"Under Secretary of State Bill Burns arrived to Cairo early on Monday as part of a two-day visit to urge for a stop to current violence in the country and also to encourage the formation of a democratic, civilian government following a popularly-backed military overthrow of the state's Islamist president.
Ultraconservative Nour Party has refused to meet the senior diplomat in protest at what it perceives as the US interference in Egypt's domestic affairs, state news agency MENA said." Ahram
—————————————–
Bill Burns is an amiable, capable man. His father was an Army general who became head of the US disarmament agency. Bill was ambassador to Jordan once upon a time and is a long service ME type at State. He is one of the last survivng non- Zionist ME people in the State Department. It seems that nobody in Cairo wants see him at this point.
Well, from their point of view, why should they? As I thought we would, the US has backed away from a confrontation over military aid. The Gulfies have "ponied up" 12 billion dollars in general aid. Russia and China stand waiting in the wings for any opportunity to enter the contest for influence in Egypt. Israel is urging the BHO Administration to "ease up" on the Egyptian military.
I feel bad for Bill. He's a nice felllow. pl
Not only Nour did not want to talk to Burns. Tamarud and MB didn’t either.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/uk-egypt-protests-idUKBRE96A0ID20130715
/quote/
The State Department said Burns would meet “civil society groups” as well as government officials, but the Islamist Nour Party and the Tamarud anti-Mursi protest movement both said they had turned down invitations to meet Burns.
“First, they need to acknowledge the new system,” Tamarud founder Mahmoud Badr said of the Americans. “Secondly, they must apologise for their support for the Muslim Brotherhood’s party and terrorism. Then we can think about it,” he told Reuters.
In a further slight, Badr posted a copy of his invitation, including the U.S. embassy’s telephone number, on the Internet.
Nour, sometime allies of Mursi’s Brotherhood who have accepted the army takeover, said they had rejected meeting Burns because of “unjustified” U.S. meddling in Egypt’s affairs.
The Brotherhood’s political party said it had no meeting planned with Burns. It was not immediately clear whether it was invited. While its opponents accuse Washington of backing Mursi, the Brotherhood suspects U.S. involvement in his removal.
/endquote/
There is no one but the military for the U.S. to talk to. And even that military is unlikely to listen or do what the U.S. wants it to do.
Must be the Egyptians fault then.
Sir,
The Administration has sent Mr Burns to Cairo armed with a .22 in a .357 world. The result was inevitable.
The next time I’m obliged to enter a mosque and the collection plate comes round, asking to help my co-religionists in various spots round the Earth, I’m going to have “$12 billion!” flashing in front of me in huge dayglo neon.
Col: In part of b’s quote of Tamarud, the group’s spokesman said: “Secondly, they must apologise for their support for the Muslim Brotherhood’s party and terrorism. Then we can think about it.”
Oh, my. We are supposed to apologize for meeting with the democratically elected President of Egypt who won it’s only free and fair election?
I think your comments about Egypt’s “political maturity” were actually too kind!
Off topic, Col., but I thought I’d share an interesting piece I read on McClatchy: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/15/196755/lebanese-officials-say-cia-warned.html#.UeWMsayQlvH
There are a few interesting angles to view that piece from. Has select portions of the US security apparatus begun to operate against the insurgents in Syria, as the Hezb source quoted in the article speculates? Or is this just a sign of the various government organs being (mercifully) misaligned regarding policy in the region?