“The Heroes are the Ones in the Street”: Google Exec and Facebook Activist Wael Ghonim on His Release After 12 Days in Egyptian Jail
Twelve days after being snatched from the streets of Cairo, Wael Ghonim was released Monday from secret detention. He is being hailed as a hero by the pro-democracy movement for administrating a Facebook page key to organizing Egypt’s unprecedented pro-democracy uprising. In his first interview after being released, Ghonim told Egyptian TV, “I never put my live in danger while I was typing away on the internet. The heroes are the ones in the streets. This revolution belongs to the internet youth.” [includes rush transcript]
/2011)
AMY GOODMAN: The only journalist known to have been killed during the Egyptian uprising was honored on Monday in Cairo. We’re going to talk about him in a minute, but first we’re going to continue on this theme, sparks of a revolution. We don’t know how many protesters have still been jailed by Egyptian authorities. On Monday, authorities released one of the most high-profile detained protesters, Google executive Wael Ghonim. He was secretly detained 12 days earlier. Ghonim was an administrator to a Facebook page used to organize Egypt’s unprecedented pro-democracy uprising. He spoke to Egyptian TV channel Dream 2 after being released from jail. We turn to an excerpt of that interview.
MONA EL SHAZLY: Welcome back, Wael.
WAEL GHONIM: Thank you.
First of all, I want to tell everyone, everyone, all the mothers and fathers who have lost a child, I am very sorry for your loss, and may God accept them as martyrs, whether they were regular citizens or officers or policemen. Anyone who has died is a martyr. I don’t want to say I’m sorry, because the people who thought of this demonstration never thought of breaking a thing, let alone kill a human being. We are the youth that loves Egypt, and we did this because we love Egypt, and our first call is that we have rights. And these rights can never be claimed by destroying property, whether private or public property. Our hope was for the people to go out and say, "I want my rights," and that’s it. That is all. And so, I must pay my respects to these people, because—
I want to tell you something. We’ll talk first, but in Egypt, we like to claim heroism. I’m no hero. I was asleep for 12 days. The heroes are the ones who were in the streets. The heroes are those who got beaten up. The heroes are those who got arrested and put their lives in danger. I was not a hero.
Sadly, what happened to me made me regret not being here with these people. I came back from the Emirates to participate in the demonstration. I tricked my employer so that I could attend the protest in Egypt. I said I had an urgent personal matter I had to attend to and that I needed six days off. "Everything OK?" they asked. I said it was personal, and I came to Egypt for the demonstration. I came here because I had to be with the people.
I would like, before we discuss things, to clarify some things you may have gotten wrong.
MONA EL SHAZLY: Go ahead, Wael.
WAEL GHONIM: Well, first of all, Najib is my friend from the Emirates. And secondly, he’s not Syrian.
MONA EL SHAZLY: Oh, I’m sorry. His dialect led me to assume he was Syrian.
WAEL GHONIM: He’s Jordanian. Do you know why I’m making this point clear? Because we’re not traitors. We’re not traitors, Mona. We love Egypt.
We are not working with anyone with a set agenda. Some of us are very rich. We live in great homes and drive great cars. I don’t need anything from anyone, and I never wanted anything from anyone. Everything that was done always endangered all of our lives, danger which we knew no end to. We don’t know. We’re just working. We said we’ll fight for our rights and for our country. This is our country. Every single one of us who was at risk wasn’t doing this for personal agenda. The people who moved and the people who planned, they don’t want anything. I don’t want anything.
Do you know? My biggest torment when I was in prison was knowing that people will find out I am the administrator. I had hoped no one would find out that I am the administrator, because I’m not a hero. I was only using the keyboard, Mona, on the internet. I never put my life in danger. The real heroes are the ones on the ground, those I can’t name. But many of the people you met, like Mustafa and Nagar, these people put their lives in serious danger, while I was typing away on the internet. So, please, everyone, there are no heroes. The heroes are the ones in the streets. The hero is every one of us. There isn’t one of us here that is on some high horse. Let no one fool you into thinking that. This revolution belonged to the internet youth, and the revolution belonged to the Egyptian youth.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Google executive Wael Ghonim, released yesterday after being detained 12 days earlier.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/8/the_heroes_are_the_ones_in
Monday, February 14, 2011
Egypt, A People Victorious
by Anjali Kamat
CAIRO, Egypt: Feb 12, 2011
The sounds of freedom continue to ring through Cairo, twenty-four hours after Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign by the awe-inspiring resilience and courage of millions of Egyptians who poured onto the streets in unprecedented numbers for 18 continuous days. After three decades of authoritarian rule, the impossible has come to pass; the hated dictator is gone and his notorious police force has all but vanished.
For the tens of thousands who were in Tahrir, or Liberation, Square Friday evening, the explosive news of Mr. Mubarak’s resignation spread like wildfire and within seconds, the crowds erupted into screams of unbridled joy and relief. Strangers exchanged congratulatory embraces, their eyes moist with tears of disbelief and pride at the historic change they had effected. All night long, every street in Cairo was alight with celebrations. People streamed into Tahrir square from across the colossal city, waving Egyptian flags, breaking out into song, dance, and poetry, their faces bursting with a delight they had never known before. Loud chants of “The people have brought down the regime” and “Hold your head up high, you are Egyptian!” echoed late into the night.
Egypt’s revolutionaries defeat easy generalizations. They are men and women, young and old, rich and poor, educated and illiterate, Muslim and Copt, atheists and believers, capitalists and workers, peasants and techies, artists and state employees, housewives and professionals, Salafists and socialists, long-time activists and those who’ve always shied away from politics. After their long night of jubilation, the revolutionaries returned to the square Saturday, armed this time with brooms, garbage bags, and a newfound sense of national pride. Thousands swept the dusty streets in and around Tahrir square, pausing at different intersections to recall the bloody battles with state security and thugs unleashed by Mr. Mubarak’s regime. Others applied a fresh coat of paint to the pavements while talking about the freedoms they wanted to enshrine in their rejuvenated country.
The January 25th uprising in Egypt has set an inspiring example to people around the world. Three days into the uprising, tens of thousands of peaceful protesters on Cairo’s Qasr-al-Nil bridge shattered the invincibility of Egypt’s security forces with nothing but their bodies and a neo-Gandhian fearlessness in the face of extreme brutality. When the panicked regime took the police off the streets to intimidate people into staying at home, the people responded by organizing popular committees to guard their neighborhoods. One protester explained to me that if half the family stayed in to watch their homes and streets, this allowed the other half to return to Tahrir square to protest. When the regime unleashed hired thugs to stage pro-Mubarak demonstrations and attack journalists and pro-democracy protesters in the square, thousands fought back with rocks, while others set up make-shift clinics to treat the injured, and distributed food, water, blankets, and tents to all those inside the square. When state television painted the demonstrators as directed by “foreign elements,” everyone inside Tahrir began to wave Egyptian flags, emphasizing how theirs was a patriotic struggle. Soon, even well-known media personalities and employees of state media outlets began to speak out in protest.
Egyptians have paid a heavy price for daring to challenge Mr. Mubarak’s power. According to estimates by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, at least 300 people have been killed in the uprising. An unknown number of people have been detained and possibly tortured by Egypt’s intelligence and military police. Every time Mr. Mubarak or his recently deputized Vice President Omar Suleiman appeared on television, they expressed nothing but contempt for the protesters, announcing piecemeal reforms that did little to satisfy the millions in the streets. Indeed, each day brought a litany of new reasons for the people’s frustrations and rage against the regime to swell. But, incredibly, despite the blatant lack of restraint on the part of Mr. Mubarak’s regime, the pro-democracy protesters did not respond to the constant provocations with violence. Instead, the square rang out with periodic chants of “ours is a peaceful revolution, ours is a popular revolution.”
After two-and-a-half tumultuous weeks of struggle, Egyptians all over the world woke up. Saturday to a bright new dawn. But Egypt’s popular revolution is far from over. Serious questions remain about the shape of the post-Mubarak era and who will be allowed to guide the transition to civilian rule. Judging from the scale of the continuing celebrations and the determination to rebuild Egypt anew, these fears have not yet eaten into the tidal wave of hope created by the people’s successful ouster of Mr. Mubarak. But it’s precisely hope and a novel absence of cynicism that’s preventing many from packing up and ceding control over Tahrir square. They have tasted the power of a popular uprising that’s had its foremost demand met and now they can’t imagine giving up until all of their demands are answered. These include the repeal of the emergency law, the dissolution of Parliament, constitutional reforms to ensure free and fair elections, the release of all political prisoners, and justice for all those killed during the uprising. No one knows how quickly these demands will be met, but emboldened by their monumental victory against Mr. Mubarak, millions of Egyptians now believe that if they continue their struggle, anything is possible.
Anjali Kamat is a correspondent for Democracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/2/12/egypt_a_people_victorious_by_anjali_kamat
CAIRO, Egypt: Feb 12, 2011
The sounds of freedom continue to ring through Cairo, twenty-four hours after Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign by the awe-inspiring resilience and courage of millions of Egyptians who poured onto the streets in unprecedented numbers for 18 continuous days. After three decades of authoritarian rule, the impossible has come to pass; the hated dictator is gone and his notorious police force has all but vanished.
For the tens of thousands who were in Tahrir, or Liberation, Square Friday evening, the explosive news of Mr. Mubarak’s resignation spread like wildfire and within seconds, the crowds erupted into screams of unbridled joy and relief. Strangers exchanged congratulatory embraces, their eyes moist with tears of disbelief and pride at the historic change they had effected. All night long, every street in Cairo was alight with celebrations. People streamed into Tahrir square from across the colossal city, waving Egyptian flags, breaking out into song, dance, and poetry, their faces bursting with a delight they had never known before. Loud chants of “The people have brought down the regime” and “Hold your head up high, you are Egyptian!” echoed late into the night.
Egypt’s revolutionaries defeat easy generalizations. They are men and women, young and old, rich and poor, educated and illiterate, Muslim and Copt, atheists and believers, capitalists and workers, peasants and techies, artists and state employees, housewives and professionals, Salafists and socialists, long-time activists and those who’ve always shied away from politics. After their long night of jubilation, the revolutionaries returned to the square Saturday, armed this time with brooms, garbage bags, and a newfound sense of national pride. Thousands swept the dusty streets in and around Tahrir square, pausing at different intersections to recall the bloody battles with state security and thugs unleashed by Mr. Mubarak’s regime. Others applied a fresh coat of paint to the pavements while talking about the freedoms they wanted to enshrine in their rejuvenated country.
The January 25th uprising in Egypt has set an inspiring example to people around the world. Three days into the uprising, tens of thousands of peaceful protesters on Cairo’s Qasr-al-Nil bridge shattered the invincibility of Egypt’s security forces with nothing but their bodies and a neo-Gandhian fearlessness in the face of extreme brutality. When the panicked regime took the police off the streets to intimidate people into staying at home, the people responded by organizing popular committees to guard their neighborhoods. One protester explained to me that if half the family stayed in to watch their homes and streets, this allowed the other half to return to Tahrir square to protest. When the regime unleashed hired thugs to stage pro-Mubarak demonstrations and attack journalists and pro-democracy protesters in the square, thousands fought back with rocks, while others set up make-shift clinics to treat the injured, and distributed food, water, blankets, and tents to all those inside the square. When state television painted the demonstrators as directed by “foreign elements,” everyone inside Tahrir began to wave Egyptian flags, emphasizing how theirs was a patriotic struggle. Soon, even well-known media personalities and employees of state media outlets began to speak out in protest.
Egyptians have paid a heavy price for daring to challenge Mr. Mubarak’s power. According to estimates by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, at least 300 people have been killed in the uprising. An unknown number of people have been detained and possibly tortured by Egypt’s intelligence and military police. Every time Mr. Mubarak or his recently deputized Vice President Omar Suleiman appeared on television, they expressed nothing but contempt for the protesters, announcing piecemeal reforms that did little to satisfy the millions in the streets. Indeed, each day brought a litany of new reasons for the people’s frustrations and rage against the regime to swell. But, incredibly, despite the blatant lack of restraint on the part of Mr. Mubarak’s regime, the pro-democracy protesters did not respond to the constant provocations with violence. Instead, the square rang out with periodic chants of “ours is a peaceful revolution, ours is a popular revolution.”
After two-and-a-half tumultuous weeks of struggle, Egyptians all over the world woke up. Saturday to a bright new dawn. But Egypt’s popular revolution is far from over. Serious questions remain about the shape of the post-Mubarak era and who will be allowed to guide the transition to civilian rule. Judging from the scale of the continuing celebrations and the determination to rebuild Egypt anew, these fears have not yet eaten into the tidal wave of hope created by the people’s successful ouster of Mr. Mubarak. But it’s precisely hope and a novel absence of cynicism that’s preventing many from packing up and ceding control over Tahrir square. They have tasted the power of a popular uprising that’s had its foremost demand met and now they can’t imagine giving up until all of their demands are answered. These include the repeal of the emergency law, the dissolution of Parliament, constitutional reforms to ensure free and fair elections, the release of all political prisoners, and justice for all those killed during the uprising. No one knows how quickly these demands will be met, but emboldened by their monumental victory against Mr. Mubarak, millions of Egyptians now believe that if they continue their struggle, anything is possible.
Anjali Kamat is a correspondent for Democracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/2/12/egypt_a_people_victorious_by_anjali_kamat
PM Itali dikecam hina wanita
ROM 13 Feb. - Beribu-ribu wanita Itali akan mengadakan demonstrasi hari ini bagi membantah liputan media yang menghina kaum wanita ekoran skandal seks Perdana Menteri, Silvio Berlusconi dan kelakuannya terhadap wanita…
Ulasan: Selama-lamanya perempuan menjadi hina kerana tidak menjaga maruah dan mengizinkan dirinya dipakai lelaki bukan suami yang sah. Mari membina harga diri dengan berpegang teguh kepada ajaran agama. Allah memberikan agamaNya untuk memuliakan manusia.
Kerajaan Pas Kelantan tidak bersih?
KOTA BHARU 13 Feb. - Kerajaan Pas Kelantan tidak bersih!
Itulah reaksi Pengerusi Badan Perhubungan UMNO negeri, Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed ketika mengulas pendedahan Utusan Malaysia mengenai loteri big sweep dan juga aktiviti pelacuran di Kampung Limau Manis di sini yang didedahkan oleh laman blog Kickdefella….
Ulasan: Mari bersama bersihkan 1Malaysia dari judi dan pelacuran. Adakah UMNO/BN bersedia?
Suleiman: The CIA's man in Cairo
Lisa Hajjar Last Modified: 07 Feb 2011 14:10 GMT
On January 29, Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s top spy chief, was anointed vice president by tottering dictator, Hosni Mubarak. By appointing Suleiman, part of a shake-up of the cabinet in an attempt to appease the masses of protesters and retain his own grip on the presidency, Mubarak has once again shown his knack for devilish shrewdness. Suleiman has long been favoured by the US government for his ardent anti-Islamism, his willingness to talk and act tough on Iran - and he has long been the CIA’s main man in Cairo.
Mubarak knew that Suleiman would command an instant lobby of supporters at Langley and among 'Iran nexters' in Washington - not to mention among other authoritarian mukhabarat-dependent regimes in the region. Suleiman is a favourite of Israel too; he held the Israel dossier and directed Egypt’s efforts to crush Hamas by demolishing the tunnels that have functioned as a smuggling conduit for both weapons and foodstuffs into Gaza.
According to a WikiLeak(ed) US diplomatic cable, titled 'Presidential Succession in Egypt', dated May 14, 2007:
"Egyptian intelligence chief and Mubarak consigliere, in past years Soliman was often cited as likely to be named to the long-vacant vice-presidential post. In the past two years, Soliman has stepped out of the shadows, and allowed himself to be photographed, and his meetings with foreign leaders reported. Many of our contacts believe that Soliman, because of his military background, would at least have to figure in any succession scenario."
From 1993 until Saturday, Suleiman was chief of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service. He remained largely in the shadows until 2001, when he started taking over powerful dossiers in the foreign ministry; he has since become a public figure, as the WikiLeak document attests. In 2009, he was touted by the London Telegraph and Foreign Policy as the most powerful spook in the region, topping even the head of Mossad.
In the mid-1990s, Suleiman worked closely with the Clinton administration in devising and implementing its rendition program; back then, rendition involved kidnapping suspected terrorists and transferring them to a third country for trial. In The Dark Side, Jane Mayer describes how the rendition program began:
"Each rendition was authorised at the very top levels of both governments [the US and Egypt] ... The long-serving chief of the Egyptian central intelligence agency, Omar Suleiman, negotiated directly with top [CIA] officials. [Former US Ambassador to Egypt Edward] Walker described the Egyptian counterpart, Suleiman, as 'very bright, very realistic', adding that he was cognisant that there was a downside to 'some of the negative things that the Egyptians engaged in, of torture and so on. But he was not squeamish, by the way'. (p. 113).
"Technically, US law required the CIA to seek 'assurances' from Egypt that rendered suspects wouldn't face torture. But under Suleiman's reign at the EGIS, such assurances were considered close to worthless. As Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer [head of the al-Qaeda desk], who helped set up the practise of rendition, later testified, even if such 'assurances' were written in indelible ink, 'they weren't worth a bucket of warm spit'."
Under the Bush administration, in the context of "the global war on terror", US renditions became "extraordinary", meaning the objective of kidnapping and extra-legal transfer was no longer to bring a suspect to trial - but rather for interrogation to seek actionable intelligence. The extraordinary rendition program landed some people in CIA black sites - and others were turned over for torture-by-proxy to other regimes. Egypt figured large as a torture destination of choice, as did Suleiman as Egypt’s torturer-in-chief. At least one person extraordinarily rendered by the CIA to Egypt — Egyptian-born Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib — was reportedly tortured by Suleiman himself.
Suleiman the torturer
In October 2001, Habib was seized from a bus by Pakistani security forces. While detained in Pakistan, at the behest of American agents, he was suspended from a hook and electrocuted repeatedly. He was then turned over to the CIA, and in the process of transporting him to Egypt he endured the usual treatment: his clothes were cut off, a suppository was stuffed in his anus, he was put into a diaper - and 'wrapped up like a spring roll'.
