Contrary to what we were led to believe -- that the U.S.-backed and U.S.-financed Egyptian military would protect the right to peaceful protest -- on Wednesday in Cairo the Egyptian military permitted "Mubarak supporters" -- who, according to press reports, were clearly organized by the government, and many of whom were police or other government employees -- to physically attack peaceful anti-government protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square.
The lead paragraph of the main New York Times article summarized what happened:
The Egyptian government struck back at its opponents on Wednesday, unleashing waves of pro-government provocateurs armed with clubs, stones, rocks and knives in and around Tahrir Square in a concerted effort to rout the protesters who have called for an end to President Hosni Mubarak's near-30-year rule.
Crucially, the U.S.-backed and U.S.-financed Egyptian military did not block the violence. The chronology on the Guardian's liveblog from Wednesday shows that the first report of government complicity in the violence at Tahrir Square came almost immediately:
12.19pm: "There is a fight of some kind of going on right in front of me. I'm assuming that it's pro and anti Mubarak supporters," Peter Beaumont reports from Tahrir Square.The security services are just sitting on their tanks watching, he says. "You can't help feeling that it has all been heavily coordinated," he says. [my emphasis.]
Is the word "pogrom" appropriate to describe what happened yesterday in Cairo? There wasn't a significant ethnic component to the attack (although, the Guardian reported, "One pro-Mubarak supporter yelled 'liars and Jews' at journalists."). The scale of destruction wasn't anything like the most notorious pogroms of the late Tsarist period, although the word "pogrom" came into use in Tsarist Russia much earlier and originally described attacks in which few if any people were killed.
But there was a classic feature of pogroms in Tsarist Russia, which matches what happened yesterday in Cairo, and which wasn't captured by misleading headlines, that talked about "clashes between Mubarak supporters and anti-government protesters": complicity of authorities responsible for security with a premeditated attack by an armed mob against people who were not armed.
The Jewish Encyclopedia notes:
Soon after Alexander III. had ascended the throne, anti-Jewish riots (Pogromy) broke out... It was clear that the riots were premeditated... To give but one example -- a week before the pogrom of Kiev broke out, Von Hubbenet, chief of police of Kiev, warned some of his Jewish friends of the coming riots. Appeals to the authorities for protection were of no avail. [my emphasis.]
Why did the Egyptian military, which has been the recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. military aid, which is described in press reports as very close to the U.S. government, allow the attack on anti-government protesters to proceed? Where was the Obama administration? Why didn't they respond to appeals to stop the violence?
It's important to note in this regard that:
1. the violence went on for many hours;
2. the complicity of the U.S.-backed Egyptian military in the violence was immediately apparent to Western journalists at Tahrir Square, who reported what they were observing as it was happening;
3. because Western journalists were reporting live on the web, this information about the complicity of the Egyptian military in the violence was immediately available to anyone who wanted it;
4. U.S. officials have claimed that that they were monitoring the situation closely; a reasonable minimum standard for any U.S. official who claims to be "monitoring the situation closely" is that they know what Western journalists are reporting;
5. Anti-government protesters and others appealed immediately to the Egyptian military and to the Obama administration to stop the violence.
Some people would apparently have us believe that it was beyond the power of the Obama administration to stop the violence, because the leverage of the Obama administration on the Egyptian military was limited.
"Egypt street violence: Few options for Obama administration," the Christian Science Monitor reports.
The real story is this: There's a split in Washington, between people who are arguing that the U.S. should be prioritizing democracy and human rights, and people who are arguing that the U.S. should be prioritizing "geostrategic interests." (U.S. lawmakers differ on aid cutoff to Egypt, Reuters reports.) And the Obama administration is trying to triangulate between these two camps.
Of course, some folks are also arguing that people who care about "geostrategic interests," and can see past their nose, should realize that cooperating in trying to block democracy in Egypt could eventually lead to a much more anti-U.S. government than in promoting an orderly transition to a democratic government in which people who oppose specific U.S. policies in the region will have a voice -- rather than being imprisoned and tortured --- but will not be running the show by themselves.
The fake story -- that the U.S. is powerless -- doesn't pass the laugh test.
It is certainly, obviously true that the power of the U.S. is not infinite. It is certainly, obviously true that it is important to recognize the limits of U.S. power.
But if you ask me to reach down the jam from the high shelf, the fact that I am not infinitely tall is not really relevant, is it? The question is not whether I am infinitely tall. The question is whether I am tall enough to reach the high shelf. If I claim that I tried and failed to reach down the jam, wouldn't the fact that you never saw me anywhere near the shelf give you pause?
So far, the Obama administration has been spotted in the kitchen. But it has not been seen anywhere near the shelf.
The Monitor reports:
The Obama administration has already taken sides, expressing support for the "legitimate needs and grievances expressed by the Egyptian people," as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton puts it. It's promised - read "threatened" - a review of the $1.5 billion the US provides Egypt every year in foreign aid, most of that for military and other security programs.
Hooray! U.S. aid to Egypt is "under review." But U.S. aid to Egypt could stay "under review" for a thousand years. This was the response of the State Department to the coup in Honduras: U.S. aid was "under review," even though under U.S. law, U.S. aid should have been cut off immediately.
Here's how we will know that the Obama administration is starting to get serious, when it starts to do the following three things:
1) Making specific threats linking U.S. aid to particular outcomes, in this case, to the protection of peaceful protests.
2) Announcing the cutting or suspension of particular aid programs.
3) Canceling U.S. visas of specific Egyptian officials, for example, Egyptian officials linked to the violence.
