The “Wall Street Journal”:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324399404578583932317286550.html
bq. Egyptians would be lucky if their new ruling generals turn out to be in the mold of Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, who took power amid chaos but hired free-market reformers and midwifed a transition to democracy. If General Sisi merely tries to restore the old Mubarak order, he will eventually suffer Mr. Morsi’s fate.
{ 62 comments }
Corey Robin 07.05.13 at 2:04 pm
In 40 years, when someone quotes this line, the children of the Bleeding Hearts will tell her to stop smearing a scribbler in his senescence.
Ronan(rf) 07.05.13 at 2:11 pm
Kind of ignores the past 25 years of Egyptian history as well, it seems
mozzie 07.05.13 at 2:12 pm
At this point in time, there are 84 comments on the WSJ article.
Only one notes the Pinochet reference (it is critical of the comparison); the rest are the usual troll/ feeder back and forth. Not worth a visit. It’s just Fox fodder for the Red states (why do I love that appellation? I don’t know, but I do.).
Jordan Peacock 07.05.13 at 2:25 pm
How does that get published?
basil 07.05.13 at 2:33 pm
It’s important to remember that the Armed Forces, the Police and the Judiciary remained mostly in charge and unreformed even during the Muslim Brotherhood government – resisting Morsi and conspiring against him and the MB.
It’s odd, isn’t it, that the media keeps reporting as revolutions, what are in effect just changes in occupancy of the office of titular head of the state. The Chile references, there was another in the Guardian, make you wonder what the US’s long game is, even as the cheery statements from Assad and the Saudi monarchy betray exactly what is at stake here.
Jesús Couto Fandiño 07.05.13 at 2:46 pm
Midwifed a transition to democracy… yea… he was such a democrat… bit of a difficult birth though, took him 15 years
Bloody WSJ.
Anderson 07.05.13 at 3:04 pm
You just can’t parody those people any better than they can parody themselves.
lupita 07.05.13 at 3:11 pm
If only you change “Egyptians would be lucky” to “US corporations would be lucky”, that first sentence would make perfect sense.
Pascal Leduc 07.05.13 at 3:21 pm
Presumably the author believes that an actual midwife who is skilled and competent is one that systematically hunts down and murders any women they can find regardless of whether or not they a pregnant.
Nario Mamani 07.05.13 at 4:45 pm
The legacy of Pinochet is quite relevant in the Egyptian case. Most serious students of Chilean economic history agree that despite his human rights abuses, which very not as numerous as generally perceived, his deeper changes to the national psyche and economic performance enhanced Chile’s economy, productivity and perspectives for future growth to a level hitherto unthinkable. Chile has now been accepted as a member of the rich-country Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
hix 07.05.13 at 4:47 pm
The military did agreat job. They removed those ugly muslim democrats. Those stand in the way of providing high quality torture, surveilane and prison guard services for the biggest prison in the world. They deserve a raise. 1,3 billion is a bit meager anyway for so many soldiers.
OneEyedMan 07.05.13 at 4:56 pm
When I read this this morning I knew you folks would be all over it. It is nearly absurdly thin praise, but I thought the best that could be said for the WSJ editorial board is that in the ranking of dictators one could do much worse than Pinochet.
Z 07.05.13 at 5:11 pm
Hopefully as good as Pinochet: the benchmark US corporations favored dictators will be held to.
JazzBumpa 07.05.13 at 5:47 pm
This.
http://americasouthandnorth.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/shorter-wall-street-journal-we-love-governments-that-murder-thousands-of-people/
P O'Neill 07.05.13 at 5:49 pm
There have been cross-currents on the WSJ opinion page on this point over the last week because here’s Max Boot (yes, I know) by way of taking on the straw man that Edward Snowden might have saved the US from dictatorship (yes, I know) —
Almost all dictatorships throughout history have arisen when a strongman has seized power by force from a weak and illegitimate regime. Think just in the past century of, in no particular order, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mobutu, Bokassa, Franco, Pinochet, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Noriega, Trujillo, Suharto, Tito, Hoxha, Qaddafi, Nasser, Assad, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini—a dictatorial hall of fame. Not one of them became the lawful head of a democratically elected government and then proceeded by degrees over years to establish an autocracy. All of them seized power in revolutions or coups and immediately began abridging civil liberties and repressing rivals and critics to establish their rule. Their intelligence services, it should be noted, did not limit their activities to conducting surveillance of the population—they also imprisoned or killed dissidents.