In Egypt, as Habib recounts in his memoir, My Story: The Tale of a Terrorist Who Wasn’t, he was repeatedly subjected to electric shocks, immersed in water up to his nostrils and beaten. His fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks. At one point, his interrogator slapped him so hard that his blindfold was dislodged, revealing the identity of his tormentor: Suleiman.
Frustrated that Habib was not providing useful information or confessing to involvement in terrorism, Suleiman ordered a guard to murder a shackled prisoner in front of Habib, which he did with a vicious karate kick. In April 2002, after five months in Egypt, Habib was rendered to American custody at Bagram prison in Afghanistan - and then transported to Guantanamo. On January 11, 2005, the day before he was scheduled to be charged, Dana Priest of the Washington Post published an exposé about Habib’s torture. The US government immediately announced that he would not be charged and would be repatriated to Australia.
A far more infamous torture case, in which Suleiman also is directly implicated, is that of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi. Unlike Habib, who was innocent of any ties to terror or militancy, al-Libi was allegedly a trainer at al-Khaldan camp in Afghanistan. He was captured by the Pakistanis while fleeing across the border in November 2001. He was sent to Bagram, and questioned by the FBI. But the CIA wanted to take over, which they did, and he was transported to a black site on the USS Bataan in the Arabian Sea, then extraordinarily rendered to Egypt. Under torture there, al-Libi "confessed" knowledge about an al-Qaeda–Saddam connection, claiming that two al-Qaeda operatives had received training in Iraq for use in chemical and biological weapons. In early 2003, this was exactly the kind of information that the Bush administration was seeking to justify attacking Iraq and to persuade reluctant allies to go along. Indeed, al-Libi’s "confession" was one the central pieces of "evidence" presented at the United Nations by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to make the case for war.
As it turns out, that confession was a lie tortured out of him by Egyptians. Here is how former CIA chief George Tenet describes the whole al-Libi situation in his 2007 memoir, At The Center Of The Storm:
"We believed that al-Libi was withholding critical threat information at the time, so we transferred him to a third country for further debriefing. Allegations were made that we did so knowing that he would be tortured, but this is false. The country in question [Egypt] understood and agreed that they would hold al-Libi for a limited period. In the course of questioning while he was in US custody in Afghanistan, al-Libi made initial references to possible al-Qa'ida training in Iraq. He offered up information that a militant known as Abu Abdullah had told him that at least three times between 1997 and 2000, the now-deceased al-Qa'ida leader Mohammad Atef had sent Abu Abdullah to Iraq to seek training in poisons and mustard gas.
"Another senior al-Qa'ida detainee told us that Mohammad Atef was interested in expanding al-Qa'ida's ties to Iraq, which, in our eyes, added credibility to the reporting. Then, shortly after the Iraq war got under way, al-Libi recanted his story. Now, suddenly, he was saying that there was no such cooperative training. Inside the CIA, there was sharp division on his recantation. It led us to recall his reporting, and here is where the mystery begins.
"Al-Libi's story will no doubt be that he decided to fabricate in order to get better treatment and avoid harsh punishment. He clearly lied. We just don't know when. Did he lie when he first said that al-Qa'ida members received training in Iraq - or did he lie when he said they did not? In my mind, either case might still be true. Perhaps, early on, he was under pressure, assumed his interrogators already knew the story, and sang away. After time passed and it became clear that he would not be harmed, he might have changed his story to cloud the minds of his captors. Al-Qa'ida operatives are trained to do just that. A recantation would restore his stature as someone who had successfully confounded the enemy. The fact is, we don't know which story is true, and since we don't know, we can assume nothing. (pp. 353-354)"
Al-Libi was eventually sent off, quietly, to Libya - though he reportedly made a few other stops along the way - where he was imprisoned. The use of al-Libi’s statement in the build-up to the Iraq war made him a huge American liability once it became clear that the purported al-Qaeda–Saddam connection was a tortured lie. His whereabouts were, in fact, a secret for years, until April 2009 when Human Rights Watch researchers investigating the treatment of Libyan prisoners encountered him in the courtyard of a prison. Two weeks later, on May 10, al-Libi was dead, and the Gaddafi regime claimed it was a suicide.
According to Evan Kohlmann, who enjoys favoured status among US officials as an 'al-Qaeda expert', citing a classified source: 'Al-Libi’s death coincided with the first visit by Egypt’s spymaster Omar Suleiman to Tripoli.'
Kohlmann surmises and opines that, after al-Libi recounted his story about about an al-Qaeda–Saddam-WMD connection, "The Egyptians were embarassed by this admission - and the Bush government found itself in hot water internationally. Then, in May 2009, Omar Suleiman saw an opportunity to get even with al-Libi and travelled to Tripoli. By the time Omar Suleiman’s plane left Tripoli, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi had committed 'suicide'."
As people in Egypt and around the world speculate about the fate of the Mubarak regime, one thing should be very clear: Omar Suleiman is not the man to bring democracy to the country. His hands are too dirty, and any 'stability' he might be imagined to bring to the country and the region comes at way too high a price. Hopefully, the Egyptians who are thronging the streets and demanding a new era of freedom will make his removal from power part of their demands, too.
Lisa Hajjar teaches sociology at the University of California - Santa Barbara and is a co-editor of Jadaliyya.
This article first appeared on Jadaliyya.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201127114827382865.html
On January 29, Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s top spy chief, was anointed vice president by tottering dictator, Hosni Mubarak. By appointing Suleiman, part of a shake-up of the cabinet in an attempt to appease the masses of protesters and retain his own grip on the presidency, Mubarak has once again shown his knack for devilish shrewdness. Suleiman has long been favoured by the US government for his ardent anti-Islamism, his willingness to talk and act tough on Iran - and he has long been the CIA’s main man in Cairo.
Mubarak knew that Suleiman would command an instant lobby of supporters at Langley and among 'Iran nexters' in Washington - not to mention among other authoritarian mukhabarat-dependent regimes in the region. Suleiman is a favourite of Israel too; he held the Israel dossier and directed Egypt’s efforts to crush Hamas by demolishing the tunnels that have functioned as a smuggling conduit for both weapons and foodstuffs into Gaza.
According to a WikiLeak(ed) US diplomatic cable, titled 'Presidential Succession in Egypt', dated May 14, 2007:
"Egyptian intelligence chief and Mubarak consigliere, in past years Soliman was often cited as likely to be named to the long-vacant vice-presidential post. In the past two years, Soliman has stepped out of the shadows, and allowed himself to be photographed, and his meetings with foreign leaders reported. Many of our contacts believe that Soliman, because of his military background, would at least have to figure in any succession scenario."
From 1993 until Saturday, Suleiman was chief of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service. He remained largely in the shadows until 2001, when he started taking over powerful dossiers in the foreign ministry; he has since become a public figure, as the WikiLeak document attests. In 2009, he was touted by the London Telegraph and Foreign Policy as the most powerful spook in the region, topping even the head of Mossad.
In the mid-1990s, Suleiman worked closely with the Clinton administration in devising and implementing its rendition program; back then, rendition involved kidnapping suspected terrorists and transferring them to a third country for trial. In The Dark Side, Jane Mayer describes how the rendition program began:
"Each rendition was authorised at the very top levels of both governments [the US and Egypt] ... The long-serving chief of the Egyptian central intelligence agency, Omar Suleiman, negotiated directly with top [CIA] officials. [Former US Ambassador to Egypt Edward] Walker described the Egyptian counterpart, Suleiman, as 'very bright, very realistic', adding that he was cognisant that there was a downside to 'some of the negative things that the Egyptians engaged in, of torture and so on. But he was not squeamish, by the way'. (p. 113).
"Technically, US law required the CIA to seek 'assurances' from Egypt that rendered suspects wouldn't face torture. But under Suleiman's reign at the EGIS, such assurances were considered close to worthless. As Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer [head of the al-Qaeda desk], who helped set up the practise of rendition, later testified, even if such 'assurances' were written in indelible ink, 'they weren't worth a bucket of warm spit'."
Under the Bush administration, in the context of "the global war on terror", US renditions became "extraordinary", meaning the objective of kidnapping and extra-legal transfer was no longer to bring a suspect to trial - but rather for interrogation to seek actionable intelligence. The extraordinary rendition program landed some people in CIA black sites - and others were turned over for torture-by-proxy to other regimes. Egypt figured large as a torture destination of choice, as did Suleiman as Egypt’s torturer-in-chief. At least one person extraordinarily rendered by the CIA to Egypt — Egyptian-born Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib — was reportedly tortured by Suleiman himself.
Suleiman the torturer
In October 2001, Habib was seized from a bus by Pakistani security forces. While detained in Pakistan, at the behest of American agents, he was suspended from a hook and electrocuted repeatedly. He was then turned over to the CIA, and in the process of transporting him to Egypt he endured the usual treatment: his clothes were cut off, a suppository was stuffed in his anus, he was put into a diaper - and 'wrapped up like a spring roll'.
In Egypt, as Habib recounts in his memoir, My Story: The Tale of a Terrorist Who Wasn’t, he was repeatedly subjected to electric shocks, immersed in water up to his nostrils and beaten. His fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks. At one point, his interrogator slapped him so hard that his blindfold was dislodged, revealing the identity of his tormentor: Suleiman.
Frustrated that Habib was not providing useful information or confessing to involvement in terrorism, Suleiman ordered a guard to murder a shackled prisoner in front of Habib, which he did with a vicious karate kick. In April 2002, after five months in Egypt, Habib was rendered to American custody at Bagram prison in Afghanistan - and then transported to Guantanamo. On January 11, 2005, the day before he was scheduled to be charged, Dana Priest of the Washington Post published an exposé about Habib’s torture. The US government immediately announced that he would not be charged and would be repatriated to Australia.
A far more infamous torture case, in which Suleiman also is directly implicated, is that of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi. Unlike Habib, who was innocent of any ties to terror or militancy, al-Libi was allegedly a trainer at al-Khaldan camp in Afghanistan. He was captured by the Pakistanis while fleeing across the border in November 2001. He was sent to Bagram, and questioned by the FBI. But the CIA wanted to take over, which they did, and he was transported to a black site on the USS Bataan in the Arabian Sea, then extraordinarily rendered to Egypt. Under torture there, al-Libi "confessed" knowledge about an al-Qaeda–Saddam connection, claiming that two al-Qaeda operatives had received training in Iraq for use in chemical and biological weapons. In early 2003, this was exactly the kind of information that the Bush administration was seeking to justify attacking Iraq and to persuade reluctant allies to go along. Indeed, al-Libi’s "confession" was one the central pieces of "evidence" presented at the United Nations by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to make the case for war.
As it turns out, that confession was a lie tortured out of him by Egyptians. Here is how former CIA chief George Tenet describes the whole al-Libi situation in his 2007 memoir, At The Center Of The Storm:
"We believed that al-Libi was withholding critical threat information at the time, so we transferred him to a third country for further debriefing. Allegations were made that we did so knowing that he would be tortured, but this is false. The country in question [Egypt] understood and agreed that they would hold al-Libi for a limited period. In the course of questioning while he was in US custody in Afghanistan, al-Libi made initial references to possible al-Qa'ida training in Iraq. He offered up information that a militant known as Abu Abdullah had told him that at least three times between 1997 and 2000, the now-deceased al-Qa'ida leader Mohammad Atef had sent Abu Abdullah to Iraq to seek training in poisons and mustard gas.
"Another senior al-Qa'ida detainee told us that Mohammad Atef was interested in expanding al-Qa'ida's ties to Iraq, which, in our eyes, added credibility to the reporting. Then, shortly after the Iraq war got under way, al-Libi recanted his story. Now, suddenly, he was saying that there was no such cooperative training. Inside the CIA, there was sharp division on his recantation. It led us to recall his reporting, and here is where the mystery begins.
"Al-Libi's story will no doubt be that he decided to fabricate in order to get better treatment and avoid harsh punishment. He clearly lied. We just don't know when. Did he lie when he first said that al-Qa'ida members received training in Iraq - or did he lie when he said they did not? In my mind, either case might still be true. Perhaps, early on, he was under pressure, assumed his interrogators already knew the story, and sang away. After time passed and it became clear that he would not be harmed, he might have changed his story to cloud the minds of his captors. Al-Qa'ida operatives are trained to do just that. A recantation would restore his stature as someone who had successfully confounded the enemy. The fact is, we don't know which story is true, and since we don't know, we can assume nothing. (pp. 353-354)"
Al-Libi was eventually sent off, quietly, to Libya - though he reportedly made a few other stops along the way - where he was imprisoned. The use of al-Libi’s statement in the build-up to the Iraq war made him a huge American liability once it became clear that the purported al-Qaeda–Saddam connection was a tortured lie. His whereabouts were, in fact, a secret for years, until April 2009 when Human Rights Watch researchers investigating the treatment of Libyan prisoners encountered him in the courtyard of a prison. Two weeks later, on May 10, al-Libi was dead, and the Gaddafi regime claimed it was a suicide.
According to Evan Kohlmann, who enjoys favoured status among US officials as an 'al-Qaeda expert', citing a classified source: 'Al-Libi’s death coincided with the first visit by Egypt’s spymaster Omar Suleiman to Tripoli.'
Kohlmann surmises and opines that, after al-Libi recounted his story about about an al-Qaeda–Saddam-WMD connection, "The Egyptians were embarassed by this admission - and the Bush government found itself in hot water internationally. Then, in May 2009, Omar Suleiman saw an opportunity to get even with al-Libi and travelled to Tripoli. By the time Omar Suleiman’s plane left Tripoli, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi had committed 'suicide'."
As people in Egypt and around the world speculate about the fate of the Mubarak regime, one thing should be very clear: Omar Suleiman is not the man to bring democracy to the country. His hands are too dirty, and any 'stability' he might be imagined to bring to the country and the region comes at way too high a price. Hopefully, the Egyptians who are thronging the streets and demanding a new era of freedom will make his removal from power part of their demands, too.
Lisa Hajjar teaches sociology at the University of California - Santa Barbara and is a co-editor of Jadaliyya.
This article first appeared on Jadaliyya.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201127114827382865.html
Egyptians celebrate a new era in history
by John Simpson
World Affairs Editor, BBC News, Cairo
In its way the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak is as significant as the collapse of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe back in 1989.
That showed that a system which seemed to be fixed and stable and likely to endure for decades was in fact brittle and fragile. Egypt's military dictatorship has been shown to be similarly feeble.
It took just 18 days to overthrow a proud, elderly man who had pitted himself stubbornly against the will of millions of Egyptians.
Egypt's army found itself right in the middle, unwilling until the very end to force President Mubarak to go, yet deeply opposed to clearing the demonstrators out of Tahrir Square by sheer force.
'Military cracks'
So why has Mr Mubarak gone now after insisting that he would stay until the presidential elections in six or seven months time?
Two main reasons. The Americans - who had been embarrassed, helpless, onlookers - finally summoned up all their power and influence to force the Egyptian military to get rid of Mr Mubarak.
But there was something else. The military leaders realised that cracks were starting to appear in the army's structure. Many junior officers, ordinary soldiers, sided with the demonstrators. The generals backed the president who was one of their own.
Many soldiers sided with the demonstrators
There is a historical echo to this. In the 1952 revolution against the monarchy, some senior officers supported the king, while younger ones like Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser backed the coup.
Nasser became president after sweeping his boss, General Naguib, aside. Since Nasser, there has only been two presidents in Egypt, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak.
For sixty years this country has been a military dictatorship backed by a nasty secret police force. Finally, no doubt reluctantly, the army leaders have brought Nasser's system to an end.
It would never have happened though had it not been for the tremendous fortitude of the tens of thousands of people who took control of Tahrir Square and refused to leave.
On Friday 28 January, the police attacked them with bricks, iron bars, and live ammunition.
They would not be budged.
When gangs of tough, determined Mubarak supporters were bussed in by the police and army to wrest control of the square from them, the demonstrators fought back with even greater ferocity.
The gangs slowly retreated and were eventually driven out of the side roads around the square - after that they disappeared altogether.
Right from the start the soldiers who were sent in to discourage the demonstrators from taking over the square showed themselves to be clearly sympathetic. That, in the end, proved decisive.
'Could happen anywhere'
The extraordinary scenes in Cairo tonight - with the streets, avenues, and bridges jammed with hooting cars and excited flag-waving people - are a sign of the relief and pride which the crowds now feel.
This was a victory for them in a country where people have habitually been obliged to do what their political masters told them.
Now they have the prospect of voting for their own leader in the coming presidential election.
In Egypt's 5,000 years as a unitary state, these people have never been able to choose their government before.
Will the army let it happen? It is hard to think now that they could prevent it. The people who have taken control of their cities and their country once know how to do it again. It would be foolhardy for the army to try to stop them.
What has happened here in Egypt can happen anywhere. In Libya, in Iran, in Algeria, in Syria. It does not take leaders and it does not take a well-organised conspiracy.
It simply takes courage of the kind the demonstrators have shown in Egypt.
The leaders of autocracies in the Middle East and way beyond should not sleep easy after this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12437827
World Affairs Editor, BBC News, Cairo
In its way the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak is as significant as the collapse of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe back in 1989.
That showed that a system which seemed to be fixed and stable and likely to endure for decades was in fact brittle and fragile. Egypt's military dictatorship has been shown to be similarly feeble.
It took just 18 days to overthrow a proud, elderly man who had pitted himself stubbornly against the will of millions of Egyptians.
Egypt's army found itself right in the middle, unwilling until the very end to force President Mubarak to go, yet deeply opposed to clearing the demonstrators out of Tahrir Square by sheer force.
'Military cracks'
So why has Mr Mubarak gone now after insisting that he would stay until the presidential elections in six or seven months time?
Two main reasons. The Americans - who had been embarrassed, helpless, onlookers - finally summoned up all their power and influence to force the Egyptian military to get rid of Mr Mubarak.
