I came to a completely different conclusion to you Sunny. I have felt increasingly frustrated with Western leaders trying to weasel out of saying that Mubarak had to step down because they wanted to keep the status quo and keep their most loyal Arab ally in place. The message had to change from Clinton’s implicit support for Mubarak last week because the protesters are not going away and the Egyptian people are more emboldened to speak out. Personally, I have found that ‘our’ leaders have been slow to react to the protests not only in Egypt but also in Tunisia. Obama praised the Tunisian protesters but only after Ben Ali had stepped down. In fact, I’ve just blogged about how of out of touch I think the western leaders have shown themselves to the protest movement in the Middle East this morning

I agree Natalya. In fact- what the west have achieved here is no mean feat. The demands that Mubarak go have been neutralised by western powers, who wish for time to ensure that the next government are as malleable as Mubarak was.

The demonstrations have been neutralised while ensuring that the country know that the military aid which the US gives to Egypt, is dependent on allowing Mubarak to remain as a figurehead, with the army answerable to the West- until a transition arrangement that we feel is acceptable is complete. The army have now been clear the protests must end.

Mubarak is essentially powerless- but he was only there as a figurehead for our wishes, our economic system, our stance on Israel- and all that power is very much intact and remains where it has always been. The food prices caused by speculation, the IMF austerity measures, the stance on Israel- are all very much intact.

Smart work on the part of the US- but certainly sod all to do with democracy in Egypt or striking the right balance in allowing Egypt to be a self determining sovereign nation. Mubarak remains a figure head, the army are in charge and the army are very much answerable to the US until the next stage in this process.

In the meantime the protestors who stood out, now live in a country where they are known as protesters and the the figure they were protesting about has power to make them suffer for it over the next few months. If Egypt does become unstable because people object to their wishes again being superceded by Western desires- they will be painted as the reason.

Obamas response is now framed as the moderate response, it becomes easier to discredit egyptian people who wish Mubarak to step down and paint them as extremistsd. Regardless of the fact that

The ONLY reason that the US changed its tacit support for Mubarak was the realisation this was unlikely to succeed and that opposition to him was so widespread. And so we have a west approved transition period which allows us to decide what we want for teh country.

Egypt has enormous geo-political significance, and it was always unlikely we would let our control over Egypt go lightly= and it appears we have been very smart in ensuring it remains.

We’re increasingly hearing this line about how the US can’t be seen to interfere in Egyptian politics. I find it absolutely bizarre. What is the huge material support the tyrant Mubarak has received steadily for 30 years if it isn’t interference? Removing support for Mubarak would be to cease to interfere in Egyptian politics.

The US could have ended its support for Mubarak at any point over the last three decades, just as it (and Britain) could end their support for all the other tyrannies, torturers and police states of the Middle East. That they only now, finally, choose to tentatively back away from Mubarak, and only Mubarak, tells you everything. Obama and his White House have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this point. It has taken millions of brave Egyptians risking life and limb day in day out for a week before the US could bring itself to utter these latest weasel words. How many Saudis would have to march and die before Obama saw fit to end his support for their oppressors?

Perhaps the most offensive aspect of Washington’s behaviour, if not the objectively worst, was Obama’s praise for the demonstraters yesterday. The sheer gall of the man for affecting to bestow his moral approval on the ordinary people resisting his puppet dictator is truly a sight to behold.

Lisa, you mirror my husband’s point on the protesters. He grew up in the Middle East and his stance has been that the protesters have to continue until Mubarak goes because if they settle for half-measures then once the media spotlight has turned away, those known to the regime will be rounded up and killed.

America’s ideal outcome would be for power to shift peacefully over the next few months to Omar Suleiman. He’s an army man who has been in control of Egypt’s role in the Palestine-Israel negotiations and is respected by the Israeli team. Therefore, he’d continue Mubarak’s line in this area and make sure the Rafah crossing into Gaza remains sealed. Their second preferred candidate is Mohamad El Baradei – a man known well in the West but with little internal support. He’s also been pushed as the leader of the protest movement by the news outlets including Al-Jazeera.