A quick bit of Googling establishes that he has included Pinochet in his hall of infamy before, and does get attacked in comment sections for it. So pro-Pinochet is not an article of faith even among the neocons.
R. Porrofatto 07.05.13 at 6:01 pm
midwifed a transition to democracy
Sure, Pinochet turned the oldest democracy in South America into a democracy, but he and the boys just wanted a little tyranny first.
jonnybutter 07.05.13 at 6:03 pm
When I read this this morning I knew you folks would be all over it. It is nearly absurdly thin praise
Not just ‘absurdly thin praise’ but ‘nearly absurdly thin praise is…what, exactly?
What’s absurd here is the attempt to simultaneously admire and disavow Pinochet.
GiT 07.05.13 at 6:31 pm
Don’t miss the Babbling Brooks:
“It’s not that Egypt doesn’t have a recipe for a democratic transition. It seems to lack even the basic mental ingredients.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/opinion/brooks-defending-the-coup.html?hp
Steve LaBonne 07.05.13 at 6:45 pm
Re GiT, Bobo should know all about lacking mental ingredients. He’s a few eggs short of a cake himself.
Bruce Wilder 07.05.13 at 7:47 pm
One of the more fascinating aspects of Morsi’s fall, to me, is that our vaunted World News Media, has been been unable to produce even a superficially plausible narrative explanation. Usually, they spin these out as effortlessly as the plots of unscripted reality teevee. What were the grievances? What was the source of such acute and widespread dissatisfaction? What at least one news organization has identified as, literally, the largest (number of people participating) demonstrations in the history of the world(!), and I have yet to read one news analysis, which wasn’t 98% projection of glib prejudices or nonsense. Now, I admittedly haven’t gone looking for the obscure blogger-in-the-street, who might actually have a clue. But, neither have they.
To me, the WSJ editorial board (or Bobo), who have always been idiots as well as conservatives, offering an uninformed opinion is dog-bites-man. More interesting is that the events in Egypt are being treated as mysterious by a wide range of Media and their Pundits.
Maybe, this is the know-nothing aspect of neoliberalism, in the analysis of political development, metastasizing.
Rich Puchalsky 07.05.13 at 8:33 pm
Bruce, the commentary was no better on the usual liberal blogs. There’s been tremendously stupid stuff like this.
Neoliberals and left-liberals are unable to say anything about this because it’s “Islamicists are bad” meeting “‘Anarchists’ are bad” (protestors are anarchists, evidently) meeting “Military coups are bad”. All you can get, as with the WSJ, is someone saying plaintively that the one of those things that they actually favor isn’t that bad.
OWS was just a symptom, not a cause, and not really an influence — the Egyptian protestors were there before it and after it, as are the Turkish ones, and the Spanish indignadoes, and before that the Israeli J14 protests and the Argentine National Assembly Movement etc. Everyone gets their turn to wonder why people don’t want to use the wonderful means of democratic change that have been presented to them by the system.
Z 07.05.13 at 8:51 pm
One of the more fascinating aspects of Morsi’s fall, to me, is that our vaunted World News Media, has been been unable to produce even a superficially plausible narrative explanation.
