Turmoil in Egypt

[Leo Lazauskas]

If Egypt wants to charge a higher fair price evenly charged to vessels under all lawful flags for right of passage through its sovereign waters, I cannot object.

I would hope Egypt could charge less for the ships from "favoured" nations,
perhaps in recognition of foreign aid, or for other reasons.

 

[PAR]

In this country there are over 2,500 recognized religions. Cow Patties Church of God, Voodoo and all the rest. I think there are multiple Star Trek sects too.

The validity and righteousness of each, can be questioned on a personal level (especially the Baptists), but on a philosophical level, the honest answer must be (no matter how distasteful) to let them have their belief system. In a previous post of mine, I mentioned that secular societies can't survive, which was pointed out by a wise member. A typo, because my brain is faster, then my fingers. Non-secular societies can't survive. Some have had periods of success, but always at the cost of just about everything else, particularly personal freedoms.

An iron fist approach, which Egypt is well accustomed with, does work for a while, but eventually people get pissed enough to kill off the leadership. Modern communications has gone a long way toward leveling the playing field in this regard. When sequestered societies find out what's available (and for how much) in a Wal-Mart advertisement (for example), in spite of site blocks from their government, they get pissy, insisting on the same. How many in China are committing treason by working around the blocks, just to see the dancing cats video on YouTube, for example. This only works for so long and China has been watering down "controls", but not at a rate that will work in the long term. Eventually, they'll have no choice except to play nice, so they can sit at the grown ups table, come diner time.

Even when Egypt's military was supplied by the USSR, they made their own decisions, usually in favor of western desires. Egypt has been nearly singularly unique in this regard within the region, proving they can and have risen above the shoulder to shoulder stance, most of the other nations in the area posture into. Again, this is why we have worked hard to rebuild relationships with them, in spite of incidents and political difficulties. Americans are fond of those that don't fall in line, but rather stand up and fight for what's right. This rebellious nature is bred into Americans, but lots of other countries have this genetic disposition, like the Australians for example.

Lastly, the amount of money sent to Egypt is a pittance, frankly and not even worth discussing, if you look at the big picture. In fact, several times more money is sent by the private sector in the US to Egypt, than any amount the US government has offered. Most folks don't understand the reasons we supply countries monetary assistance. Egypt could easily live without the miniscule sums we provide, but we'd loose much more. To equate this "donations" to just sending funds, if quite naive of the way international relations work. We even give money to those countries we don't like - imagine that. In fact, if you total up the amount we give to every country and take this as a percentage of GDP, in the hope you can feed it back into the US economy, then you're going to be very surprised as to the small fraction you actually save, if you don't provide these funds to those countries. Look folks, the 30+ billion we supplied to all countries last year (not counting the wars), just isn't enough to do much. Hell Bill Gates would still be absurdly fat rich, after loosing 30 billion.

Egypt has a long history of "sorting out crap" and they'll do so again. I may not live long enough to see a truly settled and democratic Egypt, but I'm very sure it'll be well into the works by the time I'm ready to go.

 

[hoytedow]

Please take note of the fact I said the economy couldn't afford sending tax money. I made no effort to urge the placement of restrictions on the sending of private money by voluntary donors who could afford it.

 

[PAR]

I know what you meant and I wasn't trying to offend you Hoyt. It's just that 30 billion is an insignificant amount of money in the grand picture of a 16 trillion US economy. Simply put, withdrawing the funds scattered around the globe, will actually decrease revenues to the USA and place us in a untenable position politically.

Simply put, most of the money we provide isn't actually going to a county, so much as a program:

Foreign operations funding:

21.2 billion - Bilateral Economic Assistance
8.1 billion - Military/Security Assistance
2.3 billion - Multilateral Assistance
1.5 billion - the administration of USAid
--------------
33.1 billion

Now international aid and humanitarian assistance broken down:

7.8 billion - Global health and child survival
5.3 billion - Foreign military financing
2.5 billion - Development assistance
1.6 billion - Migration & refugee assistance
1.5 billion - International narcotics control & law enforcement
1.2 billion - World Bank international development association
898 million - Millennium Challenge Corporation
860 million - International disaster & famine assistance
740 million - Nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining
350million - International organizations & programs
304 million - Peacekeeping operations
180 million - International clean technology fund
100 million - Global food security fund
90 million - World Bank global environmental facility
50 million - Emergency migration & refugee assistance
50 million - Strategic climate fund
30 million - International fund for agricultural development

So which of these programs would you think a wise idea to cut?