I think the hardest thing for the West to fathom is that this is a grass-roots organic movement that has nothing to do with El Baradei or the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact no opposition party has led or orchestrated these protests. This was also the same in Tunisia. You see this with a lot of western commentators and pundits, they are looking to increase the role of opposition parties because they cannot comprehend that this is an uprising of Egyptians from all walks of life who are fed up of high unemployment, inflation, increasing food prices and a president who is completely unaccountable to them. This is the ‘Arab Street’ in all it’s glory and I think it’s wrong and patronising for us to start trying impose our perspectives and what we want to happen on them

4 Natalya

“they are looking to increase the role of opposition parties because they cannot comprehend that this is an uprising of Egyptians from all walks of life who are fed up of high unemployment, inflation, increasing food prices and a president who is completely unaccountable to them. This is the ‘Arab Street’ in all it’s glory and I think it’s wrong and patronising for us to start trying impose our perspectives and what we want to happen on them”

I’m sorry, but this is exactly the impression of the uprising/revolution which is being widely reported by the mainstream media I’ve been listening to. I agree that the west in general has a bad record in supporting authoritarian regimes in the Arab world and elsewhere, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the motive behind their caution right now is sinsiter, and aimed at helping deny “true democracy” to the Egyptian people.

A ringing endorsement from the West of particular opposition individuals or calls for instant elections might be seen as the kiss of death by some within Egypt. From all the reports it does sound like the US have, at least privately, told Mubarak to go now, not in September which looks increasingly likely.

We’d all like to think that the result will be a free, open and democratic Egypt, let’s just hope that whatever our past sins (of omission or commission) the west can play a positive rather than a negative role.

…that the motive behind their caution right now is sinsiter, and aimed at helping deny “true democracy” to the Egyptian people…

No, but is it unreasonable to suspect it’s motivated by, well – self-interest? After all, they’ve got a lot of interests to consider: the security of their regional ally; its position on the ol W’ on T’; its willingness to supply them wit’ materials.

By the way, anyone who’s not caught Glenn Beck’s take on this is really missing out…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH7GPPpsw6g&feature=player_embedded

6 Ben Six

“By the way, anyone who’s not caught Glenn Beck’s take on this is really missing out…”

..missing out?! Only if you are short of comedy “Janet and John” guides for Fox News junkies on how the “Bad Guys” brought about the End of the World.

I recommend it as Milliganesque surrealism, Galen, not as incisive political analysis.

Glenn Beck is the greatest living satirist. Check this out, for example:

“I’m not going to treat you like a moron, I’m going to treat you like you really do want to understand what’s going on in the world, and it’s going to take a few days…”

Genius.

He’ll own up when he retires.

Oh look- Mubarak supporters miraculously on horseback in Tahir Square ‘clashing’ with protesters. Oh and the BBC describing those who insist Mubarak must leave as hardcore. Army demanding protests must end. Who’d a thunk it? Still, instability and chaos is preferable to democracy.

We have always taken the line that stability is preferable to democracy. And instability. God forbid the Egyptian people should be able to self determine.

10 Lisa Ansell

All the reports I’ve been listening to have pointed out that this is is a non-party spontaneous uprising. They have specifically rejected the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood were really involved, never mind behind it. Further they have pointed out that the diffuse nature of the uprising has made it at once more difficult for the Mubarak regime to tackle, but also more difficult to coalesce into a unified movement to help topple the odious current regime.

The army seems (thus far) to be acting responsibly, and has effectively thrown Mubarak and his regime to the wolves by saying they won’t allow themselves to be used to “do a Tienanmin Square”.

As for the description of those wanting Mubarak to leave immediately as “hardcore”, it seems to me that’s been used more in opposition to those who are prepared to see him stay, of which there were a few interviewed on the Cairo streets on the radio earlier today. How representative that is of the general population is impossible to say.

