RPI: CFR Leslie Gelb on Egypt: Hold Your Nose and Back the Junta!

FrankRep

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
28,885
egypt-tienanmen_240x168.jpg



Leslie Gelb on Egypt: Hold Your Nose and Back the Junta!


Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute
August 18, 2013


Long-time foreign policy insider Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, believes democracy is when the guys he likes win. Free elections that produce "enemies" of the US or Israel are by definition not democratic and the winners should be overthrown by the US and its allies.

Last month, in a column urging President Obama to avoid the "democracy-elections trap in Egypt," he argued that pushing democracy too strongly may bring unacceptable results, as happened in Gaza. He wrote:


Remember, President George W. Bush and his advisers pushed the people of Gaza into quick elections in 2006 that were free and fair. Guess who won? Hamas, by far the best organized party, whose mottoes were filled with hatred of Israel and the United States.​


Gelb is back this weekend, penning a piece as Egypt drowns in blood in the aftermath of the military massacre of supporters of the deposed president Morsi. He warns us against getting bogged down in "moral posturing about democracy in Egypt" and urges that we "hold our nose and back Egypt's military."

He argues that neither the Hamas victory in Gaza nor the Muslim Brotherhood victory in Egypt were valid because those parties "were organized to turn out the votes." Presumably what is needed is a few more years of US government opposition support and "democracy training" through the National Endowment for Democracy. Because nothing says "democracy" like foreign sponsorship of political parties.

In his most recent piece, Gelb writes that while Egypt’s military leaders are "no democratic sweethearts" they "back U.S. interests on the Suez Canal and Israel."

That is possibly true, and the feeling is mutual, it seems. As a New York Times look behind the scenes at the Egyptian military coup pointed out:


The Israelis, whose military had close ties to General Sisi from his former post as head of military intelligence, were supporting the takeover as well. Western diplomats say that General Sisi and his circle appeared to be in heavy communication with Israeli colleagues, and the diplomats believed the Israelis were also undercutting the Western message by reassuring the Egyptians not to worry about American threats to cut off aid.​


Gelb claims that although the military crackdown has been bloody, the current junta must be backed because it counts the "moderates" among its supporters and could therefore lead to more palatable (for him) democracy when the smoke clears. He fails to mention, however, that one week before the bloody military crackdown which has claimed close to 1,000 lives, it was the so-called "moderates" and US-trained "liberals" who were loudest in their demands that the military move in against the protestors.

This video is how Gelb's "democracy restoring" Egyptian army handles a Tiananmen-style unarmed standoff with an Egyptian tank. Warning, it will make you ill.

Democracy is what we say it is, says Gelb and his fellow neoconservatives.

Who do we non-interventionists support in Egypt? No one. End aid, end positioning, end training bloodthirsty "liberals," end support for proxies in the region who only draw us further into conflict. No more corporate welfare for the US military industrial complex disguised as "military aid" to Egypt. No more "Made in America" on the tanks that crush unarmed protestors. No Morsi, no Sisi, no Elbaradei, no nobody. Let us know when you get it sorted out and we will come back and check out your pyramids.
 
The Council on Foreign Relations has many different opinions on subjects. Including Egypt.

Also from the CFR:
http://www.cfr.org/egypt/suspend-us-aid-egypt/p31236

Suspend U.S. Aid to Egypt

Events in Cairo this week should put to rest any remaining illusions about the Egyptian military's intentions to restore a democratic process in that country. Its violent crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood supporters has effectively ended the possibility of national reconciliation. Its recent appointment of 19 generals as provincial governors further consolidates its control over the country. The disbanding of the parliament, suspension of the constitution, arrest and detention of scores of Brotherhood leaders, shuttering of opposition media, and the imposition of a state of emergency and curfew laws set the legal clock back to the darkest days of Mubarak's stranglehold on the country.

More at link.

http://www.cfr.org/egypt/democracy-egypt-can-wait/p31243
Democracy in Egypt Can Wait

WASHINGTON — The Egyptian military's bloody crackdown on supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood is yet another sign of the dark side of the Arab awakening. Across the Middle East, glimmerings of democracy are being snuffed out by political turmoil and violence.

That reality requires a sobering course correction in American policy. Rather than viewing the end of autocracy's monopoly as a ripe moment to spread democracy in the region, Washington should downsize its ambition and work with transitional governments to establish the foundations of responsible, even if not democratic, rule.

