What's Next For Egypt?

The crowd in Cairo is jubilant!!  But, as much as they are wishing for democracy and freedom is this a be careful what you wish for moment?  The Egyptians have ousted Mubarak so what exactly lies in their future?  Does Egypt have the structure in place to be able to start a democracy?  Or is a Khumeini-like individual going to emerge to the forefront and misrepresent himself as being for the people like Khumeini did in Iran?   While I do see some signs of hope for the Egyptians' future I find it eerily similar due to the fact that this revolution and ousting of Mubarak the dictator happened on exactly the 32nd anniversary of the Shah falling in Iran.  Plus, we had a pro-Big Government president in 1979, named Jimmy Carter who royally screwed up our relations with the Middle East and now we have Obama who is an Ultra pro-Big Government president who is royally screwing up our Middle East relations again.  In addition, the way that both Carter interacted with the Middle East's leaders in the past and how Obama is interacting with Middle East leaders today, in screwing our allies while appeasing our enemies I wonder whose interests he's really looking out for?  It certainly doesn't look like Obama is looking out for America's best interests today.

I think that this is a momentous occasion which gives the people of Egypt the possibility of following the model of freedom and democracy, following in Iraq's footsteps.  As I was watching the news coverage of people shouting in the streets cheering in the streets shouting the word freedom in celebration of Mubarak having stepped down I saw in particular one person who said that he wanted democracy, that he wanted to follow the model of deomcracy in Iraq and I couldn't help but wonder whether Geroge W. Bush had a hand in today's events.  Without George Bush having the courage to stand up for freedom, not merely spouting words like other politicians,  would Iraq have become a beacon of democracy of freedom in the Middle East?  He was willing to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk and he toppled a ruthless dictator. Without Bush having initiated a democracy in Iraq would any of these uprisings in the Middle East and Africa have occurred?  Would they have had any hope to topple their leader who was oppressing them?  Hopefully, terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist sympathizers won't take advantage of this chaotic situation and fill the vacuum.  Now the military holds the keys and the future of Egypt is in the palm of the military's hand.

I thought it would be a good idea to look up Egypt's background on history, government makeup, demographics, and resources so here is a brief summary from the CIA World Factbook:

Background:

The regularity and richness of the annual Nile River flood, coupled with semi-isolation provided by deserts to the east and west, allowed for the development of one of the world's great civilizations. A unified kingdom arose circa 3200 B.C., and a series of dynasties ruled in Egypt for the next three millennia. The last native dynasty fell to the Persians in 341 B.C., who in turn were replaced by the Greeks, Romans, and Byzantines. It was the Arabs who introduced Islam and the Arabic language in the 7th century and who ruled for the next six centuries. A local military caste, the Mamluks took control about 1250 and continued to govern after the conquest of Egypt by the Ottoman Turks in 1517. Following the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869, Egypt became an important world transportation hub, but also fell heavily into debt. Ostensibly to protect its investments, Britain seized control of Egypt's government in 1882, but nominal allegiance to the Ottoman Empire continued until 1914. Partially independent from the UK in 1922, Egypt acquired full sovereignty with the overthrow of the British-backed monarchy in 1952. The completion of the Aswan High Dam in 1971 and the resultant Lake Nasser have altered the time-honored place of the Nile River in the agriculture and ecology of Egypt. A rapidly growing population (the largest in the Arab world), limited arable land, and dependence on the Nile all continue to overtax resources and stress society. The government has struggled to meet the demands of Egypt's growing population through economic reform and massive investment in communications and physical infrastructure.

Natural Resources:

Petroleum, natural gas, iron ore, phosphates, manganese, limestone, gypsum, talc, asbestos, lead, rare earth elements, zinc

Population:

80,471,869 (July 2010 est.) 

Religions: 

Muslim (mostly Sunni) 90%, Coptic 9%, other Christian 1%

Independence:

28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status; the revolution that began 23 July 1952 led to a republic being declared on 18 June 1953 and all British troops withdrawn 18 June 1956); note - it was in ca. 3200 B.C. that the Two Lands of Upper (southern) and Lower (northern) Egypt were first united politically

Constitution:

11 September 1971; amended 22 May 1980, 25 May 2005, and 26 March 2007

Legal system:

Based on Islamic and civil law (particularly Napoleonic codes); judicial review by Supreme Court and Council of State (oversees validity of administrative decisions); accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction with reservations

Executive branch:

Chief of state: President Mohamed Hosni MUBARAK (since 14 October 1981); Vice President Omar SOLIMAN (since 31 January 2011)  This has changed. 