Yeah, so have I. Have also seen massively loaded language on the BBC reflecting exactly what has been said on Egyptian state television. Continuos massive underestimation of numbers in Tahir Square, loaded language about extremists- entire segments devoted to ‘discussing’ threat of Islamists. In fact- BBC coverage has been very illuminating. Especially when juxtaposed against other coverage.

And the army have not thrown Mubarak to the wolves. Quite frankly that interpretation is ludicrous.

13 Lisa Ansell

You may find it ludicrous, but that doesn’t make your assesment more valid than mine.

I’d wager that Mubarak didn’t exactly jump for joy when told that he couldn’t rely on them to go in and massacre the demonstrators. Given his own history, and the role of the army in previous coups d’etat, Mubarak’s decision to announce he will stand down must have been heavily influenced by that.

God forbid the Egyptian people should be able to self determine.

What happens in countries where a powerful dictator is deposed is not often pretty.

Be careful what you wish for……………

12 Lisa Ansell

Funny that, I heard them specifically say that Egyptian television was state controlled, and that a free media was one of the things the demonstrators were calling for. I think most people listening to it would be able to figure out for themselves that the Egyptian media isn’t impartial.

You must have been listening to a different set of channels, because I haven’t heard any real complaints about the numbers of demonstrators being under-estimated, or felt they were playing up fears of extremism or the threat of Islamism; if anything I’d say they pitched their coverage about right. It certainly didn’t seem any different from that on other mainstream channels I watched.

Natalya , I have found that ‘our’ leaders have been slow to react to the protests not only in Egypt but also in Tunisia.

Sure, but that’s because no one was aware of what was going on on the ground. These protests have come out of nowhere – are you seriously suggesting anyone could have predicted their growth or their outcome?

What is the huge material support the tyrant Mubarak has received steadily for 30 years if it isn’t interference? Removing support for Mubarak would be to cease to interfere in Egyptian politics.

Which – if you read above – is exactly what the Obama administration has done.

Which – if you read above – is exactly what the Obama administration has done.

The question, though, is why. After all, Mubarak was very much a part of the U.S.’s schemes…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/wikileaks-cairo-cables-egypt-president

Which – if you’d read above – I’d acknowledged. I’ll repeat: they have finally backed off from Mubarak, after three decades of torture and repression, because hundreds of thousands of ordinary Egyptians gave them no other choice.

However, the “huge material support” I referred to remains in place, as things stand. Egypt continues to be the recipient of $1.3bn in annual military aid from Obama’s White House. That military is this afternoon standing by while Mubarak’s thugs attack the pro-democracy demonstrators.

The West’s substantive position has remained constant throughout. The regime should reform to the minimum extent necessary in order to survive. The jettisoning of Mubarak should be understood in that context.

Broadly agree with David, Lisa and Natalya although I would like to pick up on a element not hitherto picked up on from the NYT snippet along with some further general comments.

“They took a little while to catch up, but by Sunday morning they understood that it was over, and since then, they’ve understood how to make it happen,” said Martin S. Indyk, the director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.

Possibly off point but I would tread very carefully before taking anything Martin Indyk has to say seriously. He is a rabid Zionist who has previously been accused of mishandling classified material (for which his security clearance was eventually removed). Indeed- given the reported widespread passing of confidential documents by AIPAC to the Israeli government, his opinion is quite frankly deeply biased and loaded with agenda.

My point is this- a citation from an arch Zionist does nothing to support your central argument that the United States are attempting not to interfere. Wheeling out Indyk, a fully-paid-up-card-carrying-member of the Zionist lobby insults our intelligence and is highly objectionable.

Secondly, as noted by others; the US are Egypt’s greatest financier, indeed the only country to receive more aid is Israel. I am sure I don’t need to point out that this aid is given primarily to ensure that the Egyptian regime keep the Palestinians under the heel of Israels’ jackboot. Be that sending security forces to storm aid workers seeking to aid into Rafah, building an iron wall along the border with Gaza to prevent the Palestinians getting much needed aid via the tunnels; or as revealed by the Palestine Papers- secretly co-operating with Israel when they choose to launch one of their patented kill-crazy-rampages and slaughter thousands of unarmed civilians with conventional and chemical weapons.

