APLG 1st and 2nd period
Egypt Challenges Obama's Arab Spring Philosophy
Read the article and write a paragraph in which you respond to the article incorporating your own paradigm of government from our Sept.5th class discussion. Due by midnight Sept. 6th.
Enjoy, welcome back and great to have you in APLG,
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 3:19 PM
45 comments
45 Comments:
Note: These are not my true views
I believe that the previous leader in Egypt was not take out of office by a coup as Obama said, for the government is supposed to be true to its people and lying is illegal. I believe that if the government chooses to send troops to Egypt to calm the issues there, they have the right to even if it means bringing future generations more problems because of the increase in national debt because I am sure that government knows all the answers and will solve all the problems for us. The government knows what is best for us and will do the right things; they have to because I voted for them after all.
One of the paradigms of a government is that it is expected that they will make laws and keep order. In this article, it becomes obvious that neither of the Egyptian leaders could do so, due to the very transparent fact that they were both ousted from office due to uprisings. It is also a paradigm that a leader will do as his people wants, and Morsi obviously did not keep his people happy with his Islamist constitution. It has become widely recognized that to have a truly successful government that no one will want to overthrow, you must have a religion-free ruling system. This paradigm shift largely came about in the 15th and 16th century when people began to move away from Europe so that they could practice their religion freely. Paradigm pioneers like the Quakers were spread throughout the America's. Religion is something that people want to be free to practice, and not be forced to believe in something they do not like. This is why the United States developed its "freedom of religion" policy. The people in Egypt wanted this same policy, so they ousted Mubarak and changed their autocracy to a democracy. However, it was a poorly formed democracy, so now they are facing the exact same process. Given the fact that Morsi could not keep order and happiness for his people, he was overthrow. He was not able to cause a universal paradigm shift in his country, which ultimately led to his downfall.
A common paradigm is that a government should not be controlled by a millitary coup. It seems odd that the Whitehouse would not consider this situation a coup, but after further research I understand why they are waiting. For according to the Foreign Assistance Act if a coup has occured in Egypt it would force us to end our military aid to Egypt. So why doesn't the government admit it is a coup and use the $1.3 billion sent to Egypt every year on more important problems? We could use the money to better our economy, public transit, schooling, and other seemingly more important items then keeping two countries at peace. This relates to another paradigm in which a government should put the concerns of its citizens before another country. I know peace is important between Israel and Egypt, but is it worth more than strengthening ourselves as a country.
I'm very curious what would happen if the US did remove all aid, monetary or otherwise, from Egypt. I almost feel like the US were to intervene in ways other than sending monetary aid, such as sending our secretary of state to talks with whoever would be in power if we weren't sending money in order to sort out US interests and Egypt's stability.
On this thought I searched to find just how much money was being sent to how many countries by the US. I'll leave it here for others to see, for I find it pretty interesting:
http://foreignassistance.gov/countryintro.aspx
This comment has been removed by the author.
The situation in Egypt relates to my personal paradigm that a leader who is democratically elected is one who will please most of his people. Seeing as a majority picked the leader, I assume that he will be a popular leader. However, this is not the case in Egypt. The laws Morsi put in to place, as well as the actions he decided to take created enough unhappiness in the country to oust Morsi of his leadership position using military force. Clearly this is not what citizens do with a beloved leader, which I assume an elected leader would be for the majority of his citizens.
The situation in Egypt relates to my personal paradigm that a leader who is democratically elected is one who will please most of his people. Seeing as a majority picked the leader, I assume that he will be a popular leader. However, this is not the case in Egypt. The laws Morsi put in to place, as well as the actions he decided to take created enough unhappiness in the country to oust Morsi of his leadership position using military force. Clearly this is not what citizens do with a beloved leader, which I assume an elected leader would be for the majority of his citizens.
Carleigh Pula said....