But there was something else. The military leaders realised that cracks were starting to appear in the army's structure. Many junior officers, ordinary soldiers, sided with the demonstrators. The generals backed the president who was one of their own.
Many soldiers sided with the demonstrators
There is a historical echo to this. In the 1952 revolution against the monarchy, some senior officers supported the king, while younger ones like Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser backed the coup.
Nasser became president after sweeping his boss, General Naguib, aside. Since Nasser, there has only been two presidents in Egypt, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak.
For sixty years this country has been a military dictatorship backed by a nasty secret police force. Finally, no doubt reluctantly, the army leaders have brought Nasser's system to an end.
It would never have happened though had it not been for the tremendous fortitude of the tens of thousands of people who took control of Tahrir Square and refused to leave.
On Friday 28 January, the police attacked them with bricks, iron bars, and live ammunition.
They would not be budged.
When gangs of tough, determined Mubarak supporters were bussed in by the police and army to wrest control of the square from them, the demonstrators fought back with even greater ferocity.
The gangs slowly retreated and were eventually driven out of the side roads around the square - after that they disappeared altogether.
Right from the start the soldiers who were sent in to discourage the demonstrators from taking over the square showed themselves to be clearly sympathetic. That, in the end, proved decisive.
'Could happen anywhere'
The extraordinary scenes in Cairo tonight - with the streets, avenues, and bridges jammed with hooting cars and excited flag-waving people - are a sign of the relief and pride which the crowds now feel.
This was a victory for them in a country where people have habitually been obliged to do what their political masters told them.
Now they have the prospect of voting for their own leader in the coming presidential election.
In Egypt's 5,000 years as a unitary state, these people have never been able to choose their government before.
Will the army let it happen? It is hard to think now that they could prevent it. The people who have taken control of their cities and their country once know how to do it again. It would be foolhardy for the army to try to stop them.
What has happened here in Egypt can happen anywhere. In Libya, in Iran, in Algeria, in Syria. It does not take leaders and it does not take a well-organised conspiracy.
It simply takes courage of the kind the demonstrators have shown in Egypt.
The leaders of autocracies in the Middle East and way beyond should not sleep easy after this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12437827
How revolutions happen: Patterns from Iran to Egypt
By Dr Mark Almond
Visiting Professor in International Relations at Bilkent University, Ankara
Revolutions can be short and bloody, or slow and peaceful. Each is different, though there are recurring patterns - including some that were on show in Egypt.
Trotsky once remarked that if poverty was the cause of revolutions, there would be revolutions all the time because most people in the world were poor. What is needed to turn a million people's grumbling discontent into a crowd on the streets is a spark to electrify them.
Violent death has been the most common catalyst for radicalising discontent in the revolutions of the last 30 years. Sometimes the spark is grisly, like the mass incineration of hundreds in an Iranian cinema in 1978 blamed on the Shah's secret police.
Sometimes the desperate act of a single suicidally inflammatory protester like vegetable salesman Mohammed Bouazizi in Tunisia, in December 2010, catches the imagination of a country.
Even rumours of brutality, such as the claims the Communist secret police had beaten two students to death in Prague in November, 1989, can fire up a public already deeply disillusioned with the system. Reports that Milosevic had had his predecessor, Ivan Stambolic, "disappeared" in the weeks before the Yugoslav presidential elections in 2000 helped to crystallise Serbian rejection of his regime.
Chinese template
Death - though in this case non-violent - also played a role in China in April 1989, when students in Beijing hijacked the officially-sponsored mourning for the former Communist leader, Hu Yaobang, to occupy Tiananmen Square and protest against the Party's corruption and dictatorship.
But although the Chinese crisis set the template for how to stage protests and occupy symbolic city-centre squares, it also was the most obvious failure of "People Power".
Unlike other elderly dictators, Deng Xiaoping showed energy and skill in striking back at the protesters. His regime had made a billion Chinese peasants better off. They were the soldiers sent to shoot down the crowds.
Protests against Suharto's "re-election" in Indonesia in March 1998, culminated in the shooting of four students in May, which set off a round of bigger demonstrations and more violence until more than 1,000 were dead.
Thirty years earlier Suharto could kill hundreds of thousands with impunity. But corruption and the Asian economic crisis had imploded support for his regime. After 32 years in power, his family and their cronies were too rich, while too many former backers were getting poorer - a poverty they shared with ordinary people.
What collapses a regime is when insiders turn against it. So long as police, army and senior officials think they have more to lose by revolution than by defending a regime, then even mass protests can be defied and crushed. Remember Tiananmen Square.
But if insiders and the men with guns begin to question the wisdom of backing a regime - or can be bought off - then it implodes quickly.
Tunisia's Ben Ali decided to flee when his generals told him they would not shoot into the crowds. In Romania, in December, 1989, Ceausescu lived to see the general he relied on to crush the protesters become his chief judge at his trial on Christmas Day.
External pressure plays a role in completing regime-change. In 1989, the refusal of the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, to use the Red Army to back East European Communists facing protests in the streets made the local generals realise that force was not an option.
The United States has repeatedly pressed its authoritarian allies to compromise and then, once they have started on that slippery slope, to resign.
Sclerosis
Longevity of a regime and especially the old age of a ruler can result in a fatal incapacity to react to events quickly.
Revolutions are 24-hour-a day events - they require stamina and quick thinking from both protesters and dictators. An elderly inflexible but ailing leader contributes to the crisis.
From the cancer-stricken Shah of Iran via the ailing Honecker in East Germany to Indonesia's Suharto, decades in power had encouraged a political sclerosis which made nimble political manoeuvres impossible. As Egypt reminds, revolutions are made by the young.
Graceful exits are rare in revolutions, but the offer of secure retirement can speed up and smooth the change.
In 2003, Georgia's Shevardnadze was denounced by some as a "Ceausescu" but he was let alone in his villa after he resigned. Suharto's generals had ensured he retired to die in peace a decade later - but his son "Tommy" was imprisoned.
Often there is a hunger among people to punish the fallen rulers. Their successors, too, find retribution against the old leader can be a useful distraction from the economic and social problems, which don't disappear with the change of regime.
Oxford historian Mark Almond is the author of Uprising - Political Upheavals that have Shaped the World.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12431231
Visiting Professor in International Relations at Bilkent University, Ankara
Revolutions can be short and bloody, or slow and peaceful. Each is different, though there are recurring patterns - including some that were on show in Egypt.
Trotsky once remarked that if poverty was the cause of revolutions, there would be revolutions all the time because most people in the world were poor. What is needed to turn a million people's grumbling discontent into a crowd on the streets is a spark to electrify them.
Violent death has been the most common catalyst for radicalising discontent in the revolutions of the last 30 years. Sometimes the spark is grisly, like the mass incineration of hundreds in an Iranian cinema in 1978 blamed on the Shah's secret police.
Sometimes the desperate act of a single suicidally inflammatory protester like vegetable salesman Mohammed Bouazizi in Tunisia, in December 2010, catches the imagination of a country.
Even rumours of brutality, such as the claims the Communist secret police had beaten two students to death in Prague in November, 1989, can fire up a public already deeply disillusioned with the system. Reports that Milosevic had had his predecessor, Ivan Stambolic, "disappeared" in the weeks before the Yugoslav presidential elections in 2000 helped to crystallise Serbian rejection of his regime.
Chinese template
Death - though in this case non-violent - also played a role in China in April 1989, when students in Beijing hijacked the officially-sponsored mourning for the former Communist leader, Hu Yaobang, to occupy Tiananmen Square and protest against the Party's corruption and dictatorship.
But although the Chinese crisis set the template for how to stage protests and occupy symbolic city-centre squares, it also was the most obvious failure of "People Power".
Unlike other elderly dictators, Deng Xiaoping showed energy and skill in striking back at the protesters. His regime had made a billion Chinese peasants better off. They were the soldiers sent to shoot down the crowds.
Protests against Suharto's "re-election" in Indonesia in March 1998, culminated in the shooting of four students in May, which set off a round of bigger demonstrations and more violence until more than 1,000 were dead.
Thirty years earlier Suharto could kill hundreds of thousands with impunity. But corruption and the Asian economic crisis had imploded support for his regime. After 32 years in power, his family and their cronies were too rich, while too many former backers were getting poorer - a poverty they shared with ordinary people.
What collapses a regime is when insiders turn against it. So long as police, army and senior officials think they have more to lose by revolution than by defending a regime, then even mass protests can be defied and crushed. Remember Tiananmen Square.
But if insiders and the men with guns begin to question the wisdom of backing a regime - or can be bought off - then it implodes quickly.
Tunisia's Ben Ali decided to flee when his generals told him they would not shoot into the crowds. In Romania, in December, 1989, Ceausescu lived to see the general he relied on to crush the protesters become his chief judge at his trial on Christmas Day.
External pressure plays a role in completing regime-change. In 1989, the refusal of the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, to use the Red Army to back East European Communists facing protests in the streets made the local generals realise that force was not an option.
The United States has repeatedly pressed its authoritarian allies to compromise and then, once they have started on that slippery slope, to resign.
Sclerosis
Longevity of a regime and especially the old age of a ruler can result in a fatal incapacity to react to events quickly.
Revolutions are 24-hour-a day events - they require stamina and quick thinking from both protesters and dictators. An elderly inflexible but ailing leader contributes to the crisis.
From the cancer-stricken Shah of Iran via the ailing Honecker in East Germany to Indonesia's Suharto, decades in power had encouraged a political sclerosis which made nimble political manoeuvres impossible. As Egypt reminds, revolutions are made by the young.
Graceful exits are rare in revolutions, but the offer of secure retirement can speed up and smooth the change.
In 2003, Georgia's Shevardnadze was denounced by some as a "Ceausescu" but he was let alone in his villa after he resigned. Suharto's generals had ensured he retired to die in peace a decade later - but his son "Tommy" was imprisoned.
Often there is a hunger among people to punish the fallen rulers. Their successors, too, find retribution against the old leader can be a useful distraction from the economic and social problems, which don't disappear with the change of regime.
Oxford historian Mark Almond is the author of Uprising - Political Upheavals that have Shaped the World.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12431231
Friday, February 11, 2011
'Ramai seperti Hosni Mubarak', Anwar rujuk kepada diri sendiri?
Kenyataan 'ramai seperti Hosni Mubarak', Anwar rujuk kepada diri sendiri
KUALA LUMPUR 10 Feb. - Kenyataan Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim bahawa ramai individu seperti Hosni Mubarak wujud di Malaysia sebenarnya merujuk kepada dirinya sendiri.
Bekas Setiausaha Sulit Anwar, Anuar Shaari berkata, ini kerana bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri itu dipercayai mempunyai kekayaan yang hampir setara dengan Presiden Mesir tersebut.
KUALA LUMPUR 10 Feb. - Kenyataan Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim bahawa ramai individu seperti Hosni Mubarak wujud di Malaysia sebenarnya merujuk kepada dirinya sendiri.
Bekas Setiausaha Sulit Anwar, Anuar Shaari berkata, ini kerana bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri itu dipercayai mempunyai kekayaan yang hampir setara dengan Presiden Mesir tersebut.
Katanya, jika Hosni yang kini berkemungkinan bakal digulingkan oleh rakyatnya mempunyai kekayaan AS$70 bilion (RM213.192 bilion), Anwar pun tidak kurang mewahnya...
Ulasan: Tuduh mestilah ada bukti. Kita tunggu tindakan Anuar Shaari. Kita membenci perasuah dan penyeleweng wang rakyat @ khazanah negara. Silalah Saudara Anuar buat laporan kepada SPRM. Siasat jangan tak siasat. Jangan siat-siat sudahlah.
The Egypt Endgame
By TARECQ M. AMER
In an attempt to win people to its side, or at least distance them from the Nile Uprising that has made its symbolic home in Tahrir Square, the Egyptian government has promised a 15% increase in the salaries of all public sector employees. This, of course, is merely the latest gesture of change offered by the ruling regime and follows far more dramatic events, including the removal of high profile political types from the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), not the least of which being Mubarak himself; discussion with certain members of the opposition; and condemnations of violent acts against the protesters themselves over the last two weeks. It is not terribly likely that these moves by the government will strike many of the Egyptian people as being even remotely sincere. Over the past thirty years of his reign, Mubarak has promised change and followed up on nothing. The pay raises, however, are a craftier policy move, one that is undoubtedly intended to show an immediate change in the regime’s course of action. All in all, this is the other side of despotic rule, the side that would feign abhorrence towards the fullness of its own brutality and offer paltry fixes to the much deeper problems that lurk just at the surface.
Will this move work? We will have to wait and see. If the country’s economy continues to fall into a tailspin, it’s quite likely that it will fail spectacularly. Any sharp uptick in inflation would render a 15% salary increase unnoticeable to the man or woman plugging away diligently in the offices of Egypt’s labyrinthine governmental agencies. If the economy stabilizes, on the other hand, the question then is whether or not the government has an accurate read on the demands of the people. Is it the economy, stupid? Or is it a far more entangled mess that Hosni has gotten himself and his coddling benefactors into. After all, in addition to the economy, what of arbitrary police brutality? Or what of the regime’s habit of crushing any semblance of political opposition? Or what of the rampant corruption that gums up the basic daily lives of millions of Egyptians? And so on and so forth.
The problem is as complex as the bureaucratic structure built up by Mubarak to shield his rule from accountability and change. Ultimately, the government has landed in an impossible predicament and I say this without the slightest sympathy for them. In order to meet the ultimately moderate demands of the Nile Uprising, the government would need to cease to be what it has created itself to be. Over the past 30 years, it has meticulously grown a security apparatus that leaves its mark on all aspects of Egyptian life. From the presence of well-armed uniformed policemen to the constant threat of undercover agents who can kidnap and torture with impunity, security is the true source of terror for the Egyptian people. The intent, of course, is to create the sense that Egyptians are being watched, constantly and in every place. The constant threat of force and intimidation was undoubtedly meant to work its way into the psyche of the people, thereby creating a permanently docile and controllable populace. And for decades, this seemed to be a functional and effective tactic. Policy experts and politicians, pundits and business leaders spoke with tremendous confidence that the “stability” of Egypt was a given not to be questioned. The capitals of the western world echoed with loving praise of Mubarak’s efforts. He had, in their eyes, created the perfect system, one that could carry the trappings of a 21st Century developing nation, facilitate a mild trickle of capital through that corner of the African continent, and ensure an unquestioning partner in the U.S.’s Global War on Terror.
But Mubarak and his western patrons were obviously caught with their proverbial pants down. With intense speed and sophistication we have seen that a huge portion of the Egyptian people is no longer willing to be subjected to the security interests of others at their own expense. No longer content with being pawns in someone else’s game, what we have seen over the last few weeks is people rising up to create an entirely new game for themselves.
The question now facing western governments is whether they will hedge their bets, praying that their capsizing comprehension of the world will right itself, or whether they will support real reform in Egypt and beyond. Given current statements and actions (as well as a wealth of historical guidance) I think we can safely say that the west will put all their chips on the table and bet on the NDP. After all, they are as complicit in the construction of Egypt’s police state as Mubarak himself. And because of this, the status quo is equally in the interest of Mubarak’s regime and those who haunt the halls of power in Washington, Tel Aviv, and London. The Nile Uprising, in other words, is so important because there is so much at stake.
And what of this conglomeration of western powers? Without doubt, Mubarak owes deep gratitude to the U.S., which has, through thick and thin, good times and bad, pumped a constant flow of cash and expertise into his government, military, and security apparatus. Without the U.S., the Mubarak regime would have faded into the annals of history years ago. Obama, though showing profound ineptitude at the outset of this crisis, has gathered his wits and is at present working diligently with his Secretary of State to develop a plan that would sufficiently defuse the momentum and demands of the uprising. Calls for change are twinned with dire warnings of the need for a smooth transition of power. Omar Suleiman, the U.S.’s rendition program Torture Czar go-to man in Egypt has assumed a central position in the decision-making process and is offering the world assurances that change will happen when the people of Egypt have proven that they are mature enough for the democratic process. He and Hillary seem to chat on a daily basis, which ought to give us a clear picture of the Obama Administration’s position on participatory governance in Egypt. Meanwhile, despite the fact that he holds far more power than he did prior to the uprising, Suleiman makes it clear that Mubarak is still present and running the show. Whether this is true or not is thoroughly beside the point simply because the policies of Mubarak will be the policies of Suleiman which will be the policies of his successor if the U.S. has any say in the matter. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Mubarak also owes immeasurable thanks to Israel’s current Likudist government, as well as governments past. Throughout the uprising, the Israelis held out unwavering support to their friend-to-the-south, cajoled any governments that dared offer tepid condemnation of the NDP’s brutal attacks on Egyptian protesters, and pressured the U.S. government to not finally cut the Egyptian regime loose once and for all. And then, of course, there are the French, Germans, and British who have done their part in ensuring that a democratic system never sees the light of day in Egypt. Such is life in the days of 21st Empire!
There is tremendous irony in this wave of support for the regime coming from the west. From January 25 forward, the NDP cynically attempted to roil the Egyptian masses during the uprising with constant claims in the state-run media that “outside forces” were the source of the conflict. Reports even trickled in to Al Jazeera that NDP members of parliament were rallying people to defend the nation against Americans who, apparently, had taken over Tahrir Square. Of course there weren’t Americans there. Instead, they found Egyptians rising up for Egyptians. This did not deter extreme acts of violence on the part of the regime and its mercenaries. For those of us who watched Al Jazeera’s grainy live video feeds, we saw thugs of all stripes rain wrath and violence on what had been a peaceful protest. Alongside those tricked into defending Egypt from invasion were official employees of Egypt’s Ministry of the Interior. Others were temporary workers, offered short-term employment with considerable compensation. As convulsions of violence ripped through the center of Egypt’s capital and throughout the country, the Obama Administration and other western leaders pathetically called for restraint on all sides. But the side that spoke the language of violence only continued. After all, they had received $1.3 billion a year since 1981 to do just that, so why stop now?
