commons.

In both Tunisia and Egypt, I expect some sort of continuing military rule, however disguised.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Update: Bloodbath in Libya. Obama, after a week of vacillation, pulled a full set of sanctions on Qaddafi and Co. according to the morning press. About time. Our PM is still on the fence as of last night.

The interesting thing is that things are heating up in Iraq. I thought the Yanks had set up a safe puppet regime there, but it turns out that they shouldn't have turned their backs so quickly. (Maybe they used the same model they've been using elsewhere?)

[Easy Bakes 253]

Update: Bloodbath in Libya. Obama, after a week of vacillation, pulled a full set of sanctions on Qaddafi and Co. according to the morning press. About time. Our PM is still on the fence as of last night.

The interesting thing is that things are heating up in Iraq. I thought the Yanks had set up a safe puppet regime there, but it turns out that they shouldn't have turned their backs so quickly. (Maybe they used the same model they've been using elsewhere?)

Probably. though i have no idea why thier still supprized when these puppet regimes turn on them.History shows this never works for long. I dont think i can name one that stayed friendly.

personly i think we should stop trying to spread democratic ideas and just keep relation friendly enough to keep the oil going. A pure buisness deal, see how long they they stay pissed off when the money stops flowing.

Just remeber The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition

thirty-fourth rule "War is good for business"

thirty-fifth rule "Peace is good for business"

  Edited February 26, 2011 by Easy Bakes  

[Red1530 1]

I hope the revolutions in the Middle East will lead to the formation of free societies. My fear is that the revolutions will be hijacked by radical Islamist like in Iran during their revolution.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I hope the revolutions in the Middle East will lead to the formation of free societies. My fear is that the revolutions will be hijacked by radical Islamists like in Iran during their revolution.

I think we have to expect a slow evolution towards self-determination in many cases. However, after centuries of authoritarian rule in one form or another, the real question is whether the general population is ready for the heavy responsibility of a Lincoln-style government "of the people, by the people and for the people".

In many of these countries, the literacy rate is appalling. How can anyone expect people to vote (on a secret ballot) when they cannot read it? The protests have been lead by a young intelligensia who may be able to handle this, but whose parents cannot. Remember that family units and family respect are the key social item in many of these places. When it comes to the crunch, expect the "old folks" to want the status quo. No matter how bad. the slave clings to his master.

As for Iran, if anything happens to turn the Savak, the Ayatollahs better run for the border.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I just plan on avoiding that entire region for the foreseeable future. I would be more likely to go on Spring Break in Cuba than travel to the Middle East (or Africa). I hope for the best and expect (and prepare for) the worst, as always.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

An economist on the CBC national last night suggested that democratic institutions are far from likely in these countries. She suggested that economic reform is the real want of the people and that as I suspected, democracy is just a buzz word for these people. She said that the China model is more likely, with a bureaucracy bringing economic reforms and greater prosperity well before any self-determination.

I think she is right. These people are accustomed to authoritarian governments that did nothing for the people. If they now get one that embarks on fixing the economy and improving the lot of the impoverished, that will do for now.

China is a communist government in name only now. They have quietly embraced most of the capitalistic principles.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I just plan on avoiding that entire region for the foreseeable future. I would be more likely to go on Spring Break in Cuba than travel to the Middle East (or Africa). I hope for the best and expect (and prepare for) the worst, as always.

Cuba , havana anyway, was a happening place before the revolution.

Im sure it would be a huge spring break destination if that had not happened.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Cuba , havana anyway, was a happening place before the revolution.

Im sure it would be a huge spring break destination if that had not happened.

Fidel's take over was more than years ago. I think the U.S. has relaxed its rules now, so you could go. Canadians have been vacationing there for decades.

I suspect it is much safer than the Mexican coastal areas. (Sorry, Alejandro, but Canadians seem to be targets in Mexico.)

[Meg 368]

Cuba , havana anyway, was a happening place before the revolution.

Im sure it would be a huge spring break destination if that had not happened.

Well, there is that issue of it being illegal for Americans to travel to Cuba. Or as the State Department puts it:

The Cuban Assets Control Regulations are enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically located in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world. The regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed in order to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba. Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities enforce these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of the Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States.

But, you're right: if the revolution had not happened, that restriction probably would not be in place.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Now that Fidel is gone, Cuba is experiencing reforms and modernization. I expect that restrictions will ease in my lifetime though restrictions with Mexico might begin if the violence escalates or remains for long. That would be bad because half of my family lives there. Only the borders are dangerous in Mexico now that Oaxaca became peaceful and the resort towns cracked down on trafficing. As a matter of fact, my Dad is going to take my sis and I to see our family in Guadalajara in June then take all of us (including Mexican family) to Puerto Vallarta to rent a house for a week.

Oh yeah, Alejandro is my middle name, not my last.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Oh yeah, Alejandro is my middle name, not my last.

Actually I was thinking of Alejandro24 who lives in Guadalajara. I had no idea that you were another Alex. But I guess it is a common Spanish name, eh?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I think things will improve with Cuba over time and probably faster than we think if the ex-pats in Florida will relax. Cuba has opened a few areas and all the people really need is a taste of what's out there. Raul is more pragmatic than his brother.

I don't know what to think about Libya's situation. We cannot come in on the ground. The opposition is open to a no-fly zone, however, and would not object to aerial assistance - but I think a no-fly zone is best. We should not start bombing - recon on the other hand...

Barbarossa

Cuba: If Raul were to gently invite the less violent expatriates home from Florida, he would do both countries a favor. He can probably stand to have more of his intelligensia at home, and Miami can sure do with fewer agitators and unhappy refugees. Of course, I suppose many of them have become naturalized while in the U.S. and would not want to go to a slightly less civilized place. On the other hand, these people might be better off staying in the lasnd of the freer.

Libya: Mr. Harper refused point-blank to say whether we have JTF2 people on the ground there. I wouldn't put it past the General Staff. We have sent a frigate and some strong folks to Malta. They will probably join up with the international task force that is forming there. I would not be surprised to see some kind of black op to capture Qaddafi and deliver him to the ICC. It might seem outrageous to some, but this kind of thing has a lot of precedent.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Well, there is that issue of it being illegal for Americans to travel to Cuba.

In the land of the FREE?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Libyan civil war: Some people just won't go quietly. I am not surprised, and I hope no one else is either. Wonder if the rebels have enough money to buy arms?

[Meg 368]

Well, there is that issue of it being illegal for Americans to travel to Cuba.

In the land of the FREE?

Cutting off trade relations includes cutting off tourism.

[Wrightguy0 40]

let's keep this on track people, this thread is about the Middle East revolts, not US Cuba relations, but if you want to start a new thread on that, it would be more than welcome

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

let's keep this on track people, this thread is about the Middle East revolts, not US Cuba relations, but if you want to start a new thread on that, it would be more than welcome

Agreed. The American Politics thread is alive and well. The World Affairs thread seems to have slipped off the first page, though.

The Libyan situation seems to have slipped from world view, at least in my browser summaries. I am sure its still a problem, but U.S. oil reserves shouldn't be tapped. What needs tapping with a large mallet are the speculators in Chicago. There is no oil crisis. The price is being driven up to the enrichment of these guys, and they are no better than the Wall Street fraudsters, but continue to get away with it. In case anyone hasn't noticed, this is driving up the price of everything. It is called inflation, and it will break the economic machine of the west.

The current flap has masked what is happening in the rest of the Arab world. If popular pressure isn't kept on, things will just die down into moral depression again.

  Edited March 7, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa