www.airpower.at
 FAQFAQ    SuchenSuchen    MitgliederlisteMitgliederliste    BenutzergruppenBenutzergruppen 
 RegistrierenRegistrieren
       ProfilProfil    Einloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesenEinloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesen    LoginLogin 

Dieses Thema ist gesperrt, du kannst keine Beiträge editieren oder beantworten.
Seite 1 von 8       Gehe zu Seite 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Weiter
Autor Nachricht
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: So Jan 30, 2011 10:20:38 
Titel: "Mauerfall" in der arabischen Welt...
Antworten mit Zitat

ist einen eigenen Dauerthread wert, meiner Meinung nach..

wird jede Menge gescheiter oder auch ungescheiter Kommentare geben..

Ich möchte den Thread gerne anfangen mit ganz persönlichen Eindrücken des ORF, "Die Presse" ( etc.etc.) Kommentators Karim El-Gawhary, ein gebürtiger Ägypter, der immer sehr redlich und genau berichtet aus der arabischen Welt und dem Nahen - und Mittleren Osten generell..

wie gesagt es werden sicher noch jede Menge sehr detaillierter Analysen folgen, aber für mich trifft dieser Bericht mal den Kern der Sache..( Ausgang wie immer bei solchen Umwälzungen ungewiss..)

Zitat:


Willkommen in der neuen arabischen Welt
28.01.2011 | 17:38 | KARIM EL-GAWHARY (Die Presse)
Schneller, als ich je zu träumen gewagt hätte, machten sich die Ägypter das tunesische Beispiel zu eigen.


Vor zehn Tagen stand ich auf dem Flughafen Tunis an der Passkontrolle. Der Beamte blätterte nicht wie üblich grimmig in meinem Pass, stattdessen drängte es ihn, mit den wenigen Ankommenden zu reden: „Was hältst du von unserer Revolution?“, fragte er. Als ich ihm zulächelte und sagte, dass wir hofften, in Ägypten demnächst etwas Ähnliches zu beginnen, brachen bei dem Beamten alle Dämme. Er hielt einen langen Vortrag, wie stolz er auf die Tunesier sei, und verabschiedete mich mit einem fröhlichen „Viel Spaß bei der Arbeit, und pass auf dich auf!“. „Willkommen in der neuen arabischen Welt“, dachte ich mir. Noch vor zwei Tagen war der gleiche Grenzbeamte ein Teil des Apparats von Diktator Ben Ali und hätte jedem Journalisten den Einlass verwehrt.


Nun, keine zwei Wochen später, bin ich zurück in Kairo. Während ich diese Zeilen schreibe, ist Ägypten fast vom Rest der Welt abgeschnitten. Das Internet ist gekappt, die Handynetze sind unterbrochen. Was ich dem Grenzbeamten gesagt habe, ist schneller Wirklichkeit geworden, als ich zu träumen gewagt habe: Auf Ägyptens Straßen tobt die Revolte gegen das Mubarak-Regime. Zwei Jahrzehnte arbeite ich in der Region schon als Korrespondent. Die Lieblingsgeschichten der Redaktionen handelten von al-Qaida und Islamisten. Aber wer spricht dieser Tage noch von al-Qaida? Selbst Osama Bin Laden und Ayman al-Zawahiri, die sonst gerne mit bizarren Videobotschaften Ereignisse in der arabischen Welt kommentieren, hat es offenbar die Sprache verschlagen.


In Ägypten begann das Jahr mit einem schlimmen Attentat auf eine koptische Kirche in Alexandria. Der Anruf ereilte mich, als ich auf dem Heimweg von der Silvesterfeier war. Dieses Jahr kann ja heiter werden, dachte ich und hatte nicht die leiseste Ahnung, wie es im arabischen Drehbuch tatsächlich weitergehen würde. Hätte mir jemand erzählt, dass das Mubarak-Regime kurz vor dem Sturz steht und Ben Ali wie ein Dieb bei Nacht aus Tunis flieht, ich hätte ihn wohl ausgelacht. Das ist keinen Monat her.

Vor den Demos am Freitag wurden per SMS lange Listen verschickt, von welchen Moscheen die Proteste losgehen sollten. Auf der Liste standen auch zahlreiche Kirchen. Die Menschen marschieren vereint gegen das verhasste Regime. Diese Atmosphäre war schon ein wenig bei den Protesten nach dem Attentat in Alexandria spürbar, als junge Christen, die auf die Straße gingen, oft von muslimischen Jugendlichen begleitet wurden. Sie hatten schon damals gemeinsam ihren Ärger gegen das Regime gerichtet und ihm vorgeworfen, zwecks Machterhalt einen muslimisch-christlichen Dissens zu schüren. Damals, als die Jugendlichen mit Plakaten, die Halbmond und Kreuz zeigten, „Nieder mit Mubarak!“ riefen, hätte man vielleicht ahnen können, was nur drei Wochen später geschehen würde.

Im Moment wird die politische Landschaft in der arabischen Welt völlig umgepflügt, und keiner weiß, welche neuen Pflanzen aus dem Boden sprießen werden. Sie werden sich aber sicherlich nicht mit den alten politischen Kategorien fassen lassen. Die Ereignisse rasen, die Köpfe haben Mühe zu folgen. „Unsere Jugendlichen rennen zehn Schritte voraus, und weder die Politik noch wir Journalisten kommen hinterher“, erklärte mir in Tunis der Chefredakteur einer Tageszeitung. Wie recht er hat.

("Die Presse", Print-Ausgabe, 29.01.2011)


http://diepresse.com/home/politik/aussenpolitik/629358/Willkommen-in-der-neuen-arabischen-Welt?_vl_backlink=/home/politik/aussenpolitik/628162/index.do&direct=628162
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Prometheus
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 21.09.2006
Beiträge: 3779

BeitragVerfasst am: So Jan 30, 2011 14:06:16 
Titel:
Antworten mit Zitat

vorsichtiger optimismus aber hauptsächlich der gedanke, dass nur ein tyrann durch einen anderen ersätzt wird...
_________________
"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
Captain Nathan Hale, Continental Army

"you cannot be neutral between democrat and dictator, you can't be neutral between right and wrong."
Mary Harney
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Orlando
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 28.07.2004
Beiträge: 295
Wohnort: Steiermark

BeitragVerfasst am: So Jan 30, 2011 14:36:37 
Titel:
Antworten mit Zitat

Leider irrt auch er sich manchmal in seinen Einschätzungen. Vor einigen Tagen meinte er sinngemäß in einem Radiobeitrag: "Sobald in Kairo der erste Panzer auf die Straße rollt ist Moubarak weg".
So einfach wirds wohl nicht da sich auch das an sich respektierte Militär schwer tut mit der Meinungsfindung. Hoffe das sich die gemäßigten Kräfte durchsetzen,vor allem auch wg. der wichtigen Einnahmequelle Tourismus. Mit einer Moslem-Bruderschaft am Ruder wird's wohl mühsamer mit zwanglosem AI am Roten Meer. Confused
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: So Jan 30, 2011 20:34:53 
Titel: Hamed Abdel-Samad
Antworten mit Zitat

schildert in diesem Bericht seine sehr persönlichen Eindrücke aus Kairo. Er war vor Ort dabei.

