US envoy: Mubarak has to lead Egypt to transition

[JEDIYoda]

On the one hand we have those in our government who say it is time for Mubarek to go and on the othert hand we have those who say Mubarek is essential to a peaceful transition....who is right?

But with that said -- If Mubarek goes ....who is there to lead the transition.....

Don`t even suggest international intervention....that in and of itself is in reality a sad joke!

The bottom line is the Egyptian people are the ones who will continue to suffer until a transition takes place!
Even then what kind of transition???

Discuss...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110205/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_security_conference

MUNICH – Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's leadership remains crucial for now as the country heads into a transition to democracy, a U.S. envoy who met him this week said Saturday.

Frank Wisner, who was dispatched to Cairo on Monday, said he is increasingly hopeful that Egypt can manage a peaceful and orderly transition to democracy.

He said by video link from New York to a security conference in Munich that "the flexibility is there, the imagination is there."

Wisner, a former ambassador to Egypt, said that the president's departure would under the current constitution trigger elections in two months under conditions that are "broadly unacceptable" to protesters.

"You need to get a national consensus around the preconditions of the next step forward, and the president must stay in office in order to steer those changes through," Wisner said. "I therefore believe that President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical — it's his opportunity to write his own legacy."

Mubarak has said that he won't seek another term in office but demonstrators are demanding that he go now.

 

[Jhhnn]

Mubarak is still pretty smooth, huh?

Given 6 months until the next scheduled election, his secret police can have everything all neat and tidy, ready for a transition to the same place they've been for the last 30 years.

And Israel can breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[Lemon law]

Some entity has to become the new temporary Egyptian government once Mubarak falls or its almost guaranteed anarchy for Egypt. That is why the USA and other entities are working to find some EGYPTIAN mutually agreeable transitional Government. The other problem if the current Egyptian constitution lacks any such provisions. So others are working on that inside of Egypt. Beyond that, no one can say what exact plan will be selected.

About the only thing that can be said is that no one doubts Mubarak has to go ASAP.

 

[Moonbeam]

Time and tide wait for no man.

 

[bfdd]

Well it's kind of true if they want to setup official elections they need him to set it up because he currently has the means too, but who would really trust that? Honestly I don't see a very good outcome right off the bat for this, the only solution is like a council of the political groups and an organizing of the election, but would anyone really trust anyone else? Would the Egyptians be ok with maybe a foreign entity running the elections for them or would that be to big of an issue because of fear of outside tampering?

All I can say is, this situation is rather fucked and we should NOT be in any way endorsing any side for any reason. So I don't really agree with the White House statement that Mubarak is essential to a transition.

 

[chucky2]

He should publically call in the UN to administer the election, complete with UN armed election peacekeepers with the public knowledge they have the clearance to shoot to kill if needed.

Then whatever the results are, they will in no way be tainted. Plus it takes load off the political process in that they don't have to worry as much about corruption (well, of course it's still the UN, but hey, can't be any worse than what normally goes on in).

Why is it so hard for these countries to ask for help??

Chuck

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Mubarak has had 30 years to run honest elections, and he hasn't yet. Why would he change now? Visitation by the ghosts of elections past and present? Some sort of Scrooge-like epiphany? Not likely.

 

[chucky2]

What can I say, maybe he'll get bit by the Hope and Change bug?

 

[Narmer]

The Obama Administration has already distanced itself from that idiot envoy. Honestly, the envoy is damaged goods. He's been in the region for far too long and has his tongue so far up Mubarak's asshole that he doesn't understand the situation on the ground. The envoy needs to go as well.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...distances-self-from-own-envoy-to-mubarak.html

Oh, and the OP hates Muslims, based on his previous posts.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Obama hopes to gain political points with Americans by supporting the riots against evil dictator Mubarak. The fact the Muslim Brotherhood is rubbing its hands with joy waiting to take control once Mubarak goes down seems to escape the current administration. We have already seen how well revolutions end up in Muslim countries and I have a feeling this will be no different.

