Month: July 2013
Meanwhile in the Balkans
I did this interview Wednesday for Bedrudin Brljavac of the Turkish Anadolu agency in Sarajevo:
- In the aftermath of the accession of Croatia to the EU, do you think that the EU doors are still open to other Balkan countries as well, or has an idea about enlargement recently lose popularity among Europeans?
The door doesn’t really open until a country is ready to join. I think it will open for other Balkans countries, but only when they are well prepared.
- Today there has appeared an interview with former Higher representative Paddy Ashdown who said that after Croatia joined the EU and Serbia joins in the future, Bosnia will stay isolated. Do you think that Bosnia can indeed stay isolated and out of the EU in the long run? Do you think that the “process of Palestinisation of Bosnia” is real and possible? Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Was the coup a good idea?
This piece has been cross-posted at Ghurbeh.
Like many, I’m confused about the events in Egypt. While I sympathize with Tamarod’s grievances, ousting President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood was not a good idea. The movement had no other agenda. They did not outline what will happen the day after. They were waiting for the military to announce the post-Morsi transition. Why didn’t Tamarod propose its own agenda?
Morsi ruled Egypt for only one year. He made many mistakes. But Egyptians should not have expected their situation to improve in just one year. If opposition leaders had thought strategically about their future, they would have wanted to keep Morsi in power. The first few years after a revolution are always difficult, making any government unpopular. The opposition should have expected that by the end of Morsi’s first term, they would be able to win elections. Ruling Egypt three years from now would have been easier. If the opposition comes to power now, its popularity will almost inevitably decrease. The new opposition (the Brotherhood), will gain more support, and might be able to win elections in a few years.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Leahy and democracy in Egypt
Senator Leahy said yesterday:
U.S. aid is cut off when a democratically elected government is deposed by military coup or decree.
This explains why even otherwise reasonable people are bending over backwards to claim that what happened in Egypt yesterday is not a coup, despite the obvious. It also explains President Obama’s deep concern about a coup that removed an unfriendly Muslim Brotherhood and put a friendly army in charge. It may even explain why the Egyptian army chose to turn over governing authority quickly to the chief justice of the Supreme Constitutional Court, who was sworn in as President today (despite suspension of the constitution). Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Coupkoo
With the army’s seizure of power today, Egypt has swerved again in a revolutionary trajectory that has already passed through too many phases and directions to recall. I had imagined that the army, opposition and Muslim Brotherhood might reach a last-minute agreement. It was not to be. President Morsi is apparently in military custody.
No matter how distasteful and incompetent the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, I find it hard to celebrate a military coup, popular though it may be. The Egyptian army took over when Hosni Mubarak fell in February 2011 and made a hash of governing for the next 16 months, until Morsi was inaugurated a year ago. He was correct in claiming legitimacy derived from democratic election. But he lost popular support as security, the economy and social conditions deteriorated. He also failed to maintain his initial truce with the army, which was reportedly offended in particular by his advocacy of jihad by Egyptians against Syria’s Bashar al Asad. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Egypt is in play
The Guardian this morning reports:
Morsi offered a series of concessions in a four-hour meeting with General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi on Tuesday, a Muslim Brotherhood source told the Guardian’s David Hearst.
All the concession were rejected, the source said. David writes:
With the caveat that this is information which can not be cross-checked with the other parties to the discussion, my understanding is that President Morsi offered the following political concessions:
The formation of a national government representing all parties
The formation of a neutral committee to change the constitution
A call on the constitutional council to speed up the law on parliamentary elections.
A new attorney general (he has already gone)
Oblique
shints that if a plan was put to him to hold a referendum on his presidency, he would agree to it.This package was rejected.
There are key differences between the opposition and Morsi on the way forward. The opposition now insists that Morsi has first to resign; that the constitution and the upper house of parliament are suspended; that revolutionary courts are established; and that a presidential council be established pending fresh elections.
The exchange shows where a political compromise may lie if the principle of not toppling a democratically elected president is upheld.
The key issue here is Morsi’s resignation. He intends to hold on to his position as the democratically elected and legitimate president. Some of those who want to see democracy in Egypt agree that his removal by the military or street demonstrations would be a terrible precedent. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tabler and Lynch go ten rounds
The Obama administration’s decision to arm the Syrian rebels is controversial in Washington. While some support the decision, others consider it “probably [Obama’s] worst foreign policy decision since taking office.” Last week, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy hosted a debate on Arming the Syrian Rebels: Sliding Toward Iraq or Inching Toward Stability. Andrew Tabler, a senior fellow in the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute, argued for arming the rebels. On the other side stood Marc Lynch, associate professor at George Washington University and editor of Foreign Policy’s Middle East Channel. Robert Satloff, executive director and Howard P. Berkowitz Chair in U.S. Middle East Policy at the Washington Institute, moderated the discussion. Read more
RSS - Posts