Aus dem Bericht kommt auch recht klar heraus, dass die Armee bei der Bevölkerung sehr gute Karten hat, während Polizei und andere Sicherheitskräfte vollkommen diskreditiert sind.

http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/hamed/
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Frank
Gast





BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2011 01:13:49 
Titel: OK, viper; you ask for it!
Antworten mit Zitat

- wer hat das groesste interesse an unruhen in dieser region?

- wer macht die grossen gewinne
(politisch, militaer hilfe, direkt zahlung) von diesen unruhen?

-wer hat interesse and hohem oel preis?

-wer macht gewinne an kriegen?

der (angezettelte unruhe) schuss kann nach hinten losgehen sollte die Islamic Brotherhood in Aegypten ans ruder kommen.
Nach oben
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2011 07:49:30 
Titel: das ist die grosse Frage
Antworten mit Zitat

nicht nur in Ägypten..

was machen die Muslimbrüder??

hier aus einem Interview mit dem oben erwähnten Hamed Abdel-Samad in der FAZ..

Zitat:


......


Ist die jetzige Bewegung in Teilen auch fundamentalistisch begründet?

Nein, im Gegenteil. Mubaraks Behauptung, die einzige Alternative sei ein islamistischer Staat, ist eine faule Ausrede. Ich befand mich mitten in der Demonstration, als ein Anhänger der Muslim-Bruderschaft religiöse Parolen zu rufen begann. Die Umstehenden haben ihn zum Schweigen gebracht und zu ihm gesagt: Keine islamischen Rufe! Hier demonstriert das ägyptische Volk und nicht eine islamische Sekte. Auch daran sieht man, dass eine neue Generation herangewachsen ist, die nicht den Islamisten zuzurechnen ist. Es ist eine Generation, die anders leben will, frei. Der Westen sollte das honorieren und seine Stabilität jetzt nicht auf Kosten der Freiheit des ägyptischen Volks durchsetzen wollen.
....


http://www.faz.net/s/Rub87AD10DD0AE246EF840F23C9CBCBED2C/Doc~EB7A2381F6BFC446CA81D7329EAB21991~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Lord Helmchen
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 24.07.2004
Beiträge: 1825
Wohnort: Dornbirn, Vlbg., Österreich, Europa, Dreckskugel

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2011 17:51:42 
Titel:
Antworten mit Zitat

Ich hab mit diesem "Lauffeuer" so meine Probleme.......
Als jetzt im Fall von Ägypten, was hat das mit "Revolution" oder so zu tun?? Das ist simple Anarchie unter dem Deckmantel des Aufstandes.......nix weiter! net umsonst hält das Militär still!
mMn........

Gut ich lass mich gern(??) eines besseren belehren, aber so sehe ich das. Das der Mubarak ein Despot ist, ist zwar nix neues, aber unter (represiver) Diktatur verstehe ich was anderes. Also sooooo mies ist's in Ägypten bei weitem nicht.....

Welche Auswirkungen dieses Lauffeuer, auf Länder wie Iran, Lybien und Konsorten hat, DAS ist das wirklich Interessante an der Sache...zumale es ja anscheinen NICHT "gesteuert" ist.
Es könnte trotzdem eine hässliche Eigendynamik entwickeln.......
_________________
"I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off!"
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2011 18:13:58 
Titel: Keine Frage...
Antworten mit Zitat

Lord hat geschrieben:

Zitat:
Es könnte trotzdem eine hässliche Eigendynamik entwickeln.......


glaub ich auch, das ist alles noch nicht gegessen..

interessanterweise gibt es bei uns in einem "Provinzmedium" den Salzburger Nachrichten, die ja an und für sich recht gut sind, sehr gute Kommentare und Analysen zum Thema ( weit besser als Presse & Standard)..

Hier ein meiner Meinung nach recht zutreffender Kommentar, was die USA betrifft, obwohl ich fürchte dass die aussenpolitischen Greenhorns der Obamaadmin. das ganz schön vergurken werden..:

Zitat:



Barack Obama zwischen Pest und Cholera

Von Thomas Spang am 30. Jan 2011 um 19:15 in Aktuell, Außenpolitik

Die USA müssen den Protest in Ägypten stützen - schon allein, um die Islamisten in Schach zu halten.

Amerikas Präsident Barack Obama steht in Ägypten vor der Wahl zwischen Pest und Cholera. Moralisch müsste sich seine Regierung ohne Einschränkungen auf die Seite des Volkes schlagen, das sich gegen einen Diktator auflehnt, der Ägypten seit drei Jahrzehnten mit eiserner Faust regiert.

Aus geostrategischer Perspektive kann Washington umgekehrt nicht das geringste Interesse an einer Destabilisierung der größten arabischen Nation haben. Hosni Mubarak hat diese Stabilität in einer insgesamt labilen Region bisher garantiert.

Realpolitisch geht es für das Weiße Haus darum, einen Weg zu finden, der die Glaubwürdigkeit des eigenen Anspruchs mit den legitimen Sicherheitsinteressen der Region abgleicht. Diese Ausgangslage bereitet Obama Schwierigkeiten, den richtigen Ton zu finden. So entsteht der Eindruck, die US-Regierung hinke den Entwicklungen hinterher.

Eine nüchterne Analyse der Ereignisse in Kairo lässt keinen Zweifel, dass die Zukunft Ägyptens nur ohne den angeschlagenen Mubarak vorstellbar ist. Alles andere würde den Ruf des Volkes nach Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung ignorieren.

Das Weiße Haus wird deshalb nicht daran vorbeikommen, seine Zurückhaltung aufzugeben. Andernfalls könnte jeder noch verbliebene Einfluss endgültig verloren gehen. Obama muss dem alten Verbündeten unmissverständlich den Weg zur Tür weisen. US-Diplomaten könnten helfen, einen Übergangsplan zu entwickeln, der die Energie der Straße kanalisiert. Die für den Herbst angesetzten Scheinwahlen könnten zu freien, gleichen und fairen Wahlen unter internationaler Aufsicht aufgewertet werden.

Wenn die USA dem weiteren Geschehen tatenlos zusehen, riskieren sie, dass sich extremistische Kräfte an die Spitze der Revolution setzen. Da Mubarak das Entstehen einer moderaten, säkularen Opposition in Ägypten unterdrückt hat, scheinen die Anhänger der islamistischen Muslimbruderschaft die einzigen zu sein, die gut genug für einen Aufstieg zur Regierungsmacht organisiert sind.

