[Ifroham4]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...p/rubin/279876

It’s no secret that Obama is not enamored of democracy promotion or human rights advocacy. He has done as little as possible to aid the Green Movement in Iran, and in fact has cut funding to groups promoting democracy and documenting human rights abuses. His Sudan envoy is reviled by human rights advocates. He has engaged despotic governments in Burma and Syria, been largely mute on the atrocities against women in the “Muslim World,” and shoved human rights aside in hopes China would agree to sanctions against Iran. He has shown no interest in promoting religious freedom. Now he’s giving the back of the hand to Egyptian and Jordanian democracy advocates:President Barack Obama has dramatically cut funds to promote democracy in Egypt, a shift that could affect everything from anti-corruption programs to the monitoring of elections.
Washington’s cuts over the past year — amounting to around 50 percent — have drawn accusations that the Obama administration is easing off reform pressure on the autocratic government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to ensure its support on Mideast policy, including the peace process with Israel.
“Obama wants change that won’t make the Egyptian government angry,” said Ahmed Samih, head of a Cairo-based organization that in 2005 used U.S. funds to monitor parliament elections. And in the Egyptian context, that means there will be no change. …The administration has made similar cuts in democracy aid to Jordan, another U.S. ally.It is not merely that “Obama has moved away from his predecessor George W. Bush’s aggressive push to democratize the regimes of the Middle East”; it is that Obama sees democracy and human rights as afterthoughts or, worse, impediments to his smooth dealings with the world’s despots. The erosion of America’s moral standing won’t easily be reversed, nor will despotic regimes be restrained in abusing their own people (at least not until there is a less-indifferent Oval Office occupant). Obama has not used his vaunted eloquence or his supposed international popularity to advocate for the repressed around the world. To the contrary, he has enabled and encouraged oppressors, who for now need not fear that they will suffer any adverse consequences from the American president.

[HedgeYourBets]

You are kidding, right?

Since when has America preferred democracy over having pro-American dictators abroad?

[softy54534]

I think Curly said it best:

Democracy in Egypt = Muslim Brotherhood. It's not exactly an American interest. They're better off dealing with their friendly dictators while they can.

source: http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...57&postcount=2

[Slonopotam845]

You are kidding, right?

Since when has America preferred democracy over having pro-American dictators abroad?

Authoritarian governments are more reliable allies that's for sure. In as much as non EU states actually have allies and not merely trade partners. For instance, Iran's #1 trade partner today isn't China, it's Germany. The point though is the bald faced statement that promoting 'freedom' or whatnot is not in anyone's interest because Obama is afraid it will anger those foreign governments, which it will. It's just interesting to hear him say that. Similarly Obama refrained from anything that might be construed as any constructive support for Iran's "Green" protesters. Or Lebanon's Rose Revolution or Burma or Thailand, etc etc.

But yes, authoritarian governments are more stable allies. Hence Russian support of Cuba, Iranian support of Venezuela, Chinese support for North Korea and so on.

[MannoFr]

I think Curly said it best:



source: http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...57&postcount=2

Succession. The issue is succession. Mubarek is a pharaoh. He assumes his son will take over when he's gone. But that's not so clear, at least not as clear as the situation was in Syria and Jordan. An unstable anarchic Egypt is a poor option. And anyway, screw them. They've been living in squalor since the rule of Cleopatra. No 'regime change' can alter the destitute messed up life of Egyptians. The Bureaucrat Class exists, as it does everywhere in the world and especially in ex colonial states, for and of itself. They will make out ok no matter which gang of morons rules Egypt.

Note: this is also why any effort at 'fixing' Iran is pointless. The Bureaucrat Class is allowed their periodic street revolts. A few get beat up and shot and everyone goes back to their illegal satellite TV.

[NeroASERCH]

Authoritarian governments are more reliable allies that's for sure. In as much as non EU states actually have allies and not merely trade partners. For instance, Iran's #1 trade partner today isn't China, it's Germany. The point though is the bald faced statement that promoting 'freedom' or whatnot is not in anyone's interest because Obama is afraid it will anger those foreign governments, which it will. It's just interesting to hear him say that. Similarly Obama refrained from anything that might be construed as any constructive support for Iran's "Green" protesters. Or Lebanon's Rose Revolution or Burma or Thailand, etc etc.

But yes, authoritarian governments are more stable allies. Hence Russian support of Cuba, Iranian support of Venezuela, Chinese support for North Korea and so on.

Ok, but the article also deals with Arab allies of America in the ME (Egypt and Jordan). And let's face it, Obama got into power campaigning on offering to be friends with countries which are enemies of the US, and in some countries with a strong anti-American sentiment (like Iran) publicly supporting democracy advocates may do more harm than good.

