Sunday, January 29, 2012

Will Egypt escape American colonialism in 2012?


Egypt, which is currently the key story of the Middle East, has answered one question by demonstrating that religiously aligned parties are in a position to control Egypt's civilian government. A second question - will Egypt's constitution carve control of policies important to the United States outside of civilian control - has not yet been answered.

Protesters are currently in Tahrir Square in Egypt advocating for full civilian control of policy and for it to be attained earlier than the June date the military dictatorship claims is its schedule. Of the two, the date of transfer and the fullness of the transfer, the fullness of the transfer is the more important. That question will be determined by who sits on the committee to write the post-Mubarak Egyptian constitution and what the constitution ends up saying.

A struggle is certainly occurring behind the scenes. In public advocates of US policy such as Juan Cole are lying by suggesting that Egypt's Islamic parties are on the side of the military and the US in pursuing the US' objective of preventing civilian control of Egypt's foreign policy.
Elbaradei is reportedly afraid that the Muslim Brotherhood will like having its parliamentary majority so much, and will like having the opportunity to shape the new Egyptian constitution, that they will strike a deal with the military to let them do as they please.
In public, left-wing US president Jimmy Carter has come out explicitly favoring an arrangement like that colonial Great Britain presented Egypt in 1922.

Colonial Great Britain in 1922:
The unprecedented movement of Egyptians all across the country that ensued from those early demonstrations quickly overwhelmed British expectations. When at last the combined forces of the occupying army and the Interior Ministry were able to quell months of strikes and protests, the British were compelled to reconsider their position towards Egypt. The eventual outcome of that process was the unilateral decision in March 1922 to grant Egypt a qualified independence. Although the country would be governed thereafter as a constitutional monarchy, the British retained the right to intervene in any matters seen to affect the security of imperial communications, the interests and safety of foreigners on Egyptian soil, the threat of foreign invasion, or the status of Egypt's relationship with the Sudan.
Jimmy Carter in 2012:
“ ‘Full civilian control’ is a little excessive, I think,” Mr. Carter said, after describing a meeting he had Tuesday with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, leader of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, or SCAF. “I don’t think the SCAF is going to turn over full responsibility to the civilian government. There are going to be some privileges of the military that would probably be protected.”

...

“If the civilian leadership decided to give the SCAF immunity from prosecution, say, for the death of the people in Tahrir Square over the last few months, I would have no objection to that,” Mr. Carter said. Protecting the military budget from full civilian scrutiny might be another point where civilian political leaders could compromise, he said.
This brings up the interesting question of what exactly is in the secret military budget that the pro-US military dictatorship and US officials are so adamant must remain outside of view of the people of Egypt and their representatives.

A plausible guess is that the United States has long term commitments of direct cash payments to members of Egypt's military, not only to Tantawi but in different amounts to Egyptian military officials at even relatively low ranks. So that US leverage over Egypt partly takes the form of direct, possibly even monthly, payments to various Egyptian officers directly from US military and intelligence services.

One thing 2011 has proven beyond any question regarding Egypt, is that there are people in the country who want all of Egypt's policies, including foreign policies, to reflect the values, perceptions and sensibilities of the people of Egypt. Those people have important assets in their struggle against the United States and what is effectively a colonial dictatorship that currently rules their country. It is possible but it is not a safe bet to expect the advocates of accountable government for Egypt to lose.

13 comments:

Arnold Evans said...

This post is a lengthened version of a comment left over at Cole's site.  A response I left to a comment by someone who kind of skirts accusing the guest authors of anti-Semitism for calling for a one state solution probably will be published, this is not the kind of post that Cole blocks, but possibly will not.  Just in case, I'll leave it here:

http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/the-way-forward-in-the-middle-east-peled-peled.html#comment-89976

A one state solution satisfied the people of South Africa’s region
enough that they no longer support opposition to South Africa’s
government or terrorism that could disrupt the functioning of the state.