The paradigm that has become apparent to me while reading this article is that because the U.S. is so big and we have the strongest government we are almost always thought to get involved when something like this happens, like we are responsible for every country's outbreaks. Like we are supposed to be the police officers of the world, and we shouldn't have to be. Yes I do agree with the fact that something should be done to stop the unjust acts in Syria, especially if they are running their republic as a democracy. I personally don't think our government should get involved. We don't need any reason for another country wanting to hurt the U.S., or come and invade us or bomb us in any way. I believe as americans we will do things for the better of the world, but sometimes it always doesn't look that way.
This situation addresses the paradigm that democracy is the best form of government. I believe that the paradigm above is a conditional clause- democracy is the best form of government IF the public favors it. The problem with Egypt is that the public is far from unanimous regarding government powers due to influence from various groups like the Muslim brotherhood. Democracy may not be the ideal solution to this conflict, but the government is too far into it to back out gracefully. Obama did not define his clear stance on the issue early on, and as a result, is torn between supporting the democracy (the ideal concept) and the military (the ideal reality). He is giving aid to Egypt, but is unwilling to invest in a full war (which is costly). The cost of democracy is much higher here than it was in other Middle Eastern countries because Egypt is more prominent and does not have a clear wish for democratic rule. Though the USA may appear inconsistent or soft, it is crucial for the administration to consider the situation on the home front before spreading democracy.
This article most closely relates to the paradigm I hold about government: that people should be able to declare their own leader. In this case, the citizens of Egypt had, Mohammed Morsi was elected to power with the majority vote. Now that the military had taken control of the government, Egypt was no longer operating within this democratic paradigm. The US should cut aid to the country to show that they disapprove of the coup that has taken place there. If we do not, then we send the message that we play favorites, we don't care who is in power as long as they support the US.
I think that the many people have become comfortable with the paradigm that the U.S has taken a sort of hall monitor role in the world. The United States has gotten so used to trying to regulate the world because of its own strong democratic viewpoint that it has even driven Egypt to expect a firm standpoint from the U.S. However, as with the example given today about Iraq, the action taken by the U.S has absolutely no weight without constant reinforcement. That being said, it seems like Obama is trying to stand by his philosophy of limited involvement, however given the prior history of the U.S' constant involvement in the affairs of other countries in the name of democracy no action would completely shift the paradigm the of all the nations who believe in the firm democratic integrity of the United States. On the other hand, swift and forceful action would bring into question the value of the philosophy that our leader has deemed necessary, as well as suspending the aid we give to the very country that condemns the U.S for its inaction. It seems we have reached an impasse.
A paradigm that has shaped forms of government is that the government is to do what is best for its people. This though, is not the case concerning Egypt and the murders that have occurred from fault to Morsi. I believe that a leader and government would follow the rights and laws given to his people. In the best interest of the citizens of Egypt an oust of power can be called by most, essential to the growth of Egypt with a new leader. The turn of arms onto Morsi's own people leaves the opinion open to each person whether or not Morsi was doing good for his people (concerning Morsi followers)or whether Obama was doing good by intervening. Obama also has those expectations from the government and his people to make the right decisions money wise, military wise, and ally wise.
The interests of government extend farther than the interests of the governed. A common paradigm is to let the government worry about foreign policy. In the past, governments had much to fear about invasions and warfare. Contemporary government now worries about what will best interest them in terms of either appeasing a greater power or keeping the interests of the government protected. These interests include keeping certain groups in power (Egypt) in order to safeguard another power (Israel) which provides a greater advantage for the U.S to keep a foothold in the region. Having the fundamental rights of the people protected would mean nothing for a power that can control with an invisible hand. On the other hand, people enjoy having their personal liberties protected by another power and would be happy to support them if they were brought into power by them. Although some governments may seem like cement at their foundations, just beneath those foundations are salt, gravel, and sand. This is true for all such governments and will none-the-less change with the sands of time as mankind continues to send shock waves of paradigm shift after paradigm shift. Whether a paradigm shift will benefit warfare or government remains to be seen.
