Mubarak is gone...but there is more to be done...call on the president to back THESE steps

[Ken Burch]

1)The immediate seizure of Hosni Mubarak's U.S. financial assets, for their return, as quickly as possible, to the Egyptian national treasury;

2)Forgiveness of Egypt's foreign debt, so that the new democratic Egypt is not crippled financially at the start;

3)An absolute guarantee that the U.S. will NOT use its influence within the World Bank to impose an austerity program on Egypt, and in so doing destablizing the new Egypt through additional privatization, massive job loss, and massive cuts in social and governmental services;

Please K&R if you're with me on this. We need to set a NEW precedent that no nation, having thrown off an oppressor, will be forced to pay that oppressor's debts, and that no departing tyrant will get away with looting his country's treasury and keeping what he stole.

[gateley]

1. I like your proposal -- not too sure if they would go after Mubarak's assets,

maybe a final payoff? Maybe it would jeopardize our "working relationship" with others in the area?

I think forgiving Egypt's debt is BRILLIANT, as well as not using our influence with the World Bank.

It's my sense that if Obama weren't POTUS and having to deal with all the sticky politics and relationships around the world, he'd be on the streets in Egypt fighting/celebrating with the people. At least in his heart -- like most of us are.

[The Magistrate]

2. All Sound Points, Mr. Burch

Dictators would have a much harder time of it if banksters had to reckon with the chance loans to them would prove uncollectable....

[xchrom]

5. +1

[RoccoR5955]

3. K & R n/t

[alsame]

4. Swiss freeze possible Mubarak assets

Feb 11 (Reuters) - Switzerland has frozen assets possibly belonging to Hosni Mubarak, who stepped down as president of Egypt on Friday after 30 years of rule, a spokesman for the foreign ministry said.

"I can confirm that Switzerland has frozen possible assets of the former Egyptian president with immediate effect," spokesman Lars Knuchel said, declining to specify how much money was involved.

In recent years, Switzerland has worked hard to improve its image as a haven for ill-gotten assets and has also frozen assets belonging to Tunisia's former President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali as well as those of Ivory Coast's Laurent Gbagbo. (Reporting by Catherine Bosley and Oliver Hirt; editing by David Stamp)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/11/swiss-mubarak-idUSLDE71A20X20110211

[Ken Burch]

6. Good for the Swiss.

They used to let just ANYBODY bank there:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

8. Sure. Go ahead and deny funding and aid to all other nations.

See how well that works out, if repayment of funding has no guarantees.

[Ken Burch]

9. You don't make the oppressed pay the debts of their oppressors

It was wrong when we made Mandela's government pay the apartheid regime's debts, and it's wrong now.

And we shouldn't LOAN money to dictators anyway.

It's not brain surgery.

Making a democratic Egyptian government pay Mubarak's debts would be a declaration of opposition to democracy.

Saying "a debt is a debt" is right-wing.

[boppers]

10. Mubarak was "democratically elected" for many years.

So were the apartheid regimes, come to think of it....

Of course, if you start making money conditional upon specific political situations, well, that's somewhat already being done by the World Bank and IMF... but it hasn't earned them much love.

[Ken Burch]

11. None of Mubarak's electoral victories were legitimate

He banned all opposition parties from standing(that's half the reason the Muslim Brotherhood grew, because it was the only semi-tolerated "opposition" grouping).

Elections where a candidate gets 90% are not "democratic".

And again, it's not about "the political situation"-it's the principle that the oppressed, having thrown off their oppressor, shouldn't have to pay HIS debts(most of which were incurred to finance their oppression). It was wrong when we did that to post-apartheid South Africa(we made life worse for millions of people there when they should have had the RIGHT to expect that they'd face no sacrifices for having freed themselves)and it's wrong here. Making the oppressed repay the oppressor's loans forces post-oppression countries into the adaptation of crippling austerity programs. Austerity programs ALWAYS destabilize the countries they are imposed on.

Don't take the side of the banks against the people. Tyrants should never get loans anyway.

[boppers]

12. The people of the United States have never elected their President.

As soon as litmus tests have to be passed, the issue of who makes the tests, and what the tests are, gets very tricky... who gets to define who the tyrants are? Are only close elections allowed?

[Ken Burch]

13. We haven't elected the president directly, and that needs to change

But we also haven't had anything like Mubarak's thirty-year "state of emergency", nor have we ever had the banning of all opposition parties.

And, in case you haven't noticed, Mubarak has been overthrown. Why would you even WANT to defend his legitimacy now? He was never anything but a murderous thug. If the man had any defensible qualities, you wouldn't have just seen his entire country in the streets risking their lives(and in a few hundred cases, losing those lives)to get him to leave office.

It's immoral to say that people who overthrew their country's tyrannical leader should have to pay that tyrant's debts. All decent people would agree, I should think.

You can't just reduce it to the right-wing banker's "a debt's a debt" line. A debt is NOT a debt when your OPPRESSOR incurred it. The distinction is clear.

(having said that...I do, for whatever its worth, respect the fact that you've actually showed up to MAKE a case for your position.)

[stevenleser]

14. No, the US should take no action at all. Let this play out by itself. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

15. Thank you. This isn't about us. nt

[Ken Burch]

20. It's about standing with the people of Egypt

it's about THEM...not "us".

Do you actually have a case against any of the things I've called for in the OP?

Why are you still calling for timidity even when Mubarak is gone?

There's nobody to be neutral BETWEEN, now.

[Ken Burch]

19. It's too late to be "on the fence"

There's no reason NOT to do any of the things in the OP.

The time for "neutrality" on this is done.

Don't you understand?

[uppityperson]

16. k&r

[dionysus]

17. as the goal posts move yet again....

[Ken Burch]

18. What are you talking about?

This isn't moving the goalposts.

It isn't attacking anyone.

It's a call to a set of actions. Do you actually have a case AGAINST any of the things I've called for?