Dies wäre in mehrfacher Hinsicht eine Katastrophe. Die Islamisten haben weder eine Demokratie noch Menschen- und Bürgerrechte im Sinn. Sie drohen, den Frieden mit Israel aufzukündigen und sich mit dem Gottesstaat Iran zu verbünden. Obama muss den verbliebenen Einfluss der USA offensiv nutzen und Führung zu zeigen, um in Ägypten nicht mit Pest u n d Cholera zu enden.


http://mein.salzburg.com/blog/standpunkt/2011/01/barack-obama-zwischen-pest-und.html

es gibt auch noch eine hervorragende Analyse in den SN von Gil Yaaron dem Nahostkorrespondeten der SN, aber leider kann ich es online nicht finden, die SN haben leider ne grottenschlechte web-site, unübersichtlich, und finden tut man auch nix..
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2011 20:24:41 
Titel: persönlich mein ich,
Antworten mit Zitat

dass alle Anzeichen, zumindest derzeit, darauf hindeuten, dass die ägyptische Armee hier eine sehr wichtige Rolle hat, die auch von der überwiegenden Mehrheit der Bevölkerung eher positiv gesehen wird..

es mag wohl sein, dass wir in Ägypten jetzt eine Revolution miterleben, die hoffentlich nicht von den Islamisten gekappert wird, wie damals im Iran, sondern, wo die Armee eine Übergangsregierung, wie auch immer die sich zusammensetzen wird, unterstützen wird, und dann einen friedlichen Übergang in ein neues demokratischeres Zeitalter in Ägypten einläuten hilft..

die Chance besteht zumindest..

man wird sehen..
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2011 20:41:51 
Titel: kleiner "Sidestep" nach Damaskus..
Antworten mit Zitat

scheint, dem jungen Assad geht auch langsam die Muffn..

Zitat:


Syria Strongman: Time for 'Reform'

By JAY SOLOMON And BILL SPINDLE

DAMASCUS—Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who inherited a regime that has held power for four decades, said he will push for more political reforms in his country, in a sign of how Egypt's violent revolt is forcing leaders across the region to rethink their approaches.

Carole Al Farah for the Wall Street Journal
Syria's President Assad told The Wall Street Journal that Middle East revolts show a need for change in the region, but his nation is 'stable.'

In a rare interview, Mr. Assad told The Wall Street Journal that the protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen are ushering in a "new era" in the Middle East, and that Arab rulers would need to do more to accommodate their people's rising political and economic aspirations.

"If you didn't see the need of reform before what happened in Egypt and Tunisia, it's too late to do any reform," Mr. Assad said in Damascus, as Egyptian protesters swarmed the streets of Cairo pressing for the resignation of longtime President Hosni Mubarak.

The Syrian strongman, who succeeded his father, has always kept a tight leash on his country and tolerated little protest. His regime has also maintained a close partnership with Iran and militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.


WSJ's John Bussey and Sudeep Reddy on the political and economic impact of the continued unrest in Egypt, and how it may bring on reforms in Syria. Also, Farnaz Fassihi from Beirut on how the Egyptian violence has inspired opposition forces in Iran.

While much of the region's unrest has hit countries that have developed alliances with Washington, his remarks indicate that the ripple effects of the Egyptian unrest will reach out to Middle Eastern leaders who are both friend and foe of the U.S.

Syria's response is particularly important because, while Mr. Assad's ties with the U.S. are strained, the Obama administration has been trying to pull his allegiances away from Tehran toward Washington.

But his remarks in the interview suggest that maybe harder in the wake of the Egyptian unrest. Mr. Assad said he will have more time to make changes than Mr. Mubarak did, because his anti-American positions and confrontation with Israel have left him in better shape with the grassroots in his nation.

"Syria is stable. Why?" Mr. Assad said. "Because you have to be very closely linked to the beliefs of the people. This is the core issue. When there is divergence…you will have this vacuum that creates disturbances."


Mr. Assad said he would push through political reforms this year aimed at initiating municipal elections, granting more power to nongovernmental organizations and establishing a new media law.

His government already made adjustments to ease the kind of economic pressures that have helped fuel unrest in Tunisia and Algeria: Damascus this month raised heating oil allowances for public workers—a step back from an earlier plan to withdraw subsidies that keep the cost of living down for Syrians but drain the national budget. Tunisia, Algeria and Jordan have also tried to assuage protesters by lowering food prices.

Mr. Assad's government, and that of his late father Hafez al-Assad, have been criticized as among the region's most repressive, detaining opponents without charges. This has stoked speculation in Western capitals over whether Syria could also face unrest. Syria's one-party political system and government-controlled media, meanwhile, are seen by many as more rigid than Egypt's or Tunisia's.

Mr. Assad acknowledged in the interview that the pace of political reform inside Syria hasn't progressed as quickly as he'd envisioned after taking power following his father's death in 1999.

Still, Mr. Assad indicated he is unlikely to embrace the sort of rapid and sweeping reforms being called for on the streets of Cairo and Tunis. He said his country needed time to build institutions and improve education before decisively opening Syria's political system. The rising demands for rapid political reforms could turn out to be counter-productive if Arab societies aren't ready for them, he said.

"Is it going to be a new era toward more chaos or more institutionalization? That is the question," Mr. Assad said. "The end is not clear yet."

Many diplomats and analysts believe Syria could serve as a barometer for the direction of the broader Middle East. Damascus's influence has grown in recent years as its alliance with Iran and the militant Islamist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah has opened the door to its renewed influence in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Iraq.

Still, Mr. Assad's rigid rule could leave him vulnerable to rising calls for democracy.

Damascus emerged this month largely victorious after a nearly eight-year struggle against the U.S. for influence inside Lebanon. The standoff was sparked by the 2005 murder of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which some Western officials believed was ordered by Mr. Assad's government. Mr. Assad has repeatedly denied any involvement.

"What pleases me is that this transition between the two [Lebanese] governments happened smoothly, because we were worried," said Mr. Assad. "It was very easy to have a conflict of some kind that could evolve into a fully blown civil war."

This month, the U.S. returned an ambassador, Robert Ford, to Damascus for the first time since Mr. Hariri's murder.

Mr. Assad said that while he sought closer ties to Washington, he didn't see this coming at the expense of his alliance with Iran. The Syrian leader said that he shares the U.S. goals to target Al Qaeda and other extremist groups, but that Tehran remains a crucial ally to Syria.

"Nobody can overlook Iran, whether you like it or not," Mr. Assad said.

On the Mideast peace process, Mr. Assad stressed that Damascus remained open to a dialogue with Israel to reclaim the Golan Heights region that the Jewish state occupied in 1967. But he said he didn't think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would engage in the same way as his predecessor, Ehud Olmert. Mr. Assad insisted he and Mr. Olmert were close to forging a peace deal in 2008.

"No, [the peace process] is not dead, because you do not have any other option," Mr. Assad said. "If you talk about a 'dead' peace process, this means everybody should prepare for the next war."

