Ashton pressured Morsi to accept coup: Brotherhood figure

[DJKeefy]

Senior Muslim Brotherhood figure Mohamed El-Beltagy says EU policy Catherine Ashton tried to persuade Morsi to accept his ouster during a Tuesday meeting.

Ousted president Mohamed Morsi has declined an EU-brokered attempt to persuade him to accept his removal by the military and acknowledge Egypt’s new government, according to a senior Muslim Brotherhood figure.

The deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, Mohamed El-Beltagy, told Anadolu news agency that Morsi has rejected "pressure to accept his removal and acknowledge the coup” from European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

Ashton has reportedly met Morsi – currently held incommunicado by the military –on Tuesday during a visit to Cairo. Earlier this week rights lawyers met with Rifaa El-Tahtawi, an aide of the ousted president who is detained with him, and confirmed that he has not been allowed to communicate with the outside world.

Ashton told reporters she had a "friendly discussion for two hours” with Morsi.

She also insisted that she did not come to Egypt to "tell Egyptians what to do."

Brotherhood figure Morsi was removed by army chief and Minister of Defence Abdel Fattah El-Sisi on 3 July following mass protests demanding the elected president's resignation.

Morsi's supporters continue to hold sit-ins and protests demanding his reinstatement. The Brotherhood and allies have refused negotiations until he is returned to office.

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/77838.aspx

[Bombay]

If Mr Morsi has no contact with the outside world as constantly stated how does Mr Beltagy know this did Catherine Ashton come out afterwards and state "I pressured him but it didn't take"?

[Dusak]

mmm...decisions, decisions. What to do Do I stay in this isolated cell, twiddling my thumbs wondering what is going on in the real world, looking at the peeling paintwork, cockroach racing to while away the hours, eating MacDonald's every day, could put weight on... ...or accept my defeat, admit that I hadn't a clue...I got it wrong...no, I may have got it wrong...return to the loving embrace of my family and friends...suppose I could ask them to paint the walls...

[LovelyLadyLux]

Admitting you're clueless is a biggie for anybody.

Add in, that as an Arab man who has, in all probability, been socialized by the family that every decision he has ever made growing up and makes as an adult is 100% right, correct and true and that he is the be all and end all.........well - guess getting used to paint peeling might be the only entertainment.

[Brian Yare]

I might suggest removing even the word "arab" from that!

[LovelyLadyLux]

@Brian - you could remove Arab but I was trying to make a point that in many third world countries and I am lumping Egypt into this the male child is often revered way more than his sister. The moms and aunties and sisters often fawn all over him and accordingly he does grow up with "Little Prince" syndrome where nobody has ever told him NO or criticized any decision (no matter how far fetched or stupid). These Little Princes would not, IMO, make good husband or leaders in any form material.

[Brian Yare]

LLL, we are agreed then that Arab is not part of the problem. It is a much more general 'uncivilised' world problem.

200 years ago it was still a problem in those countries probably consider themselves civilised.

[LovelyLadyLux]

Oh definitely NOT just an Arab problem - used the word cause Morsi - is Arab however I've seen the very same dynamic in Hindu and Seihk families. The boys are honoured out of all proportion to the girls. Don't want to even start on China, Japan etc etc etc

[Hafiz]

Good point Bombay! Someone in Cairo needs to get their propaganda organized and consistent.

Their propaganda should be better than it is because they've been helped from the 40's to the 90's by escapee nazis. That's a story for another day.

This story, about pressure to accept the coup, like most news in Egypt, is only reported in Egyptian newspapers for domestic 'consumption'. It doesn't seem to be suitable for export.

Egyptians do not generally regard themselves as Arabs. Calling an Egyptian an Arab would be like confusing the Scots with the English, deeply insulting to the Scots and wrong. Maybe you mean Muslim or Islamic. 'Little emperor' is a term applied to male children in middle class Chinese families with one child. These people are not backward just indulgent. If you want examples of male child preference you also need to look to the first world: Italy and Greece are good examples together with the former Yugoslavia which means that its not just an Arab/Muslim thing. Ireland several decades ago was a shocker!

Some food for thought. Hindu and Sikh ('and 'backward') India had a female PM before any Western Country and the most politically powerful person in India at the moment is a woman. Muslim Turkey and Pakistan (very 'backward') also had female PM's, the former some decades ago. Very 'backward', and islamic, Bangladesh has had a female PM for most of the past decade. Indonesia (very very 'backward' and the largest Muslim country in the world) had a female vice-president from 1999. How many female heads of government in the west?

[timetraveller]

Hafiz, I can only say that you and I must be meeting different Egyptians! Egypt is actually called the A.R.E, the ARAB Republic of Egypt after all. I once referred to an Egyptian as 'African' only to have him take offence and insist 'I'm not African, I'm an Arab!' Similarly, when an English woman of my aquaintance referred to her Egyptian husband as 'black' he responded in the same way, with 'I'm not black, I'm Arab!' Personally I can't see that it matters a jot how they choose to classify themselves, they all see themselves first and foremost as Egyptians, and that for most seems to be identity enough.

And who on this thread has referred to any of the countries you mention as 'backward?' I think that's just the slant you yourself are choosing to put on it. What is being suggested is that many Arab and Asian societies are fundamentally sexist, and that they show a preference for male children over female. This, surely would be impossible to deny unless you are completely blinkered. It may also be true to lesser degree of some European societies. But it is a considerable difference in degree! It was until recently common practice in India to leave new born female babies to die because they were considered to be an economic burden to the family. If this practice is abating now it is largely because ultrasound is more readily available and female pregnancies are terminated! A similar situation applies in China because of the 'one child' law. To my knowledge this does not happen anywhere in Europe!

And you might want to consider that in many parts of the Arab world females, including girl children are severely discriminated against. We all know that in the Swat valley of Pakistan little Malala was shot in the head for voicing her desire to continue her education-a privilege the Taliban decree should be denied to girls. And a few months ago a Pakistani woman, a teacher, was shot dead in front of her young son for teaching little girls as well as little boys! If that's not blatant sexual discrimination then I don't know what is!

LLL refers, to 'Little Prince' Syndrome in Arab societies and you refer to the term 'Little Emperor' to describe single male children in China. I personally have had nearly fourteen years to observe the 'Little Prince' Syndrome at work in Egypt and can confirm that it most certainly exists. And I am prepared to believe that the same applies to China as well. And many other Arab, African and Asian societies to boot!

[Hafiz]

You are right about Egypt being called 'The Arab Republic...'. I forgot, but I believe that if you asked an average Egyptian whether he was Arab, he or she would say - no! Particularly in Upper Egypt. I would argue that the Arab republic thing is part of Nasser pan Arabism (and his unification with Syria) which was basically a PR stunt. But as you say It's not important.

Little princes/emperors (as part of social practice) are not confined to 'uncivilized' countries although you seem to think they are.

The term I used was 'backward' which is similar to 'uncivilized' which was the term used by others. You seem to think this a big issue yet I think the terms roughly the same.

Even assuming the prevalence of male child preference, 'uncivilized' countries (I've only listed only those with the so-called Muslim/Hindu/Sikh traits mentioned above) have a better track record than we in the west in putting women in positions of greatest power in their countries. This suggests that the discrimination is not as black and white as some think.

You say that I have my eyes closed about female discrimination. There is nothing I've written which could fairly be interpreted that way. I did not say that there was no discrimination but you seem to think that I did. What I did say was that you need to put this discrimination in the context of the Ghandi's and Bhuttos who have triumphed over this in a way which makes the efforts to succeed of Thatcher and Merkel seem trivial.

You mention Pakistan as an Arab country. It is not.

Are you seriously suggesting that the attack on the Pakistani girl is typical of general Arab/Muslim/backward behavior? If not then why make such a big issue out of it as if it was widespread, It's widely reported that the Taliban did this and they are as typical of Pakistan as the raving fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics are of US general opinion. The removal of the small and unrepresentative Taliban from the government of Afganistan has led to a tidal wave of girls attending school which sort of shows that the Taliban is quite unrepresentative of general opinion in Afganistan and puts the stonings and killings in context as isolated behavior of a fringe group. To then take isolated instances and blow them up into generalizations is a sleight of hand. Again I am not saying there is not widespread discrimination of girls and women in Pakistan.

[timetraveller]

Hafiz, as you seem to be determined to continue to argue this point I will be happy to do so. Firstly, I was referring to both Asian and Arab countries in making the point about discrimination against female children. It clearly applies to both. Pakistan is not an Arab nation but it is an Asian one. In both cultures, boys will generally be educated in preference to girls, and with extreme regimes like the Taliban, this is not just an economic expedient, they actually consider it morally WRONG to educate females!

And I re-iterate, nobody on this thread called any of these nations 'backward'. Brian Yare used the term 'uncivilised' but he used it in quotation marks, which implied that he was in disagreement with the term. Interestingly, in referring to the issue at hand, i.e. the value attached to male 'superiority' (note the quotation marks here-which mean that I am referring to a view which I do not agree with!) he mentions that nations who now see themselves as 'civilised' (quotation marks used in a different context here) would have shared the same prejudices 200 years ago! Well doubtless they would. But 200 years is a long time and in terms of human rights, gender equality etc. Europe and much of the wider world have made great strides in those two centuries. Of course sexual discrimination still exists in the West but as I said it is a question of degree. In many Arab and Asian societies there are women still confined to the house and girls who have no prospects in terms of education or employment because their roles in life are pre-ordained for them. Females in these societies do not enjoy the same freedoms or choices as women in the West and the fact that a few Asian countries have had the odd female leader doesn't negate that obvious truth!

In your last paragraph you contradict yourself, so I really have no need to do it for you. You refer to the Taliban as a 'fringe' group and not representative of Pakistan but then go on to say that you do not deny that there is 'widespread discrimination of girls and women in Pakistan'. The majority of people in Pakistan may not want to live under the Taliban, but if they are such a minority, 'fringe' group, as you say, how come the Pakistani Government are having such trouble reining them in? Perhaps they don't really want to. And perhaps the Taliban are not the insignificance you try to dismiss them as? And perhaps blatant sexual discrimination is not just the preserve of the Taliban? Saudi Arabia is a civilised country, and a wealthy one- but their women do not enjoy the freedoms that either their male counterparts or Western women enjoy. It is not even acceptable for them to drive a car!

Many Arab, Asian and African nations are way behind the West in terms of human rights generally. Does this make them 'backward'? Not per se obviously as in some ways they are equally advanced. But to western thinking, perhaps yes, in that regard. To Islamist regimes, obviously not. Clearly they see a return to fundamental Islamist values, which incorporate restrictions on female roles and freedoms as progress rather than backsliding. Whether one agrees or not is a matter of individual ideology. But if you are determined to 'beat the Islamist drum' Hafiz, I think you might have picked the wrong topic to advance your argument!

[LivinginLuxor]

I certainly don't consider Egypt to be an Arabic nation, in the same way as I do not consider another predominantly Muslem country, Indonesia, to be one. With over 5000 years of history, Egypt has managed to assimilate Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc without losing it's identity. Here's an excerpt from a long Wikipedia article about Egyptians - the rest of it mainly concerned with Egypt's history and culture.

"Egyptian critics of Arab nationalism contend that it has worked to erode and/or relegate native Egyptian identity by superimposing only one aspect of Egypt's culture. These views and sources for collective identification in the Egyptian state are captured in the words of a linguistic anthropologist who conducted fieldwork in Cairo:

“ Historically, Egyptians have considered themselves as distinct from 'Arabs' and even at present rarely do they make that identification in casual contexts; il-'arab [the Arabs] as used by Egyptians refers mainly to the inhabitants of the Gulf states... Egypt has been both a leader of pan-Arabism and a site of intense resentment towards that ideology. Egyptians had to be made, often forcefully, into "Arabs" [during the Nasser era] because they did not historically identify themselves as such. Egypt was self-consciously a nation not only before pan-Arabism but also before becoming a colony of the British Empire. Its territorial continuity since ancient times, its unique history as exemplified in its pharaonic past and later on its Coptic language and culture, had already made Egypt into a nation for centuries. Egyptians saw themselves, their history, culture and language as specifically Egyptian and not "Arab."[40] ”
That said, contrast between Egyptians and "Arabs" frequently concentrates on differences between Egyptians and Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula; Egyptians are more likely to find common cause with other "Eastern Arabs", particularly Arabic-speakers of the Levant (whose dialect is, if not mutually intelligible, then is acquired with minimal effort by Egyptians—and vice-versa—and who have a similarly complex relationship with Arabness)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptians

There are many books that support the idea that the Egyptians have their own national identity today, based upon their rich history before the Arab invasions. "The Fellahin of Upper Egypt" by Winifred Blackman, and even our own Glyphdoctor's edited papers of Omm Seti - "Omm Seti's Living Egypt" go to show how traditions from Pharaonic times are still alive and well and living in the Egyptian countryside.

[BENNU]

I have often heard Egyptians express gratitude for not being Arabs and not being Africans, but Egyptians.

[timetraveller]

Well, whatever. Egypt still calls itself an ARAB republic and I've yet to meet an Egyptian who has voiced any argument with that. Egypt is also located on the continent of Africa, which would, one might assume, also make them Africans. Ethnically, the population is probably as diverse as any other, Egypt having been invaded and settled by all and sundry over the centuries, not least Arabs and Ottomans. But as I think I have previously stated I consider it a moot point- it's up to them how they classify themselves, and as such doesn't merit much argument. Their have been other issues raised on this thread which are far more worthy of debate IMHO.

Oh and Stan, why on earth would anybody consider Indonesia to be an Arab country? Not all predominantly Muslim countries are Arab you know. Turks aren't Arabs either, and neither, I believe, are the Iranians. They're historically Ottoman. And there are numerous others.

[LovelyLadyLux]

The original intent of the point I was trying to make was that Morsi probably wasn't going to admit defeat and I was intimating he may not even know how to admit defeat.

@ Hafiz - you're nit picking and you sure seem to favour the Brothers

@ Timetraveller - you're right on

There are great and significant differences in many countries as to how males and females are socialized and treated and there IS a theme of elevating the status of males over that of females. Period. In some countries this is much more blatant than in others and although I can't quote a statistic Egypt is one of these. Males are valued more than females. Sisters are under the command of their brothers, fathers, uncles and on and on.

Doesn't matter a flying fig to me that a few countries have elected a woman to a high political status. These same countries still primarily regard most of their females as holding lesser value than their males and just because one woman has succeeded doesn't mean this translates in any meaningful way to other females or in any meaningful way helps her gain equality with males.