In an attempt to win people to its side, or at least distance them from the Nile Uprising that has made its symbolic home in Tahrir Square, the Egyptian government has promised a 15% increase in the salaries of all public sector employees. This, of course, is merely the latest gesture of change offered by the ruling regime and follows far more dramatic events, including the removal of high profile political types from the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), not the least of which being Mubarak himself; discussion with certain members of the opposition; and condemnations of violent acts against the protesters themselves over the last two weeks. It is not terribly likely that these moves by the government will strike many of the Egyptian people as being even remotely sincere. Over the past thirty years of his reign, Mubarak has promised change and followed up on nothing. The pay raises, however, are a craftier policy move, one that is undoubtedly intended to show an immediate change in the regime’s course of action. All in all, this is the other side of despotic rule, the side that would feign abhorrence towards the fullness of its own brutality and offer paltry fixes to the much deeper problems that lurk just at the surface.
Will this move work? We will have to wait and see. If the country’s economy continues to fall into a tailspin, it’s quite likely that it will fail spectacularly. Any sharp uptick in inflation would render a 15% salary increase unnoticeable to the man or woman plugging away diligently in the offices of Egypt’s labyrinthine governmental agencies. If the economy stabilizes, on the other hand, the question then is whether or not the government has an accurate read on the demands of the people. Is it the economy, stupid? Or is it a far more entangled mess that Hosni has gotten himself and his coddling benefactors into. After all, in addition to the economy, what of arbitrary police brutality? Or what of the regime’s habit of crushing any semblance of political opposition? Or what of the rampant corruption that gums up the basic daily lives of millions of Egyptians? And so on and so forth.
The problem is as complex as the bureaucratic structure built up by Mubarak to shield his rule from accountability and change. Ultimately, the government has landed in an impossible predicament and I say this without the slightest sympathy for them. In order to meet the ultimately moderate demands of the Nile Uprising, the government would need to cease to be what it has created itself to be. Over the past 30 years, it has meticulously grown a security apparatus that leaves its mark on all aspects of Egyptian life. From the presence of well-armed uniformed policemen to the constant threat of undercover agents who can kidnap and torture with impunity, security is the true source of terror for the Egyptian people. The intent, of course, is to create the sense that Egyptians are being watched, constantly and in every place. The constant threat of force and intimidation was undoubtedly meant to work its way into the psyche of the people, thereby creating a permanently docile and controllable populace. And for decades, this seemed to be a functional and effective tactic. Policy experts and politicians, pundits and business leaders spoke with tremendous confidence that the “stability” of Egypt was a given not to be questioned. The capitals of the western world echoed with loving praise of Mubarak’s efforts. He had, in their eyes, created the perfect system, one that could carry the trappings of a 21st Century developing nation, facilitate a mild trickle of capital through that corner of the African continent, and ensure an unquestioning partner in the U.S.’s Global War on Terror.
But Mubarak and his western patrons were obviously caught with their proverbial pants down. With intense speed and sophistication we have seen that a huge portion of the Egyptian people is no longer willing to be subjected to the security interests of others at their own expense. No longer content with being pawns in someone else’s game, what we have seen over the last few weeks is people rising up to create an entirely new game for themselves.
The question now facing western governments is whether they will hedge their bets, praying that their capsizing comprehension of the world will right itself, or whether they will support real reform in Egypt and beyond. Given current statements and actions (as well as a wealth of historical guidance) I think we can safely say that the west will put all their chips on the table and bet on the NDP. After all, they are as complicit in the construction of Egypt’s police state as Mubarak himself. And because of this, the status quo is equally in the interest of Mubarak’s regime and those who haunt the halls of power in Washington, Tel Aviv, and London. The Nile Uprising, in other words, is so important because there is so much at stake.
And what of this conglomeration of western powers? Without doubt, Mubarak owes deep gratitude to the U.S., which has, through thick and thin, good times and bad, pumped a constant flow of cash and expertise into his government, military, and security apparatus. Without the U.S., the Mubarak regime would have faded into the annals of history years ago. Obama, though showing profound ineptitude at the outset of this crisis, has gathered his wits and is at present working diligently with his Secretary of State to develop a plan that would sufficiently defuse the momentum and demands of the uprising. Calls for change are twinned with dire warnings of the need for a smooth transition of power. Omar Suleiman, the U.S.’s rendition program Torture Czar go-to man in Egypt has assumed a central position in the decision-making process and is offering the world assurances that change will happen when the people of Egypt have proven that they are mature enough for the democratic process. He and Hillary seem to chat on a daily basis, which ought to give us a clear picture of the Obama Administration’s position on participatory governance in Egypt. Meanwhile, despite the fact that he holds far more power than he did prior to the uprising, Suleiman makes it clear that Mubarak is still present and running the show. Whether this is true or not is thoroughly beside the point simply because the policies of Mubarak will be the policies of Suleiman which will be the policies of his successor if the U.S. has any say in the matter. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Mubarak also owes immeasurable thanks to Israel’s current Likudist government, as well as governments past. Throughout the uprising, the Israelis held out unwavering support to their friend-to-the-south, cajoled any governments that dared offer tepid condemnation of the NDP’s brutal attacks on Egyptian protesters, and pressured the U.S. government to not finally cut the Egyptian regime loose once and for all. And then, of course, there are the French, Germans, and British who have done their part in ensuring that a democratic system never sees the light of day in Egypt. Such is life in the days of 21st Empire!
There is tremendous irony in this wave of support for the regime coming from the west. From January 25 forward, the NDP cynically attempted to roil the Egyptian masses during the uprising with constant claims in the state-run media that “outside forces” were the source of the conflict. Reports even trickled in to Al Jazeera that NDP members of parliament were rallying people to defend the nation against Americans who, apparently, had taken over Tahrir Square. Of course there weren’t Americans there. Instead, they found Egyptians rising up for Egyptians. This did not deter extreme acts of violence on the part of the regime and its mercenaries. For those of us who watched Al Jazeera’s grainy live video feeds, we saw thugs of all stripes rain wrath and violence on what had been a peaceful protest. Alongside those tricked into defending Egypt from invasion were official employees of Egypt’s Ministry of the Interior. Others were temporary workers, offered short-term employment with considerable compensation. As convulsions of violence ripped through the center of Egypt’s capital and throughout the country, the Obama Administration and other western leaders pathetically called for restraint on all sides. But the side that spoke the language of violence only continued. After all, they had received $1.3 billion a year since 1981 to do just that, so why stop now?
At present, Mubarak remains in power. His underling, Omar Suleiman, is meant to be the new face of the NDP’s old terror machine. But this public relations move is clearly meant for western media consumption only. After all, his is a face quite familiar to the peopleof Egypt and one that does not bring to the mind words like hope or change. Indeed, it is a face that reflects the hypocrisy of western foreign policy when it comes to that part of the world. After all, when it comes to the Middle East, we love change, as long as everything stays the same.
Tarecq M. Amer is a doctoral candidate in geography at the University of California, Davis and can be reached at tmamer@ucdavis.edu
http://www.counterpunch.org/amer02082011.html
Egypt's Muslims and Christians join hands in protest
By Anne Alexander
University of Cambridge
Just weeks after a Christmas Eve church bombing rocked the port city of Alexandria, Egypt's religious tensions have been set aside as the country's Muslims and Christians join forces at anti-government protests.
Making my way to Tahrir Square during the anti-Mubarak protests, a striking piece of graffiti caught my eye.
Scrawled on the concrete pillar of a flyover was the symbol of a Muslim crescent embracing the Christian cross and the words: "We are all against the regime".
During the big "Day of Departure" protest in Tahrir Square last Friday, Coptic Christian protesters made a human chain around their Muslim brothers and sisters as they performed the noon prayers.
A Christian Copt holds a sign: "From Muslim and Christian brothers, Leave Mubarak you coward"
Two days later, "Martyrs' Sunday" was celebrated by Egyptians of both religions as an affirmation of national unity in struggle.
On that day, a crowd had gathered in front of a sound system by the Mogamma government building on the eastern side of the square.
A man in a jacket began to speak as chanting died away.
"He was someone from the church, a priest," someone in the crowd told me.
I was told: "We are all in this together. Muslims and Christians." Other people were listening and nodding. "One hand, one hand," the crowd roared.
This time they were not talking about the people and the army, as they had a few days earlier, but about Egyptian unity. Muslims and Christians: One hand.
Christians targeted
The sign of the crescent embracing the cross was everywhere: From the careful calligraphy of the handmade placards, to slogans picked out in stones on the floor.
A man prays on his national flag with his 'crescent and cross' sunglasses nearby
I saw three elderly men, two Muslims clutching gilded copies of the Koran, arms flung around a third, hugging an ornate cross to his chest.
A group of young men and women belted out a song of the 1919 revolution, accompanied by a guitar. "Arise O Egypt, arise. Arise Egyptians: Muslims, Christians and Jews."
The adoption of slogans and symbols of Muslim-Christian unity is particularly important in a context where the Coptic community has been the target of a recent series of deadly attacks.
Another played across Tahrir Square on Sunday commemorated the dead in a bomb attack on worshippers leaving church on New Year's eve in Alexandria.
"They are martyrs for our movement too," called out a young woman.
Old slogans
The fact that only a few weeks after the Alexandria attack, Egyptian Copts could hold public prayers in the streets of Cairo, in an overwhelmingly Muslim crowd of protesters, protected by ranks of volunteers from the Muslim Brotherhood at the entrances to the square, may indicate a shift in the atmosphere in Egypt.
Some would go further, arguing that it is the Egyptian government, rather than popular anti-Christian feeling which has played a crucial role in fuelling violence against the Coptic community.
"Systematic discrimination against the Copts has been common in some areas such as exclusion from top state and military positions," says Maha Abdelrahman, a lecturer on Egyptian politics and society at the University of Cambridge.
"But the state's major crime has been in the way it has indirectly incited and fuelled sectarian tension between Muslims and Christians.
"It has done this using its complete control over the state-run media, education and religious institutions."
Despite what many see as a legacy of state-sponsored religious discrimination, the current generation of protesters can also draw on a long traditions of shared protest.
The symbol of the crescent embracing the cross was the banner of the 1919 revolution against British control of Egypt, and became the badge of the nationalist Wafd party which dominated Egyptian politics until the early 1950s.
More recently, explicitly anti-sectarian slogans have been adopted by property tax collectors and rail-workers during their strikes and protests since late 2007.
A car bomb attack on a church in Alexandria killed more than 20 people
Moreover, Copts have recently been prepared to battle the state on their own account, clashing with the police in protests over the construction of a new church in November 2010, for example.
It remains to be seen whether this unity forged in struggle will strike deep and lasting roots in Egyptian society, but Maha Abdelrahman is confident that the potential for change is real.
"The united front which the pro-democracy protesters have used shows that Egyptians, once united, can see through and subvert the regime's manipulation."
Anne Alexander is a Buckley Fellow at the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Cambridge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12407793
University of Cambridge
Just weeks after a Christmas Eve church bombing rocked the port city of Alexandria, Egypt's religious tensions have been set aside as the country's Muslims and Christians join forces at anti-government protests.
Making my way to Tahrir Square during the anti-Mubarak protests, a striking piece of graffiti caught my eye.
Scrawled on the concrete pillar of a flyover was the symbol of a Muslim crescent embracing the Christian cross and the words: "We are all against the regime".
During the big "Day of Departure" protest in Tahrir Square last Friday, Coptic Christian protesters made a human chain around their Muslim brothers and sisters as they performed the noon prayers.
A Christian Copt holds a sign: "From Muslim and Christian brothers, Leave Mubarak you coward"
Two days later, "Martyrs' Sunday" was celebrated by Egyptians of both religions as an affirmation of national unity in struggle.
On that day, a crowd had gathered in front of a sound system by the Mogamma government building on the eastern side of the square.
A man in a jacket began to speak as chanting died away.
"He was someone from the church, a priest," someone in the crowd told me.
I was told: "We are all in this together. Muslims and Christians." Other people were listening and nodding. "One hand, one hand," the crowd roared.
This time they were not talking about the people and the army, as they had a few days earlier, but about Egyptian unity. Muslims and Christians: One hand.
Christians targeted
The sign of the crescent embracing the cross was everywhere: From the careful calligraphy of the handmade placards, to slogans picked out in stones on the floor.
A man prays on his national flag with his 'crescent and cross' sunglasses nearby
I saw three elderly men, two Muslims clutching gilded copies of the Koran, arms flung around a third, hugging an ornate cross to his chest.
A group of young men and women belted out a song of the 1919 revolution, accompanied by a guitar. "Arise O Egypt, arise. Arise Egyptians: Muslims, Christians and Jews."
The adoption of slogans and symbols of Muslim-Christian unity is particularly important in a context where the Coptic community has been the target of a recent series of deadly attacks.
Another played across Tahrir Square on Sunday commemorated the dead in a bomb attack on worshippers leaving church on New Year's eve in Alexandria.
"They are martyrs for our movement too," called out a young woman.
Old slogans
The fact that only a few weeks after the Alexandria attack, Egyptian Copts could hold public prayers in the streets of Cairo, in an overwhelmingly Muslim crowd of protesters, protected by ranks of volunteers from the Muslim Brotherhood at the entrances to the square, may indicate a shift in the atmosphere in Egypt.
Some would go further, arguing that it is the Egyptian government, rather than popular anti-Christian feeling which has played a crucial role in fuelling violence against the Coptic community.
"Systematic discrimination against the Copts has been common in some areas such as exclusion from top state and military positions," says Maha Abdelrahman, a lecturer on Egyptian politics and society at the University of Cambridge.
"But the state's major crime has been in the way it has indirectly incited and fuelled sectarian tension between Muslims and Christians.
"It has done this using its complete control over the state-run media, education and religious institutions."
Despite what many see as a legacy of state-sponsored religious discrimination, the current generation of protesters can also draw on a long traditions of shared protest.
The symbol of the crescent embracing the cross was the banner of the 1919 revolution against British control of Egypt, and became the badge of the nationalist Wafd party which dominated Egyptian politics until the early 1950s.
More recently, explicitly anti-sectarian slogans have been adopted by property tax collectors and rail-workers during their strikes and protests since late 2007.
A car bomb attack on a church in Alexandria killed more than 20 people
Moreover, Copts have recently been prepared to battle the state on their own account, clashing with the police in protests over the construction of a new church in November 2010, for example.
It remains to be seen whether this unity forged in struggle will strike deep and lasting roots in Egyptian society, but Maha Abdelrahman is confident that the potential for change is real.
"The united front which the pro-democracy protesters have used shows that Egyptians, once united, can see through and subvert the regime's manipulation."
Anne Alexander is a Buckley Fellow at the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Cambridge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12407793
Obama and Egyptian Liberation
By KEVIN ALEXANDER GRAY
President Barack Obama needs to stop being two-faced on Egypt.
On one side of his public face he gives the impression of pressing Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak to consider his legacy and “leave power in a way that would give his country the best chance for peace and democracy.”
But then he sent presidential envoy Frank Wisner to Cairo, who later publicly urged Mubarak to remain in power, saying, “President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical.”
In the realpolitik world of Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton it made sense to send someone Mubarak knew to deliver their message. Wisner’s Washington-based law firm, Patton Boggs works for the dictator's government.
After being called out on the Egyptian streets for Wisner’s comments the Administration put out that his comments “were his own” as though Wisner were some “disavowed” member of the mythical “IMF” - Impossible Missions Force.
Yet tossing Wisner into the fray is consistent with Clinton’s initial expression of “confidence in the stability of his [Mubarak] regime” and Vice-President Joe Biden saying, “I would not refer to him as a dictator.”
Even so, it leaves Obama (and the rest of world) where we started out – what’s the United States’ response to the unraveling of neo-colonialism?
Obama should consider his own legacy and let the American people know whose side he’s on: the dictator’s, or those who clamor courageously for democracy.
The most often used word coming from the Obama Administration is “transition” which suggests they are biding their time. Which boils down to what Egyptians protesters clearly see, feel and hear. That U.S. officials “speak about their own interest, not ours.” Another said: “Tell America that we get to choose our president . . . not them.” Yet another opined: “We believe America is against us.”
Mohamed ElBaradei, Egypt’s Nobel Peace Prize recipient, has blasted Obama’s stance by saying: “To ask a dictator to implement democratic measures after thirty years in power is an oxymoron. It will not end until he leaves.”
Unlike Obama, ElBaradei actually earned his Nobel Peace Prize while serving at the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). He stuck his neck out against George W. Bush over his false claims that Iraq had a nuclear program along with stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in 2002, and in 2003 he revealed that the documents that the Bush White House had touted about Iraq’s alleged purchase of uranium in Niger were fabricated. He also battled the Bush administration over the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.
In demanding an end to Mubarak’s dictatorship, ElBaradei stands alongside Nawal El Saadawi, a leading Egyptian feminist, sociologist, medical doctor and writer.
He stands alongside Ahmad Maher, the 28-year-old construction engineer and leader of the secular, pro-labor April 6 movement (which takes its name from April 6, 2008, when a series of strikes and labor actions by textile workers in Mahalla led to a growing general strike by workers and residents and then, on April 6, faced a brutal crackdown by security forces).
He stands alongside Asma Mahfouz whose Internet video outlng Mubarak’s abuses went viral.
He stands alongside Wael Ghonim, the Google employee detained for two weeks by Egyptian security forces as the January protest in Tahrir (“Liberation”) Square began.
He stands alongside dissident Ayman Nour, a former presidential candidate and member of the Egyptian Parliament and chair of the El Ghad party who was imprisoned in 2005 by the Mubarak government for political reasons and released on health grounds in 2009.
They all stand alongside the National Association for Change, the Egyptian Movement for Change, members of the Facebook-formed We Are All Khaled Said group (named after a man whose death in a brutal police beating was captured in a photograph circulated over the Internet), The Muslim Brotherhood, and other banned political parties and organizations such as Kefaya, The Democratic Front and the liberal Wafd (which means “delegation), just to name a few.
They, and millions of other Egyptians, are facing and fighting injustice.
Meanwhile, Obama seems intent on managing injustice.
