U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey cabled: “He (an Egyptian subversive) told us that the other activists at the summit were very supportive, and that some even offered to hold public demonstrations in support of Egyptian democracy in their countries.”The embassy helped keep the identity of the dissident secret from Egyptian police, the Telegraph said, but he has been arrested in the recent demonstrations.
The leaked documents reveal that Scobey sent a cable to the Secretary of State two years ago, in which she wrote, “April 6 activist on his US visit and regime change in Egypt.” She added that embassy sources said the plan for “a transition to a parliamentary democracy [was] “so sensitive it cannot be written down.”
In summary, the US was supporting Mubarrak's regime with about 3 billion dollar foreign aid a year, while secretely cultivating the "democratic" revolutionary underground. Why am I surprised?
Aluf Benn, a HaAretz commenter, writes:
Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran," which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled.
7 comments:
So you are saying that the US should support dictators to the bitter end and have no contact with the opposition, so when the inevitable regime change happens anyway, we have no contact or influence with the new leaders and that they hate our guts? I disagree. Putting aside the moral case that it is right and proper to support democracy, even from a realpolitik POV it is good for America to cultivate ties with possible successor groups. If America's $3 BILLION / year cannot keep Mubarrak on the throne then how is it that a mere chat with the opposition has the power to overthrow him?
K
It is realpolitik to play both sides, but it does not buy reliable friends or allies. On the contrary. The West played Mugabe against Smith, believing that it was practicing realpolitik and Mugabe would pay back their help when he (Mugabe) was running for his life in the exile. But who cares for one who repeatedly betrays his friends?
The best policy is to be a steady friend and a reliable ally, like was Rome in its time. American political modelling lacks common sense.
You should not forget that America is far from being the hegemonical power it was a generation ago. It needs allies and friends to build coalitions.
I agree w/ your statement but I'm not sure keeping dictators in place is the best way to make friends. By suppressing all moderate opposition, such dictators insure that their successors will be radical.
K
No one asks the USA "to keep" dictators in place. Only stop undermining your friends and allies in name of some ghostly vision of universal love and brotherhood. In the case of Egypt, if Mubarrak's regime falls, the Muslim Brotherhood aka Al Qaida is sure to take its place. There is no other political force capable of opposing it. Once Egypt becomes a Muslim caliphate, the Kingdom of Jordan, of Saudia and other pro-Western regimes are sure to fall. It took only ten days to Tunisia to impact Egypt. Jordan could fall next week.
Imagine a Middle East ruled by ayatollahs. Can London and Amsterdam be next?
Ayatollahs are Shiites (or shit for short). Egypt, Jordan, not to mention London and Amsterdam have different traditions and history. Persia is not Egypt is not Jordan.
K
They are all different, but they have a shared feature: they all hate and want to destroy the West.
Post a Comment