A personal paradigm of mine that relates to this, is that a government should speak softly and carry a big stick,and I do not really see this happening in either country's government. With Egypt, I see that the "Democratic" government did not function to the point where it could remove a leader in an orderly fashion and hold a peaceful shift of power. In short, the government said it was going to do more than it could to help the people. Big mouth, small stick. Then when one looks at the United states government, they are doing the same thing. They are trying to influence the creation of government, while not actually doing anything to influence the creation of government. Big mouth, small stick. The United States either needs to back off and let Egypt make its own government, which could be one that the United States would detest, or the United States needs to go in and make a Government for Egypt, which could be one that the Egyptian people would detest. So that is how my paradigm of governments needing to speak softly and carry a big stick works into the current situation in Egypt.
A paradigm of government may be that a strong government is supported by the people; whether it be strong support or lingering faith, there is little faith in the recent Egyptian governments. In 2011 with the overthrowing of the autocrat Hosni Mubarak there were similar issues, and I believe the U.S. made the right choice in establishing a no-fly zone over Egypt. But today is different, as Egypt may be controlled now by a military coup, which would be in the opposite direction for the paradigm listed above. If Egyptians really do want a democracy, it is doubtful that a military coup (of perhaps Islamic extremists) controlling the government will establish a democracy, diminishing the faith of the Egyptian people. Also, a paradigm we live in today suggests that governments (particularly the U.S. government) is successful in its affairs. The latest events in Egypt prove that this paradigm is also at stake.
I think this article most closely relates to my paradigm which is that a country is best ruled by a leader who is brought into power through the consent of a majority of the population. When Morsi who was elected democratically was ousted and replaced with a dictatorship the country rapidly began deteriorating.in my opinion military intervention is nescessary in order to force Morsi out of power, re install a democratic government, and re-stabilize the nation.
This article addresses the paradigm of government that democracy is the best type of government for all. The situation in Egypt is proving that democracy may not be the appropriate system to govern by if it is one where a leader, not loved by the people, is elected. It has become clear that the public is not totally in favor of this type of government which is a pretty big issue for a gov. that is all about the people and their support for it. Although Morsi was elected with a majority vote through a democratic system, he is clearly unpopular with public and whatever the reasons may be, the paradigm of democracy being the best form of gov. for all is broken here as it does not seem to be for this current situation.
A paradigm I hold about government is that it was established for the better of the people and to provide protection. This paradigm does not apply to the situation in Egypt. People dying at the hands of an elected leader is far from my paradigm of government, and Obama is being heavily criticized for allowing an elected president to be overthrown, even though it was for the greater good of the people. I believe Obama has done right by intervening. The role of leaders should be looking for the peoples' best interests, which Morsi clearly was not doing. Once the people face danger from their own elected leader, it is time for an intervention. Obama has made statements about his intentions to help Egypt while staying a safe distance away, which is not a very defined plan, which is also bringing criticism to him. Obama is making many decisions regarding the situation in Egypt, and I think a paradigm shift to a government more like the US government would be supremely beneficial to Egypt.
I think this article best compares with my paradigm which states that democracy is the best type of government. Egypt-and the US along with them-had spent a ton of money and used much manpower to put a democracy in place in Egypt in 2011. Now, after that government has had some time to settle in, the leader has been ousted again. This is a sure sign of one of two things: either the Egyptian people are really picky about what they want or (what follows is the better option) the democracy may not be the best government for them. Egypt has survived for very long periods of time on a dictatorship or a monarchy. Therefore, they might want to try a government that is more styled towards those types. A democracy is not always the perfect government. Sometimes, the country that has ousted two rulers under two different governments in the last two years, should start thinking outside the box and look for other, better-fitted governments than democracy.