The Syrian leader acknowledged his government is likely to continue to be at odds with the U.S. on key strategic issues.

Successive U.S. administrations have charged Damascus with smuggling increasingly sophisticated weapons systems to Hezbollah, including long-range missiles that could reach most of Israel. The U.S. has subsequently put in place economic sanctions against Syria.

Mr. Assad denied charges that his government directly arms Hezbollah.

He also indicated that his government was unlikely to give the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, wide access to investigate claims that Syria had covertly been developing nuclear technology.

"It will definitely be misused," said Mr. Assad, who denies Syria has been seeking atomic weapons.


www.wsj.com
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Orlando
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 28.07.2004
Beiträge: 295
Wohnort: Steiermark

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2011 20:45:43 
Titel: Re: persönlich mein ich,
Antworten mit Zitat

Viper hat folgendes geschrieben:


die Chance besteht zumindest..

man wird sehen..


„Und sag ja nicht im Hinblick auf etwas (was du vorhast): "Ich werde dies morgen tun", ohne (hinzuzufügen): 'wenn Gott will'! Und gedenke deines Herrn, wenn du vergißt (oder vergessen hast), (dies hinzuzufügen?), und sag: 'Vielleicht wird mich mein Herr (künftig) zu etwas leiten, was eher richtig ist als dies (d.h. als meine vorherige Handlungsweise)'!“

– Übersetzung: Rudi Paret: Sure 18, Vers 23-24

Zur Herkunft von Insch'Allah und ,wie ich finde, passend zur Situation in Ägypten.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2011 20:58:39 
Titel: tja....
Antworten mit Zitat

heikel...

http://derstandard.at/1295571277271/Kommentar-der-Anderen-Eine-eindeutige-Botschaft-aus-dem-Freitagsgebet
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2011 21:15:18 
Titel: Stephen Hadley
Antworten mit Zitat

sieht das so..

naja, und er hat auch Recht damit, daran zu erinnern, dass es Pres. Bush war, der vor Jahren demokratische Reformen in Ägypten ( allerdings erfolglos) eingefordert hatte...ich erinnere mich noch, wie Bush lächerlich gemacht wurde von Europa damals...

Zitat:


The Two Likeliest Political Outcomes for Mubarak

Egyptian society needs time to prepare for free elections and to remediate years of government oppression.

By Stephen J. Hadley

All eyes are now on Egypt and an Obama administration struggling to find its footing. The truth is that once revolutionary fervor emerges and a situation descends into crisis, any administration is largely hostage to events and the dilemmas are acute. Do we desert a longstanding ally, only to raise doubts about our staying power in the minds of other longstanding allies? Do we remain loyal to a longstanding ally even after he has clearly lost public support, only to alienate a people struggling to win their freedom? In the midst of a crisis like this, the options are few.

Before the current crisis, there were good options. They were urged on the Egyptian government by a series of American administrations—including especially the administration of George W. Bush, in which I served. The United States pressed President Hosni Mubarak publicly and privately to encourage the emergence of non-Islamist political parties. Our calls for action were generally ignored and non- Islamist parties were persecuted and suppressed.

The result was a political landscape that offered the Egyptian people just two choices: the government party (the National Democratic Party or NDP) and the underground Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. This sad outcome was President Mubarak's own creation. He did it in part so that he could argue to successive U.S. administrations and his own people that the only alternative to his rule was an Islamist state. But it didn't have to be this way.

Some critics argue that no U.S. administration went far enough in pressing President Mubarak—including the administrations in which I served. As important as the "freedom agenda" was to President Bush, there were other issues—terrorism, proliferation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to name a few—that required us to deal with the Egyptian government. Perhaps as important, the Egyptians are a proud people. No nation wants to be seen to be giving in to public pressure from another state—even a close ally. In the end, the decision was President Mubarak's. He made it, and he is now facing the consequences.

At present, the two most probable outcomes of the current crisis are a lame-duck Mubarak administration or a Mubarak departure from power in favor of a transitional government backed by the Egyptian military.


Under the first outcome, President Mubarak rides out the current crisis. Presidential elections are expected in September of this year. It seems unlikely that either President Mubarak or his son Gamal will conclude that under current circumstances they can run and win. That will leave President Mubarak presiding over a lame-duck administration. The issue will be whether he seeks to transfer power to another authoritarian strongman backed by the army or dramatically changes course and uses the upcoming presidential election to create a democratic transition for his country.

The precedents for this latter outcome are few but not nonexistent. It is essentially the role that the Bush administration urged on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, which he played successfully in 2008. The resulting government is admittedly a weak one that continues to cause the U.S. real problems in Afghanistan. But it is a democratic government, and by its coming to power we avoided the kind of Islamist regime that followed the fall of the Shah of Iran and that has provoked three decades of serious confrontation with the U.S. and totalitarian oppression of the Iranian people.

Under the second outcome, President Mubarak surrenders power and is replaced by a transitional government supported by the Egyptian military. The presidential elections then become the vehicle for transferring power to a government whose legitimacy comes from the people.

Either way, Egyptian society needs time to prepare for these elections and to begin to remediate the effects of years of government oppression. The Egyptian people should not have to choose only between the government-backed NDP and the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. Non-Islamist parties need an opportunity to emerge to fill in the intervening political space. Time is short even if the presidential elections go forward as expected in September. The U.S. should resist the temptation to press for an accelerated election schedule. Hopefully wise heads in Egypt will do the same.

Time and a full array of political alternatives are critical in the upcoming presidential election and the parliamentary elections that undoubtedly will follow. If given an array of choices, I believe that the Egyptian people will choose a democratic future of freedom and not an Islamist future of imposed extremism. While the Muslim Brotherhood, if legalized, would certainly win seats in a new parliament, there is every likelihood that the next Egyptian government will not be a Muslim Brotherhood government but a non-Islamist one committed to building a free and democratic Egypt.

Such a government would still pose real challenges to U.S. policy in many areas. But with all eyes in the region on Egypt, it would be a good outcome nonetheless. With a large population and rich cultural heritage, Egypt has always been a leader in the Middle East. Now it has the opportunity to become what it always should have been—the leader of a movement toward freedom and democracy in the Arab world.

Mr. Hadley was national security adviser to President George W. Bush.


www.wsj.com
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Frank
Gast





BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Jan 31, 2011 23:34:51 
Titel:
Antworten mit Zitat

viper & co:
ALLES was von leuten wie solomon und spindle kommt kann man/frau als streichresultat hinnehmen!!
Nach oben
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Di Feb 01, 2011 17:21:55 
Titel: Frank,
Antworten mit Zitat

I know it's cold out there. You got some wild winter up/over there in Canada. We have too.

