"Fears of a Muslim Brotherhood Takeover are Overblown"

Ali Alyami, writing in the Weekly Standard, explains why Western fears of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover are overblown:

The millions of Arabs who took to the streets and risked their lives to bring an end to centuries of oppression are not likely to accept theocratic dictatorships after ridding themselves of tyrannical ruling dynasties. Most of the rebelling generation grew up in the age of transformative modern technologies and knowledge of their human rights. They spend more time debating worldly issues over social media than reading the Koran or going to mosques. Their perceptions of themselves and the world they want to be part of supersede nationalism, tradition, and religious indoctrination. This reality is overlooked in the current avalanche of analysis and predictions.

Instead of concentrating on fear of Islamists, the West ought to focus on the unprecedented shift in attitude among Arabs in addressing their multitude of grievances. For the first time, the Arab people have publicly recognized that their misfortunes are not the fault of outsiders— the West, Israel, colonialism—but the result of the hierarchical and totalitarian Arab methods of governing in which the individual is subservient to the state and to the whims of absolute rulers.

Read the entire article here.

PS

I think Alyami is right. The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood will most probably not be as great as is feared in some Western and Israeli circles. Now it is important to support all the positive new forces in Egypt who brought about the downfall of the hated dictator.

Fouad Ajami´s article in the Wall Street Journal is also recommended reading:

The Egyptians will be tested again as to their fidelity to democratic ways. But if this standoff that ended in the demise of the dictator is any guide, the Egyptians may give us a consoling tale of an Islamic people who rose to proclaim their fidelity to liberty, and who provided us with a reminder that tyranny is not fated for the Arabs.   

Entire article here.

The negative influence of American diplomats in Egypt and the Middle East

Michael Rubin highlights in his Commentary article the less than positive influence of American diplomats, who supported Mubarak and other Middle East autocrats while opposing George W. Bush ´s freedom agenda:

As Bush held firm, Mubarak wavered. Arab heads of state may have disliked Bush, but they respected him. After Bush not only ousted Saddam but oversaw Iraq’s first free elections in January 2005, they understood they could not dismiss his resolve. It is ironic that while American pundits tried to paint the Iraq war as diminishing American influence in the region, even Muammar Qaddafi’s own advisers ascribe the Libyan leader’s nuclear about-face to a combination of fear and respect for Bush after the Iraq invasion. As for Mubarak, in March 2005 he not only ordered the parliament to amend the constitution to allow contested elections, but he also freed Nour.
Still, Mubarak’s embrace of reform was neither open-ended nor sincere. His strategy then—just as it would be facing protesters in Tahrir Square—was to wear down opponents. Mubarak believed he could outlast Bush. No sooner had he announced reform than he eviscerated it. After blessing contested elections, he shortened the campaign to prevent his opponents from getting their message out. State-controlled media devoted round-the-clock coverage to Mubarak but refused to broadcast his opponents’ speeches and campaign events. Security forces harassed crowds seeking to attend opposition events and rallies. On election day, police cordoned off ballot stations in opposition strongholds. Mubarak won more than 88 percent of the vote; Nour received 7 percent.
In his efforts to undermine reform, Mubarak found a surprising and disappointing ally in the State Department. With the insurgency gaining strength in Iraq, Bush deferred management of Middle East reform to Foggy Bottom. Diplomats crave stability, not change. Not only did many career diplomats wish to punish Bush for launching an Iraq war they deeply opposed, but most ambassadors also believed that Arab autocracy rather than democracy better ensured American national security. Their arguments gained ground in January 2006 after Hamas won the Palestinian elections in Gaza. (The problem in Gaza, however, was not the elections but the State Department’s willingness to bless the participation of groups who sought to enforce their will through the barrel of a gun.)

Rubin suggests that American diplomats change their way of working:

The Egyptian turmoil should lead to greater introspection at the State Department. Even though Cairo hosts America’s largest embassy after Baghdad, and hundreds of the State Department’s most promising Arabic linguists have passed through its language school in Tunis, no diplomat foresaw this revolution. This should raise questions about how diplomats do their jobs. Too often American diplomats report on meetings with officials in their host countries. In the aftermath of Egypt’s revolution, Clinton should demand that America’s representatives spend more time socializing in slums and frequenting working-class coffeehouses rather than elite clubs. They should produce fewer memoranda about conversations and more holistic reports on the state of society. This will require better language skills, higher standards for tenure, and less-comfortable circumstances for America’s representatives, but the stakes for change have never been higher.
In the months to come, Obama must be more president than pundit. He cannot substitute statements for decisions. His choices will reverberate for generations. If he chooses wisely, he may usher in a true Arab spring in which Arab leaders will give priority to their society’s betterment rather than seeking to distract society with external hatred. But if Obama chooses poorly, the damage he will do to American national security will last decades.