Ever since the Egyptian military seized power last month, the United States government, backed by much of the country's foreign policy elite, has demanded the restoration of democratic rule. President Obama instructed Egypt's generals "to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government." The Republican senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina visited Cairo to press the new government to restore democratic rule and have called for cutting off aid if it doesn't.

But while Washington must unequivocally condemn the violence unleashed by the Egyptian military, clamoring for a rapid return to democracy is misguided.

More at link.
 
The Council on Foreign Relations has many different opinions on subjects. Including Egypt.

Different Opinions, Same Goal: Spread Democracy in Egypt

Why different opinions? It's a Think Tank.


I just reviewed the three CFR pieces and they are all basically promoting the same thing. "Suspend U.S. Aid to Egypt" says stop foreign aid to Egypt until they embrace the process of Democracy and "Democracy in Egypt Can Wait" says Egypt needs to learn more about Democracy and let go of "political Islam" or "tribal loyalties" before Democracy will work.


Leslie H. Gelb makes the same assessment: "The Obama team wants a quick return to democracy in Egypt, but if that means hasty elections again, the result won't be a real democracy."

Leslie H. Gelb's solution to defeat "political Islam" (roadblock to Democracy): "working with the moderate-aligned military is our only hope. (for real democracy)"
 
Last edited:
"Hold your nose and back the Junta" is not exactly the same as "Suspend US Aid to Egypt". One says back them- the other says don't support them.
 
"Hold your nose and back the Junta" is not exactly the same as "Suspend US Aid to Egypt". One says back them- the other says don't support them.

All three of the CFR members are trying to figure out the best way of democratizing Egypt. All of them agree that Egypt has some roadblocks like "political Islam" or "tribal loyalties" that prevent "true Democracy." They disagree with the "best way" of spreading Democracy in Egypt, but all of them want the same thing.
 
Is Democracy bad?

Ever heard of Ron Paul?



"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
- John Quincy Adams

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison

Democracy is the most vile form of government
- James Madison

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
- John Adams



Democracy Is Not Freedom


Rep. Ron Paul, MD
February 7, 2005


“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

~ Ronald Reagan​


We've all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena.* Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell's view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They're certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders' belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn't be called taxes, they'd be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive — and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state — but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today's Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

he fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

===




Walter Williams

Democracy Versus Liberty

Like the founders of our nation, I find democracy and majority rule a contemptible form of government.​


==

Make sure to get the T-shirt!

road_to_socialism_tshirt-p235231307417870989ux8z_400.jpg
 
Last edited:
Can you have liberty and freedom without democracy?
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul supports democracy.

LOL.


Ron Paul: A Republic, Not a Democracy

Ron Paul
September 12, 2012


...
We should not tolerate the fact that we have become a nation ruled by men, their whims and the mood of the day, and not laws. It cannot be emphasized enough that we are a republic, not a democracy and, as such, we should insist that the framework of the Constitution be respected and boundaries set by law are not crossed by our leaders. These legal limitations on government assure that other men do not impose their will over the individual, rather, the individual is able to govern himself. When government is restrained, liberty thrives.​
 
Last edited:
Perhaps a military dictatorship would be better. Ron did say that the First Amendment was undemocratic.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-08-27/ron-paul-democracy-≠-freedom/
For example, we’ve all heard politicians use the words “democracy” and “freedom” countless times. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. They have become what George Orwell termed “meaningless words”. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused for so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, such words were “often used in a consciously dishonest way.”

Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As just one example, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom. Thus we are conditioned to believe that democracy is always and everywhere benevolent.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. While our Constitution certainly features certain democratic mechanisms, it also features inherently undemocratic mechanisms like the First Amendment and the Electoral College. American is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Yet we’ve been bombarded with the meaningless word “democracy” for so long that few Americans understand the difference.

I do disagree with Ron Paul on this. Democracy does not guaranty freedom but it is the system under which it flurshes best. Freedom does not flurish under dictatorships or oligopolies. Democracy is NOT incompatable with freedom.
 
Last edited:
"Democracy" = pro-Israel government as far as these people are concerned.

Now think about what "Democracy promotion" really means...
 
Last edited:
Zipper, you never fail to disappoint. The former president of the CFR and current president emeritus > than some fellow. Also, YES, democracy is bad. HELLO?

B283.jpg
 
Democracy is simply another way to say mob rule. There is literally no difference at all between the two concepts, other than the way you have been conditioned to perceive them.
 
Tiananmen-style fame doesn't happen when it's a stand against the empire.

 
Back
Top