reply to post by JohnySeagull
First of all , its true that Egypt possibly changing its political position after the culmination of events in Cairo , Suez, and Luxor, could be
problematic for the US , since Egypts position as one of the most powerful mid eastern nations, and its links with the US are imperative for American
interests in the region, not least of which is the support of the Israel/Arab peace process, and the dwindling support for military and corperate
interests in the middle east.
But whats key here is that this change of circumstances should not be as devastating as the political commentators are suggesting. For a start the
contingency planners in the U.S. gov, know better than most, that the situation in the Middle East is NEVER static, always morphing, changing and
evolving. Its a never stand still world, even though the money and power in the region is old and entrenched. That entrenchment has never stopped the
political topography of the region from fluctuating wildly in terms of who is the biggest cheese, and who has the louder voice.
While obviously unfortunate for the US, a shift in position on the part of Egypt, would only be catastrophic if somehow, no contingency planning has
occured to cover it. An unlikely state of affairs if you ask me.
However, it seems clear to me that the US none the less, has its hands rather tied at this point. Obama has been said to have stated that it is
important that any change over of power is conducted peacefuly and in good order, and warned against allowing proceedings to descend into chaos.
Reasonable suggestions, but baring in mind the circumstances, and the fact that he has a nobel peace prize in his collection of achievements, one
would have thought that he would be a firm voice against the Egyptian Presidents apparant lack of ability to accept the will of his people. I suppose
I am either naive or simply to honest to understand why he wouldnt recommend that the Egyptian President consider stepping out at this point, when it
is so clear that he has not got the support of his people.
Virtualy every nation which had reason to comment when Ivory Coasts leader refused to step down after failing to win an election, howled and hooted
and banged the war drum over his behaviour, right from other African states, to the leaders of western democracies . This is not the case with Egypt,
even though the President has been in power for what, 33 years? I think this proves how impotent the networks of political relations are,and that
starkly telling the world that you cannot say what you think about a person or a policy, just because of diplomacy is frankly a bit gutless. Right and
wrong are very simple terms to use in this matter obviously, but it is clearly wrong for Hosni Mubarak to remain in power while his people have no
faith in him, and wish him removed from office. Why then, must diplomacy mean that President Obama of the USA cannot say so in plain terms?
Moving on to the meeting of Ambassadors. I believe that this meeting is probably alot broader in its intention than some might give it credit for.
The last two years have been , well... they have been bloody strange really. Floods, and catastrophies left right and centre, political wrangling on
all sides, major shifts in world power bases in general, the rise of China , the partial collapse of western fiscal supremacy, and there has been no
co-ordinated approach to tackling any of the fall out from the last two crazy years of life on Earth. I wouldnt be at all suprised to find that this
meeting covers far more than Wikileaks, and the political situation surrounding the Egyptian presidency.
Theres an awful lot to talk about, inclusive of the changes in the way aid money is doled out. There will probably be a pep talk that runs something
like "We are going to be a hell of a lot less popular this year, I want you all well drilled and capable of putting on a flak vest in less than
sixteen seconds" and other stiring words of encouragement and advice. But in all seriousness, the changes in the world over the last two years in the
entire global power picture, may mean some serious re shuffling of priorities.
Another point is this. Wikileaks may not be capable on its own, of bringing down governments by way of aggressive use of truth, but it can change the
way government bodies operate . Dont you find it the least bit interesting , that this unprecidented meeting comes after Wikileaks have proven that
they can get sensitive Ambassadorial communications almost as easy as breathing? Wouldnt it be marvelous if they could all just get up close and
personal with eachother, rather than having to communicate using such easily intercepted methods as cables and memos? I think this meeting will be a
melting pot for all those cables that were just never sent out of fear of interception. I see back rooms full of smoke and whiskey vapour, well suited
elbows resting on walnut desks, and files full of data never sent by cable , which were considered too sensitive due to the Wikileaks issue, to send
by any other than eyes only , hand to hand delivery changing hands, a massive inflow of hard , sensitive intelligence and information.
I also reckon theres a fair chance of this becoming a regular thing, because I dont see Wikileaks going away, and I dont see the world stage calming
either. With so much data to share , and so many new and interesting developments in the world, I would be very suprised if this is the last time we
shall see such an undertaking from the Embassy heads.