But, how often have I already told you, please put that anti-freeze additive in your airplane fuel tanks, DONT drink it. That stuff is toxic, and the brain get's kind of moshy...

so if you need some good anti-freeze for your bodily fluids, be a patriot and have some Glen Breton Rare...good stuff, has good anti icing properties and will get you through those cold days & nights.. Cheer up..
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Di Feb 01, 2011 17:33:45 
Titel: Max Boot
Antworten mit Zitat

im "Tschörnl" über:



Zitat:


Hosni Mubarak, Troublesome Ally

It is no coincidence that al Qaeda started essentially as an Egyptian-Saudi organization run by citizens of two of our closest and most repressive allies.

By Max Boot

As Hosni Mubarak teeters on the brink, a lot of wishful thinking is emanating from the West—both from those who want him gone and those who don't. But it does scant justice to the complexity of the situation to claim that Mr. Mubarak was a superb ally, or to imagine that we can manage an easy transition to a post-Mubarak regime.

The best that can be said for Mr. Mubarak is that he has been easy for the West to deal with. He is always ready to spur along Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and to stage military exercises with the United States. He is certainly a dedicated foe of Gamaa al Islamiya and other Islamist terrorist organizations that threatened his rule. Above all, he did not renounce the peace treaty with Israel that had gotten his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, killed. Behind the scenes, Mr. Mubarak and Omar Suleiman, formerly his intelligence chief and now his vice president, have had close relations with a succession of Israeli prime ministers and American presidents.

But let's not romanticize the soon-to-be-departed dictator. He presided over a very cold peace with Israel. Even as he was negotiating with Israeli leaders, he was turning a blind eye to the rabid anti-Semitism and anti-Westernism that polluted Egypt's state-controlled news media and mosques. The Middle East Media Research Institute has an invaluable archive of these revolting statements. Last year an Egyptian cleric, Hussam Fawzi Jabar, was quoted as saying, "Hitler was right to say what he said and to do what he did to the Jews." Keep in mind that in Egypt most clerics are state employees whose pronouncements are carefully monitored by the secret police. That Mr. Jabar is able to say such things in public means that Mr. Mubarak doesn't object.

Consider the two-part essay, "The Lie About the Burning of the Jews," that appeared in 2004 in Al Liwaa Al-Islami (The Islamic Banner), an official journal of Mr. Mubarak's National Democratic Party. The article is a statement of Holocaust denial, claiming that Hitler's genocide was invented by the Zionists to justify the creation of the Jewish state. At least the editor-in-chief of Al Liwaa Al-Islami was fired after that incident, under heavy American pressure.

By contrast, no one in Egyptian state television has been disciplined for its 41-part series "A Knight Without a Horse," which ran in 2002 and dramatized that old canard of anti-Semitism, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." That cinematic masterpiece was produced in cooperation with Hezbollah's Al-Manar television, which suggests that Mr. Mubarak is hardly an inveterate foe of all things Islamist.

Indeed he often did little to stop the massive smuggling of supplies into Hamas-controlled Gaza. His attitude has seemed to be that Hamas can arm itself against Israel as long as it doesn't cooperate with its Egyptian Islamist brethren against him.

Like other secular Middle Eastern dictators (e.g., the Assads in Syria or Saddam Hussein in Iraq), Mr. Mubarak played a canny double game with the Islamists, ruthlessly repressing their domestic attacks but turning a blind eye to their organizing and export of jihadism abroad.

Thus while Egypt's security services cracked down hard on Islamist terrorism in the 1990s when it was threatening the lucrative tourist trade, Mr. Mubarak has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood—the mother of all Islamist organizations—to become the main opposition party. This has made him, as he well knows, the indispensable man to the West—the only thing supposedly standing in the way of an Islamist power grab.

Yet Mr. Mubarak's police state actually drove many Egyptians into the arms of the radicals. It is no coincidence that al Qaeda started as primarily an Egyptian-Saudi organization run by citizens of two of our closest and most repressive allies. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2, was radicalized as a boy in Egypt and then all the more so after spending three years being tortured in Mr. Mubarak's dungeons in the 1980s.

Mr. Mubarak's downfall could well be a good thing in the long run if it opens up Egypt's closed political and economic systems to greater dynamism and debate, so that in the future frustrated young Egyptians can find peaceful expression rather than strapping on a suicide vest. Yet we should be realistic about the short-term costs of a new regime in a country that has been subjected to decades of anti-Western and anti-Israeli propaganda by Mr. Mubarak—and where many blame us (with some justification) for inflicting Mr. Mubarak on them. A government that better reflects the will of the people will be less willing to cut deals with the U.S. or Israel.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the former U.N. atomic agency head who has emerged as the leader of the opposition, made clear his anti-Israel sentiments in an interview last summer with the German magazine Der Spiegel. He called the Gaza Strip "the world's largest prison" and declared that it was imperative to "open the borders, end the blockade."

Mr. ElBaradei also spoke glowingly of Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has assailed Israel in harsh terms and voted against United Nations sanctions on Iran. Mr. ElBaradei said: "Turkey is a member of NATO and partner of the West and Israel. And yet Prime Minister Erdogan has no qualms about supporting an aid flotilla for Gaza that was supposed to breach Israel's sea blockade. The people of the Arab world are celebrating him. Erdogan's photo can be seen everywhere."

That is probably what we can expect from a post-Mubarak Egypt. It is doubtful that Mr. ElBaradei would terminate Egypt's peace treaty with Israel—a move that would cost Egypt more than a billion dollars annually in American aid. But it is probable that, like Mr. Erdogan's Turkey, Mr. ElBaradei's Egypt would be less cooperative with Israel and more friendly to its enemies. In the Muslim world, this is actually a moderate position compared to the jihadism of the Islamists. But from the standpoint of the U.S. or Israel it is obviously far from ideal.

Yet what choice have we? Mr. Mubarak's day is done. It's only a question of time before he slinks out of office. The best the U.S. and our allies can do at this point is try to make the transition as fast and painless as possible.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.


www.wsj.com
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Frank
Gast





BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Feb 02, 2011 01:05:00 
Titel:
Antworten mit Zitat

Viper.
'A' for you knowledge of the English Language!

Oil was $ 100.95 yesterday!

Who makes the money???

Herschl & Co.!!
Nach oben
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Feb 02, 2011 22:01:30 
Titel: Das "Tschörnl" erinnert
Antworten mit Zitat

an etwas, an das weder viele in den USA, am wenigsten die derzeitige Administration, noch viele in Europa erinnert werden wollen..

Zitat:


Egypt and the Realists

So much for stability in lieu of freedom in the Middle East.



For most of recent diplomatic history, American policy in the Mideast has tended to emphasize the stability of friendly regimes over the democratic aspirations of Arab populations. This approach is sometimes called foreign policy realism. The reality on the streets in Egypt is one result.

In the week since demonstrations began against Hosni Mubarak's regime, that U.S. ally and the Arab world's largest state has been gripped by disorder and uncertainty. Mr. Mubarak said last night he won't seek re-election later this year, though he intends to remain in power until then to negotiate a peaceful transition. This announcement is welcome, though it may not be enough at this late date to satisfy an opposition that now controls the streets. Other than the army, the group best organized to run Egypt if order breaks down is the Islamist and anti-American Muslim Brotherhood.