If the people of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait and others
escape the grip of the colonial structure the US inherited from Great Britain and currently has in place in the
region – which may be beginning to happen as we speak – those countries
would pose far less of a threat to a post-Zionist state with that has
accepted refugees, has an Arab majority and prime-minister and where
Jewish individuals are able to live in peace if they choose than they
would pose to the current Zionist regime.

Maybe you think over 400 million people in Israel’s region should be
either effectively held under colonial rule or sanctioned or bombed
until unable to influence the region forever.

But if those people become free, there is a lot accountable
governments of those countries can do that the pro-US dictatorships are
not doing to make life unlivable in a Zionist state.

The Zionists may be well served to conclude what Apartheid concluded,
it is better to negotiate a graceful climbdown while they are still on
top.

Dermot Moloney said...

"A one state solution satisfied the people of South Africa’s region 
enough that they no longer support opposition to South Africa’s 
government or terrorism that could disrupt the functioning of the state."
But wasnt south africa more or less the one state beforehand, the problem with south africa was that one group in that state were not given the same rights as another group and that they were explicit state sanctioned efforts supporting this.

The israeli-Palestinian issue would be different.

"If the people of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait and others escape the grip of the colonial structure the US inherited from Great Britain and currently has in place in the region"

The uk backed king in egypt was actually overthrown quite some time ago. Its also not exactly a colonial structure, colonists arent involved.

"Maybe you think over 400 million people in Israel’s region should be 
either effectively held under colonial rule"
I personally dont, also they are not.

"or sanctioned"

Some sanctions when the governments take action against their civilian populations.

"bombed"

Depends on the situation

Again israelis would be better served going for the two state solution which most arabs support in favour for peace.
 

Dermot Moloney said...

"
Juan Cole are lying by suggesting that Egypt's Islamic parties are on the side of the military and the US"

Where do you feel that he is lying exactly?

Also the two passages from carter and 1922 dont match up, where does carter say that he supports a constitutional monarchy?

Lidia said...

"Again israelis would be better served going for the two state solution which most arabs support in favour for peace."

Zionists cannot agree to two states for several reasons.  Anyway, so-called 2 state that Zionists at least sometimes pretend to support, is nothing but carving bantustans out of the lest good Palestinian land, and even this would be temporary. From the beginning Zionism was for emptying Palestine of natives to turn it into settler colony. 

Of course,   "most arabs" support something different entirely, so the argument in nil and void.   

Lidia said...

Arnold, we both know now that for DM Saudi royals are NOT lackeys of USA :) Not mentioning Mubarak, whom American politicians would not called "dictator". I guess USA was just supporting Mubarak out of goodness, not because he was on their back and call regarding Zionism or Iran and so on. 

Dermot Moloney said...

"bantustans"
A proper two state solution along 67 lines would not be bantustans.

 ""most arabs" support something different entirely "

Most arabs as i said before support a two state solution in exchange for peace. This is something which should be supported.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Arnold, we both know now that for DM Saudi royals are NOT lackeys of USA :)"
Indeed, as shown by the fact that they declined bushes requests to help lower oil prices and also because of their poor and often hostile relations with israel.

"I guess USA was just supporting Mubarak out of goodness, not because he was on their back and call regarding Zionism or Iran and so on."

They had relations with mubarack for the same reasons others have relations with mubarack, because he was in charge, the other alternative was to cease relations with egypt which may have come in the form of sanctions and a return to the previous relationship which existed beforehand. 

The fact that the us and mubarack sometimes had similar viewpoints clearly helped but again mubarack himself was still not a puppet and would do certain things different from the us when he wished to.

Lidia said...

"A proper two state solution along 67 lines", yes, why not? One could dream :( Of course, Zionists usually dream about all Palestinians suddenly vanishing. 

There is POSSIBLE developments, i.e. based on facts, historical and today's ones. And there is not very well founded but very optimistic wishes, exactly because it suits one's ideology. 

