Kerry in Egypt

[karynnj]

Here is a link to the old DU thread if you did not see it - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=171292&mesg_id=171292

I figured I should include it as this may well become a major topic and pulling them together seemed a good idea. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=171292&mesg_id=171292

There are many articles today, the one I thought most interesting was written by Ed Husain about the Arab Street reaction to Kerry meeting with the Brotherhood - that will have about 40% of the seats in their legislature.

[div class = "excerpt"]
There is much anger among many Egyptian secular liberals about Senator John Kerry’s meeting with leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo on Saturday. Soon, in Washington, DC, Republican lawmakers will chide Senator Kerry too. I am no friend of the Muslim Brotherhood, but old policies of isolating the Muslim Brotherhood are no longer viable in the new Middle East.

Meeting only with secular Egyptian leaders such as presidential candidates Mohamed ElBaradei or Amr Moussa yields very little political profit for the United States, and results in a net loss of remaining credibility for Egypt’s secularists. By meeting with Islamists, the United States ensures political gains for the short to medium term.

However unpalatable, and whatever the disagreements and complaints, the Muslim Brotherhood has won roughly 40 percent of the vote in the first round of parliamentary elections. As such, they are an elected, legitimate political force. Soon, we will hear howls of anger from some in the U.S. Congress, media, and think tank circles about why the Muslim Brotherhood should be shunned. They will argue that the Brotherhood supported the Nazis (so did former Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat, who later made peace with Israel); that it is anti-American (true, but all the more reason to love-bomb them); and that it created Hamas (it did, but it does not control Hamas and closer ties with Egypt’s Brotherhood can result in greater influence over Hamas terrorism).

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a senior U.S. statesman, Senator Kerry’s words and cautions are important. In meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood, he sets a new and brave precedent.

http://blogs.cfr.org/husain/2011/12/11/was-senator-kerry-right-to-meet-the-muslim-brotherhood/

Having watched the Republican audience cheer Gingrich on as he called his irresponsible claim that the Palestinians are a made up people - saying it was just truth - and that he was a "historian", you know that this really is a brave action on the part of Senator Kerry, who is likely to be flamed by many Republicans. A historian should know that it is the history of the people, not the history of the name that matters. The facts are that there were Arabs living in Israel proper who fled in the 1948 war of independence who had lived for generations there - some taking their keys intending to return.

[Mass]

1. A quick look at the RW blogs will tell you that the usual suspects are outraged that Senator Kerry

meets with people they do not agree with. In a typical Bush way, they seem to think you should only speak to friends.

I saw the GOP debate yesterday (I survived through the nearly three hours of debate, not sure how I did), but it is frightening that somebody as irresponsible as Gingrich may well be nominee (at least Sara Palin was only VP nominee). Interestingly, and while I disagree with him on most things, it was surprising through this debate and the foreign policy one a few weeks ago that Santorum is the only one who seems to know what he is talking about (except Paul, but he is so far from the GOP mainstream on these issues).

Anyway, Kerry has now acquired a competency on these areas that show when he speaks with people in the Middle East.

[karynnj]

2. I watched the debate as well

The format was interesting as it seem designed for them to attack each other, rather than to actually present their positions. It was interesting that although the moderators complained, it was clear that they felt free to go over the time limits.

I can't imagine what it would be like for the old money Republicans watching this spectacle. Neither Romney or Gingrich acted in a way that could be called Presidential, likable or inspiring. Romney seemed on edge with a simmering anger that he had to be there. Gingrich seemed smug as his blows hit others - likely reminding some of Republican comments earlier in the week that he goes for personal destruction.

I am impressed with Kerry's position. To truly believe in democracy around the world, you really do need to accept that other peoples will sometimes make choices that we would prefer they didn't. Here, it is better to meet and to get the commitments that he did that they will respect the other parties and past treaties. I am sure that Neither Kerry nor Obama are naive - they will watch to see if actions follow words. We know the problems that exist with imposing a US approved strongman. In all countries where this happened, they invariably suppress the people and take as much of the wealth of the country as they can. This leaves us supporting unpopular dictators.