To me, the simplest explanation of what is happening in Egypt (I’m not necessarily saying that this is correct, just that it is simple and seems to broadly fit the facts) is that a plurality of the population wants a democratic, secular or at least broadly religiously tolerant state devoted to addressing the economic crisis and especially the economic grievances of the youth but that this plurality is far from matching the organizational skills of either the Muslim Brotherhood (which does not care about democracy, is hostile to secularism and has proved particularly inept at addressing social issues) or the Army (which cares even less about democracy, is more secular and has proved particularly inept at addressing social issues). Whichever of these two well organized entity manages to wield the power of the masses gets to rule, until the wave of discontentment erupts again. Repeat until another organization emerges or one the two existing institutions 1) finds in itself to address basic social needs or 2) finds a way to crush popular protests. Not entirely different from the French history of the 1789/1852 period.
Couldn’t it be, then, that the US government has not chosen who to back yet but has already chosen not to give legitimacy to the social component of the protests (for the obvious pro-business reasons), so that the US mainstream media is simply waiting to know who are the official good guys? In the interim, as they can’t explain the rational grievances of the protesters, the best solution is to treat the whole affair as an inscrutable mystery typical of the unfathomable Arab mind.
Then again
Maybe, this is the know-nothing aspect of neoliberalism, in the analysis of political development, metastasizing.
seems to me to be spot on.
novakant 07.05.13 at 9:10 pm
So what?
Obama hailed Pinochet buddy Thatcher as “one of the great champions of freedom and liberty” and he refused to apologize for the US role in propping up the dictator.
This makes perfect sense since there is not much of a difference between the US government and Pinochet’s rule anymore, except that the US tends to direct it’s violent aggression towards the citizens of the rest of the world rather than its own people, but even that distinction has been gradually eroded – hopefully the American people will wake up when they’ve tasted enough of their own medicine.
Substance McGravitas 07.05.13 at 9:14 pm
How is that plurality measured?
Walt 07.05.13 at 9:39 pm
I suspect they’re a large minority, rather than a plurality, but they are a large minority centered in Cairo. Egypt is Cairo-centric the way 19th century France was Paris-centric, so that changes in government happen there.
john c. halasz 07.05.13 at 9:52 pm
@22:
Here are the results of the 2012 presidential elections:
Mohamed Morsi Freedom and Justice Party 5,764,952 24.78% 13,230,131 51.73%
Ahmed Shafik Independent 5,505,327 23.66% 12,347,380 48.27%
Hamdeen Sabahi Dignity Party 4,820,273 20.72%
Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh Independent 4,065,239 17.47%
Amr Moussa Independent
The first two finishers in the first round faced off in the second round, (hence their second vote counts and percentages). Shafik was a former Prime Minister and regarded as the candidate of the Mubarak old guard. Sabahi was a Neo-Nasserite who came out of the blue into sudden popularity. Moussa was the General Secretary of the Arab League and a former foreign minister, so identified with secular Arab nationalism, if not quite repressive domestic policy. Hence the secularist side received 54% of the vote in the first round. Foutouh is a moderate, liberal-minded Islamist, who had been expelled from the Muslim Brotherhood. So that gets the opposition to maybe 71%.
Turnout was 46% and 54% for the two rounds.
The constitutional referendum passed the Islamist dominated constitution by 64%, but with just a 33% turnout. So just 22% of the electorate actually approved the constitution. (One would think that a constitution or basic law would require a high bar to be fully legitimate and command pluralistic support, say, 80% turnout with a 2/3 majority approval, which would be an actual majority of the electorate and would likely imply a similar distribution among non-voters).
john c. halasz 07.05.13 at 10:06 pm
Oops! Amr Moussa received 11%.
