Reported in the Jerusalem Post, Mohamed ElBaradei says the US has been holding secret talks with Egypt's military dictatorship about Egypt's peace treaty with Israel.
Speaking to the Iranian semi-official Fars news agency on Tuesday, Elbaradiei, the former International Atomic Energy Agency head, indicated that the future of Israel's peace treaty with Egypt was at the center of a recent and secret round of talks between U.S. officials and members of the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.A couple of things to mention, now that unless ElBaradei is lying, there is no question the US is imposing its influence on Egypt's dictatorship (as it has for more than three decades up to now).
"The negotiations were completely secret and confidential," ElBaradei told Fars, adding that what the ruling military indicated "said was that the talks were about bilateral and mutual relations, but I believe that Americans wanted to ensure that the deals signed between Egypt and Israel will remain intact if Islamists ascend to power."
1) The US could have been holding secret discussions about holding elections in September when the SCAS said it would hold them. It is clear that the problem is not that the US does not have leverage over Egypt's military government. The problem is that the US chooses to use its leverage to advance a single agenda, Israel's strategic position.
2) The SCAS has claimed to be an interim government that in theory should not be in a position to make any commitments about Egypt's future relations with Israel - and certainly not any commitments that specifically take into account that Islamists, not the military, is poised to win the elections.
3) The United States has issued a public statement claiming that military dictatorship should transfer power to a civilian government. Afterwards, the US began holding secret discussions with the dictatorship directly aimed at limiting the scope of powers of any future civilian government by retaining the power to set policy related to Israel in the military dictatorship.
The United States strongly believes that the new Egyptian government must be empowered with real authority immediately. We believe that Egypt’s transition to democracy must continue, with elections proceeding expeditiously, and all necessary measures taken to ensure security and prevent intimidation. Most importantly, we believe that the full transfer of power to a civilian government must take place in a just and inclusive manner that responds to the legitimate aspirations of the Egyptian people, as soon as possible.4) We occasionally see claims that Egypt's military holds power despite the wishes of the US because it benefits from control of the country. Instead we see the military agreeing with the United States to relinquish control of the country and to maintain control only over the policies, regarding Israel, that the United States wants to prevent from falling into the hands of Egypt's voters.
The truth about the United States' and Barack Obama's role in preventing Egypt's voters from controlling Egyptian policy is already seeping out.
5 comments:
A comment left at juancole.com that may or may not be published.
Top Ten Myths about the Arab protests
About 2:
Trying to keep a dictator in power who has worn out his welcome is
always a big mistake on the part of a great power, as was seen in the
case of the shah of Iran.
This statement raises the question of how the United States should
deal with dictators who have not obviously, with hundreds of thousands
of people protesting in the capital rendering their country
ungovernable, outworn their welcome.
Was the mistake supporting Mubarak, or was supporting Mubarak a good
policy for the United States until the Tahrir Square demonstrations
became overwhelming?
If it is the second, then it follows that the aim of US policy should
be to at least try to replicate the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt minus
the demonstrations.
It also follows that the US should continue to support pro-US dictatorships in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and others.
It also follows that if possible, the US should get a pro-US dictator to rule Iraq.
It also follows that if possible, the US should restore a pro-US dictator to Iran.
To say that it is a mistake to support dictators after their rule
cannot be sustained is an accurate description of US policy. It is also
inherently hostile to democracy.
About 10:
A democratic Egypt that actually represented public opinion would
not necessarily be militant (no Egyptians want a return to a war
footing), but it would be honest in its dealings with Tel Aviv. Israel
has not been benefited by its denial of statehood to the Palestinians,
by Mubarak’s corrupt collaboration in right wing policies, …
Woah, Mubarak was not only collaborating with right wing Israeli
policies. Egypt’s foreign policy is outside of the control of Egypt’s
voters. Olmert’s siege on Gaza, continued by Netanyahu is not a right
wing policy that Mubarak collaborated with. Egypt also under Mubarak,
at US direction on behalf of Israel, has not moved to acquire any legal
nuclear weapons capability such as what NPT signatories such as Japan,
Brazil and maybe dozens of others have acquired. That is not a right
wing Israeli concern.