Head of government: Prime Minister Ahmed SHAFIK (since 31 January 2011);Deputy Prime Minister Mohamed Hussein TANTAWI (since 1 February 2011) I believe he is the person in power now. 


Cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president; note - a new cabinet was sworn in on 31 January 2011

Elections: president elected by popular vote for a six-year term (no term limits); note - a national referendum in May 2005 approved a constitutional amendment that changed the presidential election to a multicandidate popular vote; previously the president was nominated by the People's Assembly and the nomination was validated by a national, popular referendum; last referendum held on 26 September 1999; first election under terms of the constitutional amendment held on 7 September 2005 (next scheduled for 2011)
election results: Hosni MUBARAK reelected president; percent of vote - Hosni MUBARAK 88.6%, Ayman NOUR 7.6%, Noman GOMAA 2.9%

Legislative branch:

Bicameral system consists of the Advisory Council or Majlis al-Shura (Shura Council) that traditionally functions only in a consultative role (264 seats; 176 members elected by popular vote, 88 appointed by the president; members serve six-year terms; mid-term elections for half of the elected members) and the People's Assembly or Majlis al-Sha'b (518 seats; 508 members elected by popular vote, 64 seats reserved for women, 10 appointed by the president; members serve five-year terms)

elections: Advisory Council - last held in June 2007 (next to be held in 2013); People's Assembly - last held in November-December 2010 in one round of voting and one run-off election (next to be held in 2015)

election results: Advisory Council - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - NDP 80, Al-Geel 1, Nasserist 1, NWP 1, Tagammu 1, Tomorrow Party 1, independents 3; People's Assembly - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - NDP 419, NWP 6, Tagammu 5, Democratic Peace Party 1, Social Justice Party 1, Tomorrow Party 1, independents 71, seats undecided 4, seats appointed by president 10

Judicial branch:

Supreme Constitutional Court

Political parties and leaders:

Al-Geel; Democratic Peace Party; Nasserist Party [Ahmed HASSAN]; National Democratic Party or NDP (governing party) [Mohamed Hosni MUBARAK]; National Progressive Unionist Grouping or Tagammu [Rifaat EL-SAID]; New Wafd Party or NWP [Sayed EL-BEDAWY]; Social Justice Party [Mohamed Abdel Al HASAN]; Tomorrow Party [Ayman NOURI]
note: formation of political parties must be approved by the government; only parties with representation in elected bodies are listed

Political pressure groups and leaders:

Muslim Brotherhood (technically illegal)
note: despite a constitutional ban against religious-based parties and political activity, the technically illegal Muslim Brotherhood constitutes Egypt's most potentially significant political opposition; President MUBARAK has alternated between tolerating limited political activity by the Brotherhood and blocking its influence (its members compete as independents in elections but do not currently hold any seats in the legislature); civic society groups are sanctioned, but constrained in practical terms; only trade unions and professional associations affiliated with the government are officially sanctioned; Internet social networking groups and bloggers.

In my next post on Egypt I will focus on why the Muslim Brotherhood must not be allowed to have a place in Egypt's government and expose just how dangerous the organization really is.


This is a tumultuous situation which calls for our thoughts and prayers.

Economic Similarities: Is the U.S. Following in the Footsteps of Ancient Rome? (Part 2)

The third video in this series takes a look at why the Founders viewed democracy with such contempt. The video defines a few important economic terms.  The fourth video compares the types of economic systems.  It also states that morality is a vital component under a Republic.

George W Bush on Tea Party -- 'I See Democracy Working'

Tea Party Exposes Disconnect Between Democrats & Concept of Democracy

Newsweek: "Victory At Last - The Emergence Of A Democratic Iraq" -- Bush Was Right!!

This is a fabulous article about the rising of a democracy.  This article is about the emergence of a democracy in Iraq.  Victory seems to be in the air.  This would never have been possible without President Bush and our brave men and women serving in the military.  Thank God for freedom.  Freedom is one of America's core principles and that is exactly what former President Bush and our troops helped to spread. Freedom Reigns!!!  God Bless America!!  You can look at some Iraq street scenes here.  