Ronan(rf) 07.05.13 at 10:07 pm
Afaict the problem is the economy, there is no realistic short/medium term solution to Egyptian economic problems so whoever is in power is going to have to thread very carefully
“Muslim Brotherhood (which does not care about democracy”
I think there’s considerable evidence the MB are committed to democracy (and that seems to be have been the expert opinion for a while) I would think power grabs/fixing institutions are to expected in any political system when the opposition refuses/is unable to develop a united, coherent front
Ronan(rf) 07.05.13 at 10:12 pm
Hazem Kandil wrote an interesting book on the politics involved recently which he runs down here
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n06/hazem-kandil/deadlock-in-cairo
shah8 07.05.13 at 10:24 pm
I don’t think this particular putsch much matters. The state is bankrupt, legitimacy-wise and financial-wise. The fuel subsidies have to go. The state’s economic affairs have to be rearranged, including all assets, those of the military, corporate elites, etc, etc. Who’s got the cred to install these rather painful reforms? Assad was trying to make some of these reforms, and it didn’t exactly work out for him. China’s leadership is trying to make reforms early in its administration as well, but has so few genuine regulatory levers such that it has to do dangerous credit squeezes to get anyone’s attention. Yet those generals probably think that things could go on as they always have, if they could just limp forward, with the promise of elections tantalizing the populace. After one changeover already? I think that there is a strong chance of state collapse by this Christmas. Not better than even, but well more than what chance there should be. And with Libya’s uncertain politics, and moreover, the impact on Tunisian, Jordan, and Turkish politics, well, I think the lid is in the process of coming off.
I strongly hope that there is more….eeeerrrmm, centralization of diplomatic strategies at Foggy Bottom instead of all the kaballistic insiders pursuing their own foreign policies. Some of these people are setting too many fires, trivial fucking shit like not recognizing Maduro or interfering with a leader’s flight, aiding Syrian contras, or running up a huge blockade of Iran by abusing international organizations that are supposed to be independent. All of this is fucking contradictory, while needed foreign policy objectives are getting pretty neglected, like the trade agreement with the EU.
Salient 07.05.13 at 10:49 pm
Of course, the Wall Street Journal editorial page did not support Pinochet; its political philosophy was entirely consistent with that of (say) Murray Rothbard, who was an outspoken critic of Pinochet. The Journal’s expressions of support for Pinochet should be seen in this context, and disregarded. In any case, the WSJ’s support for Pinochet does nothing to invalidate its broader political philosophy. Apart from anything else, from its historical vantage point the WSJ could legitimately judge that Pinochet’s regime, however evil, was a lesser evil than the socialist regime being constructed by Obama…
(Phil’s comment as a gift that keeps on giving.)
Substance McGravitas 07.05.13 at 11:13 pm
Thanks for the tabulations.
herr doktor bimler 07.06.13 at 2:28 am
Augusto Pinochet […] midwifed a transition to democracy
Astride of a grave and a difficult birth. Down in the hole, lingeringly, the gravedigger puts on the forceps.
Kaveh 07.06.13 at 3:17 am
rm 07.06.13 at 4:23 am
How does that get published?
Jordan, the Wall Street Journal editorial page has a long history of supporting murderous regimes. Death squads, torture, disappearances, genocidal civil war, and terrorist bombings are all okay if done in the name of free market Chicago school economics. Democratically elected Latin American governments pursuing mildly socialist economic policies, though, are an Evil that must be exterminated at any cost.
It’s hard not to think that Latin American death-squad regimes represent these folks’ ideal vision for the U.S. too.
js. 07.06.13 at 4:29 am
I imagine most people here already know this, but just in case:
The Arabist is a pretty great site if you’re looking to go beyond mainstream US publications/US-based liberal blogs, etc.
Walt 07.06.13 at 4:55 am
Since Chile was already a democracy at the time of Pinochet’s coup, he midwifed the birth by stuffing the baby back in for 15 years.
Moz 07.06.13 at 6:05 am
Love the descriptions of midwifery, WSJ style.
Some time you should look at the “man of steel” references that keep getting made. I assume they’re thinking of Superman rather than Stalin, but the latter does rather spoil the mood for me. Especially when it’s John Howard in his concentration camp and “we didn’t kill them, they accidentally drowned” mode.
Mao Cheng Ji 07.06.13 at 6:06 am
“Since Chile was already a democracy at the time of Pinochet’s coup”
It wasn’t. ‘Democracy’ is Newspeak for “pro-American regime”.