How do we know that the U.S. could do this? We know this because in the past, these are levers that the U.S. has used when it was serious. In Honduras, belatedly, it used levers 2) and 3) in 2009. In Haiti, it used levers 1) and 3) recently, pressuring the Haitian government to adopt the recommendations of an OAS report on the disputed November election. That dubious intervention in Haiti -- the effect of that intervention was to ratify an election in which a quarter of eligible Haitian voters participated, and in which the most popular party in Haiti, that of deposed former President Aristide, was kept off the ballot -- was successful: the Haitian electoral council has now adopted the recommendations of the OAS report. Indeed, as the world was watching Egypt, Secretary of State Clinton was in Haiti, twisting the arms of Haitian officials.
I will pay $100 to any U.S. official, politician, analyst or pundit who opposes the use of these levers against the Mubarak regime, who can document that they opposed the recent use of these levers against the Haitian government.
When the Obama administration has 1) made specific threats to the Mubarak regime and the Egyptian military, linking U.S. aid to the protection of peaceful protests; 2) announced the cutting or suspension of particular aid programs; and 3) canceled the visas of Egyptian officials linked to violence, then I promise not to laugh when the Christian Science Monitor reports that the Obama administration has "few options."
You can ask U.S. officials to take action on 1) here.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/3/robert_fisk_obama_administration_has_been
I think this analysis from Prof. Chomsky, recorded a couple of days ago on DemocracyNow! is more realistic. Chomsky says Obama is following the standard US playbook for what to do when your client dictator begins to lose his grip. You support him for as long as possible, and when it becomes clear that he will be overthrown by the people, you switch sides and proclaim that you have always been on the side of the people:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/2/noam_chomsky_this_is_the_most
Then, you patiently work to undermine and subvert the new leadership, using all diplomatic and economic levers available, to bend the nation back to your will.
I totally agree that the US policy has been to support folks like Mubarak as long as possible. But "as long as possible" isn't something fixed; it's something that moves under pressure, as has been spectacularly demonstrated in the last ten days in the case of Egypt. So the question is whether you want to sit on the sidelines and merely analyze, or jump into to the fray to help make "as long as possible" not quite so long as it was before...
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called some progressives “f'ing retarded”...
WH Press Secretary Gibbs was similarly contemptuous, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian health care and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality,”
http://www.progressive.org/wx081010.html
I think it will take something on the scale of the Egyptian demonstrations, scaled up to US population and geography, to actually move any US administration. One of these days we will get there.
Even humanitarian aid should not be given to Egypt unless we can be sure that the aid goes to the people and is not hijacked by the government.
We in the US are moving ever closer to the day when our own desperation will force us into the streets. I hope when the time comes, we will show half the courage the people of Egypt are showing today.
Believe me. All US admininistrations are more attached to that treaty than any Arab public. The reason they're "catching up" in the White House is that they first have to process that there are Arab peoples and not just US alliances. They keep stumbling, because they have to adjust to this fact.
The other thing I just saw on the news is that so far anti Mubarak protesters in Cairo for example, amount to between 250,000 and perhaps $2 million. There are 8 million people living in Cairo. Is the majority (other 6 million not in the streets) also anti Mubarak? Should Obama then go with the minority or wait to see what the "majority" of the population wants? In America, it is the majority that counts. In America it is the majority that:
1. determines who becomes president
2. makes /passes laws
So what does the "majority" of the population say about Mubarak ? That is the question. Until this question is answered, Obama cannot be too aggressive about his policy to Mubarak.
It's certainly true that just because there are massive protests, that doesn't necessarily tell you what majority opinion is on Mubarak. But you don't need to know what majority opinion is to call for peaceful protesters to be protected in a country that has received billions in US military aid; you don't need to know what majority opinion is to call for free and fair elections in a country that has received billions in US military aid. We don't know what majority opinion is: that's why there should be free and fair elections.
The opposition has already stated that they will accept Suleiman in a interim capacity, so that they can work together on a schedule for so real elections - that would also include the army. What they won't accept is Suleiman as Mubarak's puppet.
Mubarak has to go. Now.
Considering that the US can tell Mubarak to participate in renditions, be a buffer for Israel and help isolate the Palestinians, in exchange for keeping him in power for 30 years, plus turning a blind eye to his despotic rule and looting of the public coffers, it can certainly tell Mubarak now that the 1.5 billion dollars AND the military gadgets will be suspended if he doesn't acquiesce to the demands of the Egyptian people.
Afraid of losing their funding, the army would probably talk him into giving in and leaving.
The question remains, however, whether President Obama has the political will to do so - I don't think he does - so, he stalls for time with flourished but vacuous words; meanwhile Mubarak is counting on this procrastination to rearrange the political chairs, get his revenge on protest leaders, dismantle the opposition and groom some acceptable face from his faction to put forward as the next "benign" dictator.
This latest charade will come back to haunt Washington once again, as their fondness for groupthink always results into some self-fulling prophecy.
Mubarak has already said he is going to resign
The question is will there be free and fair elections
Since Obama is the one funding the military, he actually has more say then pretty much anyone, including Mubarak
"On 22 October 1979, at the request of David Rockefeller, President Jimmy Carter reluctantly allowed the Shah into the United States to undergo surgical treatment...His prolonged stay in the U.S. was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement in Iran, which still resented the United States' overthrow of Prime Minister Mosaddeq and the years of support for the Shah's rule...There are claims that this resulted in the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and the kidnapping of American diplomats, military personnel and intelligence officers, which soon became known as the Iran hostage crisis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Exile_and_death
whereas most posts I've read here are useless, in that they do not actually advocate any specific policy, this one does. The United States funds the Egyptian military, a lot; you may have seen pictures of protesters holding up American made tear gas canisters for instance. By not stopping the aid, you are actively supporting the government over the protesters