A paradigm I hold of government is that it's job is to use the power it is given to protect the civil rights of its civilians as well as their well-being. However, in the case of Egypt, Morsi violated his subjects' rights by neglecting to abide by the democratic constitution he had been elected under. By enacting a new, more Islamic-centered constitution he gained the disfavor of his civilians, and his army, and was thus ousted from power. Yet, the people of Egypt are also at fault in this situation. By removing Morsi via what may be called a military coup, they have also violated the democracy which they strove so hard to acquire back in 2011. Unless the Egyptian people learn to either trust their leaders or develop checks and balances, they will never be able to maintain a peaceful and efficient democracy.
A paradigm that I hold of the government is that the people should be awarded with the promises made to them in the original election. The citizens over in Egypt elected a leader that they saw best fit the criteria and they were not given the leader they were promised. Instead Mohammed Morsi was placed as leader and did not deliver his promises to the people and caused people to become upset and the military to get involved because they do not see what the asked for. I also believe the President Obama should not support this because it was up to Mohammed Morsi to lead the country in a way that was the most beneficial. Obama should offer support only when the new leader is elected and prove himself to be worthy of following the reasonable demands of the people.
One common paradigm many hold today, especially in the United States, is that we believe that we can control other countries. We hold ourselves accountable to the spread of democracy. We know not of certainty that it will be successful in another situation. For example, a shark is a great creature that flourishes in an ocean environment, but taken out of water it might cease to exist. In Egypt, we set up a democracy with Mubarak as leader, and that failed miserably, leading to his resignation. I believe we have to proceed with caution as we go about the situation in the middle east. We should not try to control the people there or force them to set up a democracy. The money involved would be too great for support from American citizens. The common paradigm (and maybe a reasonable one to keep consistent) is that the leader of a country should keep his people satisfied.
My paradigm of government is that we should mind our own business unless someone asks for help. I am reluctant to agree with the U.S. government sending the military to assist other countries in ousting a leader and reforming their government according to our paradigm: after what the government attempted in Iraq, especially. Yes, maybe the people of Egypt did not agree with their leaders decision and maybe they did not necessarily have the power to impeach, but if the U.S. tries to force our paradigm of democracy/republic onto Egyptians, I think it is reasonable to assume that it will result in an event much like the Allegory of the Cave in that we will be met with resistance. In this case, I think that the U.S. politicians and their decisions are not leading people out of the darkness (chaos in Middle East) and into the light (order of democracy), but rather staying in the dark for their own benefits. The United States has a history of "rooting for the underdogs" as the article mentioned in Libya and Syria; on the contrary, I think that the perks for the U.S. leaders should be examined before anyone calls them "Paradigm pioneers." Being truly kind to others means that it has no benefit for yourself. With our governments history, I'm willing to say that this is not the case.
government's*
Although government and politics is a tricky art to master, one of my paradigms is still to expect the government to be generally peaceful unless prompted by direct action. This being said, I believe Obama did the best that he could in that situation. The priority of a government should be its own people, and it would be unwise to drag ourselves into another conflict. Even though Obama's position may be viewed as weak, and the Egyptians may feel betrayed, bringing in more troops to try and keep Morsi in office would have resulted in more violence and death. Besides that, a country has to go through its own paces to learning to form a good strong government. Since in a democracy the leader is elected by the people, the people have a right to feel he is inadequate. Although as Machiavelli said, the people automatically assume the next leader will be better, and this is rarely the case. The violence is not the best approach to this, but it is not the US's country to run, it is Egypt's.
A very popular paradigm is that Democracy is the best and only acceptable form of government. After huge street riots by the Egyptian masses, Autocrat Hosni Mubarak was ousted in 2011, and Egypt had its first free pseudo-democratic election and appointed President Morsi by majority decision. The totality of Egypt was obviously not prepared for a completely democratic government because Morsi was ousted by a military coup by the Egyptian military which should have been under the control of Morsi and his government. In this case, straight out democracy was not the best out-and-out choice for Egypt's government because of the religious conflicts and the split of the Egyptian peoples beliefs.