Walt 07.06.13 at 6:46 am
I’m all in favor of cynicism, but you shouldn’t actually concede the argument for the sake of striking a cynical pose.
basil 07.06.13 at 7:55 am
Is the distinction between secularist and religious useful here? In a country where people take a break in protests to prostrate themselves in prayer? I take it that Saudi glee and the connivance of Al-Azhar and Alexandria with the military suggests there’s something more interesting about the MB than ‘theocracy!!’
I don’t know if I am buying either that protesters, or those most angry at MB and Morsi are ‘leftists’ or ‘secularists’. They seem to me merely a different stripe of conservative, animated not as much by Islam as the MB, but more by the military tradition.
Women’s Rights? Minority Rights? Inclusive governance? I don’t know how much of that they’ve bought into.
So the Egyptian people have to choose between two repressive tendencies, and the inability to make the trains run on time, seems to me Morsi’s greatest failing. Everything else, the disregard for inconvenient minority voices included, he seems to share with his rivals. If there’s not more, better, cheaper bread, the new man could find himself facing protests of ’79 million’ soon.
Walt 07.06.13 at 1:29 pm
I don’t know where you are drawing your conclusions from, basis. Egyptians are fairly religious, but the government is traditionally much more secular than Saudi Arabia or Iran. Alcohol is generally legal, for example. Wearing a veil or head covering is not legally required. Part of the fear of the Muslim Brotherhood is that they’ll change all that. Egypt also has a Christian minority which fears MB government domination.
jake the snake 07.06.13 at 3:16 pm
I am no expert by any means, but there does seem to be a connecting strain of secularism between the protests in Turkey and in Egypt. Both have had secularist governments with at least somewhat more liberal social policy, than Saudi Arabia. There are other socio-economic issues, but concern about fundamentalist Islamism
does seem to be a factor. There was a great deal of that in the suppressed protests in Iran.
If the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was reaction to western-style modernism, we may be seeing a widespread secularist reaction to fundamentalism. I won’t claim that it is the major factor in any of these. Each country has their own internal tensions.
Since the start of the “Arab Spring”, I have reminded of the various movements in Europe and the US in the late ’60s. There were outbreaks of youth/student protests in several countries. However, the “Prague Spring” was different from the SDS and antiwar movement in the US. And the student protests in France and Germany were different from both of those, as well as from each other.
My point is that there was a “zeitgeist” in the developed world in 1968, and I suspect that there is one in the Middle East now.
Barry 07.06.13 at 3:33 pm
Nario Mamani 07.05.13 at 4:45 pm
” The legacy of Pinochet is quite relevant in the Egyptian case. Most serious students of Chilean economic history agree that despite his human rights abuses, which very not as numerous as generally perceived, his deeper changes to the national psyche and economic performance enhanced Chile’s economy, productivity and perspectives for future growth to a level hitherto unthinkable. Chile has now been accepted as a member of the rich-country Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.”
I’ve seen the charts for the economy of Chile before, during and after Pinochet – you’re lying.
“Most serious students of Chilean economic history”
Name names.
“…his human rights abuses, which very not as numerous as generally perceived, ..”
You’re lying again – I’ll be that 90% of Americans, for example don’t know now and didn’t know then even half of what he was doing.
Ronan(rf) 07.06.13 at 3:53 pm
“The legacy of Pinochet is quite relevant in the Egyptian case..”
The problem is that the Chilean model, in a lot of ways, has been applied to Egypt and has led to the current state of affairs. (Market led reforms under dictatorship has been the norm since at least Sadat and particularly since the 90s)
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer210/dreamland-neoliberalism-your-desires
There’s a contradiction at the heartof this frame of thinking that I can’t make sense off..on the one hand you push for privatisations and getting the government out of the economy b/c politics skews the market, but then on the other hand you are blind to the fact that interest group market capture is much, much worse in dictatorships than in liberal democracies
So there’s no sense to it, really
Barry 07.06.13 at 5:27 pm
“There’s a contradiction at the heartof this frame of thinking that I can’t make sense off..on the one hand you push for privatisations and getting the government out of the economy b/c politics skews the market, but then on the other hand you are blind to the fact that interest group market capture is much, much worse in dictatorships than in liberal democracies”
It’s quite deliberate blindness; rich people have frequently found that it’s easier to cut deals with dictators than with democracies – I would list countries where the USA has destroyed democracies, set up and supported dictatorships, but I’ve only got a few minutes.
And IIRC, neoliberals and neocons are prominent cheerleaders for dictatorships (unless they become inconvenient).
Kaveh 07.06.13 at 5:32 pm
Roman(rf) @44, I think the main assumption in this type of “analysis” is that the reader doesn’t look too deeply at it, you’re supposed to just hear the pretty words “democracy”, “free market”, “reform”, “not like Mubarrak”, and nod and move along. It’s only applicable to places like Egypt, where “western” readers feel a sense of epistemic entitlement–believing they (or any two-bit editorialist) know what’s best for the country while knowing next to nothing in the way of specifics.
basil 07.06.13 at 5:38 pm
Walt,
I suppose I’m saying we’re hearing justification for the coup that’s aimed at marketing it to us as liberal, benign, the lesser evil, etc. Hence the Chile/Pinochet simile. Coups, and having the military in charge are bad………unless the military’s stepping in to stop true evil. Not incompetence, not broken promises, but true lasting evil.
It just seems a little too convenient – a revolution to protect women from the bearded monsters from the Middle Ages, even as there’s reports of 80 sexual assaults on women by the revolutionaries.
A revolution to protect the people from the unilateralism of the MB, but here’s el Baradei justifying the military’s post-coup repression, and there’s photos of revolutionaries waving the head of the military’s pictures about. Like Israel reminding Moses of the comforts of bondage in Egypt.
A revolution for secular government, but the Saudi theocracy and Al-Azhar support it.
Too convenient.
lupita 07.06.13 at 5:49 pm
you push for privatisations and getting the government out of the economy b/c politics skews the market
Privatisations are pushed (by the West) because they are an easy source of profits for (Western) corporations and enable countries to pay back debts to (Western) banks and the (Western dominated) IMF.
So there’s no sense to it, really
Think (Western) dominance and the whole world starts to come into focus, including Manning’s treatment, Morales’ flight impediments, and the Washington Post’s opinion piece.
Ronan(rf) 07.06.13 at 6:04 pm
lupita & Barry
It’s more that I cant see the sense of a ‘neutral randomer on the internet’ (such as the initial comment) thinking it’s a good idea, rather than policy makers/interest groups etc (where I agree it does make sense)
js. 07.06.13 at 6:15 pm
basil @41/47:
I’m not unsympathetic to what you’re saying, and there’re all sorts of aspects of the military taking over that I find deeply problematic. (At the same time, the idea that the thousands of people who have marched in Cairo and other cities are old-school statists or militarists beggars belief.) In any case, here’s a rather more optimistic take from the LRB. Perhaps a tad too optimistic, but I do think there’s something to the idea that it’s wrong to see what’s happened in Egypt as a straightforward coup.
Substance McGravitas 07.06.13 at 6:46 pm
It’s worth mentioning that what the Egyptian military really does is distribute money (unfairly). It’s a major employer deeply involved in most doings of the country and its industries, and as it’s a conscript army it’s not entirely composed of fools out for blood.
basil 07.06.13 at 7:03 pm
j.s. @50
I haven’t any answers. No, I don’t think they are all old-school statists or militarists, but we oughtn’t read more than is presently evident. So for the example, the Salafists are reported to’ve backed the army and to be the Saudi horse in the race. This would suggests some of the ‘revolutionaries’ were Salafists. A coalition of interests then, but not the clear, popular repudiation of MB or political Islam that’s eagerly published to win doubters over.
The military is reported to’ve retained atypical control of the deep state, the economy and the security sector – so it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to think they’d created the circumstances necessary for the MB’s downfall – or that they’d have the wherewithal to sponsor, organise or enhance the numbers necessary to eject the upstarts and put in place a more pliant figurehead, would it?