The reasoning the Nobel Peace Prize committee used to justify what many considered a “premature” award, an honor that Obama admitted, “ he didn’t deserve...” was the hope “that he would live up to it.”
What the world has witnessed from him to this point is: an increase in the use of deadly unmanned drones wreaking “collateral damage” in Pakistan and Afghanistan’s tribal areas, support for an assassination program, contractors replacing soldiers in Iraq, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and backtracking on the closing of Guantánamo Bay, just to name a few of the disappointments.
This leaves people asking: “When will Obama do something in the name of peace?”
A foreign policy with peace at its core would mean: instead of sending more US warships to the region, reapportion some of the $1.3 billion plus in annual military aid compared to about $250 million in economic aid to Egypt, so that a much greater share goes directly to people instead of the military; that the United States will no longer “rendered” unto Egypt (or anyplace else) alledged “terrorists” kidnapped by the U.S. who are then tortured by the same secret police that have been torturing, terrrorizing, extorting and abusing the Egyptian people; investigation and prosecution of U.S. officials who have ordered renderings, and public discloure and status of those individuals taken without an open and due process and; a focus on freedom, democracy and universal human rights instead of global capitalism/corporatism and militarism.
Obama shouldn’t be playing games with the Egyptian people, but that’s what he’s doing. At the moment, the Obama administration seems to be hoping that Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s spy chief and now vice president, can reshuffle the totalitarian government and things will quiet down. Suleiman was Washington’s “point man” in Egypt for the policy of renditions. This is the CIA’s illegal policy of kidnapping detainees and shipping them to foreign countries, like Egypt, where they were tortured. Suleiman himself has a chilling reputation when it comes to torture.
In the mid-1990s, Suleiman worked with the Bill Clinton’s administration in devising and implementing its rendition program. Back then, rendition involved kidnapping suspected terrorists and transferring them to a third country for trial. Under the Bush administration, US renditions became “extraordinary,” meaning the objective of kidnapping and extra-legal transfer was no longer to bring a suspect to trial - but rather for interrogation to seek actionable intelligence – by any means necessary. The extraordinary rendition program landed some people in CIA black sites - and others were turned over for torture-by-proxy to U.S. dependent regimes. Egypt figured large as a torture destination of choice, as did Suleiman as Egypt’s torturer-in-chief. Suleiman himself reportedly tortured at least one person extraordinarily rendered by the CIA to Egypt —Egyptian-born Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib.
So one thing is for certain: Suleiman is not the man to bring democracy to the country. His hands are “too dirty and bloody.”
And given the history of the security police in Egypt, at the top of the reformers’ list is establishing a criminal justice system based on human and civil rights protections, reform (and prosecution) of some members of the police and secret security forces with the possible elimination of the latter. Consequently, with the elimination of the secret police, the U.S. will have to do its own dirty work.
Obama should be standing squarely not with Suleiman but with the Egyptian people and their right to reject an oppressive and brutal regime.
And we should not demand or expect the Egyptian people to automatically put U.S. interests before their own, especially as they endure being fired upon by tear gas canisters with “made in the USA” written on them.
If the United States is going to talk the talk of freedom and democracy, then it has to walk the walk. Anything less is hypocritical.
President Barack Obama needs to stop being two-faced on Egypt.
On one side of his public face he gives the impression of pressing Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak to consider his legacy and “leave power in a way that would give his country the best chance for peace and democracy.”
But then he sent presidential envoy Frank Wisner to Cairo, who later publicly urged Mubarak to remain in power, saying, “President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical.”
In the realpolitik world of Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton it made sense to send someone Mubarak knew to deliver their message. Wisner’s Washington-based law firm, Patton Boggs works for the dictator's government.
After being called out on the Egyptian streets for Wisner’s comments the Administration put out that his comments “were his own” as though Wisner were some “disavowed” member of the mythical “IMF” - Impossible Missions Force.
Yet tossing Wisner into the fray is consistent with Clinton’s initial expression of “confidence in the stability of his [Mubarak] regime” and Vice-President Joe Biden saying, “I would not refer to him as a dictator.”
Even so, it leaves Obama (and the rest of world) where we started out – what’s the United States’ response to the unraveling of neo-colonialism?
Obama should consider his own legacy and let the American people know whose side he’s on: the dictator’s, or those who clamor courageously for democracy.
The most often used word coming from the Obama Administration is “transition” which suggests they are biding their time. Which boils down to what Egyptians protesters clearly see, feel and hear. That U.S. officials “speak about their own interest, not ours.” Another said: “Tell America that we get to choose our president . . . not them.” Yet another opined: “We believe America is against us.”
Mohamed ElBaradei, Egypt’s Nobel Peace Prize recipient, has blasted Obama’s stance by saying: “To ask a dictator to implement democratic measures after thirty years in power is an oxymoron. It will not end until he leaves.”
Unlike Obama, ElBaradei actually earned his Nobel Peace Prize while serving at the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). He stuck his neck out against George W. Bush over his false claims that Iraq had a nuclear program along with stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in 2002, and in 2003 he revealed that the documents that the Bush White House had touted about Iraq’s alleged purchase of uranium in Niger were fabricated. He also battled the Bush administration over the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.
In demanding an end to Mubarak’s dictatorship, ElBaradei stands alongside Nawal El Saadawi, a leading Egyptian feminist, sociologist, medical doctor and writer.
He stands alongside Ahmad Maher, the 28-year-old construction engineer and leader of the secular, pro-labor April 6 movement (which takes its name from April 6, 2008, when a series of strikes and labor actions by textile workers in Mahalla led to a growing general strike by workers and residents and then, on April 6, faced a brutal crackdown by security forces).
He stands alongside Asma Mahfouz whose Internet video outlng Mubarak’s abuses went viral.
He stands alongside Wael Ghonim, the Google employee detained for two weeks by Egyptian security forces as the January protest in Tahrir (“Liberation”) Square began.
He stands alongside dissident Ayman Nour, a former presidential candidate and member of the Egyptian Parliament and chair of the El Ghad party who was imprisoned in 2005 by the Mubarak government for political reasons and released on health grounds in 2009.
They all stand alongside the National Association for Change, the Egyptian Movement for Change, members of the Facebook-formed We Are All Khaled Said group (named after a man whose death in a brutal police beating was captured in a photograph circulated over the Internet), The Muslim Brotherhood, and other banned political parties and organizations such as Kefaya, The Democratic Front and the liberal Wafd (which means “delegation), just to name a few.
They, and millions of other Egyptians, are facing and fighting injustice.
Meanwhile, Obama seems intent on managing injustice.
The reasoning the Nobel Peace Prize committee used to justify what many considered a “premature” award, an honor that Obama admitted, “ he didn’t deserve...” was the hope “that he would live up to it.”
What the world has witnessed from him to this point is: an increase in the use of deadly unmanned drones wreaking “collateral damage” in Pakistan and Afghanistan’s tribal areas, support for an assassination program, contractors replacing soldiers in Iraq, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and backtracking on the closing of Guantánamo Bay, just to name a few of the disappointments.
This leaves people asking: “When will Obama do something in the name of peace?”
A foreign policy with peace at its core would mean: instead of sending more US warships to the region, reapportion some of the $1.3 billion plus in annual military aid compared to about $250 million in economic aid to Egypt, so that a much greater share goes directly to people instead of the military; that the United States will no longer “rendered” unto Egypt (or anyplace else) alledged “terrorists” kidnapped by the U.S. who are then tortured by the same secret police that have been torturing, terrrorizing, extorting and abusing the Egyptian people; investigation and prosecution of U.S. officials who have ordered renderings, and public discloure and status of those individuals taken without an open and due process and; a focus on freedom, democracy and universal human rights instead of global capitalism/corporatism and militarism.
Obama shouldn’t be playing games with the Egyptian people, but that’s what he’s doing. At the moment, the Obama administration seems to be hoping that Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s spy chief and now vice president, can reshuffle the totalitarian government and things will quiet down. Suleiman was Washington’s “point man” in Egypt for the policy of renditions. This is the CIA’s illegal policy of kidnapping detainees and shipping them to foreign countries, like Egypt, where they were tortured. Suleiman himself has a chilling reputation when it comes to torture.
In the mid-1990s, Suleiman worked with the Bill Clinton’s administration in devising and implementing its rendition program. Back then, rendition involved kidnapping suspected terrorists and transferring them to a third country for trial. Under the Bush administration, US renditions became “extraordinary,” meaning the objective of kidnapping and extra-legal transfer was no longer to bring a suspect to trial - but rather for interrogation to seek actionable intelligence – by any means necessary. The extraordinary rendition program landed some people in CIA black sites - and others were turned over for torture-by-proxy to U.S. dependent regimes. Egypt figured large as a torture destination of choice, as did Suleiman as Egypt’s torturer-in-chief. Suleiman himself reportedly tortured at least one person extraordinarily rendered by the CIA to Egypt —Egyptian-born Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib.
So one thing is for certain: Suleiman is not the man to bring democracy to the country. His hands are “too dirty and bloody.”
And given the history of the security police in Egypt, at the top of the reformers’ list is establishing a criminal justice system based on human and civil rights protections, reform (and prosecution) of some members of the police and secret security forces with the possible elimination of the latter. Consequently, with the elimination of the secret police, the U.S. will have to do its own dirty work.
Obama should be standing squarely not with Suleiman but with the Egyptian people and their right to reject an oppressive and brutal regime.
And we should not demand or expect the Egyptian people to automatically put U.S. interests before their own, especially as they endure being fired upon by tear gas canisters with “made in the USA” written on them.
If the United States is going to talk the talk of freedom and democracy, then it has to walk the walk. Anything less is hypocritical.
Kevin Alexander Gray is a civil rights organizer in South Carolina and author of Waiting for Lightning to Strike! The Fundamentals of Black Politics, published by CounterPunch Books. He can be reached at kagamba@bellsouth.net.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Clarifying the Muslim Brotherhood
Monday, February 7,2011 00:39
IkhwanWeb
As Mubarak's regime starts to topple, there is speculation whether the Muslim Brotherhood will dominate the new Egyptian political landscape. It will undoubtedly play a role in creating a new government, but is adamant in its stance that is does not seek leadership and will not field candidates for presidency. The Brotherhood is the largest, most popular, and most effective opposition group in Egypt.
Those who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood usually contrive their arguments against them saying that they represent Islamic tyranny, adding that the Muslim Brotherhood was originally an anti-system group that committed acts of violence against its opponents in the pre-1952 era. However, portraying the Brotherhood as eager to seize power and impose Islamic law on an unwilling nation is ludicrous, as the group has obviously changed and evolved throughout its history and its stances in the current crisis constitute a voice of moderation, insight and determination that can only be applauded, and which has gained the group, and protestors international sympathy and support.
Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood is the longest continuous contemporary Islamist group. It was initially established, not as a political party, but as a da'wa (religious outreach) association that aimed to cultivate pious and committed Muslims through preaching, social services, and spreading religious commitment and integrity by example. It called on Egyptians to unite to confront imperialism and pursue economic development and social justice.
In 1984, the Brotherhood started running candidates in elections. The Brotherhood entered the political system to advocate for the people's will and be the voice of ethics and justice. Leaders who were elected to professional syndicates engaged in sustained dialogue and cooperation with members of other political movements. Through interaction, Islamists and Arabists found common ground in the call for an expansion of public freedoms, democracy, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
The Brotherhood has been working for years on projects to create a civic charter and a constitution, preparing for the time when a new democratic government came to power. During the past week of protests, members of the cross-partisan groups were able to quickly reactivate their networks and help form a united opposition front. It is likely that these members will play a key role in drafting Egypt's new constitution.
Over the last 30 years, the Brotherhood has developed expertise in electoral competition and representation, and has developed new professional competencies and skills, forging closer ties with Egyptian activists, researchers, journalists, and politicians outside the Islamist camp. The leadership is more internally diverse today than ever before.
There is a new generation of Islamist democracy activists both inside and outside the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is using discretion in its function in the uprising, aware that the greater its role, the higher the risk of a violent crackdown. There is a historic precedent for this in the harsh wave of repression that followed its strong showing in the 2005 parliamentary elections. Its immediate priority is to ensure that President Hosni Mubarak steps down and that the era of corruption and dictatorship associated with his rule comes to an end. The Brotherhood also knows that a smooth transition to a democratic system will require an interim government palatable to the military and the West, so it has indicated that it would not seek positions in the new government itself.
Reformers, like the Brotherhood, will be vital among the other opposition groups when they draft a new constitution and establish the framework for new elections. The Brotherhood has demonstrated that it is capable of evolving over time, and the best way for Egypt to strengthen its democratic commitments is to include it in the political process, making sure there are checks and balances in place to ensure that no group can monopolize state power and that all citizens are guaranteed certain freedoms under the law. This is what the Brotherhood is calling for.
The Brotherhood has a track record of nearly 30 years of responsible behavior and has a strong base of support. It has thereby earned a place at the table in the post-Mubarak era. And indeed, no democratic transition can succeed without it.
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=27979
IkhwanWeb
As Mubarak's regime starts to topple, there is speculation whether the Muslim Brotherhood will dominate the new Egyptian political landscape. It will undoubtedly play a role in creating a new government, but is adamant in its stance that is does not seek leadership and will not field candidates for presidency. The Brotherhood is the largest, most popular, and most effective opposition group in Egypt.
Those who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood usually contrive their arguments against them saying that they represent Islamic tyranny, adding that the Muslim Brotherhood was originally an anti-system group that committed acts of violence against its opponents in the pre-1952 era. However, portraying the Brotherhood as eager to seize power and impose Islamic law on an unwilling nation is ludicrous, as the group has obviously changed and evolved throughout its history and its stances in the current crisis constitute a voice of moderation, insight and determination that can only be applauded, and which has gained the group, and protestors international sympathy and support.
Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood is the longest continuous contemporary Islamist group. It was initially established, not as a political party, but as a da'wa (religious outreach) association that aimed to cultivate pious and committed Muslims through preaching, social services, and spreading religious commitment and integrity by example. It called on Egyptians to unite to confront imperialism and pursue economic development and social justice.
In 1984, the Brotherhood started running candidates in elections. The Brotherhood entered the political system to advocate for the people's will and be the voice of ethics and justice. Leaders who were elected to professional syndicates engaged in sustained dialogue and cooperation with members of other political movements. Through interaction, Islamists and Arabists found common ground in the call for an expansion of public freedoms, democracy, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
The Brotherhood has been working for years on projects to create a civic charter and a constitution, preparing for the time when a new democratic government came to power. During the past week of protests, members of the cross-partisan groups were able to quickly reactivate their networks and help form a united opposition front. It is likely that these members will play a key role in drafting Egypt's new constitution.
Over the last 30 years, the Brotherhood has developed expertise in electoral competition and representation, and has developed new professional competencies and skills, forging closer ties with Egyptian activists, researchers, journalists, and politicians outside the Islamist camp. The leadership is more internally diverse today than ever before.
There is a new generation of Islamist democracy activists both inside and outside the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is using discretion in its function in the uprising, aware that the greater its role, the higher the risk of a violent crackdown. There is a historic precedent for this in the harsh wave of repression that followed its strong showing in the 2005 parliamentary elections. Its immediate priority is to ensure that President Hosni Mubarak steps down and that the era of corruption and dictatorship associated with his rule comes to an end. The Brotherhood also knows that a smooth transition to a democratic system will require an interim government palatable to the military and the West, so it has indicated that it would not seek positions in the new government itself.
Reformers, like the Brotherhood, will be vital among the other opposition groups when they draft a new constitution and establish the framework for new elections. The Brotherhood has demonstrated that it is capable of evolving over time, and the best way for Egypt to strengthen its democratic commitments is to include it in the political process, making sure there are checks and balances in place to ensure that no group can monopolize state power and that all citizens are guaranteed certain freedoms under the law. This is what the Brotherhood is calling for.
The Brotherhood has a track record of nearly 30 years of responsible behavior and has a strong base of support. It has thereby earned a place at the table in the post-Mubarak era. And indeed, no democratic transition can succeed without it.
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=27979
Time for Democracy in Egypt
By RALPH NADER
Those politically savvy people who thought strongman, Hosni Mubarak would be out before the end of the first week of the Egyptian uprising better rethink the odds. For thirty years Mubarak has developed what can be called a deeply rooted dictatorial regime with regular White House access and annual largesse of some $1.3 billion in military equipment and payroll.
A former military man, he has been very alert to what is needed to maintain the loyalties of the police, the intelligence security forces and the army. If he goes, tens of thousands of those on his payroll could lose their patronage and be on the outs if his government is really replaced.
Moreover, he enjoys the support of both the United States and Israel for whom he has been a "stable" force against the pressures coming from Iran and its allies in the Middle East.
Arrayed against him are a variety of protestors, best known for their occupation of Tahrir Square in Cairo and whose grievances are being reported hour-by-hour by the harassed international media, including the much attacked Al-Jazeera. Widely noted are the solidarity, self-help, stamina and democratic nature of the rebellion.
The state-controlled media, however, remains in Mubarak's hands. He has shown he can cut off the entire Internet and mobile phone systems with what one commentator called "the active complicity of the major corporate servers."
Going into the third week of the uprising, the regime has reopened the banks, and is urging businesses to open their doors. The government is striving to wait out the protestors, whose daily supplies and energies are being sapped by the overwhelming force arrayed against them to intimidate, weaken and keep their numbers down not just in the Square but also in other cities like Alexandria and Suez.
So far the army is remaining largely neutral. The regimes' paramilitary gangs, in plain clothes, attacked the protestors inflicting fatalities and injuries to see if they will cut and run. So far, the demonstrators are well-organized in the Square and in other Cairo neighborhoods and are holding their ground. But roundups of some of the leading dissidents for brief imprisonments or worse and detaining or beating journalists continue.
What these developments reflect is that the Mubarak regime is still in charge, with just enough rhetoric of reform, while replacing some top leaders and dismissing the board of Mubarak's political party, to show some slack. Mubarak's tactic is to bend a little so as not to break.