So much for that vaunted stability.

***
No one knows how all of this will unfold in the coming weeks, but as we watch it's worth looking back at how we got to this unhappy pass. A succession crisis in Egypt was not unforeseen, and many people saw the need to develop alternatives to Mr. Mubarak and radical Islam.

No less than President George W. Bush put it this way in 2003 in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe—because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export."

This became known as his "Freedom Agenda," and in his second inaugural Mr. Bush committed America to carry out "the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments."

It is hard to overstate how roundly this agenda was denounced by the U.S. foreign policy establishment on both the left and right. Headlines captured the derision: "The Freedom Crusade" (National Interest) and "Freedom Fraud" (American Prospect). "Historical, ideological and political claptrap," wrote Les Gelb, former head of the Council on Foreign Relations, in 2005 in remarks typical of the liberal realist school.

In spite of his detractors, Mr. Bush persevered for the first part of his second term. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice even took the theme to Cairo in 2005 with a pointed speech. "For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East—and we achieved neither," she said. "Now, we are taking a different course." That same year, she cancelled a trip there as a protest against the jailing of opposition presidential candidate Ayman Nour. The Egyptians released him.

Journalist Eli Lake, who lived in Egypt at the time, recounts on The New Republic website what happened in the next few months. Mr. Mubarak routed Mr. Nour in a presidential election and then allowed a relatively free round of parliamentary elections. But in the second and third rounds, police ambushed polling stations and used tear gas to disperse voters. The U.S. State Department said almost nothing.

Mr. Nour was soon back in prison. When U.S. ambassador to Egypt at the time, Frank Ricciardone, was asked about Mr. Nour's case at a Cairo "model American Congress," he replied: "Do you know I would actually like to ask all of you in this room that question. Because I bet if there are a hundred people, I bet I'd get a hundred different answers." After some rambling, he added: "You know, if Egyptians are not sure what to make of this, then I hope you will forgive Americans for not understanding the complexity of this case."

Mr. Mubarak knew whose side the Americans were really on.

The difficult war in Iraq, the GOP wipeout in the 2006 midterms and Hamas's election victory in Gaza all turned the Bush Administration's gaze elsewhere. Ms. Rice preferred to focus on the realist holy grail of the Mideast "peace process," and she was soon back in Cairo singing a softer tune on political freedom. Still, relations with Mr. Mubarak were strained, and he didn't visit the White House through the end of the Bush Presidency.

Enter Senator Barack Obama, who wrote in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 2007 that "In the Islamic world and beyond, combating the terrorists' prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy." Mr. Obama's form of realism was different from the traditional kind that at least consistently extols the pursuit of raw national interest. Instead, he stressed America's own moral weaknesses and that "to build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people."

As President, his foreign policy has focused instead on renewing relations with the world's nastier characters—Russia's Vladimir Putin, the Chinese Communists and Arab governments.

The Egyptians quickly responded by telling the new Administration to drop the Bush emphasis on political reform. "Wherever [Mr. Mubarak] has seen these U.S. efforts, he can point to the chaos and loss of stability that ensued," reported current U.S. ambassador to Cairo Margaret Scobey in a 2009 diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

Speaking before an audience at Cairo University in June 2009, President Obama called for a "new beginning" between the U.S. and the Muslim world. He repeated some Bush talking points, expressing his commitment "to governments that reflect the will of the people" and "freedom to live as you choose." He even used the word "democracy."

But around the same time, the Administration sent a different signal. The U.S. cut support for democracy promotion programs in Egypt by more than half, after Ambassador Scobey advised that such programs annoyed Mr. Mubarak. This past November, the regime waved off U.S. calls for international monitors for parliamentary elections and cracked down on the opposition and media. The election was a fiasco of fraud, and again the U.S. said little.

***
This record couldn't be more of a contrast with how the Reagan Administration pursued reform under dictators friendly to U.S. interests in the Philippines and South Korea. There, the Administration spent years promoting open elections, building ties to leaders across society, and protecting opposition leaders from harm. When the public revolts eventually came, U.S. officials had credibility with all sides and were able to press a peaceful and stable transition. Reagan was a realist who understood that reality had to accommodate human aspirations for freedom.

In Egypt, by contrast, the Obama Administration has been caught on its back foot, scrambling to keep up with events. Some of the same people who reviled Mr. Bush for pushing democracy—Senator John Kerry—are now even saying the U.S. should demand Mr. Mubarak's ouster. Yesterday in advance of Mr. Mubarak's remarks, White House officials leaked that Mr. Obama had urged the Egyptian not to run for re-election—another frantic effort to get some political credit for events that were already inevitable and still may be too little, too late.

Now our policy choices are few and risky. How much better positioned would we be in Egypt today if we were able to take some credit for the calls for freedom and democratic change?


www.wsj.com
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
JCStennis
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.02.2009
Beiträge: 959
Wohnort: Wien

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Feb 04, 2011 00:29:47 
Titel: Re: OK, viper; you ask for it!
Antworten mit Zitat

Frank hat folgendes geschrieben:
- wer hat das groesste interesse an unruhen in dieser region?

- wer macht die grossen gewinne
(politisch, militaer hilfe, direkt zahlung) von diesen unruhen?

-wer hat interesse and hohem oel preis?

-wer macht gewinne an kriegen?


natürlich die j****n (joppen? jassen? jecken?).

IMHO hat israel sicher ein größeres interesse an einem mubarak an der macht - mit dem es seit 30 jahren ein halbwegs vernünftiges auskommen hat - als an einem mubarak-nachfolger, den sie nicht kennen, der aus welchen gründen auch immer - weil er sich oder seinem volk was beweisen zu müssen glaubt - einen krieg mit israel führt oder sonstwas macht.

gleiches gilt für jordanien, syrien, saudi-arabien. wieso soll israel da was ändern wollen? damit überall die muslimbrüderschaft oder wer auch immer - noch radikalerer - in ägypten, syrien, jordanien, saudi-arabien - die macht übernimmt (a la iran)?

dass die dortigen regimes von demokratie - auch a la naher osten - weit weg sind, steht auf einem anderen blatt.
_________________
Check six!

Die Friedhöfe sind voll mit Unersetzlichen.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Raveman
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 25.03.2008
Beiträge: 1407
Wohnort: Graz

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Feb 04, 2011 08:22:24 
Titel:
Antworten mit Zitat

JCStennis hat folgendes geschrieben:
gleiches gilt für jordanien, syrien, saudi-arabien. wieso soll israel da was ändern wollen? damit überall die muslimbrüderschaft oder wer auch immer - noch radikalerer - in ägypten, syrien, jordanien, saudi-arabien - die macht übernimmt (a la iran)?



