Democracy in the Middle East

[praxis1966]

It's a good thing that democracy spread like a prairie fire after the invasion of Iraq, as the Bu$h administration predicted, especially to one of the U$'s closest allies in the region...


Riot police beat Cairo protesters
By Heba Saleh
BBC News, Cairo

Egyptian security forces have used force to disperse pro-reform demonstrators trying to hold a protest in a main square in central Cairo.

Opposition activists had called a demonstration to protest against President Hosni Mubarak's decision to stand for re-election.

The demonstrators were set upon by riot police wielding sticks and clubs.

Kifaya, a movement campaigning against his re-election, said 19 of its leaders had been arrested.

Link: BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4731855.stm)

[bolshevik butcher]

Its ok for egypt to be anti-democracy coz they like the U$, same with saudi, and libya.

[Intifada]

Having been to Egypt last year and spoken to a lot of the people there, these protesters are incredibly brave and have my full backing.

Mubarak is the enemy of the Egyptian people.

[InDyingLight]

It's a good thing you are complaining about how wrong the Bush administration was and not actually thinking about and offering positive advice for how to bring about a progressive, democratic revolution in the middle east . I'm sure the protesters in Egypt much appreciate your sarcasm and naysaying even more than the presence of coalition soldiers dying in the middle east for Iraqi, Afghani, and, (dare I say it) all middle easterner's liberty and justice for all .

[bolshevik butcher]

i know why dont we all start a guerilla war in our own country in these peoples support.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:08 PM
It's a good thing that democracy spread like a prairie fire after the invasion of Iraq, as the Bu$h administration predicted, especially to one of the U$'s closest allies in the region...


Riot police beat Cairo protesters
By Heba Saleh
BBC News, Cairo

Egyptian security forces have used force to disperse pro-reform demonstrators trying to hold a protest in a main square in central Cairo.

Opposition activists had called a demonstration to protest against President Hosni Mubarak's decision to stand for re-election.

The demonstrators were set upon by riot police wielding sticks and clubs.

Kifaya, a movement campaigning against his re-election, said 19 of its leaders had been arrested.

Link: BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4731855.stm)
As you say. And Washington continues sending billions a year to the Egyptian regime. And Mubarak's moves to "reform" are pretty minimal.

But that's pretty much all old news, y'know?

What's new, and kinda odd, is that Washington is applying some pressure to its client dictatorships and encouraging them to lighten up gradually....in some respects and on some kinds of opposition. (On the other hand, it's encouraging them to crack down harder on "terrorism.") In some ways, this policy change is just a nuance, since they are still aiding repressive regimes...but IMO it's worth discussing, since it's new.

They seem to have recently lost one of their client regimes over this...the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan is asking the U.S. military to get out of their base in that country. The rift apparently began with relatively mild U.S. criticism of a massacre of protestors by the Karimov regime. Uzbekistan and some other Central Asian regimes are lining up with China and Russia in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

And it risks losing others, since a repressive regime that lightens up may just allow the space for pent-up popular anger to at last find expression and overthrow it....as Karimov apparently realized.

And yet Washington persists anyway. This leads some of the Bush regime's liberal and ultraright critics to denounce its "fanatical, missionary zeal for spreading democracy"...which seems a reactionary criticism, with implied advocacy of unconditionally aiding any SOB as long as "he's our SOB," as FDR once said of Somoza.

So why this change of policy, then? What ruling-class interest does it serve?

IMO its' partly because of a realization that political repression breeds terrorism, which may strike even at U.S. territory...but I'm far from sure that's the whole explanation.