Muslim Brotherhood has been waiting for nearly 90 years for this moment, now the conditions are right. They will let Al Baradei take power, and get rid of him later, perhaps a few years later, possibly politically, possibly by assassination, but Egypt will be theirs. An uneducated and poor population of unemployed youngsters together with strong Muslim rhetoric and 30 years of administration that might be overly friendly towards the West and especially the Jews can cause the policy pendulum to swing full force into Iranian style revolution and this will have long standing implications.

Again Muslim Brotherhood will play this subtly and with the patience they had over their history but I have little doubt they will emerge winners, one way or another. This opportunity will not escape.

 

[Narmer]

Obama hopes to gain political points with Americans by supporting the riots against evil dictator Mubarak. The fact the Muslim Brotherhood is rubbing its hands with joy waiting to take control once Mubarak goes down seems to escape the current administration. We have already seen how well revolutions end up in Muslim countries and I have a feeling this will be no different.

Muslim Brotherhood has been waiting for nearly 90 years for this moment, now the conditions are right. They will let Al Baradei take power, and get rid of him later, perhaps a few years later, possibly politically, possibly by assassination, but Egypt will be theirs. An uneducated and poor population of unemployed youngsters together with strong Muslim rhetoric and 30 years of administration that might be overly friendly towards the West and especially the Jews can cause the policy pendulum to swing full force into Iranian style revolution and this will have long standing implications.

Again Muslim Brotherhood will play this subtly and with the patience they had over their history but I have little doubt they will emerge winners, one way or another. This opportunity will not escape.

And???

Let me guess, you prefer that we support dictatorships or kings, right? Like when we replaced a democratically elected Iranian leader with the shah? Or that we support Israel and the PLO's plot to suppress Hamas's attempt to form a quorum? Tell me, what do you suggest?

Seriously, your opinion, coming from someone who is so pro-Israel, doesn't hold much credit. Democratically elected arab governments mean more political pressure on Israel to take the peace agreement seriously. People like you obviously don't like Israel to be pressured so you buck.

 

[SamurAchzar]

And???

Let me guess, you prefer that we support dictatorships or kings, right? Like when we replaced a democratically elected Iranian leader with the shah? Or that we support Israel and the PLO's plot to suppress Hamas's attempt to form a quorum? Tell me, what do you suggest?

Seriously, your opinion, coming from someone who is so pro-Israel, doesn't hold much credit. Democratically elected arab governments mean more political pressure on Israel to take the peace agreement seriously. People like you obviously don't like Israel to be pressured so you buck.

I'm all for democracy, I'm just saying the odds of Egypt ending up as a true democracy as pretty slim, or at least, there is no precedence of such a thing taking place in similar circumstances. My bet is either on a Lebanon style "democracy", with Hizballah's role assumed by the Muslim Brotherhood, or simply outright theocratic dictatorship in the guise of another "popular revolution" like in Iran. In such case, it'd be better for everyone for someone - a General perhaps - to assume control and keep Mubarak's current line.

Israel is a non-issue here, the more educated and liberal a country becomes, the better neighbor it is. For a long time I've been claiming the peace with Egypt is deceitful, as the public was still poisoned against Israel in the media and education, while Mubarak played a double game that was meant to appease the west and keep the American aid flowing in.
Obviously such a state is temporary, obviously it is bound to end sometime and with Mubarak being 82 years old and pretty ill in general, no one in Israel expected it to last forever.

So in short, Israel would benefit to no end from a leader like what Al Baradei tries to convince the world he is, all open and bringing Western reforms. Unfortunately his chances of succeeding are pretty small to begin with, and smaller still as the time passes.

 

[TareX]

He should publically call in the UN to administer the election, complete with UN armed election peacekeepers with the public knowledge they have the clearance to shoot to kill if needed.

Why is it so hard for these countries to ask for help??

Chuck

According to the Egyptian constitution (which protesters want to change), there isn't even judicial supervision over the presidential elections. The ministry of justice doesn't even look over it. So who does?

The "presidential elections committee". This committee is 70% made up of representatives from the ruling party, and the rest are chosen.... by the ruling party. Sad? Funny? Yes -and very true.

To change the constitution, it will take a minimum of 60 days, only after the president delegates authorities to the new VP.