Not that the MB were very good, or that Allende couldn’t have done a better job, but still, this isn’t a terribly convincing revolution.
js. 07.06.13 at 7:29 pm
This _could_ be what’s happened, sure. But if you look at places like The Arabist, or Jadalliya, or others, you can read lots of perceptive, (more or less) on the ground commentators, and none of them seem to think that this is what’s happened or is happening. So I don’t find it to be a particularly convincing narrative.
John Quiggin 07.06.13 at 8:14 pm
I’m finding it hard to see the mystery here.
The pattern is familiar from lots of countries that have long had military-backed regimes (most obviously Thailand). The military, in addition to the natural instinct to hold on to power, has acquired lots of business interests that are threatened by change. Elections produce a government that relies mostly on support from rural areas or the provinces, and is disliked by the urban middle classes. In these circumstances, the threat of a coup, sparked by urban demonstrations, is ever-present, at least until the army gets used to the idea that its job is to fight (hopefully hypothetical) wars, not to run the country.
The scenario, with variations, is the rule rather than the exception in the transition (successful or otherwise) from military rule to democracy.
Ronan(rf) 07.06.13 at 8:45 pm
“So for the example, the Salafists are reported to’ve backed the army and to be the Saudi horse in the race”
I think it’s probably more accurate to see the military as the Saudi’s ‘horse in the race’ (not so much for influence but shared interests/networks – and the Saudi’s hostility to the MB) Qatar have tried to exert influence regionally by supporting Islamist groups, inluding the MB, so are the main losers (afaik)
As js said, most people that know the region dont seem to be supporting the idea of a military instigated rebellion, and I’m not sure it’s really in their interests to do so (they still exert pressure, and probably have more room for manaevuer, behind the scenes, and the US isnt overly supportive of this situation – Obama *has* supported democracy* in Egypt and ties military aid (afaik) to the recipient not staging coups)
Other than that I dont know, but a lot of it seems to be grassroots driven (with, of course, space for various actors trying to influence events in their interests)
*obviously complicated and with caveats
john c. halasz 07.07.13 at 3:01 am
JQ @55:
Thailand is actually a royalist regime and it has the distinction of never having been colonized. So aside from the military generally playing the role of guardians of national unity in institutionally (as well as economically) under-developed regimes, I don’t think that broadly generalizable patterns can be stipulated to.
So, yes, the Mamluks are back, but it’s to soon to tell if they actually instigated or conspired in the mass events. (There is further apparently a difference to be made out between the defense ministry and the interior ministry: the army is not directly the Mukhabarat and apparently looks down on it, whereas the domestic security apparatus seems to be open to the highest bidder and were cooperating with the Brotherhood government). Also the fact that much of the strongest popular activity was occurring in the Nile delta goes against the notion that this is a middle class anti-rural movement, (though what has been going on in Upper Egypt is news that is slow to arrive).
In short, it’s too soon to form judgments and broad generalizations, rather than national specificities, don’t readily apply.
Eskimo 07.07.13 at 7:12 pm
I am trying to find a link to an article I read. It said that what really annoyed the Egyptian military pre-coup was: when Morsi started to make noise about getting involved in Syria and attended a rally for (some part of) the Syrian opposition.
P O'Neill 07.07.13 at 8:08 pm
#58, it was probably this.
bob mcmanus 07.07.13 at 9:13 pm
58, 59:FDL has more, related
I read 58 and it did mention that SA supported the coup, but did not talk about Qatar being a major monetary backer of the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both materially backing (competing?) factions in the Syrian Civil War, which may help explain Morsi’s anti-Assad rhetoric.
Ronan(rf) 07.08.13 at 1:55 pm
On Saudi hostility to the MB
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/saudi-arabia-glad-to-see-morsi-go.html
Salient 07.10.13 at 10:54 pm
Feministing, yesterday, in the article “Chile won’t let pregnant 11-year-old raped by her mother’s boyfriend have an abortion”:
Noted without comment, except to say that this feels like the proper shadow to cast over the WSJ’s terrible use of the word ‘midwife.’
Comments on this entry are closed.