stefano » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:06 pm wrote:That's not what happened. The AU's constitution stipulates that the membership of a country is suspended when a government comes to power by unconstitutional means. The provision kicked in automatically after the 2013 coup, and Egypt's membership was reinstated just as automatically after the 2014 election. The US didn't have anything to do with it.
Of course it did. Let's not be disingenuous. The popular uprising that removed Morsi and his Brotherhood thugs was much, much bigger and more representative of all the Egyptians than the one that removed Mubarak. And Morsi was replaced by the interim president and a civilian government, as specified by the people in 2013, unlike in 2011, when presidential and all executive powers went to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Yet, the US and its media didn't call the latter a "military coup", but a "revolution". Egypt's membership in the African Union wasn't suspended. And to rub it in, Obama decided to hold a mini African Summit of his own in January 2014 at the White House, without inviting Egypt. Anyway, that's all water under the bridge. Except for Ethiopia and South Africa, relations are better than ever now, with most African states.
Stefano wrote:That's not true either. You're the only Egyptian I know who is strongly pro-Sisi, the others' attitude is mostly one of disappointed resignation. One actively hates him. And she's certainly no Islamist, she signed the Tamarrod petition and marched on June 30. The current state of affairs is just not at all what they were hoping would come out of the revolutionary process. Relevantly, I think, all of these people are younger and less well off than you - more typical of the population in general.
Well, I live here, and I'd venture to say that I know more Egyptians than you do, and my finger is directly on the Egyptian pulse. There are some young people I talk to, who do have ridiculously high expectations and proclaim themselves disappointed, as you say. Egypt was in pretty bad economic shape even before 2011, in addition to all its other problems. But after four years of turbulence and violence and chaos, the economy was close to collapse. When Sisi was elected, there were people dying in bread lines, the country was plagued with electricity black-outs, gasoline and heating fuel shortages, rising debt, spiraling violent crime, crumbling infrastructure, labor unrest and factory closings, fleeing capital, deadly roads, a near total collapse in the public health and public education systems, etc., etc. This was only around 16-17 months ago. Today, there are no bread lines, no fuel shortages, almost no black-outs, the streets and roads are much safer, major infrastructure projects have been built and more are in progress, factories are gradually reopening, and billions of dollars of foreign, Arab and domestic investments are laying the ground-work for a massive economic revival.
Of course, there's still a huge amount of work to be done. The problem with some of those young people (and they are almost all quite young) is that they think change comes from marching and chanting, and hanging out with their friends in cafes talking politics. It doesn't. The many dramatic improvements that we're seeing today came about through hard work, by people who have skills and discipline, and are capable of delayed gratification. They seem truly unable to understand that. But I can guarantee you that they do not represent but a tiny fraction of the Egyptian people. One reason US (and other foreign) intelligence keeps getting it so wrong when it comes to Egypt, is precisely because it has relied on such individuals, or others who sell their services to the highest bidder, who are badly out of touch with the vast majority of Egyptians.
Stefano wrote:Less anecdotally, the very low turnout in the parliamentary election so far is a clear sign that the overwhelming majority of the people really cannot be bothered, even when threatened with fines, to legitimise Sisi in a process that everyone knew was going to be stitched up by NDP holdovers and the rest of the military-industrial complex. The MIC might have overplayed its hand by getting an actual spook to front for it in the For the Love of Egypt list.
That's a very false reading of the facts. The very low turnout so far (around 21%)
** has nothing whatsoever to do with President Sisi's legitimacy. It has a LOT to do with the following factors:
1) According to slightly hysterical media reports, the Egyptian constitution gives unprecedented powers to the parliament, including the ability to severely hamper and even to remove the elected president. This scared off a lot of voters, who trust the president but are deeply suspicious of the political parties and of political candidates in general. If you'd asked most Egyptians on the street, just a few weeks before the elections, they'd have told you that they neither need nor want a parliament. Don't forget that the last two parliaments were unmitigated disasters, and the ones before weren't much better.
It also didn't help that competing in the parliamentary elections are over 90 political parties and thousands of candidates, most of whom are totally unknown to the electorate, and have no political capital among the voters; most people literally have no idea who to vote for, let alone trust, and most of the parties did a terrible job reaching out to voters;
2) The few that did run actual campaigns, like the Free Egyptians party, spent tons of money on banners and tv ads and other campaign activities that may have scared off the voters even more, since the Free Egyptians party is associated with the highly controversial billionaire Naguib Sawiris. In fact, the more money spent, the more voters were discouraged from going to the polls, since they assumed nobody would spend so much unless they expected to make even more once they got into power. Still, although the Free Egyptians did much worse than they expected, and got a relatively poor return on the estimated hundreds of millions of pounds spent, they did get around 10% of the seats in the first round, if I'm not mistaken. I even voted for one of their candidates myself, but only because he's one of the few who is relatively well-known, is a loose cannon, and I'm positive Sawiris won't be able to push him around.
The "spook front" (actually a voter list whose spokesman is an ex-intelligence official) actually did by far the best in the polls. People who were determined to do their civic duty and vote, didn't want to elect traitors or corrupt businessmen or expose their country to any more attacks, so they voted for the list they figured would be safe, whose patriotic credentials were beyond reproach. Even though the president was very clear that no list or individual represents him, people chose the list and the candidates based on who they figured was most likely to be supportive of the president.
The question that was on aspiring voters' lips, and on cell-phone messages, and on social media was, "who should I vote for?" People wanted the names of candidates guaranteed not to be disguised Brotherhood, or "fifth columnists" or other agents of foreign powers. Those who voted were lucky enough to get an answer from someone they trust. Others just gave up.