Rebirth of a Nation


Something that looks an awful lot like democracy is beginning to take hold in Iraq. It may not be 'mission accomplished'—but it's a start.

By Babak Dehghanpisheh, John Barry and Christopher Dickey
NEWSWEEKÂ

Published Feb 26, 2010

From the magazine issue dated Mar 8, 2010


"Iraqi democracy will succeed," President George W. Bush declared in November 2003, "and that success will send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran that freedom can be the future of every nation." The audience at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington answered with hearty applause. Bush went on: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

In Iraq, meanwhile, an insurgency was growing, terrorism was spreading, and American forces were in a state of near panic. They had begun rounding up thousands of the Iraqis they had come to "liberate," dragging them from their homes in the middle of the night and throwing them into Abu Ghraib Prison. At the time of Bush's speech, some of those detainees were being tortured and humiliated. Iraq had entered a spiral of gruesome violence that would kill scores of thousands of its people and cost more than 4,000 U.S. military personnel their lives. American taxpayers month after month, year after year—and to this day—would spend more than $1.5 billion per week just to keep hundreds of thousands of beleaguered troops on the ground, fearful that if they withdrew too quickly, or at all, the carnage would grow worse and war, not democracy, would spread throughout the region.

Bush's rhetoric about democracy came to sound as bitterly ironic as his pumped-up appearance on an aircraft carrier a few months earlier, in front of an enormous banner that declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And yet it has to be said and it should be understood—now, almost seven hellish years later—that something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.

The elections to be held in Iraq on March 7 feature 6,100 parliamentary candidates from all of the country's major sects and many different parties. They have wildly conflicting interests and ambitions. Yet in the past couple of years, these politicians have come to see themselves as part of the same club, where hardball political debate has supplanted civil war and legislation is hammered out, however slowly and painfully, through compromises—not dictatorial decrees or, for that matter, the executive fiats of U.S. occupiers. Although protected, encouraged, and sometimes tutored by Washington, Iraq's political class is now shaping its own system—what Gen. David Petraeus calls "Iraqracy." With luck, the politics will bolster the institutions through which true democracy thrives.

Of course, as U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad Christopher Hill says, "the real test of a democracy is not so much the behavior of the winners; it will be the behavior of the losers." Even if the vote comes off relatively peacefully, the maneuvering to form a government could go on for weeks or months. Elections in December 2005 did not produce a prime minister and cabinet until May 2006. And this time around the wrangling will be set against the background of withdrawing American troops. Their numbers have already dropped from a high of 170,000 to fewer than 100,000, and by August there should be no more than 50,000 U.S. soldiers left in the country. If political infighting turns to street fighting, the Americans may not be there to intervene.

Anxiety is high, not least in Washington, where Vice President Joe Biden now chairs a monthly cabinet-level meeting to monitor developments in Iraq. But a senior White House official says the group is now "cautiously optimistic" about developments there. "The big picture in Iraq is the emergence of politics," he notes. Indeed, what's most striking—and least commented upon—is that while Iraqi politicians have proved noisy, theatrical, inclined to storm off and push confrontations to the brink, in recent years they have always pulled back.

Think about what's happened just in the last month. After a Shiite--dominated government committee banned several candidates accused of ties to the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, there were fears that sectarian strife could pick up again. Saleh al-Mutlaq, who heads one of the largest Sunni parties, was disqualified. He says he tried complaining to the head of the committee, Ahmad Chalabi, and even met with the Iranian ambassador, thinking Tehran had had a hand in what he called these "dirty tricks"—but to no avail.

Two weeks later Mutlaq nervously paced the garden of the massive Saddam--era Al-Rashid Hotel as he weighed his dwindling options. "I got a call from the American Embassy today," he said, grimly. "They said, 'Most of the doors are closed. There's nothing left for us to work.'Â " He shook his head. "The American position is very weak."

But what's most interesting is what did not happen. There was no call for violence, and Mutlaq soon retracted his call for a boycott. The elections remain on track. Only about 150 candidates were ultimately crossed off the electoral lists. No red-faced Sunni politicians appeared on television ranting about a Shiite witch hunt or Kurdish conspiracy. In fact, other prominent Sunni politicians have been conspicuous for their low profile. Ali Hatem al--Suleiman, a tough, flamboyant Sunni sheik who heads the powerful Dulaim tribe in Anbar province, is running for Parliament on a list with Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. He scoffs at effete urban pols like Mutlaq: "They represent nothing. Did they join us in the fight against terrorists? We are tribes and have nothing to do with them."