We can say the same, of course, for the other pro-US colonial dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE and others.
… nor by the Syrian Baath Party’s cynical deployment of Palestine as a domestic issue.
[The Syrian National Council that is opposing the Baath Party
in Syria has said that it will cease supporting Hizbullah and Hamas if
it comes to power.]
Interesting that this Syrian National Council can say this before
anyone in Syria has voted. Maybe, like Egypt’s military dictatorship,
they have been holding secret negotiations with the US about ensuring
that Syrian voters cannot influence policies with respect to Israel in
any future civilian government.
Palestine is far more of a domestic issue in Egypt, Syria, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world than Israel is in the United
States.
Every poll of every Arab population that I’ve ever come across has
expressed support for the types of foreign policies pursued by Assad
while the foreign policies of the pro-US dictatorships do not have
popular support (which is why the US, for Israel’s sake, must support
removing control of foreign policy from voter control in its controlled
dictatorships).
It is almost outrageous to call Assad’s participation in the
Zionist/Palestinian dispute cynical without saying the same thing about
Barack Obama’s far more intense participation in the dispute on the
opposite side.
To a person who says "the sane thing to do is take a hands off position regarding dictators"
The interesting question is how far is it possible, given the US’
commitment to Israel, to take a hands-off policy with regards to
Israel’s neighbors?
Could the US allow Saudi Arabia to come under the control of a
populist government? If Iran is a threat to Israel, how much more of a
threat would a Republic of Arabia be, with a much bigger military budget
than Israel and Iran put together, a more strategic geographical
position regarding Israel and more revenue to spread among a smaller
population?
Even without breaking the treaty with Israel, how much more could a
populist Egypt do, and if Egypt is going to be bribed to not critically
degrade Israel’s viability, how much more would it cost the US to bribe
Egypt’s government in a public system than it pays in its
behind-the-scenes leverage over Mubarak and Tantawi?
What you call the sane thing to do looks like it is not within the
US’ realm of possibilities given the US’ commitment to over-riding the
views of more than 400 million people in Israel’s region on the question
of should there be an enforced Jewish political majority state.
Polls consistently show that the non-Jewish populations of Israel’s
region see Zionist Israel as no more legitimate than Black Africans saw
Apartheid South Africa.
Given that, is the United States going to let the people of Israel’s region control their own foreign policies or not?
Barack Obama has clearly decided not. He likely does not believe he has a choice.
The US is almost certainly playing both sides of the fence in Egypt. Ideally, it wants the military to rule indefinitely without disruption. However, since it knows the military might not be able to hold power forever, and that they could not afford to support them openly, they try to gain some influence over the opposition. Something along the lines of "we will back you against the military if you support policies XYZ." To the military it says it will back the opposition if it does not follow XYZ. Hence, both sides are played against the middle.
However, in a non military government it will be hard to ensure that promises made by the opposition now will be kept later.
One should note that even the Salafists are ready to play ball with Israel. Or at the very least they say they will to to western papers while saying something different at home.
I like your ability to go through all smoke and mirrors of Cole's (and his ilk) trying to mask USA PRINCIPAL support for ME dictators providing the dictators are Zionist-friendly. You are not afraid of truth, so you will always out-argue them, if only they let you post your comments :(
You are right. The same is going in Yemen, for ex. And when some political forces are NOT for sale to USA, USA position is clear.
"Speaking to the media on Saturday, the US ambassador to Yemen, Gerald Feierstein, justified the state repression, declaring that the Life March was intended “to generate chaos and provoke a violent response by the security forces.” He then added: “The government has the right to maintain the law.” The remarks provoked angry responses from demonstrators and calls for his expulsion from Yemen."
Post a Comment