But unless the largely urban, tech-savvy protestors can keep replenishing their ranks and bringing more of the frightened rural poor to their rallies, they risk being perceived as running out of steam. After all, they cannot be seen as receiving aid from abroad as the Mubarak government receives regularly from U.S. taxpayers. They cannot be seen as espousing "radical ideologies" as the Mubarak government espouses radical use of dictatorial violence and torture in the past and present.
In a way, the weaknesses of the protestors—no centralized leadership, no resources—are also their moral strengths. That is why their great fear is being infiltrated by organized provocateurs to creative "incidents" and smears. So they have their own checkpoints leading to the Square and are trying to keep good relations with the soldiers surrounding their encampment.
The Army is central to the perpetuation of the Mubarak forces and their oligarchies. Under orders to appear neutral and maintain order, the Army, like most Egyptians, is waiting for the next move of the two sides, though alert to its own interests which include business investments.
Rumors are rife. But it seems that some people designated by the protestors and representatives of the long politically suppressed Muslim Brotherhood have met with Mubarak's people.
Mubarak's newly appointed vice-president, longtime intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, with close operational contacts in Washington, appears to be making the decisions, if only to given the impression that Mubarak is relenting and may be willing to remain as a figurehead president until his term is up later this year.
All this disingenuous image of moderation may be the regime's way of biding for time so as to more fully prepare to depress or destroy this popular uprising in various ways short of massive violence watched by the whole world in real time. Choosing the latter course could unleash forces in this impoverished and brutalized country of 80 million people that both the army could not contain and the already fragile economy could not endure.
If, as rumored, the trade unions exert their independence and form worker committees that could organize a general strike, then an alternative support structure could join the protestors to call for some economic relief, such as increasing wages and consumer subsidies. However, the Mubarak government has an inside watch on anything like such an initiative materializing as well. The regime is propagandizing that there is no alternative to itself being the transition, whatever that may be, other than chaos and radical revolution against the West.
What is the Obama Administration doing behind the scenes, beyond its statement in favor of a transition government planning "open and fair elections"? Will it stand with the people of Egypt and human rights if it has to stand against what analyst Samah Selim described as the "terrifying naked silence of multinational corporations and the national security state against civil society?"
Time will surely tell.
Ralph Nader is the author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!, a novel.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02082011.html
Those politically savvy people who thought strongman, Hosni Mubarak would be out before the end of the first week of the Egyptian uprising better rethink the odds. For thirty years Mubarak has developed what can be called a deeply rooted dictatorial regime with regular White House access and annual largesse of some $1.3 billion in military equipment and payroll.
A former military man, he has been very alert to what is needed to maintain the loyalties of the police, the intelligence security forces and the army. If he goes, tens of thousands of those on his payroll could lose their patronage and be on the outs if his government is really replaced.
Moreover, he enjoys the support of both the United States and Israel for whom he has been a "stable" force against the pressures coming from Iran and its allies in the Middle East.
Arrayed against him are a variety of protestors, best known for their occupation of Tahrir Square in Cairo and whose grievances are being reported hour-by-hour by the harassed international media, including the much attacked Al-Jazeera. Widely noted are the solidarity, self-help, stamina and democratic nature of the rebellion.
The state-controlled media, however, remains in Mubarak's hands. He has shown he can cut off the entire Internet and mobile phone systems with what one commentator called "the active complicity of the major corporate servers."
Going into the third week of the uprising, the regime has reopened the banks, and is urging businesses to open their doors. The government is striving to wait out the protestors, whose daily supplies and energies are being sapped by the overwhelming force arrayed against them to intimidate, weaken and keep their numbers down not just in the Square but also in other cities like Alexandria and Suez.
So far the army is remaining largely neutral. The regimes' paramilitary gangs, in plain clothes, attacked the protestors inflicting fatalities and injuries to see if they will cut and run. So far, the demonstrators are well-organized in the Square and in other Cairo neighborhoods and are holding their ground. But roundups of some of the leading dissidents for brief imprisonments or worse and detaining or beating journalists continue.
What these developments reflect is that the Mubarak regime is still in charge, with just enough rhetoric of reform, while replacing some top leaders and dismissing the board of Mubarak's political party, to show some slack. Mubarak's tactic is to bend a little so as not to break.
But unless the largely urban, tech-savvy protestors can keep replenishing their ranks and bringing more of the frightened rural poor to their rallies, they risk being perceived as running out of steam. After all, they cannot be seen as receiving aid from abroad as the Mubarak government receives regularly from U.S. taxpayers. They cannot be seen as espousing "radical ideologies" as the Mubarak government espouses radical use of dictatorial violence and torture in the past and present.
In a way, the weaknesses of the protestors—no centralized leadership, no resources—are also their moral strengths. That is why their great fear is being infiltrated by organized provocateurs to creative "incidents" and smears. So they have their own checkpoints leading to the Square and are trying to keep good relations with the soldiers surrounding their encampment.
The Army is central to the perpetuation of the Mubarak forces and their oligarchies. Under orders to appear neutral and maintain order, the Army, like most Egyptians, is waiting for the next move of the two sides, though alert to its own interests which include business investments.
Rumors are rife. But it seems that some people designated by the protestors and representatives of the long politically suppressed Muslim Brotherhood have met with Mubarak's people.
Mubarak's newly appointed vice-president, longtime intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, with close operational contacts in Washington, appears to be making the decisions, if only to given the impression that Mubarak is relenting and may be willing to remain as a figurehead president until his term is up later this year.
All this disingenuous image of moderation may be the regime's way of biding for time so as to more fully prepare to depress or destroy this popular uprising in various ways short of massive violence watched by the whole world in real time. Choosing the latter course could unleash forces in this impoverished and brutalized country of 80 million people that both the army could not contain and the already fragile economy could not endure.
If, as rumored, the trade unions exert their independence and form worker committees that could organize a general strike, then an alternative support structure could join the protestors to call for some economic relief, such as increasing wages and consumer subsidies. However, the Mubarak government has an inside watch on anything like such an initiative materializing as well. The regime is propagandizing that there is no alternative to itself being the transition, whatever that may be, other than chaos and radical revolution against the West.
What is the Obama Administration doing behind the scenes, beyond its statement in favor of a transition government planning "open and fair elections"? Will it stand with the people of Egypt and human rights if it has to stand against what analyst Samah Selim described as the "terrifying naked silence of multinational corporations and the national security state against civil society?"
Time will surely tell.
Ralph Nader is the author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!, a novel.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02082011.html
Dialogue between Youth, Political and National Forces with Egypt’s Vice-President
MB Statement on the Dialogue between Youth, Political and National Forces with Egypt’s Vice-President
Monday, February 7, 2011 17:26
IkhwanWeb
Further to the statement issued yesterday in which we explained our position with regards to the principle, context, form and subject of the protests, we are committed to public opinion and the people’s right to self-determination and its future. We submit our stance with the utmost honesty and transparency:
- we emphasize that we are a part of this great nation of Egypt. We cannot separate ourselves from it and will never cease caring about it and taking responsibility for it. We have the duty to be loyal to the nation during times of prosperity, hardship, sacrifice and redemption.
- we have not changed our stance of adhering to the demands of the people to which we belong.
- we have accepted to engage in this dialogue to deliver those demands directly to the new officials, testing their seriousness in response to these demands. We also engaged in this dialogue to spare our people and our country more losses due to the stubbornness and rigidity of the regime.
- our engagement in this dialogue is for the interest of the revolution, the people and the country. We support its continuity until we ensure the demands have been achieved.
- we are keen on preserving the youth, and popular, political and national unity. Therefore, we have demanded this collective dialogue, that includes all the national forces, particularly the youth which have been the leader of this blessed uprising.
- we requested this in order to deliver the people’s collective demands and show our unity. If any of these forces were absent from the dialogue, this should be remedied in the future.
- we have requested a change in the process to create a degree of trust between the people and the regime. Therefore, we have demanded the immediate implementation of many reforms which does not require a legal or constitutional process to reassure the people of the regime's seriousness and willingness to respond to the rest of their demands.
-we do not have a special agenda; we follow the trends and have often repeated that we are not seeking power or position, and will not nominate anyone to run for the presidency.
The points which were agreed upon during the dialogue were as follows:
-recognition of the people’s movement, which began on January 25, 2011 as an honourable national movement.
- the need to ensure the safety of the demonstrators and the full recognition of the people’s right to peaceful protests at any time to monitor the implementation of their demands and express their opinions.
- ending the State of Emergency once the security situation in Egypt is contained and before holding any elections.
- amending Articles 76,77 and 88 and any other constitutional amendments required for the peaceful transition of power.
- forming a committee, including members of the judiciary and political figures to study and propose the constitutional amendments and the necessary constitutional amendments for some laws that are complementary to the constitution with a deadline at the end of the first week of March.
- pursuing and investigating corrupt people and those responsible for the disorder; commanders and officers who have killed the youth, and to bring them to justice immediately.
- not imposing any kind of restriction on the media and communications that goes beyond the law. Halting media campaigns which aim at distorting the people’s revolution.
- forming a national committee of public and independent figures as well as representatives of popular movements that follows up the implementation of what has been agreed upon.
We adhere to the demands of the people and the final word will be for the people.
We have engaged in this dialogue on an equal status with the other parties and with our free will. The responses of the regime to the demands of the people will determine how long the dialogue will continue. Peaceful demonstrations will continue to achieve the people’s demands.
The Muslim Brotherhood
6 February 2011
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=27977
Monday, February 7, 2011 17:26
IkhwanWeb
Further to the statement issued yesterday in which we explained our position with regards to the principle, context, form and subject of the protests, we are committed to public opinion and the people’s right to self-determination and its future. We submit our stance with the utmost honesty and transparency:
- we emphasize that we are a part of this great nation of Egypt. We cannot separate ourselves from it and will never cease caring about it and taking responsibility for it. We have the duty to be loyal to the nation during times of prosperity, hardship, sacrifice and redemption.
- we have not changed our stance of adhering to the demands of the people to which we belong.
- we have accepted to engage in this dialogue to deliver those demands directly to the new officials, testing their seriousness in response to these demands. We also engaged in this dialogue to spare our people and our country more losses due to the stubbornness and rigidity of the regime.
- our engagement in this dialogue is for the interest of the revolution, the people and the country. We support its continuity until we ensure the demands have been achieved.
- we are keen on preserving the youth, and popular, political and national unity. Therefore, we have demanded this collective dialogue, that includes all the national forces, particularly the youth which have been the leader of this blessed uprising.
- we requested this in order to deliver the people’s collective demands and show our unity. If any of these forces were absent from the dialogue, this should be remedied in the future.
- we have requested a change in the process to create a degree of trust between the people and the regime. Therefore, we have demanded the immediate implementation of many reforms which does not require a legal or constitutional process to reassure the people of the regime's seriousness and willingness to respond to the rest of their demands.
-we do not have a special agenda; we follow the trends and have often repeated that we are not seeking power or position, and will not nominate anyone to run for the presidency.
The points which were agreed upon during the dialogue were as follows:
-recognition of the people’s movement, which began on January 25, 2011 as an honourable national movement.
- the need to ensure the safety of the demonstrators and the full recognition of the people’s right to peaceful protests at any time to monitor the implementation of their demands and express their opinions.
- ending the State of Emergency once the security situation in Egypt is contained and before holding any elections.
- amending Articles 76,77 and 88 and any other constitutional amendments required for the peaceful transition of power.
- forming a committee, including members of the judiciary and political figures to study and propose the constitutional amendments and the necessary constitutional amendments for some laws that are complementary to the constitution with a deadline at the end of the first week of March.
- pursuing and investigating corrupt people and those responsible for the disorder; commanders and officers who have killed the youth, and to bring them to justice immediately.
- not imposing any kind of restriction on the media and communications that goes beyond the law. Halting media campaigns which aim at distorting the people’s revolution.
- forming a national committee of public and independent figures as well as representatives of popular movements that follows up the implementation of what has been agreed upon.
We adhere to the demands of the people and the final word will be for the people.
We have engaged in this dialogue on an equal status with the other parties and with our free will. The responses of the regime to the demands of the people will determine how long the dialogue will continue. Peaceful demonstrations will continue to achieve the people’s demands.
The Muslim Brotherhood
6 February 2011
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=27977
Mubarak's Thirty-Year Dictatorship
By Stephen Lendman
"(P)olice using force to extract confessions from criminals (is) a daily event. (US informants) estimate there are literally hundreds of torture incidents every day in Cairo police stations alone."
Political activists and opponents are also targeted, Scobey adding:
"(T)he GOE (government of Egypt) is probably torturing (an April 6 activist) to scare other....members into abandoning their political activities." It also referred to the "sexual molestation of a female 'April 6 activist,' " and that another victim's torture only stopped "when he began cooperating."
Moreover, "standing orders from the Interior Ministry between 2000 and 2006 (instructed) the police to shoot, beat and humiliate judges in order to undermine judicial independence."
A July 28, 2009 embassy cable said:
"(A) recent series of selective (government) actions against journalists, bloggers and even an amateur poet illustrates the variety of methods available to the GOE to suppress critical opinion, including an array of investigative authorities and public and private legal actions."
A January 12, 2009 cable admitted that Mubarak ruled through police state "emergency powers" for decades, saying:
"Egypt's State of Emergency, in effect almost continuously since 1967 (since Nasser and Sadat), allows for the application of the 1958 Emergency Law (EL), which grants the GOE broad powers to arrest individuals without charge and to detain them indefinitely," omitting what's also common in America and US-controlled offshore torture prisons extra-judicially.
According to the International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR), Egypt's EL grants "broad power to impose restrictions on the freedoms of assembly, movement or residence; the power to arrest and detain suspects or those deemed dangerous, and the power to search individuals and places without the need to follow the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code."
It violates Egypt's constitutional personal freedom, inviolability of private homes, and freedom of movement, letting Mubarak trash legal principles and rule despotically. It also criminalized assembly of five or more people that could "threaten public order."
Other cables identified Egypt's military as the real center of power. One on July 30, 2009 said, along with state security forces, it:
"would ensure a smooth transfer of power, even to a civilian," to assure seamless succession under new leadership.
Moreover, cables revealed longstanding US knowledge of extreme security force brutality, including recent arrests, torture, and assassinations of protesters demanding regime change.
Egypt also partnered with Washington and Israel by enforcing Gaza's siege. Moreover, it did it for internal security reasons because of the Muslim Brotherhood's alleged ties to Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Anatomy of Mubarak's Dictatorship
Since the 1970s, Egypt shifted from defying Western imperialism to becoming a reliable strategic partner. Sadat hastened a trend already underway called "infitah," or open-door policy, to attract foreign capital by loosening currency controls, creating tax-free investment zones, and privatizing state industries. Political changes followed, including rapprochement with America to resolve conflict with Israel and remove the threat of war.
At the time, Egypt's crumbling infrastructure, fragile transportation and telecommunications networks, as well as fear of re-nationalizations deterred foreign investments. As a result, relaxed import controls facilitated flooding Egypt's market with luxury goods for the rich, not economic growth that deteriorated instead, mostly harming its workers and poor.
In November 1977, Sadat extended peace overtures to Israel in Jerusalem. A year later, Camp David followed, establishing full diplomatic and economic relations as well as getting Egypt expelled from the Arab League (AL), its headquarters moved from Cairo to Tunis. In 1989, Egypt was readmitted. In 1990, AL's headquarters returned to Cairo.
Sadat hoped economic growth would follow as well as US aid. His October 1981 assassination elevated former air force commander/deputy defense minister/air chief marshall/vice president Mubarak to power, replacing him. From then until now, he served reliably as a US puppet, profiting handsomely from the relationship, besides what he gained from other high positions.
He allied with America's 1991 Gulf War, collaborating again in 2003 by giving Pentagon forces priority Suez Canal access and unrestricted use of Egypt's airspace. At the time, David Welch, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs called America's partnership with Egypt "a cornerstone of our foreign policy in the Middle East." It leveraged its relationship to secure other regional allies. In return, Mubarak and Egypt's ruling class profited handsomely at the expense of their deeply impoverished people, the spark, along with extreme repression, that erupted in protests.
In her February 4 Foreign Policy article titled, "Anatomy of a Dictatorship: Hosni Mubarak," Elizabeth Dickinson said millions of Egyptians forced him not to run again for office, but demand more. "The president, they charged, was an autocrat, a repressor, and a tired leader. He had to go....Mubarak's Egypt," in fact, "is a textbook police state. For 30 years, anger and frustration brewed among his subjects, bottled up and sealed with fear."
Egypt's brutal police enforced hardline control, targeting activists, dissidents, Islamists, opposition forces, and anyone perceived threatening as well as ordinary citizens suspected of crimes or looking suspicious. In June 2010, a young man, Khaled Said, was beaten to death for not showing his identity card after entering an Alexandria Internet cafe. Torture and disappearances are also commonplace as are sham elections.
"Even if a candidate manages to successfully jump through (numerous) hoops, the Political Parties Commission, (responsible for registering parties) has broad authority to close offices, seize funds, or refuse to recognize a party in the first place - meaning that in practice, elections are only as competitive as Mubarak wants them to be."
A 2010 WikiLeaks released cable said the "Interior Ministry uses (state security) to monitor and sometimes infiltrate the political opposition and civil society, and to suppress political opposition through arrests, harassment and intimidation."
Mubarak also claims threatening Islamic extremism to justify harsh repression and extract more Western aid. Moreover, a 1996 press law criminalizes defamation, insults, and libel as a way to suppress press freedom and speech, including against bloggers.
"Academia isn't safe either: Since the state controls promotions, appointments, and university administration, a subtle self-censorship prevails." As a result, professors have been fired and students harassed, especially leaders for organizing.
Moreover, women are regularly mistreated, their rights compromised by sexual abuse, harassment, and assaults. A 2008 Egyptian Center for Women's Rights report said over 80% of women suffered public sexual humiliation, from groping to criminal attacks.
Gays and other minorities are targeted as well, including mass arrests of men accused of homosexual acts. Though religious freedom is allowed, Christians at times clashed with police.