Stefano wrote:I also think that more people are understanding that the government's policies of torture, forced disappearances, shooting civilians dead in the street, whacking Brothers and then planting guns on them and so on is keeping terrorism alive, not fighting it. I also think that the MIC knows this and is fine with it - that's how strategies of tension work, and it provides a justification for secret slush funds and massive arms deals (there's always a kickback). I don't think the government has taken it to the next level and started piloting jihadist groups, Algeria style, but nor do I think it needs to. The terror problem is serious enough as it is. The deep state's main concern in something like this is not to look as though it's losing the war on terror, which might have started happening after two years. That's why they recently started forcing journalists to report the official death toll in terrorist attacks, which is usually lower than the real toll in big attacks.
Sorry, Stefano, but that's just a big pile of silly. I won't address all your talking points, because it would take too long. But the government didn't "start forcing journalists to report the official death toll," etc. You're referring to the terrorist attack earlier this year, in which a group of self-styled "ISIS" terrorists launched a simultaneous attack against several military posts in northern Sinai across from Gaza, raised their black flag on a building and declared an "emirate". The raising of the flag was filmed from the Gaza side by Al-Jazeera, which reported that "ISIS" had taken control of the area and had massacred over 70 Egyptian army officers and troops. "ISIS" posted on its websites that it had taken over Egyptian territory. The "news" was picked up by foreign news agencies, including Reuters, which reported a very high number of casualties and the ISIS "takeover". These foreign reports were, in turn, picked up by several Egyptian media outlets.
In fact, the attack had been quickly repelled and the terrorists had almost all been killed or captured, with a very few having managed to escape. The whole thing was over in a few hours, and the total number of Egyptian army casualties was 21, including 17 who died in the exchange of fire and four who had been earlier kidnapped and murdered. But by then, the damage had been done: Egyptians were badly shaken and terrorized by the news that part of their country had fallen under "ISIS" control, and that more than 70 of their soldiers had been killed.
Within hours, the armed forces had released a detailed report of everything that happened, including video and photos of the dead terrorists. There was a huge public outcry against the news outlets that had simply copy-pasted Al-Jazeera's and "ISIS" and Reuters' reports without even checking. People boycotted the newspapers and the tv shows and even the news websites that had reported the false news. As a result, the government added a clause to the existing anti-terrorism law, penalizing any journalist who knowingly publishes false information obtained from sources sympathetic to terrorists, without first checking with the armed forces to obtain the facts. The psychological trauma that was caused by the false news reports handed a partial victory for the terrorists and their backers, and the credibility of the media outlets that took the bait has never recovered.
Stefano wrote:Anyway, as for Egyptian intelligence being in bed with US intelligence - those ties have been strong since Sadat's time, and have lasted. Moursi and his lot never managed to reform the army or intelligence - they never seemed to think it was necessary, given the political support they had from Washington. It's true that there has been some realignment to a more multilateral strategy since 2013 but the old personal links remain strong, and the US's military handouts to Egypt are tied in with intelligence co-operation. When Sisi took over there were signs of approval from the Pentagon, even if not from the State Department or the White House.
Stefano, a country's intelligence service is not autonomous, capable of formulating policy or making political decisions. Intelligence services can't be "in bed" with each other unless their bosses want them to be. Egyptian intelligence no doubt maintains links with US intelligence, but only within a certain strategic framework, and only to the extent that it serves the national security policies of their respective countries. It's the same with many countries, including Israel and others that would surprise you. But Egypt is no longer a vassal of the US, and it decides how much to cooperate with US intelligence (or any other country's intelligence), depending on its own sovereign needs and objectives. Egypt under Mubarak did depend on the US' "military handouts" -- over 60% of its weapons and equipment were US made, and needed American spare parts and ammunition. This is no longer the case. Things have changed a lot. For example, the recent delivery of the F-16's hardly caused a ripple of interest, nor did the Apaches that the US held for so long over our heads. We don't really need them any more.
Stefano wrote:On the plane - at the moment I'm thinking it was an accident. I certainly don't think it was terrorists. It might have been Israel, or else the Russians, surprised no one here considered that. It would be in line with form for Putin, and he's the one with the most to gain from it if he can spin it as being the work of IS. We'll see what the commission of inquiry concludes. If they blame it on terrorists I'll strongly suspect Russia, and if they say it was an accident I'll think it was an accident. Although, as Alice said, if they find it was an air-to-air missile (ie Israel) they'll still call it an accident.
Once again, you're being silly, Stefano. Putin would have nothing to gain by "spinning it as being the work of IS". On the contrary, it's "ISIS" that has been crowing that it "punished" Russia and declaring its great victory. In any case, there's nothing to suggest that "ISIS", still less in Sinai, where it is pretty much wiped out, has the capability of shooting down an airplane in flight. It hasn't even been able to do that in Syria, or Iraq, or Libya, for that matter. As the former head of Egypt's Civil Aviation said in the article I posted above, only a state would have the capability to do that. And even if you didn't pick up his meaning, it was obvious which state he was referring to.
** On Edit: obviously, the elections are still in progress, and the figures could rise, especially since the second round will only begin in 19 days and includes the largest population center by far, Cairo, and 13 other provinces (governorates). In the first round, over 26% of the voters went to the polls, but the figure dropped in the run-offs, which brought the average voter participation to around 21%. Also, the elections are held on working days, and millions of people work or reside quite far away from their official polling station. I had to drive over half an hour to get to mine, but I did it twice. Some people just can't.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
