Why Obama's offer to Egypt isn't good enough

What did Obama say about Egypt in his Middle East speech?  Here's an excerpt from the full text of Obama's speech: 

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

This is all true, and Obama has said it well.  But the big question is how the outside world can help these economies.  How can these countries put millions of unemployed youth to work?   What is Obama offering to do for them?  And can it work?  Obama continued:

Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and Egypt.

Obama talks about the need for Egypt to end "protectionism," yet does not offer to eliminate US cotton subsidies.   Obama does not mention that under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt liberalized its markets substantially (see this post) yet widespread economic misery persists.   Obama continued: 

First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Spoken like a Republican:  Obama speaks of "trade liberalization" as if it is the tried and proven panacea for economies of the developing world.   Yet how well has that worked out for Iraq so far?   Many of the most successful industries in today's economic powerhouses were nurtured on protectionist trade policies. Think South Korea or Japan.  Obama continued:

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.

Egytians need to examine the details before accepting any foreign offers of economic assistance.  Are they sincere?  Or are they just a ploy to get Egypt to open-up its market to foreign-branded goods and services?  What's good for US-based multinationals (Monsanto, Pfizer, GE, etc.) or Apple Computer and its Chinese factory workers is not necessarily what's best for the people of Egypt.

Governments in the Middle East face the same problem that confronts Barack Obama at home:  how to create jobs for millions of people -- especially young people.  Given that the economic system of the United States, its political leadership, its most vocal ideologues, and even its media have failed to address America's own unemployment crisis, Egyptians should be careful about taking economic advice from Americans. 

* * * * *

In post-Mubarak Egypt, protesters are often beaten by thugs.

There's another thing Obama ought to have said but did not.  Obama should have promised that the US would hold the leadership of the Egyptian Army accountable for their actions during Egypt's transition to democracy.  Obama should have said that attacks against peaceful protesters by thugs working in conjunction with soldiers are reprehensible, and that torturing protesters, virginity-testing them, and subjecting them to military trials is unacceptable.   Obama should have made clear that future US military assistance to Egypt's army will contingent upon its adherence to basic principles of human rights and the rule of law. 

What did Obama say about Bahrain in his Middle East speech?

What did Obama say about Bahrain?   Here's an excerpt from the full text of Obama's speech:

...And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power.  And that is true, today, in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq...

These days whatever the industry, the scams look alike

Paul Krugman on the Washington Post's misleading coverage of the healthcare and budget deficit cutting debate: 

As Jonathan Chait and Jamelle Bouie note, today was another VSP day at the Washington Post, with both the editorial page and the fact-checker tut-tutting at Democrats who insist on describing the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare as a plan to dismantle Medicare.

Because it is, you know, a plan to dismantle Medicare. When you transform a program that pays seniors’ medical bills into a program that gives them a voucher that almost certainly isn’t enough to buy adequate insurance, you can call the new scheme Medicare, but it isn’t the same program.

What the Post fact-checker seems to want, nonetheless, is for Democrats to talk about what Republicans are proposing only in big words and complicated sentences, so that the public doesn’t understand what they’re saying.

It's important to keep in mind that the Washington Post Company is essentially a for-profit education firm--one of the industry's leaders.   American kids take out student loans and -- with increasing frequency -- they spend these loans on obtaining degrees from overpriced for-profit universities and vocational colleges.  American kids go into debt -- with the help of the government --paying exorbitant tuitions at for-profit institutions for poorly recognized credentials.

A simple parallel can help to explain the appearance of so many misleading WaPo (Kaplan) editorials about health-care.  Think of health care vouchers as the medical equivalent of student loans:  If the government were to give elderly people "vouchers" to spend on for-profit health insurance that would be analogous to the government doling out "loans" that students are free to spend on for-profit education.

Just as it's misleading to equate patients with consumers, it is also misleading to equate students with consumers.  Most members of both groups lack sufficient information to make discriminating choices.  Government-backed loans or vouchers allow savvy corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.   

Ideologically, America's for-profit higher education industry mirrors the US health insurance industry. This holds true to the extent that in both industries the profits are taxpayer-subsidized and tend to be at once more costly and less efficient than not-for-profit or public alternatives.   The ideological foundation of one scam is the foundation for the other.

The big difference is that in American higher education, there's a public option.  Perhaps with the drastic cuts being made to state budgets that will change.

Pseudo-patriotism in American journalism

In an article entitled "Bin Laden Couldn't Change US Character," posted at the website of CNN, journalist Bob Greene writes:

Sometimes over the years we complained about the long security lines at airports, and about the body searches that were becoming increasingly intrusive -- so, yes, bin Laden was able to add to daily frustrations and irritations that way. Sometimes we raised our eyebrows and joked a little about the color-coded security-alert levels, wondering aloud whether the system was really helping anything. They wouldn't have been there were it not for bin Laden.

Yet very few among us did not understand the need for the stepped-up procedures, and, in the end, although everyday living felt a little different from before, for most there were few genuine hardships. The stores were still full of merchandise, the sports leagues continued to operate as always, new movies arrived in theaters every week, the television networks did their standard best to provide entertainment that would amuse us. In almost every way, ours did not feel like a nation under siege.

Except for those who were overseas in uniform, or preparing to go there, and except for the grieving families of those lost on that September day...

At first I thought: what a logically deficient, utterly vapid article!  Then I realized it was satire. The writer, Bob Greene, was making fun of the kind of mindless drivel that Americans are fed on a daily basis by their news media.

"They wouldn't have been there were it not for bin Laden," Greene writes of the various post-9/11 security measures.  Since when did TSA officials or US Air Force generals take their orders from Osama bin Laden?   You can blame bin Laden for the worst terrorist attack in US history, but not for how America reacted to it.   (This ludicrous statement tipped me to the realize the article was intended as a parody.)

By the same token, the title of the article, "Bin Laden Couldn't Change US Character," is not a false declaration.  Bin Laden could not have changed it.  A change in US character is something that Americans could only have done to themselves. 

What anyone who has given serious thought to the matter can see is that Osama bin Laden gave free reign to the worst elements in American business and politics to pillage America. Since 9/11 the American government has stripped the people of precious freedoms (such as the right to private phone conversations), reinvented the security state (the country now has 17 intelligence agencies), asked young members of the military to give their lives while the rich got tax cuts and the middle class raked up mortgage debts, invited companies to offshore to China what little remained of America's manufacturing base, and encouraged Americans to live in a state of fear (through such tools as pointless multicolored "Terror Alert" warnings).

Greene is making fun of the worst, most insipid type of American journalism. He's mocking that which seeks to obscure historical travesty; a kind of journalism that has had the audacity to overlook an unmitigated financial, moral, and institutional tragedy borne of the inept, farcical, and self-interested execution of the so-called Global War on Terror.  Given the extent to which the American public has been exploited in the name chasing bin Laden, what could possibly justify the brand of "feel good" pseudo-patriotic journalism Greene parodies?   Ultimately, it serves to defend those who have lined their own pockets at the expense of their countrymen.  It nudges the public to turn a blind eye to the systematic degradation of the quality of American institutions, values, and lived experience. 

Washington DC celebrates death of Osama bin Laden

Here's a short video I shot on the street outside the White House last night.

Some photos of the scene near the White House: