Egypt Condemns West's (Obama's) Cautious Stance On Iranian Uprising
The Egyptian government daily condemned the international community’s “cautious” response to the Iranian uprising.
Canada, France and Germany have condemned the Iranian regime and the fraudulent presidential election.
MEMRI reported, via Free Republic:
In its June 18, 2009 editorial, the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram criticized the international community’s cautious stance on the unfolding events in Iran. According to the editorial, this caution gives the Iranian regime the impression that the international community will overlook the crackdown on opposition protests so as not to adversely affect talks on the nuclear issue.
Following is a translation of the editorial in full:
“Events in Iran have followed in close succession since the announcement that fundamentalist candidate Ahmadinejad was elected to a second term in the presidential elections. Between the mass demonstrations [of the reformists] decrying electoral fraud, and the counter-demonstrations accusing the reformists of allegiance to the West, the international community has stood confused about what position to take towards this democratic outpouring in a country that is on the threshold of acquiring nuclear capabilities, something all international and regional actors consider an unwelcome development.
“The caution that has characterized the position of the principle international actors towards the abuses occurring in the streets of Iran, up to and including the killing [of protesters], may be sending the wrong message to the ruling powers there. The upshot of this message is that the strong desire to reach a political resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis and to avoid a clash with the Iranian authorities is a goal that supersedes all other considerations – even if these other considerations be support for international principles and human rights, and the urging of the [Iranian] government to stop the violence and bloodshed and to lend an ear to the views of the Iranian opposition. [This opposition] has expressed its rejection of the election results and its resistance to a second term for the current president, primarily for domestic reasons, and principle among them [Ahmadinejad’s] failed management of the economy.”
How sad. Even the Egyptians understand that Barack Obama is terribly misguided in his support of the regime.
Victor Davis Hanson wrote this today on Obama’s confused stance on Iran:
Of course, there is Obama and his quest for a global messianic rather than an American presidential role. So far it pays to be Hamas and the Palestine Authority rather than Israel, Chávez rather than Uribe, Ahmadinejad rather than Maliki, Putin rather than an Eastern European elected prime minister, a Turkish Islamist rather than a Greek elected prime minister. The former all gain attention by their hostility, the latter earn neglect by their moderation and generally pro-American views. Praising Islam abroad is a lot more catchy than praising democracy — one boldly inspires Bush’s critics, the other sheepishly dovetails with Bush’s agenda. All that, in varying degrees, also explains the troubling neglect of the Iranians in the street.
One mystery remains: Does Obama do this because the squeaky problem gets the attention, or does he really empathize with the tired anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist refrain of those who used to be considered hostile?
It’s shaping up to be a long 4 years for America’s allies with this Far Left kook in the White House.
Charles Krauthammer adds: “Hope and Change — but Not for Iran”