Barack Obama has finally decided: while the riots in Egypt lasted for several days already, Wednesday, February 2nd, the White House officially condemned the action of Hosni Mubarak, his longtime ally. Washington has strongly demanded the immediate implementation of a peaceful transition. Decisive, this position is also fraught with consequences for U.S.
diplomacy. The overseas press and hold back the new paradigm that may arise. If Sunday some analysts blamed Barack Obama too soon to condemn the Egyptian regime, repeating, according to Slate. com, past mistakes, a few days later, it is clear that the U.S. led the dance (Subscribers link) within the international community.
In the wake of statements from Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and lined up on the U.S. position in seeking a political transition committed "without delay" and "without violence" in Egypt. The next day a joint statement by European leaders along the same lines was published. To make his arbitration, Barack Obama has deployed a device to the stakes, deciphered in detail by the New York Times.
On Sunday, U.S. President sends in the Egyptian capital Frank Wisner, former ambassador to Cairo, and convened at the White House a dozen specialists from the region. Former President George Bush (father) takes the same personal service by calling its historical ally of the Gulf War. Objective: To argue the rais, asking him at first to initiate a transition.
The next day, Mubarak announced not wanting to appear at the next election. But his words are not enough for the Egyptians: Wednesday, Cairo ablaze. The United States must speak up. The U.S. decision is not taken lightly, as explained in the Times, the break with "the most faithful ally [the U.S.] in the Arab world" totally upset American foreign policy, raising many questions: "Mubarak's successor will he take over supporting the peace process in the Middle East? Changes in the region will they benefit the extremist Islamists, who try to capitalize on the unrest, or otherwise show the Arab street the power of an uprising that has no religious? " Besides, the paper explains that, in addition to Egypt, other changes are emerging among America's allies in the fight against Al Qaeda and for peace in the Middle East.
"What will become of the underground war [against terrorism] in Yemen if the Yemeni President was ejected from power?" Asks the paper. In the Los Angeles Times columnist MacNamus Doyle said that Israel "is to catch the idea that Egypt could be led by a populist regime or Islamic after thirty years of peace." A fear shared by the Americans, who are already speculating, according to Slate.
com, a possible rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's powerful Islamic brotherhood. The U.S. site shows a grating optimism: "If the U.S. can be friends with Saudi Arabia, although they will accommodate the largest Egyptian opposition group." The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, decrypts it deems ambivalent attitude of another key player in a possible democratic transition: Mohamed ElBaradei, the designated leader of the opposition, with which the United States already made contact.
The newspaper notes with a hint of concern that "ElBaradei was part of the team that negotiated the Camp David peace between Israel and Egypt in 1978," but he did not hesitate to Wednesday described his country's foreign policy of "failure", saying it "should be completely rethought." Since Wednesday, the White House has stayed the course, without deviating from its call for immediate initiation of a democratic transition.
But for all the press about the deterioration of the situation, the United States had before them a limited set of options. If the administration had, according to the Washington Post, on the army to restore calm, she knows that in the present state of things would be a direct military intervention "against-productive." At the same time, "they want the Egyptian army preserves its status to serve as security to the interim government," said the daily.
For Washington, the balance is decidedly hard to take ... 
diplomacy. The overseas press and hold back the new paradigm that may arise. If Sunday some analysts blamed Barack Obama too soon to condemn the Egyptian regime, repeating, according to Slate. com, past mistakes, a few days later, it is clear that the U.S. led the dance (Subscribers link) within the international community.
In the wake of statements from Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and lined up on the U.S. position in seeking a political transition committed "without delay" and "without violence" in Egypt. The next day a joint statement by European leaders along the same lines was published. To make his arbitration, Barack Obama has deployed a device to the stakes, deciphered in detail by the New York Times.
On Sunday, U.S. President sends in the Egyptian capital Frank Wisner, former ambassador to Cairo, and convened at the White House a dozen specialists from the region. Former President George Bush (father) takes the same personal service by calling its historical ally of the Gulf War. Objective: To argue the rais, asking him at first to initiate a transition.
The next day, Mubarak announced not wanting to appear at the next election. But his words are not enough for the Egyptians: Wednesday, Cairo ablaze. The United States must speak up. The U.S. decision is not taken lightly, as explained in the Times, the break with "the most faithful ally [the U.S.] in the Arab world" totally upset American foreign policy, raising many questions: "Mubarak's successor will he take over supporting the peace process in the Middle East? Changes in the region will they benefit the extremist Islamists, who try to capitalize on the unrest, or otherwise show the Arab street the power of an uprising that has no religious? " Besides, the paper explains that, in addition to Egypt, other changes are emerging among America's allies in the fight against Al Qaeda and for peace in the Middle East.
"What will become of the underground war [against terrorism] in Yemen if the Yemeni President was ejected from power?" Asks the paper. In the Los Angeles Times columnist MacNamus Doyle said that Israel "is to catch the idea that Egypt could be led by a populist regime or Islamic after thirty years of peace." A fear shared by the Americans, who are already speculating, according to Slate.
com, a possible rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's powerful Islamic brotherhood. The U.S. site shows a grating optimism: "If the U.S. can be friends with Saudi Arabia, although they will accommodate the largest Egyptian opposition group." The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, decrypts it deems ambivalent attitude of another key player in a possible democratic transition: Mohamed ElBaradei, the designated leader of the opposition, with which the United States already made contact.
The newspaper notes with a hint of concern that "ElBaradei was part of the team that negotiated the Camp David peace between Israel and Egypt in 1978," but he did not hesitate to Wednesday described his country's foreign policy of "failure", saying it "should be completely rethought." Since Wednesday, the White House has stayed the course, without deviating from its call for immediate initiation of a democratic transition.
But for all the press about the deterioration of the situation, the United States had before them a limited set of options. If the administration had, according to the Washington Post, on the army to restore calm, she knows that in the present state of things would be a direct military intervention "against-productive." At the same time, "they want the Egyptian army preserves its status to serve as security to the interim government," said the daily.
For Washington, the balance is decidedly hard to take ...
No comments:
Post a Comment