The strange thing is the position this puts the Bush/neo-con people. Their stated goal to the American people starting in January 2005 was that they were "spreading democracy". One of the earliest things done was to push an election that both the UN and Israel wanted delayed - that resulted in Hamas winning. They have since taken credit for the Arab spring. I don't believe that all of these resulted from attacking Iraq and creating a thriving democracy there - for one thing, it is not thriving democracy. I think it is a result of life becoming impossible because of the economic downturn and the natural resentment against the dictators in power. The question for the Republicans will be do they believe in democracy for everyone or just people who would chose what they want.

I wonder if Egypt and Libya will become part of the 2012 election. Israel clearly will be and Gingrich has staked out a very irresponsible position that breaks with US policy at least since Carter. It is also not in Israel's interest. Israelis know that they can not hold all the land they do and be both a Jewish state and a democracy where everyone has the same rights. Most American Jews favor the two state solution as the only way to have a Jewish state. Many, but not most, young American Jews have moved away from a two state solution to a one state solution where everyone has rights.

But, it is not the Jewish population fought over here - it is the evangelical Christian population - many of whom have already demonized Islam. It is also likely a variation on "who lost China" - which ignores the reality of our position in the Middle East for at least the last decade. It also ignores that Obama got Osama and has been more effective towards Al Quaeda. It also ignores that we ARE more respected in the world than under GWB.

[karynnj]

3. Counter terrorism expert defends speaking to the Brotherhood

[div class = "excerpt"]

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry made a quiet trip to Egypt over the weekend, where he met with leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood -- the first senior US official to do so. The meeting will undoubtedly set off the country's secularists and liberals, but the bottom line is that the Brotherhood is going to lead Egypt in the very near future, and it's time we get to know each other.
<snip>
So why is John Kerry the person to speak first with the Brotherhood? Hillary Clinton passed up the chance on her last trip to Egypt, and the US Ambassador to Egypt hasn't done anything to open a dialogue.

Kerry doesn't have the burden of the Obama team's "policy" on his back, although he can act as a surrogate for the White House when the President needs him to. That's undoubtedly what happened here. Obama wants to talk to the Brotherhood, but he doesn't want to anger US voters who may oppose such an overture. Kerry is the perfect person to do the job. He's a foreign policy heavyweight, he gets things done in difficult situations and in difficult countries, and when he tells an interlocutor that he speaks for the President, that means he really does speak for the President.

I know John Kerry well. I know him to be an thoughtful and deliberate diplomat. There is no doubt that we should be engaging the Muslim Brotherhood. That Kerry is doing it indicates that the White House is serious about ensuring and continuing a productive relationship with Egypt. That can only be a good thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kiriakou/john-kerry-egypt_b_1143980.html

The author worked for SFRC from 2009-2011 (unclear if that is now - as I would have expected it to say "present&quot He was the one there was a lot of controversy over.

The last part explaining how Kerry is the right person to do this rings true to me - even if it means the President is free to disassociate the administration if he chooses. I think another reason is that at the moment I don't think the administration has a diplomat with anything near Kerry's statesmanship and ability to listen more than speaking. Both Clinton, and to a lesser degree, Biden can be "bulls in a China shop".

After Mubarak fell, there was a Kerry commented where he admitted the error of the past support of dictators, who suppressed their people, because they were "our" people and could be counted on for support in some way or another. This, in some ways, is a logical extension. I'm sure that Kerry and all Americans would have preferred the secular liberals winning, but given that a significant part of their Parliament will be the Islamists, it is important to speak to them.

Politically, it will be easy to demagogue this, but it is the only grown up thing to do - if you really believe in democracy.

[YvonneCa]

4. Second comment at Huffpo was...

...excellent.

[MBS]

5. Agreed! n/t

[Inuca]

6. OK, so that's where he was

not Pakistan as we speculated. Just say this (took a short break from the virtual world . Extremely interesting. And thanks all for the very informative links.

Unrelated: is there no spell check in this new thing? I don't use it often (I am sure you noticed , but given the quality of my typing (especially with a cat trying to get in my lap where the keyboard is, like now), it was nice ot know it's there. Also, anyone figured out if there is still a search feature that allows you to search for say posts from the last couple of days?