Hannah Lehman said... I think this article definitely relates to the paradigm that it is the duty and responsibility of the government to use its power to protect not only the rights of its citizens, but their welfare as well. However, this paradigm was definitely not followed in the case of Morsi and his rule in Egypt. Morsi went against his promises to his people by enacting a new Islamic centered government. His actions caused a great deal of unhappiness which resulted in protests as well as his eventual downfall. These protests have lead to great violence and has therefore greatly hurt the welfare of Egypt's citizens. With such murder occurring, I think Obama has every right to step in and help. However, there is a fine line in how much and how far that help should be given. This also relates to the paradigm that government keeps order. By intervening, Obama would be following this paradigm because his ultimate goal would be to keep order. However, the United States can't be the only one's to help. The people of Egypt must help themselves and realize that there must be some form of trust in those both leading and helping them in order for a peaceful and successful democracy to occur.
The paradigm regarding government relating to this article that I noticed was that the people chose their own leader to fit their needs. The Egyptian people elected Morsi, but he ultimately failed, and the Brotherhood took over. Neither leaders have actually helped Egypt's people, economically, socially, etc. The struggle for power has become much greater that the actual well being of the citizens. A competent leader should be set in place, one that unifies and drives Egypt forward in a positive manner. I'm just not sure the US has all the answers like we think we do in this situation.
A paradigm that greatly relates to this article is that the people choose their leader. The implied second part of this , of course, is that if the current leader does not suit their needs, they can and will select a new leader. This is what happened in Egypt. The people elected Morsi because they thought him fit for the job. But when he failed them, not delivering on promised economic reforms, the people ousted him. Obama is only supporting this paradigm by allowing the people to choose instead of interfering and attempting to control the situation. Despite the warnings of Steven Cook, the article implies that the people of Egypt seem to be handling democracy rather well on their own, having promised to later hold elections for a new leader. Perhaps the US is just having trouble seeing that sometimes it's better to let countries take care of their own issues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
A paradigm of government, that I believe should be true of every government, is that the leaders of a country are there to protect their citizens and keep order between them. Egypt's elected leader, Mohammed Morsi, is using force and killing innocent citizens, which is a paradigm no one should have. By having President Obama intervene with the Egyptian leader, he is helping both the United States maintain order with Egypt, and Egypt maintain order within itself. I think by limiting the role that the United States plays in Egypt's uprising will prevent people from thinking we are supporting the Egyptian leader's ways of enforcing his laws, and will instead help them see that the president is trying to help by teaching the leader of Egypt that using military force is not the way to enforce rules. Since we are allies with Egypt, it is okay for us to mediate with them in order to prevent a civil war between Egypt.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This article shows to me that my paradigm towards government is that democracy is generally the most successful form of government. Clearly, this is not completely so in this instance. For democracy to be successful, there must be support from both the citizens of the state, and the power positions in the state. For Egypt, the power positions were the issue. Although this is my opinion, I do not think that the U.S. government should get involved. Although in some ways Mohammed Morsi's removal from power could negatively effect the U.S., I don't think that it is reason enough for the U.S. to become involved.
The paradigm this brings to mind for me is that the U.S. is always right. Nationalism causes us to believe that our country is the best and always correct, but this is not true. In this instance, it causes many people to automatically support Obama's "help" in Egypt, whether it is helpful or not. This idea causes many people to believe that the U.S. will always be right, so whatever the leader of the U.S. is doing is right. However, in this situation that is not necessarily the case. In this scenario, one must work past this paradigm in order to tell whether or not they really support Obama's actions.
One of my government paradigms, supported by Machiavelli's views in The Prince, is that strong leaders are needed to keep issues from growing too big to be fixed. When issues fail to be detected or treated from the start, it becomes easy to see a big problem, but it is difficult to cure the big problem when action is taken too slowly. To me, it seems that President Obama has taken the issue into consideration early enough, but since no final decision has been made yet, it gives me realization that knowledge is key in decision-making. The more that Obama knows about the pros and cons of either decision, the better the result will be. I am hoping that we can trust Obama to be a strong leader and to make a decision that could help both are country and other countries in some way or another.