Da tun sich zwei Fragen auf:

1.) Gibt es die Muslimbrüderschaft überhaupt? Sind sie eine geschlossene Gruppe oder zerrissen? Wie stark sind sie?

Manche sagen ja, angeblich zählt sich bzw. symphatisiert ein Drittel der Bevölkerung mit ihnen.

2.) Wollen die Ägypter einen islamischen Staat nach iranischem Vorbild?

Das kann ich mir nicht vorstellen.


Ich glaube eine der wichtigsten Fragen ist was nach dem Umsturz passieren wird. Die Ägypter und der Rest der Welt dürfen sich nicht der Illusion hingeben dass danach alles besser wird. Von heute auf morgen wird man weder den niedrigen Lebensstandard noch Armut auslöschen können.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
BUMAN
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 30.07.2004
Beiträge: 1140
Wohnort: CH

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Feb 04, 2011 13:38:16 
Titel: Die Aegyptische Fussball-Revolution
Antworten mit Zitat

http://www.20min.ch/news/dossier/tunesien/story/Die-aegyptische-Fussball-Revolution-14550470

Ein Fussball-Hooligans kann auch gut sein. biggrin
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden AIM-Name
Prometheus
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 21.09.2006
Beiträge: 3779

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Feb 04, 2011 23:53:57 
Titel:
Antworten mit Zitat

@Frank

vorschlag:

tritt zum judentum über(also nur zum schein) und werde was an der Wallstreet.
Und berichte uns dann nochmal.
_________________
"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
Captain Nathan Hale, Continental Army

"you cannot be neutral between democrat and dictator, you can't be neutral between right and wrong."
Mary Harney
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
JCStennis
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.02.2009
Beiträge: 959
Wohnort: Wien

BeitragVerfasst am: Sa Feb 05, 2011 02:56:05 
Titel:
Antworten mit Zitat

tja, ich fürchte, wenn er erstmal teil der jüdischen weltherrschaft ist, wird er uns nicht mehr kennen lol
_________________
Check six!

Die Friedhöfe sind voll mit Unersetzlichen.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: So Feb 06, 2011 07:21:58 
Titel: hat er nicht ganz Unrecht..
Antworten mit Zitat

der Lindwurm...

Zitat:


Ist es denn so schwer?

Der Westen, also die USA und die EU-Staaten, übt sich derzeit in akrobatischen diplomatischen Verrenkungen, was die Zukunft Ägyptens anbelangt. Aber ist es denn wirklich so schwer, einmal nur Klartext zu sprechen und zu sagen: „Weder Mubarak, noch Muslimbrüder“? Ich weiß, man hat verlernt, eindeutig Stellung zu beziehen, denn man glaubt ja an nichts anderes mehr als an den Wert seines Aktienportfolios. Entsprechend unglaubwürdig ist der Westen mittlerweile, weil jeder Mensch weiß, dass dieser Westen zwar manchmal große Töne spuckt von wegen „Demokratie“ und „Menschenrechte“, aber dass gleichzeitig die westlichen Konzerne immer noch profitablen Handel mit dem Mörderregime in Teheran treiben, dass der Westen mit Saudi Arabien eine der widerlichsten Despotien der Welt unterstützt, dass der Westen andauernd mit zweierlei Maß misst und verlogen bis in die Knochen ist. Das ist das wirkliche Problem.


http://lindwurm.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/ist-es-denn-so-schwer/
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: So Feb 06, 2011 09:10:47 
Titel: und hier noch
Antworten mit Zitat

ein zur Problematik sehr passender Beitrag aus dem "Tschörnl"..



Zitat:


Democracy's Tribune on the Arab Awakening

A survivor of nine years in the Soviet Gulag, Natan Sharansky believes that liberalism can take root in Egypt—if the free world supports its transition.

By DAVID FEITH

'If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book, 'The Case for Democracy.'" With that comment in 2005, George W. Bush created a best seller, impelling hordes of statesmen, policy wonks and journalists to decode this Rosetta Stone of the "freedom agenda."

In the book, Mr. Sharansky argues that all people, in all cultures, want to live in freedom; that all dictatorships are inherently unstable and therefore threaten the security of other countries; and that Western powers can and should influence how free other countries are. Rarely have these arguments been dramatized as during the past weeks—in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and especially Egypt. So late Wednesday night I interviewed Mr. Sharansky to hear his explanation of our current revolutionary moment.

"The reason people are going to the streets and making revolution is their desire not to live in a fear society," Mr. Sharansky says. In his taxonomy, the world is divided between "fear societies" and "free societies," with the difference between them determinable by what he calls a "town square test": Are the people in a given society free to stand in their town square and express their opinions without fear of arrest or physical harm? The answer in Tunisia and Egypt, of course, has long been "no"—as it was in the Soviet bloc countries that faced popular revolutions in 1989.

The comparison of today's events with 1989 is a common one, but for Mr. Sharansky it is personal. He was born in 1948 in Donetsk (then called Stalino), Ukraine, and in the 1970s and 1980s he was one of the most famous dissidents in the Soviet Union—first as an aide to the nuclear physicist-turned-human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, then as a champion for the rights of Soviet Jews like himself to emigrate. His outspoken advocacy landed him in the Soviet Gulag for nine years (including 200 days on hunger strike).

Mr. Sharansky was released from prison in 1986, after his wife Avital's tireless campaigning earned his case international renown and the strong support of President Ronald Reagan. He moved to Israel, where he eventually entered politics and served until 2006 in various ministerial posts and in the parliament. Throughout, he preached and wrote about, as his book's subtitle puts it, "the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror."

This idea is the animating feature of a worldview that bucks much conventional wisdom. Uprisings like Tunisia's and Egypt's, he says, make "specialists—Sovietologists, Arabists—say 'Who could have thought only two weeks ago that this will happen?'" But "look at what Middle Eastern democratic dissidents were saying for all these years about the weakness of these regimes from the inside," and you won't be surprised when they topple, he says.

And yet policy makers from Washington to Tel Aviv have seemingly been in shock. Many of them—on the right and the left—look upon the demise of Hosni Mubarak and the potential rise of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood with dread.

"Why is there such a big danger that if now there will be free choice for Egyptians, then the Muslim Brotherhood can rise to power?" Mr. Sharansky asks. "Because they are the only organized force which exists in addition to Mubarak's regime." Mr. Mubarak quashed almost all political dissent, with the general acquiescence of his American patrons. But he couldn't stop the Brotherhood from spreading its message in mosques. Meanwhile, he used the Brotherhood as a bogeyman, telling the U.S. that only he stood between radical Islamists and the seat of power.

It worked. Mr. Sharansky says that in a 2007 meeting in Prague, President Bush told him that the U.S. supports Mr. Mubarak—to the tune of nearly $2 billion in annual aid—because if it didn't, the Brotherhood would take over Egypt.