[Ifroham4]

Well that's fine as long as we all agree it's nonsensical BS. If anything, Obama's unstated foreign policy is at best indifferent at worst isolationist. Which on its own is neither here nor there but in the ME it hasn't earned him anything. Arab countries don't 'like' the US more, don't respect the US more. Egypt does what Egypt does. Obama wants to place nice with Iran who spit in his eye, send missiles to Syria who turns around and gives them to Hezbollah in Lebanon. After Obama also wanted to make nice with Assad by appointing an ambassador there. In the mean time, Hezbollah now has SRBMs which can be used either against Israel or against their own people in Lebanon. He's poured another 7 billion dollars into Pakistan who turns around and arms terrorists who blow up Indians in Mumbai.

I think I'd rather be hated.

[Peptobismol]

Well that's fine as long as we all agree it's nonsensical BS. If anything, Obama's unstated foreign policy is at best indifferent at worst isolationist. Which on its own is neither here nor there but in the ME it hasn't earned him anything. Arab countries don't 'like' the US more, don't respect the US more. Egypt does what Egypt does. Obama wants to place nice with Iran who spit in his eye, send missiles to Syria who turns around and gives them to Hezbollah in Lebanon. After Obama also wanted to make nice with Assad by appointing an ambassador there. In the mean time, Hezbollah now has SRBMs which can be used either against Israel or against their own people in Lebanon. He's poured another 7 billion dollars into Pakistan who turns around and arms terrorists who blow up Indians in Mumbai.

I think I'd rather be hated.

Indeed, he hasn't been able to come up with any achievements so far. But I do believe that he should at least try to see if Syria is willing to become a peace partner for Israel, Syria is stable and able to fulfill its promises if it wants to.

[Fegasderty]

What incentive could anyone possibly hold out to them? They're stuck between the monster of their own (in part) creation - Hezbollah, their new overlords in Iran and Turkey who would love to engage in a cold war with Iran over who gets to annex Syria or use it as bait for the Israelis. The one thing they have to offer Obama is some credible effort at crushing the movement and logistical support of 'insurgents' into Iraq. But with 'only' 95,000 US troops there and 40-45,000 more scheduled to leave by August 2010, he (Obama) may no longer care. He offered them solace before, they rejected him. And now, what? An "ambassador" I mean, CIA station chief? To do what? Shred documents about black site interrogation centers? What does Obama imagine? He can force Israel to surrender the Golan in exchange for nothing?

I am dubious. And human rights are pretty much the worst in the Arab world than any other place which is not actively in a state of war (Central Africa) or one vast concentration camp (North Korea).

[brraverishhh]

What incentive could anyone possibly hold out to them? They're stuck between the monster of their own (in part) creation - Hezbollah, their new overlords in Iran and Turkey who would love to engage in a cold war with Iran over who gets to annex Syria or use it as bait for the Israelis. The one thing they have to offer Obama is some credible effort at crushing the movement and logistical support of 'insurgents' into Iraq. But with 'only' 95,000 US troops there and 40-45,000 more scheduled to leave by August 2010, he (Obama) may no longer care. He offered them solace before, they rejected him. And now, what? An "ambassador" I mean, CIA station chief? To do what? Shred documents about black site interrogation centers? What does Obama imagine? He can force Israel to surrender the Golan in exchange for nothing?

I am dubious. And human rights are pretty much the worst in the Arab world than any other place which is not actively in a state of war (Central Africa) or one vast concentration camp (North Korea).

Incentives (for Syria): Water, aid, Golan.

Motivations: Weakening Iran's influence after they get the bomb as such an event will launch a Middle Eastern cold war, facilitating a peace deal with the Palestinians.

[PhillipHer]

Golan is a non starter.

The 'aid' that they need it debt forgiveness to the Iranians, the Russians and the German banks. I highly HIGHLY doubt Obama will get Congress to them our money for that purpose.

Water is a regional problem that can't be solved by any single country. Either they get on board with Israel or there is no point. They won't get on board with Israel because water is power for them.

[Fegasderty]

Golan is a non starter.

The 'aid' that they need it debt forgiveness to the Iranians, the Russians and the German banks. I highly HIGHLY doubt Obama will get Congress to them our money for that purpose.

Water is a regional problem that can't be solved by any single country. Either they get on board with Israel or there is no point. They won't get on board with Israel because water is power for them.

Israel will eventually have to give the Golan to Syria if there's going to be any sort of a deal. Now, obviously that would mean that the Golan would need to be demilitarized. As for water they also want Golan for it, and that means then that there will have to be a water deal regarding access to the Kinneret. Now, I don't know if Israel has any way of replacing the Kinneret? I mean, even if there's no peace with Syria (and no access to the water for them), we all know that the Kinneret is losing its water every year - it won't be a source of water forever, so I'd expect Israel to have alternatives for it, right? Well when Israel can stop depending on the Kinneret, I think they should seek peace with Syria.

And as far as aid is concerned, I doubt Syria/Assad will reject a couple of billions anually.

[doctorzlo]

I'm for democracy in egypt.

[MannoFr]

I do not think Golan is negotiable, period. I also do not think that Syria is a threat militarily which is why they are outsourcing their warfighting to Hezbollah. I do not believe Syria is in a position to sue or threaten for terms.

[9mm_fan]

I'd help the Kurds invade Syria.