Read the entire article here.

(image by antiqueprints.com)

Mubarak was forced out by the Egyptian people

The people of  Egypt have chased the dictator out of his palace. This is truly a popular revolution. The Obama administration and the rest of the West cannot take any pride in how they have handled the uprising.

The Powerline blog´s description is very much to the point:

the administration has put on a pathetic show throughout the Egyptian crisis. It has seemed that President Obama's principal object has been to give the appearance of being in the know and of having some control over events, when in fact the administration has generally been clueless and has been at best a bystander. This accounts, I think, for the inconsistencies in the administration's position from day to day. As events shift, Obama shifts with them, like an irrelevant player who tries to get in front of a crowd so as to create the illusion that he is leading it.

---

Mubarak completely out of touch with the Egyptian people

Hearing Mubarak speak a few minutes ago confirmed that he is totally out of touch with the people of Egypt. No wonder the pro-democrcy demonstrators are furious. And the demonstrations will continue and grow until Mubarak is chased out from the presidential palace.

Shale gas will end Europe´s dependence on Russian energy

Shale gas will revolutionise the global energy market. In Europe it means that countries like Ukraine and Poland will free themself from the dependence on Russian gas and oil. It also will make such projects as the Russian-German Nordstream much less interesting. This is why the Russians are trying to belittle the importance of the coming energy revolution. But there is little Putin and his henchmen can do to prevent a new and better energy future for a great number of countries.

Dallas Parker´s article "Shale Gas: Global game changer" in PennEnergy should be obligatory reading for decisions makers.

Here is an excerpt:

The distribution of shale gas is so widespread that locally produced shale gas may become the standard fuel in many places. Traditional gas imports (by pipeline or as LNG) may become incremental sources.

The potential of shale gas implies a loss of political leverage for some sellers. For example, Russia has used threats of interruptions – and actual interruptions – like old-time gunboats, notably with Ukraine, but with other European countries too.

I recently attended a conference on shale gas in Poland on behalf of Mayer, Brown. The Poles share with other Europeans concerns about fracking, water recycling, and environmental issues. They have no tradition of American-style entrepreneurship. What they do have is reliance on Russia’s Gazprom in a power-constrained economy. They want to accelerate the development of their shale gas reserves. This story is repeated many places

Read the entire article.here.

Corruption on a high level in France

A sad state of affairs in France:

 

IT is a scene worthy of a Graham Greene novel. European ministers of state jet around exotic African destinations on holidays courtesy of the local strongmen, while the oppressed masses start marching for their revolution.

Except this is not fiction; it is the reality swirling around French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his corruption-prone ministers

Read the entire article in the Australian here.

Putin´s "shithouse" programme a total failure

Vladimir Kara-Murza writes about Putin´s failed anti-terrorist programme in the World Affairs Journal:

Another year, another terrorist attack in Russia. On January 24, a suspected suicide bomber detonated an explosive device in the arrivals zone at Domodedovo, Moscow’s busiest airport. Thirty-five people were killed and more than a hundred were injured. As Vladimir Putin prepares for this year’s parliamentary “elections” and a possible return to the Kremlin in 2012, his “pacification” of the North Caucasus has once again been proven a failure. Not that more proof was needed after last year’s attack on Lubyanka metro station – literally under the nose of the FSB, Russia’s Federal Security Service.
---
A decade ago, the Kremlin rejected a political track in favor of the “shithouse” strategy. Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov, whom Mr. Putin himself called “the lawfully elected president, whether we like it or not,” was branded a “terrorist” and killed. Any reference to him or his associates still stirs the Kremlin’s wrath, as was shown last week by the Russian Foreign Ministry’s protest over an event in Washington featuring Ilyas Akhmadov, Mr. Maskhadov’s former foreign minister. What had been a classic separatist movement in Chechnya was hijacked by Islamist fundamentalists and spread out to neighboring Ingushetia and Dagestan. For this transformation, Mr. Putin’s heavy-handed and cynical approach to the Caucasus bears a direct responsibility.

Read the entire article here.