For all his good intentions and pro-democracy rhetoric, Mr. Bush was inconsistent in practice. By Mr. Sharansky's calculus, simply propping up Mr. Mubarak's fear society would make it more likely, not less, that radicals would gradually become the only viable opposition and be best-positioned to gain power when the regime inevitably fell. And so it is today, as the Mubarak regime teeters.

Still, Mr. Sharansky finds reason for optimism. While recognizing common Israeli fears that Mr. Mubarak's ouster could give Hamas more power in and around Gaza and endanger the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, he doesn't expect the security balance to change much. As he wrote in "The Case for Democracy," over the past 30 years Israel's "border with Syria, with whom we do not have a peace treaty, has been just as quiet, and [I] suggest that Israeli deterrence is responsible for both."

Mr. Sharansky points out that Mr. Mubarak is no great man of peace. Indeed, since 1979, Egyptians' "hatred toward Israel only grew. . . . Egypt became one of the world centers of anti-Semitism." That's because all dictators must cultivate external enemies in order to maintain their grip on power. So even when Mr. Mubarak "lost Israel as an enemy, he continued to need Jews as the enemy."

Mr. Sharansky says the recent uprisings prove his fundamental contentions "that there are limits to how much you can control people by fear," and that all people, regardless of religion or culture, desire freedom. "That's a very powerful universal message. It was very powerful when the Iron Curtain exploded, and it's as powerful today," he says.

He has a prescription for what should happen next. First, he says there's no justification for Mr. Mubarak staying in place. "What would that mean? . . . He could continue for another few months or for another year, until [Egypt] explodes with more hatred toward America and Israel and the free world."

Second, U.S. policy should shift from its focus on illusory "stability" toward "linkage"—an approach that successfully pressured the Soviet Union. That means linking U.S. aid to Egypt's progress in developing the institutions of a free society.

If he were a U.S. senator, Mr. Sharansky says, he would immediately introduce a law to continue support to Egypt on condition that "20% of all this money goes to strengthening and developing democratic institutions. And the money cannot be controlled by the Egyptian government." Ideally his measure would kick in as soon as possible, so that it can affect the incentives of any Egyptian transitional government established to rule until September, when a presidential election is scheduled.

The model for such linkage is the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which forced the Soviet Union to allow Jewish emigration or lose the economically-valuable "Most Favored Nation" trade designation. But Jackson-Vanik has been controversial ever since its enactment 35 years ago, and Washington has shown little willingness to deploy linkage since.

But Mr. Sharansky holds out hope, partly because on Egypt "the statements from the White House are improving with every day, especially in comparison with its catastrophic statements at the time of the Iranian revolution [in 2009]." By his reckoning, the Obama administration's position during the recent Iranian protests was "maybe one of the biggest betrayals of people's freedom in modern history. . . . At the moment when millions were deciding whether to go to the barricades, the leader of the free world said 'For us, the most important thing is engagement with the regime, so we don't want a change of regime.' Compared to this, there is very big progress [today]."

Inconsistency is par for the course in this field. "From time to time," Mr. Sharansky says of the George W. Bush administration, "America was giving lectures about democracy." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a strong address in Cairo in 2005. And in 2002, by threatening to withhold $130 million in aid to Egypt, the administration successfully pressured Mr. Mubarak to release the sociologist and democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim from prison. In their final years, however, administration officials reverted to bureaucratic form and relaxed their pressure drastically.

President Obama relaxed it even further, Mr. Sharansky notes, inserting only vague language about democracy into his June 2009 address in Cairo. "There was no mention at all that at that moment democratic dissidents were imprisoned, that Mubarak had put in prison the leading [opposition] candidate in the past election," Ayman Nour.

Even if the U.S. embraces linkage, Egypt's September election could be quite problematic. "Only when the basic institutions that protect a free society are firmly in place—such as a free press, the rule of law, independent courts, political parties—can free elections be held," Mr. Sharansky wrote in "The Case for Democracy." In Egypt, those "free, developed institutions," he tells me, "will not be developed by September."

What can develop over the next eight months, Mr. Sharansky says, is a U.S. policy making clear that "whoever is elected cannot continue to survive—he cannot continue to rely on the assistance of the free world in defense, economics, anything—if democratic reforms are not continued and if democratic institutions are not built." After several years of such democracy-building, he says, when dissidents like Mr. Ibrahim enjoy the ability to build institutions like trade unions and women's organizations, "then in a few years you'll have a different country, and you can have really free elections."

For this to happen, "there must be consistent policy in the free world," says Mr. Sharansky. That means "no compromise for the sake of stability with those who will come to power—and who, inevitably, if they have the opportunity to lead as dictators, will try to lead as dictators."

"There is a real chance now," he says. "And the fact that it happened with the country which has the [second-] biggest level of assistance from the United States makes this chance for success even bigger if the leaders of the free world—and first of all the United States of America—play it right."

What shouldn't happen is a repeat of the 2006 election in Gaza, when Hamas won office without demonstrating any commitment to democracy, and Palestinian society had no checks in place to prevent the outcome from being one man, one vote, one time. But the Gaza scenario seems unlikely in Egypt, says Mr. Sharansky.

"Hamas really used a unique opportunity. First of all, there was the policy of Yasser Arafat, who really turned the daily life of Palestinians into a mafia [environment] with racket money paid by all the population to the leaders. That's why you saw when there were elections, many Christian villages like Taiba were voting for Hamas. Why is a Christian village voting for Islamic fundamentalists? Because they were like the Magnificent Seven, saving the village from the mafia. . . . Second, geographically, it was like there was a special closed area, Gaza, which was brought [to Hamas] on a plate by us."

So can the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt replicate Hamas's electoral coup in Gaza? "Only in one case: if the systematic practice of keeping people under dictatorship—so the dictatorship becomes more and more cruel against any dissident thinking— continues and strengthens. Then it'll unite people more and more around the only force which can resist this and get military and organizational and financial support: the Muslim Brothers. . . .

"That's why I'm saying we must be happy that [Egypt's uprising] happened now and not a few years later because then the Muslim Brothers would be even more strong. . . . This revolt happened when the Muslim brothers are not as strong as Hamas was."

With Cairo's streets still aflame, the immediate question is how far Mr. Mubarak will go to maintain his rule—how many police trucks will run down street protesters, how many plainclothes thugs will hunt down Western journalists in their hotel rooms. Beyond that, the question is whether over time Egypt will come to pass the town square test. "There is a good chance," says Mr. Sharansky, "but a lot depends. Some Egyptians are now working for this. The thing is whether the free world will become a partner in this work."

Mr. Feith is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.


www.wsj.com
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Beiträge der letzten Zeit anzeigen:    Seite 1 von 8       Gehe zu Seite 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Weiter
Dieses Thema ist gesperrt, du kannst keine Beiträge editieren oder beantworten.
Gehe zu:  
Du kannst keine Beiträge in dieses Forum schreiben.
Du kannst auf Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht antworten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht bearbeiten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du kannst an Umfragen in diesem Forum nicht mitmachen.



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group