For more, read this:
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/po...ange?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d4c5c42b08a0dbc,4

When the White House calls for President Husni Mubarak to resign now, we are not simply calling for a new president to take his place. Mubarak stepping down immediately means something very different than some might think it does. Rather than simply replacing the man on top, we are close to calling for something like regime change. That may be a good thing, and indeed, many of the demonstrators are clearly aiming for precisely that. But it is not clear that those who simply call for Mubarak to leave have thought through the details of what happens next.

In order to think this through, let's go to the rulebook, which is the Egyptian constitution. Does that really matter? Well, it may or may not. But Mubarak on Tuesday and Vice President Omar Sulayman today talked about the constitution explicitly -- and Sulayman in particular sounded more like a constitutional law professor than an intelligence man. And no wonder. The text gives Egypt's current leaders the tools that they want, so they would try to follow it. If Mubarak stays on until September -- even as a figurehead (and listening to Sulayman today it sounded as if that is what the Egyptian president has become) -- the regime can carefully manage the process. If Mubarak leaves early -- as the U.S. and the opposition demands --things become messier

According to the constitution, if the President steps down, he is not succeeded by the Vice President. That's right -- if Mubarak resigns and gets on an airplane tonight, Omar Sulayman, who seems to be in effect acting president at the moment, would not take his place. Instead, the post would be filled by Fathi Surur, the speaker of the People's Assembly. Surur is a former law professor and a reliable regime stalwart. He is not from the military or the security apparatus and is widely regarded as a figure whose job has been to manage the parliament for the regime. And he has done so effectively. His presidency would delight nobody. (Some elements of the opposition have suggested that Surur should be pressed to turn down the post, in which case the job falls to the chief justice of the Constitutional Court. His profile is much lower than Surur but his career would inspire no more confidence.)

As acting President, either the speaker or the chief justice would appear to be simply a weak, transition figure. And in fact, that is precisely what he would be. If he takes over as acting President, he cannot run for election for the post -- and new elections have to be held within 60 days. Since there is not enough time to amend the constitution, that means the existing provisions would have to be used. And those provisions were designed with one purpose in mind: to allow the existing leadership to designate the president. There is virtually no way the opposition could field a viable candidate under such conditions.

So if Mubarak resigned, there would be three choices:

1.) Follow the constitution and wind up with the regime handpicking a successor after 60 days for a full presidential term. That hardly resolves anything. The procedures are written in such a way that Sulayman could be nominated, but it would break the promise both Mubarak and Sulayman made for constitutional reform. This procedure would not even put lipstick on the regime's current face.

2.) Follow the constitution with the promise that the new president (presumably Sulayman) pick up the constitutional reform process. That puts the crisis on hold for 60 days and offers the opposition promises for reform that might be redeemed later -- and might not be. This would put lipstick on, but not much else, particularly given the toxic lack of trust in the regime's promises.

3.) Suspend the constitution and negotiate a transition between the current regime leaders and the opposition. And then we are in regime change territory, operating outside the existing rules. If the process were successful, it would not produce merely a reconfigured regime but would be moving toward a different kind of political system. The opposition has made clear that it wants such an outcome, but it has not sketched out any vision in detail. The negotiations over transition would be difficult and confusing, demanding that the opposition transform its negative platform (Mubarak must leave) into a positive one.

If Mubarak resigned today, the third option is the only one that offers anything like real political change. It may be the best outcome and it is what the opposition is effectively demanding. It may very well deserve our support, but we should know that when we call for Mubarak to step down, then legally at least this is where we are effectively pushing.



UPDATE, 10:10pm: P.S.A group of leading intellectuals (including my good friend and colleague Amr Hamzawy), former officials, and activists and activists) have hit upon an ingenious constitutional solution. Published in the Egyptian daily al-Shuruq and translated by my home away from home, the Carnegie Endowment, the proposal suggests that Mubarak deputize Sulayman to serve as president. This is constitutionally possible—if the president is unable to serve (in this case presumably because of political ill health) he can hand power over temporarily (in this case until the fall when his term is over) to the vice president.By stopping short of a final resignation, the need for immediate elections is removed and there is enough time to amend the constitution.