I am anti-Zionist, so I am for one-state solution by principle, but even Zionists (some of them, at least) now admit that "A proper two state solution along 67 lines" is about as realistic as Santa Claus help (or even less).

Zionists COULD be pressed to return to land they robbed from Palestinians before 1949. But such state would be unlivable. The big portion of water, for ex, that is used in " along 67 lines" is originated from the WB. And it is only ONE reason. The same is about refuges. "most arabs" would NOT support peace with Israel without return of refuges, for ex. 

"just settlement" of the Palestinian refugee crisis based on UN Resolution 194 (which calls for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict and resolves that any refugees "wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors" should be able to do so or if they otherwise wish to be provided with compensation)."



The reaction of Zionist rulers? 

Although a number of Israeli officials have responded to the Initiative with both support and criticism, the Israeli government has swiftly rejected the initiative, saying it was a "non-starter"....

Likud party spokesperson Zalman Shoval said in March 2007 that Israel would never accept the return of refugees who had lived in pre-1967 Israeli territory, saying "If 300,000-400,000, or maybe a million, Palestinians would invade the country, that would be the end of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.... That's not why we created the state."[24] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also stated that month that "I'll never accept a solution that is based on their return to Israel, any number.... I will not agree to accept any kind of Israel responsibility for the refugees. Full stop.... It's a moral issue of the highest level. I don't think that we should accept any kind of responsibility for the creation of this problem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative









Zionists are NOT going to let Palestinians to return, so the project of two-state is dead-born. 

Now, there is a very recent poll of Palestinians  from lands occupied in 1967, the same who are supposed by DM to live in "proper" state. Regarding 

  "A proper two state solution along 67 lines"

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/07/26/Poll-Arabs-reject-two-state-solution/UPI-61891311710436/


Not exactly what DM claims, I am afraid.  

  

Lidia said...

You argument is irrelevant NOT because of my position, but because it is utterly unreal. 

One could make a long list of what Zionists could to bring on a two state solution. But the list of what the Pope could do to turn all catholics into atheists could be even longer :)

George Carty said...

My point is that a two-state solution would be a bit more likely to work if Israel wasn't stealing Palestinian water (and I suggested a way they could get water without doing this).  Of course you reject a two-state solution, so the argument is irrelevant as far as you're concerned.

Lidia said...

IF? As they say in Russian - if granny had balls she would be a granddad :)

Zionists are robbers by default. The robbed EVERYTHING they got now, not counting some very fishy "buying". They robbed not only land a water, homes and olive trees, even books - they stole at least 70000  of them. Non-stealing Zionists is like hot ice, or even less possible. Who has not stole oneself, still uses the stolen property.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Of course, Zionists usually dream about all Palestinians suddenly vanishing."
Depends on the zionist.

"A proper two state solution along 67 lines" is about as realistic as Santa Claus help"

The two state solution faces many obstacles, but so does the one state solution.

"The same is about refuges. "most arabs" would NOT support peace with Israel without return of refuges, for ex.  "

If true that is very disappointing, the most recent poll i saw showed that most arabs support making peace with israel if a two state solution came about, where is the recent polling evidence from the last two years that added in the caveat. 

"UN Resolution 194 "

Unfortunately this resolution which applied to jews and arab refugees was rejected by all sides and was never binding.

"Zionists are NOT going to let Palestinians to return, so the project of two-state is dead-born."

That isnt entirely true, two state can form just without the right of return to israeli territories, perhaps after the two states have been formed the issue can still be protested.

"Not exactly what DM claims, I am afraid. "

Lidia, lidia, lidia, why on earth do you insist on making one mistake after another.

I claimed that a recent poll showed most arabs in the region support a two state solution, i did not claim that most arabs in the occupied territories did.

George Carty said...

If the Israelis built some nuclear desalination plants, they wouldn't need to steal water from the Palestinians.