Especially disturbing "are reports of the regime's treatment of street children," numbering thousands in Cairo alone. Human Rights Watch estimated 11,000 arrests and detentions for weeks in unsanitary, hazardous conditions, "often with adult criminal detainees who abuse them." In addition, they're denied adequate food, water, bedding and medical care.
Amnesty International's 2010 Egypt Report
It explained that Emergency Law powers are used "to detain peaceful critics and opponents as well as people suspected of security offenses or involvement in terrorism." Some are detained administratively. Others get unfair military trials. Many are tortured. Death sentences are freely imposed. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are extremely restricted.
"Rising food prices and poverty fueled a wave of strikes by private and public sector workers." A UN Special Rapporteur for human rights criticized Mubarak's counterterrorism policy, human rights abuses, and repressive emergency powers, called the "norm" under his regime.
Besides various lawless acts discussed above, forced evictions have also been commonplace. In 2008, residents of 26 Greater Cairo areas were affected, their communities called "unsafe" under a government master development plan. Administrative orders were implemented "without notice or prior consultation," preventing the likelihood of legal challenge.
In November 2009, AI issued a report titled, "Egypt: Demand Dignity: Buried Alive: Trapped by Poverty and Neglect in Cairo's Informal Settlements," saying:
Evictions from areas called unsafe "breached the international standards that states must observe, (requiring they) have procedural safeguards in place." Instead, hundreds of homes were demolished with inadequate or no notice or consultation given affected communities, including plans for resettlement. As a result, homelessness and other state-imposed harshness followed. Egypt's poor, marginalized population suffers grievously under repressive regime policies.
A Final Comment
Given this backdrop and sustained visceral mass protests, the Obama administration is stalling for time, a White House February 5 press release saying:
"The President emphasized the importance of an orderly, peaceful transition, beginning now, to a government that is responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people, including credible, inclusive negotiations between the government and the opposition."
In fact, Omar Suleiman's vice presidential appointment signified Washington approving his leadership heading new faces with old policies, what Egyptian masses won't accept. They demand all remnants of Mubarak's regime ousted, replaced by new officials they choose in free, fair, open elections.
On February 7, Al Jazeera said two weeks of protests show no signs of abating despite some emerging normality in parts of Egypt's capital. Dr. Sally Moore, representing the Popular Campaign in Support of ElBaradei (one of six groups comprising the "Youth of the Egyptian Revolution" coalition) said:
"The word 'stability' is a word the regime uses all the time - but - what is stability without freedom. We are in for the long haul. The regime is trying to play us against the people in Tahrir Square, but we always remind them they are our people, our families. (They) want radical change, not minor reform."
Al Jazeera's Cairo correspondent said:
"Protesters tell me Obama still hasn't come up with any statement that they want to hear. They want immediate change and the feeling among many of them is that the way the US is handling this crisis is not good for the way America is perceived both here and in general in the wider region."
In fact, from the outset, the Obama administration acted duplicitously to maintain imperial control throughout the region, especially by ensuring continuity in Egypt, under Suleiman and other reliable figures. On February 5, Secretary of State Clinton endorsed him saying:
"I think it's important to support the transition process announced by the Egyptian government, actually headed now by Vice President Suleiman (and) an orderly establishment of the elections that are scheduled for September."
She also backed Egypt's military "as a respected institution" and its banking sector. In other words, money and martial power are crucial ingredients of Washington's imperial control.
In contrast, Sunday protesters declared February 6 a "day of martyrs," commemorating thousands of Mubarak security force torture, disappeared, and murder victims.
How and when this ends remains uncertain, but one thing is clear. Millions of Egyptians exhibited extraordinary sustained courage. So far, they're not backing down from one of the region's most brutal regimes, financed and supported by imperial Washington, maneuvering to keep it empowered as a reliable vassal state.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/
2-8-11
Throughout decades of brutal rule, Mubarak remained a steadfast US ally. As a result, Washington rewarded him generously. US administrations also ignored his crimes, corruption, and lawlessness, as late January released WikiLeaks cables reveal, showing Obama knew he kept power through ruthless state terror.
"(P)olice using force to extract confessions from criminals (is) a daily event. (US informants) estimate there are literally hundreds of torture incidents every day in Cairo police stations alone."
Political activists and opponents are also targeted, Scobey adding:
"(T)he GOE (government of Egypt) is probably torturing (an April 6 activist) to scare other....members into abandoning their political activities." It also referred to the "sexual molestation of a female 'April 6 activist,' " and that another victim's torture only stopped "when he began cooperating."
Moreover, "standing orders from the Interior Ministry between 2000 and 2006 (instructed) the police to shoot, beat and humiliate judges in order to undermine judicial independence."
A July 28, 2009 embassy cable said:
"(A) recent series of selective (government) actions against journalists, bloggers and even an amateur poet illustrates the variety of methods available to the GOE to suppress critical opinion, including an array of investigative authorities and public and private legal actions."
A January 12, 2009 cable admitted that Mubarak ruled through police state "emergency powers" for decades, saying:
"Egypt's State of Emergency, in effect almost continuously since 1967 (since Nasser and Sadat), allows for the application of the 1958 Emergency Law (EL), which grants the GOE broad powers to arrest individuals without charge and to detain them indefinitely," omitting what's also common in America and US-controlled offshore torture prisons extra-judicially.
According to the International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR), Egypt's EL grants "broad power to impose restrictions on the freedoms of assembly, movement or residence; the power to arrest and detain suspects or those deemed dangerous, and the power to search individuals and places without the need to follow the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code."
It violates Egypt's constitutional personal freedom, inviolability of private homes, and freedom of movement, letting Mubarak trash legal principles and rule despotically. It also criminalized assembly of five or more people that could "threaten public order."
Other cables identified Egypt's military as the real center of power. One on July 30, 2009 said, along with state security forces, it:
"would ensure a smooth transfer of power, even to a civilian," to assure seamless succession under new leadership.
Moreover, cables revealed longstanding US knowledge of extreme security force brutality, including recent arrests, torture, and assassinations of protesters demanding regime change.
Egypt also partnered with Washington and Israel by enforcing Gaza's siege. Moreover, it did it for internal security reasons because of the Muslim Brotherhood's alleged ties to Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Anatomy of Mubarak's Dictatorship
Since the 1970s, Egypt shifted from defying Western imperialism to becoming a reliable strategic partner. Sadat hastened a trend already underway called "infitah," or open-door policy, to attract foreign capital by loosening currency controls, creating tax-free investment zones, and privatizing state industries. Political changes followed, including rapprochement with America to resolve conflict with Israel and remove the threat of war.
At the time, Egypt's crumbling infrastructure, fragile transportation and telecommunications networks, as well as fear of re-nationalizations deterred foreign investments. As a result, relaxed import controls facilitated flooding Egypt's market with luxury goods for the rich, not economic growth that deteriorated instead, mostly harming its workers and poor.
In November 1977, Sadat extended peace overtures to Israel in Jerusalem. A year later, Camp David followed, establishing full diplomatic and economic relations as well as getting Egypt expelled from the Arab League (AL), its headquarters moved from Cairo to Tunis. In 1989, Egypt was readmitted. In 1990, AL's headquarters returned to Cairo.
Sadat hoped economic growth would follow as well as US aid. His October 1981 assassination elevated former air force commander/deputy defense minister/air chief marshall/vice president Mubarak to power, replacing him. From then until now, he served reliably as a US puppet, profiting handsomely from the relationship, besides what he gained from other high positions.
He allied with America's 1991 Gulf War, collaborating again in 2003 by giving Pentagon forces priority Suez Canal access and unrestricted use of Egypt's airspace. At the time, David Welch, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs called America's partnership with Egypt "a cornerstone of our foreign policy in the Middle East." It leveraged its relationship to secure other regional allies. In return, Mubarak and Egypt's ruling class profited handsomely at the expense of their deeply impoverished people, the spark, along with extreme repression, that erupted in protests.
In her February 4 Foreign Policy article titled, "Anatomy of a Dictatorship: Hosni Mubarak," Elizabeth Dickinson said millions of Egyptians forced him not to run again for office, but demand more. "The president, they charged, was an autocrat, a repressor, and a tired leader. He had to go....Mubarak's Egypt," in fact, "is a textbook police state. For 30 years, anger and frustration brewed among his subjects, bottled up and sealed with fear."
Egypt's brutal police enforced hardline control, targeting activists, dissidents, Islamists, opposition forces, and anyone perceived threatening as well as ordinary citizens suspected of crimes or looking suspicious. In June 2010, a young man, Khaled Said, was beaten to death for not showing his identity card after entering an Alexandria Internet cafe. Torture and disappearances are also commonplace as are sham elections.
"Even if a candidate manages to successfully jump through (numerous) hoops, the Political Parties Commission, (responsible for registering parties) has broad authority to close offices, seize funds, or refuse to recognize a party in the first place - meaning that in practice, elections are only as competitive as Mubarak wants them to be."
A 2010 WikiLeaks released cable said the "Interior Ministry uses (state security) to monitor and sometimes infiltrate the political opposition and civil society, and to suppress political opposition through arrests, harassment and intimidation."
Mubarak also claims threatening Islamic extremism to justify harsh repression and extract more Western aid. Moreover, a 1996 press law criminalizes defamation, insults, and libel as a way to suppress press freedom and speech, including against bloggers.
"Academia isn't safe either: Since the state controls promotions, appointments, and university administration, a subtle self-censorship prevails." As a result, professors have been fired and students harassed, especially leaders for organizing.
Moreover, women are regularly mistreated, their rights compromised by sexual abuse, harassment, and assaults. A 2008 Egyptian Center for Women's Rights report said over 80% of women suffered public sexual humiliation, from groping to criminal attacks.
Gays and other minorities are targeted as well, including mass arrests of men accused of homosexual acts. Though religious freedom is allowed, Christians at times clashed with police.
Especially disturbing "are reports of the regime's treatment of street children," numbering thousands in Cairo alone. Human Rights Watch estimated 11,000 arrests and detentions for weeks in unsanitary, hazardous conditions, "often with adult criminal detainees who abuse them." In addition, they're denied adequate food, water, bedding and medical care.
Amnesty International's 2010 Egypt Report
It explained that Emergency Law powers are used "to detain peaceful critics and opponents as well as people suspected of security offenses or involvement in terrorism." Some are detained administratively. Others get unfair military trials. Many are tortured. Death sentences are freely imposed. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are extremely restricted.
"Rising food prices and poverty fueled a wave of strikes by private and public sector workers." A UN Special Rapporteur for human rights criticized Mubarak's counterterrorism policy, human rights abuses, and repressive emergency powers, called the "norm" under his regime.
Besides various lawless acts discussed above, forced evictions have also been commonplace. In 2008, residents of 26 Greater Cairo areas were affected, their communities called "unsafe" under a government master development plan. Administrative orders were implemented "without notice or prior consultation," preventing the likelihood of legal challenge.
In November 2009, AI issued a report titled, "Egypt: Demand Dignity: Buried Alive: Trapped by Poverty and Neglect in Cairo's Informal Settlements," saying:
Evictions from areas called unsafe "breached the international standards that states must observe, (requiring they) have procedural safeguards in place." Instead, hundreds of homes were demolished with inadequate or no notice or consultation given affected communities, including plans for resettlement. As a result, homelessness and other state-imposed harshness followed. Egypt's poor, marginalized population suffers grievously under repressive regime policies.
A Final Comment
Given this backdrop and sustained visceral mass protests, the Obama administration is stalling for time, a White House February 5 press release saying:
"The President emphasized the importance of an orderly, peaceful transition, beginning now, to a government that is responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people, including credible, inclusive negotiations between the government and the opposition."
In fact, Omar Suleiman's vice presidential appointment signified Washington approving his leadership heading new faces with old policies, what Egyptian masses won't accept. They demand all remnants of Mubarak's regime ousted, replaced by new officials they choose in free, fair, open elections.
On February 7, Al Jazeera said two weeks of protests show no signs of abating despite some emerging normality in parts of Egypt's capital. Dr. Sally Moore, representing the Popular Campaign in Support of ElBaradei (one of six groups comprising the "Youth of the Egyptian Revolution" coalition) said:
"The word 'stability' is a word the regime uses all the time - but - what is stability without freedom. We are in for the long haul. The regime is trying to play us against the people in Tahrir Square, but we always remind them they are our people, our families. (They) want radical change, not minor reform."
Al Jazeera's Cairo correspondent said:
"Protesters tell me Obama still hasn't come up with any statement that they want to hear. They want immediate change and the feeling among many of them is that the way the US is handling this crisis is not good for the way America is perceived both here and in general in the wider region."
In fact, from the outset, the Obama administration acted duplicitously to maintain imperial control throughout the region, especially by ensuring continuity in Egypt, under Suleiman and other reliable figures. On February 5, Secretary of State Clinton endorsed him saying:
"I think it's important to support the transition process announced by the Egyptian government, actually headed now by Vice President Suleiman (and) an orderly establishment of the elections that are scheduled for September."
She also backed Egypt's military "as a respected institution" and its banking sector. In other words, money and martial power are crucial ingredients of Washington's imperial control.
In contrast, Sunday protesters declared February 6 a "day of martyrs," commemorating thousands of Mubarak security force torture, disappeared, and murder victims.
How and when this ends remains uncertain, but one thing is clear. Millions of Egyptians exhibited extraordinary sustained courage. So far, they're not backing down from one of the region's most brutal regimes, financed and supported by imperial Washington, maneuvering to keep it empowered as a reliable vassal state.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/
The Sleeper Awakens
By RANNIE AMIRI
Poor people gonna rise up
And get their share
Poor people gonna rise up
And take what’s theirs
And finally the tables are starting to turn
Talkin' bout a revolution
– Tracy Chapman’s Talkin’ Bout A Revolution, 1988
The sleeping Egyptian giant has finally awoken.
The Arab world’s most populous nation—80 million strong—has been in political hibernation for 30 long years.
The deep slumber is now over. The reign of Hosni Mubarak will end, sooner or later, as a rejuvenated population sheds apathy’s blanket.
After Israel, Egypt is the second-largest recipient of United States foreign aid. Other than what was embezzled, the $1.5 billion in annual assistance has been spent entirely on the military and bolstering Mubarak’s internal security apparatus. It ultimately ensured the Camp David state remained complaint with the diktats coming out of Tel Aviv and Washington.
Indeed, as a result of peace treaties with its eastern and southern neighbors, Israel has had a free hand in continuing the repression and subjugation of Palestinians.
Take, for example, the crippling, inhumane siege imposed on Gaza. Even the most basic good and supplies were prevented from entering the tiny enclave. (This was the price Palestinians paid for holding democratic elections, which Hamas handily won.) Egypt, to no one’s surprise, enforced all embargo restrictions asked of it.
When Israel launched a vicious military campaign upon Gaza’s destitute population in December 2008, Egypt again became a willing accomplice. Many will contend Mubarak was complicit in those war crimes. By keeping the Rafah border crossing closed, he prevented the evacuation of both malnourished and maimed from a war zone.
Although Egyptians may have quietly seethed at this, it does not compare to the anger and resentment built up over decades of corruption and abuse. The people have grown weary of Emergency Law, implemented and maintained since Anwar Sadat’s 1981 assassination, that prohibits all forms of free speech, expression and assembly. It allows for the indefinite detention of any person without charge. Arrested civilians are then put on trial in front of closed military tribunals. The regime is also notorious for turning a blind eye to routine police brutality and torture.
In a Jan. 30 appearance on Meet the Press, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton commented on Mubarak’s inevitable removal from power:
“It needs to be an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy, not faux democracy like the elections we saw in Iran two years ago, where you have one election 30 years ago and then the people just keep staying in power and become less and less responsive to their people.”
Iran? Or Egypt? Although far from perfect, Iran has held far more credible presidential elections than Egypt ever has. Why not hearken to Egypt’s “faux democracy” of just two months ago when Mubarak’s National Democratic Party captured an amazing 420 of 518 parliamentary seats (while the Muslim Brotherhood’s independents went from 88 to one)?
It was a telling self-indictment. The U.S has always tolerated the trappings of democracy in Mubarak’s Egypt, including a rubber-stamp parliament and elections where opposition candidates were either banned or unable to run due to an avalanche of bureaucratic obstacles.
Because he assumed his son Gamal would succeed him, Mubarak also never appointed a vice-president, in violation of Egypt’s constitution. That was until a few days ago when intelligence chief Omar Suleiman was hastily promoted to the job. Gamal has since fled to London.
In Tuesday’s protests, the scope of which was unprecedented in the history of modern Egypt, the world’s eyes were fixed on downtown Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The hundreds of thousands gathered not only called for Mubarak’s ouster, but demanded he be put on trial. His hanging effigy conveyed to viewers that Egyptians will not be satisfied with a token cabinet reshuffle.
“Cairo today is all of Egypt,” said one. “I want my son to have a better life and not suffer as much as I did … I want to feel like I chose my president.”
Feeling the pressure, Jordan’s monarch King Abdullah II fired his cabinet as demonstrations in Amman continued. The Palestinian Authority under the discredited president Mahmoud Abbas vowed to hold municipal elections in the West Bank. Bahrain is ripe with discontent, to say the least. The same is true for Yemen, where President Ali Abdullah Saleh—who has ruled for 32-years—now says he won’t run for another term. Tunisians have already taken matters into their own hands.
Despite the best efforts of Mubarak, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel, the sleeping giant has awoken. And the mass protests we are witnessing in Egypt today … that is merely a yawn.
Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator.
http://www.counterpunch.org/amiri02042011.html
Poor people gonna rise up
And get their share
Poor people gonna rise up
And take what’s theirs
And finally the tables are starting to turn
Talkin' bout a revolution
– Tracy Chapman’s Talkin’ Bout A Revolution, 1988
The sleeping Egyptian giant has finally awoken.
The Arab world’s most populous nation—80 million strong—has been in political hibernation for 30 long years.
The deep slumber is now over. The reign of Hosni Mubarak will end, sooner or later, as a rejuvenated population sheds apathy’s blanket.