As far as the countries, well Israel gets the most, a mere 2.4 billion, which is a pittance. Egypt is second on the list and gets 1.7 billion. All the remaining 148 countries on the list, get less then a billion each, so again the amounts given to these countries is very small and we can afford it. The value of these donations can't be counted in dollars, but you might try saved lives, children fed, schools built, etc. Yes, this country has issues too, but the impact this 33 billion would make here, is just going to get eaten up in 5 star dinners and golf resort trips for the politicians that appropriate these funds, while feeding a bunch of kids that wouldn't other wise get anything, is a noble purpose to stand up to and to most that have addressed these appropriations, worthwhile.

 

[Mr Efficiency]

I hope they can rewrite the constitution to ban parties affiliated with religous organizations if the people would support that. Without such a ban I'm afraid
there won't ever be democracy in Egypt of, by and for all the people.
I wish the people good luck-and Vulkyn keep safe!

Errrrr......who are "they" ? If the people want a religious affiliated party in power, that is democracy, I see very little justification for this week's coup d'état unless the govt acted illegally or unconstitutionally. I am sure any number of democratically elected governments anywhere would have been shown the door after an unpopular first year, if a song and dance in the street could have done the trick.

 

[troy2000]

I wondered how long it would take you to ring that lead bell.
With the condition of our economy, all tax money spent for foreign aid is unjustified and should cease. Feed your own chicks before feeding the ones on your neighbor's land.

Foreign aid is cheaper than armies, if we want other governments to listen to us now and then.

 

[hoytedow]

If foreign aid did the job as you imply, why are we still under attack? Funding for our army, navy and other branches of our service is money well spent, whereas funding for foreign aid, especially to self aggrandizing dictators, is tantamount to flushing our wealth down the toilet.

 

[wardd]

with hoyte it's a matter of faith and needs no explanation

his mind isn't going to change

 

[PAR]

Agreed, it seems on the surface this way, but it's actually more beneficial to spend this money, then not Hoyt. Again, it's a pittance, a drop in the bucket and it does so much good. The 8 billion we spend on military assistance means our boys don't have to stand up for someone else's problem. Simply put, if we dropped this program, we'd have US troops there, instead of paying for some one else to place them. The biggest chunk of funding goes to economic assistance. Now of course this requires you have a strong understanding of how economics work (I've met very few people that do), but in a nut shell we get about 2:1 return for this assistance, which is a pretty damn good investment.

Mr Efficiency, yes the Morsi government has stepped over the line. Again, it's important to pay attention to world affairs, so you can maintain a grasp on what going on. Morsi all but declared the Egyptian constitution null and void, pretty much suggesting marshal law was in place. He eventually recalled this "proclamation", but the damage had been done. The effect on the judicial system and his "decrees" had no over sight and this started his down fall. Basically, he was elected democratically, then declared himself above the law, disbanded the judicial system and voided the constitution, so maybe he crossed the line Mr. Efficiency?

 

[thudpucker]

Spending the money without demanding some responsibility from the receiving hands is Welfare of a sort we do here in America.
In India's case, we should have spent the money on the Military. As the Military seems to be the only solid "India" government agency.
Everybody else just wants the money for their own party directions.

 

[Mr Efficiency]

Agreed, it seems on the surface this way, but it's actually more beneficial to spend this money, then not Hoyt. Again, it's a pittance, a drop in the bucket and it does so much good. The 8 billion we spend on military assistance means our boys don't have to stand up for someone else's problem. Simply put, if we dropped this program, we'd have US troops there, instead of paying for some one else to place them. The biggest chunk of funding goes to economic assistance. Now of course this requires you have a strong understanding of how economics work (I've met very few people that do), but in a nut shell we get about 2:1 return for this assistance, which is a pretty damn good investment.

Mr Efficiency, yes the Morsi government has stepped over the line. Again, it's important to pay attention to world affairs, so you can maintain a grasp on what going on. Morsi all but declared the Egyptian constitution null and void, pretty much suggesting marshal law was in place. He eventually recalled this "proclamation", but the damage had been done. The effect on the judicial system and his "decrees" had no over sight and this started his down fall. Basically, he was elected democratically, then declared himself above the law, disbanded the judicial system and voided the constitution, so maybe he crossed the line Mr. Efficiency?

You are right, I don't follow closely Egyptian politics, but if what you say is right, why did the military not step in earlier, or was he technically not in breach of the constitution ?

