Maybe it's because of my headaches, but there is confusion, too much confusion. It is now 18 days since the beginning of the protests of the Egyptian people against President Mubarak, the case remains at the center of international attention and everyone, from journalists to bloggers, says its about what is happening in Egypt.
Not that there's anything wrong with tam tam drums of freedom of information but the overall result this time is a daunting noise. Motivated by the suggestions of the moment often we miss the clarity and the calm necessary for the understanding of the phenomena of international politics.
I think it's still too early to draw conclusions about what is happening in Egypt. Let me be clear, no objection from the news that reaches us almost in real time from Cairo, but then again, I think it will soon be able to tip the balance to write something that is not news. International perspective to date has been limited to linking interview with Henry Kissinger, a guru of international relations, despite its position and as usual, maintained an impeccable balance and a sparing in expressing his view on the facts Egyptians.
As a journalist I consider it premature to venture projections at the time mainly because we have a really partial to what is happening. Journalists and opinion writing are based on information obtained from the point of view of the square and by public statements of world leaders but they are totally unaware of how they are actually moving the mechanisms of power behind the screen of 'officers, including diplomacy and intelligence services. The fact that Panetta did say with certainty that these days (said Friday) Mubarak moller bone makes me seriously think that this will happen at the same time gives an idea of \u200b\u200bhow thick the plots woven silent noise behind us surroundings. Second, as I said above, it is easy in these situations to get carried away because it affected by the suggestions of imagination when news of the avalanche effect and internationally.
An example. The United States is lagging behind and in the wake of an 'initial diplomatic ambiguity have officially taken a position on the square Egyptian maintained even after Mubarak's speech on 10 February. Obama officially supports the democratic demands of the demonstrators and calls for an orderly transition to democracy. On the pages of the Guardian Tisdall Obama is already talk of a doctrine. I am very skeptical. In my opinion for the United States this official line has become an obvious choice as a result of a continuation of agitation in Egypt (remember about the silence and ambiguity as well as the initial U.S. 'exhortation to "calm the mood of the country" revolt Egyptian President). With the continuing protests and media attention every day sull'Egitto bet the U.S. could not continue to prevaricate and at the same time, given the choice, they could not "against democracy" worth a huge loss in terms of that precious commodity called international credibility.
Is not it reasonable to think that the words of Obama are more classifiable as a choice on the public image of the United States as a new doctrine? If we take into account American interests related to the Middle East and the invaluable role that Egypt's Mubarak has played in the geopolitical order until today (and the massive economic aid that the regime has received from the States) do not think that the assessment of Tisdall on Washington's official position would be seriously scaled? Io lo credo e credo anche che il significato dell'appello americano ad una "transizione ordinata verso la democrazia in Egitto" sia intelligibile più o meno così:
1. Bisogna scongiurare lo scoppio di una guerra civile in Egitto ed il persistere della debolezza del regime: fattori che mettono a rischio gli interessi americani nella regione mediorientale.
2. La transizione dovrebbe essere "ordinata" nel senso che è negli interessi degli Stati Uniti che il processo non venga lasciato nelle mani della folla (troppo disorganizzata), dei fratelli mussulmani (troppo pericoloso) o di figure politiche dotate little power and so little control over the stability of the country.
3. So if Mubarak can not take back the reins of his country is in the interest of the U.S. that Egypt return to stability in a way that meets the needs of the mob and at the same time avoid the dangers outlined above. E 'plausible to expect that the Egyptian army would play a key role in this process.
not deny that the affair of the "revolution twitter" or "facebook revolution" often makes me itch my nose. I hope someone will decide as soon as possible to make studies of this phenomenon to identify the port or quantomeno se ne cominci a parlare in modo serio magari suffragando le proprie tesi con il metodo della comparazione storica.
Queste ovviamente sono solo opinioni ragionate. Il senso del post non risiede in esse ma nell'insofferenza che provo in questi periodi in cui la sistematica confusione tra onde e abissi tende a diventare una pratica generalizzata. Ok, mi prendo un'aspirina.
prospettivainternazionale
Puoi leggere questo articolo anche su Meridiani Relazioni Internazionali
0 comments:
Post a Comment