Since 1975 the United States have been in a position to change things. Unsurprisingly they haven’t. They instead chose to collude with the Egyptian regime to further Israeli interests. Israeli interests supercede both the interests and the entrenched human right of self determination of everyone else in the region- strategic imperialist control via their Israeli proxy. It is either deeply naive or deeply stupid to posit otherwise.

It should be blindingly obvious by the content of Mubaraks speech yesterday that the US imperialists were the ones pulling the strings. Indeed- they have played a blinder here. Statements from Washington that ensure they appear to be not interfering when they are actually colluding with the regime to crush the proletariat uprising are both laughable and insulting. Mubaraks defiant tone interwoven with lip service to ‘democracy’ had Washington’s name written all over it. The regime is to be maintained, the uprising crushed and come September they will have groomed another puppet to continue US hegemony in the region.

Make no mistake, the paid pro-Mubarak thugs who initiated the sickening bloodbath we observed today in Egypt were acting upon a blueprint to maintain the status quo and preserve US/Israeli interests.

Excellent piece from Noam Chomsky on subject. http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/2/2/part_2_noam_chomsky_this_is_the_most_remarkable_regional_uprising_that_i_can_remember

”Which – if you read above – is exactly what the Obama administration has done”- No he hasn’t actually. Not at all. He has however played a very skilled diplomatic game which ensures that Mubarak is superceded by army and his own representatives, and can dissapear quickly-while US maintains control over Egypts destiny.

Is not exactly new strategy!Lol
.

Sunny, of course no one could predict what these protests. Those of us who have studied the Middle East extensively and follow events closely didn’t imagine this would happen but Obama didn’t praise the Tunisian protesters until Ben Ali left his position 3 weeks after the protests started. He then praised their courage again in his SOTU address. If you are going to praise the Tunisian protesters and you believe what they have done is brave then why wait 3 weeks and until your friendly dictator has been overthrown. It stinks of having to make the best of a situation you didn’t want. And Tunisia is the best of America’s dictators to go – Tunisia is small and far from the centre of Middle East power. Obama and the European leaders are scrambling to catch up on a daily basis. The appointment of Suleiman to VP was their attempt to stop the protests with half-hearted reforms and to keep the ‘stability’ they so desperately want. Don’t be sucked in to believing western soundbites on the Middle East. As the release of the Palestine Papers have shown, they say one thing to the media and want a very different thing behind closed doors. That’s why you struggle to find any Arab who listens to Obama (either now or his speech in Cairo after his election) and get excited. They are tired of hearing American promises and being betrayed over and over again. The 80m people of Egypt have always been sacrificed for the feelings of safety of 6m Israelis

Natalya I am not sure Sunny understands that the revolution against Mubarak is in fact, a revolution against the West’s control of Egypt- and I don’t think he knows who Suleiman is, or his relevance to the US agenda in Egypt. Although Sunny now finds the ‘media narrative of interviewing pro-Mubarak protestors ‘interesting”(lol)- and understands the army are in fact ostensibly holding authority in Egypt till the US have decided what to do.

http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/obama-to-suleiman-get-rid-of
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/20112220474650549.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/world/middleeast/30diplo.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/world/middleeast/30diplo.html?_r=1&hp

AMY GOODMAN: If you were president today, what would you do right now, president of the United States?

NOAM CHOMSKY:
I’d probably do what Obama’s doing.

@25

The full chomsky quote is this:

“Well, if I were—if I had made it to the presidency, meaning with the kind of constituency and support that’s required to be a president in the United States, I’d probably do what Obama’s doing. But what ought to be done is what Erdogan is doing. Turkey is becoming the most significant country in the region, and it’s recognized. Erdogan is far and away the most popular figure. And they’ve taken a pretty constructive role on many issues. And in this case, he is the one leading public figure, leader, who has been frank, outspoken, clear, and says Mubarak must go now. Now is when we must have change. That’s the right stand. Nothing like that in Europe, and nothing like that here.”

Out of context quote to say the least.