After Israel, Egypt is the second-largest recipient of United States foreign aid. Other than what was embezzled, the $1.5 billion in annual assistance has been spent entirely on the military and bolstering Mubarak’s internal security apparatus. It ultimately ensured the Camp David state remained complaint with the diktats coming out of Tel Aviv and Washington.
Indeed, as a result of peace treaties with its eastern and southern neighbors, Israel has had a free hand in continuing the repression and subjugation of Palestinians.
Take, for example, the crippling, inhumane siege imposed on Gaza. Even the most basic good and supplies were prevented from entering the tiny enclave. (This was the price Palestinians paid for holding democratic elections, which Hamas handily won.) Egypt, to no one’s surprise, enforced all embargo restrictions asked of it.
When Israel launched a vicious military campaign upon Gaza’s destitute population in December 2008, Egypt again became a willing accomplice. Many will contend Mubarak was complicit in those war crimes. By keeping the Rafah border crossing closed, he prevented the evacuation of both malnourished and maimed from a war zone.
Although Egyptians may have quietly seethed at this, it does not compare to the anger and resentment built up over decades of corruption and abuse. The people have grown weary of Emergency Law, implemented and maintained since Anwar Sadat’s 1981 assassination, that prohibits all forms of free speech, expression and assembly. It allows for the indefinite detention of any person without charge. Arrested civilians are then put on trial in front of closed military tribunals. The regime is also notorious for turning a blind eye to routine police brutality and torture.
In a Jan. 30 appearance on Meet the Press, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton commented on Mubarak’s inevitable removal from power:
“It needs to be an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy, not faux democracy like the elections we saw in Iran two years ago, where you have one election 30 years ago and then the people just keep staying in power and become less and less responsive to their people.”
Iran? Or Egypt? Although far from perfect, Iran has held far more credible presidential elections than Egypt ever has. Why not hearken to Egypt’s “faux democracy” of just two months ago when Mubarak’s National Democratic Party captured an amazing 420 of 518 parliamentary seats (while the Muslim Brotherhood’s independents went from 88 to one)?
It was a telling self-indictment. The U.S has always tolerated the trappings of democracy in Mubarak’s Egypt, including a rubber-stamp parliament and elections where opposition candidates were either banned or unable to run due to an avalanche of bureaucratic obstacles.
Because he assumed his son Gamal would succeed him, Mubarak also never appointed a vice-president, in violation of Egypt’s constitution. That was until a few days ago when intelligence chief Omar Suleiman was hastily promoted to the job. Gamal has since fled to London.
In Tuesday’s protests, the scope of which was unprecedented in the history of modern Egypt, the world’s eyes were fixed on downtown Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The hundreds of thousands gathered not only called for Mubarak’s ouster, but demanded he be put on trial. His hanging effigy conveyed to viewers that Egyptians will not be satisfied with a token cabinet reshuffle.
“Cairo today is all of Egypt,” said one. “I want my son to have a better life and not suffer as much as I did … I want to feel like I chose my president.”
Feeling the pressure, Jordan’s monarch King Abdullah II fired his cabinet as demonstrations in Amman continued. The Palestinian Authority under the discredited president Mahmoud Abbas vowed to hold municipal elections in the West Bank. Bahrain is ripe with discontent, to say the least. The same is true for Yemen, where President Ali Abdullah Saleh—who has ruled for 32-years—now says he won’t run for another term. Tunisians have already taken matters into their own hands.
Despite the best efforts of Mubarak, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel, the sleeping giant has awoken. And the mass protests we are witnessing in Egypt today … that is merely a yawn.
Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator.
http://www.counterpunch.org/amiri02042011.html
Sacrificing Dictators To Save The State
Washington Faces The Arab Revolts - Sacrificing Dictators To Save The State
By James Petras
2-8-11
Introduction
To understand the Obama regime's policy toward Egypt, the Mubarak dictatorship and the popular uprising it is essential to locate it in an historical context. The essential point is that Washington, after several decades of being deeply embedded in the state structures of the Arab dictatorships, from Tunisia through Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority, is attempting to re-orient its policies to incorporate and/or graft liberal-electoral politicians onto the existing power configurations.
While most commentators and journalists spill tons of ink about the "dilemmas" of US power , the novelty of the Egyptian events and Washington's day to day policy pronouncements, there are ample historical precedents which are essential to understand the strategic direction of Obama's policies.
Historical Background
US foreign policy has a long history of installing, financing, arming and backing dictatorial regimes which back its imperial policies and interests as long as they retain control over their people.
In the past, Republican and Democratic presidents worked closely for over 30 years with the Trujillo dictatorship in the Dominican Republic; installed the autocratic Diem regime in pre-revolutionary Vietnam in the 1950's; collaborated with two generations of Somoza family terror regimes in Nicaragua; financed and promoted the military coup in Cuba 1952, Brazil 1964, Chile in 1973, and in Argentina in 1976 and the subsequent repressive regimes. When popular upheavals challenged these US backed dictatorships, and a social as well as political revolution appeared likely to succeed, Washington responded with a three track policy: publically criticizing the human rights violations and advocating democratic reforms; privately signaling continued support to the ruler; and thirdly, seeking an elite alternative which could substitute for the incumbent and preserve the state apparatus, the economic system and support US strategic imperial interests.
For the US there are no strategic relationships only permanent imperial interests, name preservation of the client state. The dictatorships assume that their relationships with Washington is strategic: hence the shock and dismay when they are sacrificed to save the state apparatus. Fearing revolution, Washington has had reluctant client despots, unwilling to move on, assassinated (Trujillo and Diem). Some are provided sanctuaries abroad (Somoza, Batista),others are pressured into power-sharing (Pinochet) or appointed as visiting scholars to Harvard, Georgetown or some other "prestigious" academic posting.
The Washington calculus on when to reshuffle the regime is based on an estimate of the capacity of the dictator to weather the political uprising, the strength and loyalty of the armed forces and the availability of a pliable replacement. The risk of waiting too long, of sticking with the dictator, is that the uprising radicalizes: the ensuing change sweeps away both the regime and the state apparatus, turning a political uprising into a social revolution. Just such a 'miscalculation' occurred in 1959 in the run-up to the Cuban revolution, when Washing stood by Batista and was not able to present a viable pro US alternative coalition linked to the old state apparatus. A similar miscalculation occurred in Nicaragua, when President Carter, while criticizing Somoza, stayed the course, and stood passively by as the regime was overthrown and the revolutionary forces destroyed the US and Israeli trained military, secret police and intelligence apparatus, and went on to nationalize US property and develop an independent foreign policy.
Washington moved with greater initiative, in Latin America in the 1980's.It promoted negotiated electoral transitions which replaced dictators with pliable neo-liberal electoral politicians, who pledged to preserve the existing state apparatus, defend the privileged foreign and domestic elites and back US regional and international policies.
Past Lessons and Present Policies:
Obama has been extremely hesitant to oust Mubarak for several reasons, even as the movement grows in number and anti-Washington sentiment deepens. The White House has many clients around the world including Honduras, Mexico, Indonesia, Jordan and Algeria who believe they have a strategic relationship with Washington and would lose confidence in their future if Mubarak was dumped.
Secondly, the highly influential leading pro-Israel organizations in the US (AIPAC, the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations) and their army of scribes have mobilized congressional leaders to pressure the White House to continue backing Mubarak, as Israel is the prime beneficiary of a dictator who is at the throat of the Egyptians (and Palestinians) and at the feet of the Jewish state.
As a result the Obama regime has moved slowly, under fear and pressure of the growing Egyptian popular movement.It searches for an alternative political formula that removes Mubarak, retains and strengthens the political power of the state apparatus and incorporates a civilian electoral alternative as a means of demobilizing and de-radicalizing the vast popular movement.
The major obstacle to ousting Mubarak is that a major sector of the state apparatus, especially the 325,000 Central Security Forces and the 60,000 National Guard are directly under the Interior Ministry and Mubarak. Secondly, top Generals in the Army (468,500 members) have buttressed Mubarak for 30 years and have been enriched by their control over very lucrative companies in a wide range of fields. They will not support any civilian 'coalition' that calls into question their economic privileges and power to set the political parameters of any electoral system. The supreme commander of the Egyptian military is a longtime client of the US and a willing collaborator with Israel.
Obama is resolutely in favor of collaborating with and ensuring the preservation of these coercive bodies.But he also needs to convince them to replace Mubarak and allow for a new regime which can defuse the mass movement which is increasingly opposed to US hegemony and subservience to Israel. Obama will do everything necessary to retain the cohesion of the state and avoid any splits which might lead to a mass movement soldier alliance which could convert the uprising into a revolution.
Washington has opened talks with the most conservative liberal and clerical sectors of the anti-Mubarak movement. At first it tried to convince them to negotiate with Mubarak a dead end position which was rejected by all sectors of the opposition, top and bottom. Then Obama tried to sell a phony "promise" from Mubarak that he would not run in the elections, nine months later.
The movement and its leaders rejected that proposal also. So Obama raised the rhetoric for 'immediate changes' but without any substantive measures backing it up. To convince Obama of his continued power base, Mubarak sent his formidable thug-lumpen secret police to violently seize the streets from the movement. A test of strength: the Army stood by; the assault raised the ante of a civil war, with radical consequences. Washington and the E.U. pressured the Mubarak regime to back off for now. But the image of a pro-democracy military was tarnished, as killings and injuries multiplied in the thousands.
As the pressure of the movement intensifies, Obama cross pressured by the pro Mubarak Israel Lobby and its Congressional entourage on the one hand, and on the other by knowledgeable advisors who call on him to follow past practices and move decisively to sacrifice the regime to save the state while the liberal-clerical electoral option is still on the table.
But Obama hesitates and like a wary crustacean, he moves sideways and backwards, believing his own grandiloquent rhetoric is a substitute for action hoping that sooner or later, the uprising will end with Mubarakism without Mubarak: a regime able to demobilize the popular movements and willing to promote elections which result in elected officials following the general line of their predecessor.
Nevertheless, there are many uncertainties in a political reshuffle: a democratic citizenry, 83% unfavorable to Washington, will possess the experience of struggle and freedom to call for a realignment of policy, especially to cease being a policeman enforcing the Israeli blockage of Gaza, and providing support for US puppets in North Africa, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Secondly free elections will open debate and increase pressure for greater social spending, the expropriation of the seventy billion dollar empire of the Mubarek clan and the crony capitalists who pillage the economy .The masses will demand a reallocation of public expenditure from the overblown coercive apparatus to productive, job generating employment. A limited political opening may lead to a second round, in which new social and political conflicts will divide the anti-Mubarak forces, a conflict between the advocates of social democracy and elite backers of neo-liberal electoralism. The anti-dictatorial moment is only the first phase of a prolonged struggle toward definitive emancipation not only in Egypt but throughout the Arab world. The outcome depends on the degree to which the masses develop their own independent organization and leaders.
http://www.rense.com/general92/wash.htm
By James Petras
2-8-11
Introduction
To understand the Obama regime's policy toward Egypt, the Mubarak dictatorship and the popular uprising it is essential to locate it in an historical context. The essential point is that Washington, after several decades of being deeply embedded in the state structures of the Arab dictatorships, from Tunisia through Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority, is attempting to re-orient its policies to incorporate and/or graft liberal-electoral politicians onto the existing power configurations.
While most commentators and journalists spill tons of ink about the "dilemmas" of US power , the novelty of the Egyptian events and Washington's day to day policy pronouncements, there are ample historical precedents which are essential to understand the strategic direction of Obama's policies.
Historical Background
US foreign policy has a long history of installing, financing, arming and backing dictatorial regimes which back its imperial policies and interests as long as they retain control over their people.
In the past, Republican and Democratic presidents worked closely for over 30 years with the Trujillo dictatorship in the Dominican Republic; installed the autocratic Diem regime in pre-revolutionary Vietnam in the 1950's; collaborated with two generations of Somoza family terror regimes in Nicaragua; financed and promoted the military coup in Cuba 1952, Brazil 1964, Chile in 1973, and in Argentina in 1976 and the subsequent repressive regimes. When popular upheavals challenged these US backed dictatorships, and a social as well as political revolution appeared likely to succeed, Washington responded with a three track policy: publically criticizing the human rights violations and advocating democratic reforms; privately signaling continued support to the ruler; and thirdly, seeking an elite alternative which could substitute for the incumbent and preserve the state apparatus, the economic system and support US strategic imperial interests.
For the US there are no strategic relationships only permanent imperial interests, name preservation of the client state. The dictatorships assume that their relationships with Washington is strategic: hence the shock and dismay when they are sacrificed to save the state apparatus. Fearing revolution, Washington has had reluctant client despots, unwilling to move on, assassinated (Trujillo and Diem). Some are provided sanctuaries abroad (Somoza, Batista),others are pressured into power-sharing (Pinochet) or appointed as visiting scholars to Harvard, Georgetown or some other "prestigious" academic posting.
The Washington calculus on when to reshuffle the regime is based on an estimate of the capacity of the dictator to weather the political uprising, the strength and loyalty of the armed forces and the availability of a pliable replacement. The risk of waiting too long, of sticking with the dictator, is that the uprising radicalizes: the ensuing change sweeps away both the regime and the state apparatus, turning a political uprising into a social revolution. Just such a 'miscalculation' occurred in 1959 in the run-up to the Cuban revolution, when Washing stood by Batista and was not able to present a viable pro US alternative coalition linked to the old state apparatus. A similar miscalculation occurred in Nicaragua, when President Carter, while criticizing Somoza, stayed the course, and stood passively by as the regime was overthrown and the revolutionary forces destroyed the US and Israeli trained military, secret police and intelligence apparatus, and went on to nationalize US property and develop an independent foreign policy.
Washington moved with greater initiative, in Latin America in the 1980's.It promoted negotiated electoral transitions which replaced dictators with pliable neo-liberal electoral politicians, who pledged to preserve the existing state apparatus, defend the privileged foreign and domestic elites and back US regional and international policies.
Past Lessons and Present Policies:
Obama has been extremely hesitant to oust Mubarak for several reasons, even as the movement grows in number and anti-Washington sentiment deepens. The White House has many clients around the world including Honduras, Mexico, Indonesia, Jordan and Algeria who believe they have a strategic relationship with Washington and would lose confidence in their future if Mubarak was dumped.
Secondly, the highly influential leading pro-Israel organizations in the US (AIPAC, the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations) and their army of scribes have mobilized congressional leaders to pressure the White House to continue backing Mubarak, as Israel is the prime beneficiary of a dictator who is at the throat of the Egyptians (and Palestinians) and at the feet of the Jewish state.
As a result the Obama regime has moved slowly, under fear and pressure of the growing Egyptian popular movement.It searches for an alternative political formula that removes Mubarak, retains and strengthens the political power of the state apparatus and incorporates a civilian electoral alternative as a means of demobilizing and de-radicalizing the vast popular movement.
The major obstacle to ousting Mubarak is that a major sector of the state apparatus, especially the 325,000 Central Security Forces and the 60,000 National Guard are directly under the Interior Ministry and Mubarak. Secondly, top Generals in the Army (468,500 members) have buttressed Mubarak for 30 years and have been enriched by their control over very lucrative companies in a wide range of fields. They will not support any civilian 'coalition' that calls into question their economic privileges and power to set the political parameters of any electoral system. The supreme commander of the Egyptian military is a longtime client of the US and a willing collaborator with Israel.
Obama is resolutely in favor of collaborating with and ensuring the preservation of these coercive bodies.But he also needs to convince them to replace Mubarak and allow for a new regime which can defuse the mass movement which is increasingly opposed to US hegemony and subservience to Israel. Obama will do everything necessary to retain the cohesion of the state and avoid any splits which might lead to a mass movement soldier alliance which could convert the uprising into a revolution.
Washington has opened talks with the most conservative liberal and clerical sectors of the anti-Mubarak movement. At first it tried to convince them to negotiate with Mubarak a dead end position which was rejected by all sectors of the opposition, top and bottom. Then Obama tried to sell a phony "promise" from Mubarak that he would not run in the elections, nine months later.
The movement and its leaders rejected that proposal also. So Obama raised the rhetoric for 'immediate changes' but without any substantive measures backing it up. To convince Obama of his continued power base, Mubarak sent his formidable thug-lumpen secret police to violently seize the streets from the movement. A test of strength: the Army stood by; the assault raised the ante of a civil war, with radical consequences. Washington and the E.U. pressured the Mubarak regime to back off for now. But the image of a pro-democracy military was tarnished, as killings and injuries multiplied in the thousands.
As the pressure of the movement intensifies, Obama cross pressured by the pro Mubarak Israel Lobby and its Congressional entourage on the one hand, and on the other by knowledgeable advisors who call on him to follow past practices and move decisively to sacrifice the regime to save the state while the liberal-clerical electoral option is still on the table.
But Obama hesitates and like a wary crustacean, he moves sideways and backwards, believing his own grandiloquent rhetoric is a substitute for action hoping that sooner or later, the uprising will end with Mubarakism without Mubarak: a regime able to demobilize the popular movements and willing to promote elections which result in elected officials following the general line of their predecessor.
Nevertheless, there are many uncertainties in a political reshuffle: a democratic citizenry, 83% unfavorable to Washington, will possess the experience of struggle and freedom to call for a realignment of policy, especially to cease being a policeman enforcing the Israeli blockage of Gaza, and providing support for US puppets in North Africa, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Secondly free elections will open debate and increase pressure for greater social spending, the expropriation of the seventy billion dollar empire of the Mubarek clan and the crony capitalists who pillage the economy .The masses will demand a reallocation of public expenditure from the overblown coercive apparatus to productive, job generating employment. A limited political opening may lead to a second round, in which new social and political conflicts will divide the anti-Mubarak forces, a conflict between the advocates of social democracy and elite backers of neo-liberal electoralism. The anti-dictatorial moment is only the first phase of a prolonged struggle toward definitive emancipation not only in Egypt but throughout the Arab world. The outcome depends on the degree to which the masses develop their own independent organization and leaders.
http://www.rense.com/general92/wash.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)