-Mikaela Thelen
After reading this article, the paradigm of democracy being the best form of government came to mind. The U.S has been trying to convert many Middle Eastern countries to our form of government, but as we have seen, it hasn't always been successful. If the U.S tries to intervene in Egypt and install a completely democratic government, it will fail due to the Muslim brotherhood regime and citizens who support them. If the U.S keeps trying to force egypt into a democratic way of government, the people in the country will go against it and it will overwhelmingly fail due the military power of the Muslim brotherhood
I believe that this article closely relates to my paradigm by stating that a country is best governed by a leader who is elected into power through the consent of a vast majority of the population. I strongly believe that military intervention is vital in order to force Morsi out of power,and recreate the country as a democratic stable nation.
Our**
Americans operate on the paradigm that there government works for them and
will always look out for their best interest. Since this is our view on how government
should work we are overly eager in implementing this in other countries such as Egypt.
Even though Morsi is democratically elected he still managed to abuse his power and
drive the computer further into the ground. We can't continue to function under the old
paradigm if it does not work correctly. Until we realize this, we are going to continue
pouring money into a helpless situation.
If my personal paradigm of governemt would go in effect, I would allow Egypt to vote again for a leader that would be responsible and set an example to other nations in the Middle East about how well Democracy can work. If the people would approach the elections looking for a leader that see's to prospirity of life because of Democracy, then because of that their economy and way of life will increase. However, if the people continue to elect leaders that only promise freedom from a government thats trying to protect them, then I would suggest that our last effort should only be to take out the leader and replace them that the US can surely trust. I'm torn on the consequences for all options because I feel that we can not stop casualties from rising in that area no matter the choices we make. This leads me to the conclusion that we cannot strive for a perfect solution to any of the problems erupting in the Middle East, but we should strive to show them compassion and the many benefits that can come to being a Democracy.
Sam Lindquist said...
If my personal paradigm of governemt would go in effect, I would allow Egypt to vote again for a leader that would be responsible and set an example to other nations in the Middle East about how well Democracy can work. If the people would approach the elections looking for a leader that see's to prospirity of life because of Democracy, then because of that their economy and way of life will increase. However, if the people continue to elect leaders that only promise freedom from a government thats trying to protect them, then I would suggest that our last effort should only be to take out the leader and replace them that the US can surely trust. I'm torn on the consequences for all options because I feel that we can not stop casualties from rising in that area no matter the choices we make. This leads me to the conclusion that we cannot strive for a perfect solution to any of the problems erupting in the Middle East, but we should strive to show them compassion and the many benefits that can come to being a Democracy.
A paradigms of a government is that they will make the correct decisions. In our country, we hold elections to figure our new leaders. The citizens vote for the official that they think will make the choices of their views. But, once in office, the power of the citizen is almost lost due to the fact that the elected offical makes the decicions for them. The Egyptians had uprisings against their leaders, taking them from office. These elected officials lost the trust and gratitiude of their people after their election, causing a major reaction from their people. The major reaction was caused by the leaders not making so called "correct" decisions as seen by his people.
The initial paradigm that comes to mind is that the US is a well working and powerful government and due to this paradigm we as a nation feel that the US should impose the help of our "well working" government on other countries specifically Egypt in this case. It is true that Morsi as a democratically elected president was forced to step down because of his misuse of his power, but this does not mean that simply because he was democratically elected that we must step in an save the day. The money spent to do such a thing would be substantially more than what is worth spending on a situation like this. President Obamas choice against calling this situation a coup is one that should be admired because by doing that he would've been forced to cease the help already being given to Egypt. The hypocritical aspect of this situation on Obamas end is not to be overlooked, but can be understandable justified by the help that Obama has chosen to still give Egypt.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home