 

[PAR]

That's a very complicated question, but mostly the Egyptian military has been living under a particularly bright light in recent years, so they've tried to act conservatively and let the political process, deal with the issues facing the government. This is quite understandable, given the 30+ years of military control under Mubarak and Sadat. When Morsi all but made himself a god, tensions rose and to most, the hand writing was on the wall, considering what else he'd been up to. As I mentioned previously, Morsi didn't address economic or moral issues, but instead made sure he was not only in power, but complete power and consolidated the Brotherhood's control over the parliament and leverage over the judicial system. Lastly, it's not the role of the military to overthrow the government, everytime they get pissed at the politicians (which would be weekly in this country).

In a nut shell, Morsi said he would lead his country to democracy, but instead, quickly consolidated a power grab and established a dictatorship. There really wasn't a good path to his removal, politically, so . . .

. . . Spending the money without demanding some responsibility from the receiving hands is Welfare of a sort we do here in America . . .

This is forcing some sort of compliance or morality on those that may not have the same as us. Countless times in the past, we've done this, usually with disastrous results. In the end, you have to trust those in charge, as we can't bottle feed them.

. . . In India's case, we should have spent the money on the Military. As the Military seems to be the only solid "India" government agency.
Everybody else just wants the money for their own party directions . . .

We have provided funds for the Indian military. Again, you might want to look at the approbation programs list above. What do we cut? Maybe we could let the kids starve, because the local government is corrupt. If this was the case, why do we continue to fund Alabama? Possibly we could discontinue refugee assistance or peacekeeping operations, maybe we could cut nonproliferation efforts or possibly close the global food security fund? Really, for what end? Don't use the tired argument that we could build roads and bridges, because we have the funds for this, but congress can't get off the stalemated asses to appropriate them.

It's hard to believe, but this disconnect with the needs of not only the world, but our place as the only real super power, has me grateful that rational and thoughtful (political!) heads have come up with these programs and not the majority of this particular board. Everyone seems to think we're giving away the store, when in fact it's literally pocket change. Hell, we even pay North Korea and I'll bet you can't imagine why. Sweet God, I'm actually thankful politicians have crossed this line, instead of what I've seen here.

 

[Vulkyn]

Errrrr......who are "they" ? If the people want a religious affiliated party in power, that is democracy, I see very little justification for this week's coup d'état unless the govt acted illegally or unconstitutionally. I am sure any number of democratically elected governments anywhere would have been shown the door after an unpopular first year, if a song and dance in the street could have done the trick.

Morsi has about failed every task he was involved in. He lost respect in Germany (Total fail .... just watch the video, in fact just watch one speech and you will understand how poorly suited he was as a president).

He alienated almost every one from the constitution to create one in favour of MB ideology. He failed to respond to various requests by every one including the army to involve the other political party demands. In other words he was carving a dictatorship under democratic banner.

To have 20-30 Million + go out in the street out of a population of 90 Million (with a large percentage of minors) means a lot. What the army did was respond to a democratic request that should have been translated to early elections. His stubbornness and the MB has led to this situation.

The violence erupting is enough to show why the army stepped in, had they gained more power things would turn a lot worse than Mubark, at least he was not using religion as a political tool.

He won by 51% only, out of which almost 50% had voted for him because the other candidate was affiliated with the old regime. Other islamic parties also voted for him (and they also withdrew their support a couple of months ago) The total votes i think was a just 13 Million. So in all the MB supporters would be in the region of 2-3 maximum hardly a majority in any case.

 

[Mr Efficiency]

The international reaction is mixed. Assad is an enthusiastic supporter of the coup, which may be an embarrassment to some. Reminds me that Syria and Egypt were once a political unit ( United Arab Republic)

 

[PAR]

Assad is happy, because Morsi called him for what he is, then stopped diplomatic relations, recalled diplomats and closed embassies. This is mostly because of the non-secular makeup of the the ruling power in Syria, which really has become little more than a puppet for radical aspects of the Islamic portions of the Shea. Even though Syria is mostly Sunnis (80%+), the basic problem is it's really a bit of a proxy war over the Shiites/Sunnis abyss and Assad knows where his money and snipers come from, so the Sunnis get screwed. Egypt is about 90% Sunnis, while Iran is about 90% Shia, so it's obvious which side Morsi was going to fall on. The Sunnis/Shea divide has gone on for centuries. The vast majority of the Muslim world is Sunnis, but about 12% is Shea (mostly in Iran).

To go into it further, you'd have to do some study on the evolution of Islam, but it really is a centuries old argument, over how authority was passed from Muhammad to his successors. This had lead to different leaders and subtle belief differences, but it's mostly pretty silly, unless you understand the history. I'm sure Vulken could do a better job of explaining things than I.