What outsiders tend to miss as they focus on the old rivalries among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds is that sectarianism is giving way to other priorities. "The word 'compromise' in Arabic—mosawama—is a dirty word," says Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, who served for many years as Iraq's national--security adviser and is running for Parliament. "You don't compromise on your concept, your ideology, your religion—or if you do," he flicked his hand dismissively, "then you're a traitor." Rubaie leans in close to make his point. "But we learned this trick of compromise. So the Kurds are with the Shia on one piece of legislation. The Shia are with the Sunnis on another piece of legislation, and the Sunnis are with the Kurds on still another."

The turnaround has been dramatic. "The political process is very combative," says a senior U.S. adviser to the Iraqi government who is not authorized to speak on the record. "They fight—but they get sufficient support to pass legislation." Some very important bills have stalled, most notably the one that's meant to decide how the country's oil riches are divvied up. But as shouting replaces shooting, the Parliament managed to pass 50 bills in the last year alone, while vetoing only three. The new legislation included the 2010 budget and an amendment to the investment law, as well as a broad law, one of the most progressive in the region, defining the activities of nongovernmental organizations.

The Iraqis have surprised even themselves with their passion for democratic processes. In 2005, after decades living in Saddam Hussein's totalitarian "republic of fear," they flooded to the polls as soon as they got the chance. Today Baghdad is papered over with campaign posters and the printing shops on Saadoun Street seem to be open 24 hours a day, cranking out more. Political cliques can no longer rely on voters to rubber-stamp lists of sectarian candidates. Those that seem to think they still might, like the Iranian-influenced Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, have seen their support wane dramatically. Provincial elections a year ago were dominated by issues like the need for electricity, jobs, clean water, clinics, and especially security. Maliki has developed a reputation for delivering some of that, and his candidates won majorities in nine of 18 provinces. They lead current polls as well.  CONTINUED HERE

 
Eagleburger on Newsweek's 'Victory' in Iraq Cover: 'They Changed Staff or Somebody's Getting Honest'
 



 
Bush Was Right
 

 
 

 

Lord Monckton Says: Stop Obama From Relinquishing U.S. Sovereignty in Copenhagen; A New World Order?

First, I would like to thank all my wonderful blogging friends who brought this to my attention.
I am inviting everyone to visit their excellent blogs.
H/T to Goomba's News Network
H/T to MAinfo
H/T to The Conservative Lady

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.
Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!Sail on, O Union, strong and great!Humanity with all its fears,With all the hopes of future years,Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he'll do it .

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don't want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin' Words - Anthony]

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Edited to add @ 8:31 am:
Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)
a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

Reflections On Chapter Three of Democracy in America

During one of my sociology classes in college, I studied Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville. I recently reviewed the writings of Democracy in America again,and I found these two paragraphs quite interesting.

"It is not only the fortunes of men that are equal in America; even their acquirements partake in some degree of the same uniformity. I do not believe that there is a country in the world where, . in proportion to the population, there are so few ignorant and at the same time so few learned individuals. Primary instruction is within the reach of everybody; superior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any. This is not surprising; it is, in fact, the necessary consequence of what I have advanced above. Almost all the Americans are in easy circumstances and can therefore obtain the first elements of human knowledge."

"In America there are but few wealthy persons; nearly all Americans have to take a profession. Now, every profession requires an apprenticeship. The Americans can devote to general education only the early years of life. At fifteen they enter upon their calling, and thus their education generally ends at the age when ours begins. If it is continued beyond that point, it aims only towards a particular specialized and profitable purpose; one studies science as one takes up a business; and one takes up only those applications whose immediate practicality is recognized."

I believe that there are quite a few similarities in these two paragraphs between America in the 19th Century and America of today. Do you believe that in present day every person has the opportunity to achieve success as it is mentioned above? It seems to me that today education is highly accessible to children in both primary and high schools, but is difficult to attain a college degree because of the increase of costs of attending college. De Toqueville states that in the 1800's primary instruction is within reach of everyone, but yet there were so few learned individuals. Are todays college financial burdens similar to the educational constraints of De Tocqueville's America? Do you see any other similarities between De Tocqueville's America and America today?