As I say, this is an ingenious constitutional solution. But would it work politically? It is a promising effort but also one that rests on hopes that may not be warranted. It works only if Mubarak cooperates and those currently running the country make their peace with a real transition. In other words, it would be a way for the regime to sue for a gentle and orderly peace; it has the added benefit of preserving legal forms (always helpful in a country trying to build the rule of law). But there is no sign that the regime is looking for a gentle transition or even a real compromise with the opposition.

So, you can say the constitution was written in a way that makes a regime change "pretty difficult".

 

[Lemon law]

The Obama Administration has already distanced itself from that idiot envoy. Honestly, the envoy is damaged goods. He's been in the region for far too long and has his tongue so far up Mubarak's asshole that he doesn't understand the situation on the ground. The envoy needs to go as well.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...distances-self-from-own-envoy-to-mubarak.html

Oh, and the OP hates Muslims, based on his previous posts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't always see eye to eye with Narmer, but he sure hit the nail on the head with "Oh, and the OP hates Muslims, based on his previous posts"

But yep, when Bozo Netanyuhu screams panic panic panic the Muslim brotherhood is coming, as dutiful pro Israeli fan clubbers, ole JediY and Sammy, have to amplify the message without an iota of logic behind it. Because, when Mubarak the tyrant suddenly becomes an Israeli asset, they too love all Muslim tyrants.

But sadly in a larger unbiased world view, Mubarak has to go ASAP, but still the transition has to be "orderly". Everyone inside and outside of Egypt sees that clearly, but only a consensus plan will work. There is nothing wrong, IMHO, with Obama trying to advance such a plan, the question is, will anyone inside Egypt buy it? Maybe eight months ago when Obama tried to advance and broker a Palestinian state agreement, Obama may have had some Arab regional credibility, but when Obama did not have enough courage to dope slap Israel into a settlement freeze extension, Obama has little diplomatic credibility anywhere in the world. But still some orderly transition plan has to be found, regardless of who advocates it. If Obama can emerge as the author of such an accepted plan, its good for the USA, if Obama tries to stop some competing plan that ends up prevailing, the USA will lose all mid-east credibility. So in my mind, it means the USA can at best support any plan that meets the Egyptians people's approval.

Secondly, there is a minuscule likelihood that that the Muslim Brotherhood emerging as the Egyptian political winner when the dust settles. The Muslim Brotherhood has very little political support in Egypt, and the folks calling for Mubarak's ouster are the young political Muslim leaders of the future. Much more educated, interested in changing the entire mid-east, away from the failed policies autocratic leadership of the past. Far more interested in eliminating their own internal corruption and advancing political and civil rights for everyone in their nation first. And when the MB has never advocated that new agenda, they are a almost a bigger fossil than Hosni himself. Extinct plants and animals are nice things to examine and put in Museums, but they are nothing to model a future upon.

Right now the only group in Egypt that has any cred is the army, and they have earned it. But cannot profit from it. They have to be led temporarily by some transitional leader until such a transitional leader bows out to the winners of new elections. Meanwhile the army can prevent Egypt from descending into anarchy until national elections can decide Egypt's next leaders.

 

[Hacp]

Lol at all the nation-builders in this thread. Why don't we let Egypt be? Withdraw our military dollars, over 1 billion a year we give to Egypt for free. Let Egypt sort it out themselves. If things get rough, nuke them.

 

[Jiggz]

The Obama Administration has already distanced itself from that idiot envoy. Honestly, the envoy is damaged goods. He's been in the region for far too long and has his tongue so far up Mubarak's asshole that he doesn't understand the situation on the ground. The envoy needs to go as well.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...distances-self-from-own-envoy-to-mubarak.html

Oh, and the OP hates Muslims, based on his previous posts.

It should have been the envoy distancing himself from the idiot Obama Admin and not the otherway around. Unless, of course wanted Egypt to end up exactly like Iran.

 

[MovingTarget]

Lol at all the nation-builders in this thread. Why don't we let Egypt be? Withdraw our military dollars, over 1 billion a year we give to Egypt for free. Let Egypt sort it out themselves. If things get rough, nuke them.

You had me up until that last point, but my sarcasm meter has known to be glitchy. Mubarak's time is up. Perhaps the current VP would be a better choice to lead the transition? It is better to take the moral high ground by calling for Mubarak's resignation, and stepping aside to let the Egyptians handle their own affairs.