US media on LYBIA IS FULL OF XENOPHOBIA AGAINST ARABS
HAZ , February 25, 2011
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
This is not about human rights. This is about oil plundering.
Did any US intervention save life? Come on, that is false. It will cost more lives.
We urge Arab Countries to mediate on this matter immediately.
If Libya falls, you will be next!
NO TO THE MASSACRE OF LYBIAN PEOPLE EN BENGHAZI!
NO TO THE US MILITARY INTERVENTION!!
History of the US xenophobia on Libya.
It is not the 1st time, in 1986 the republican Govt of Reagan bombed Tripoli with not excuse whatsoever, he didn’t like a nationalist government messing with their business of speculation with oil prices via OPEC. In December of 1988 happens the mysterious explosion of Pan Am causing the death of 270 people. Different investigation-committee failed to come out with evidence to incriminate anyone. In 1989, a year after the plane explosion, the US President ordered to shot down two Libyan jets, Tripoli complains to the UN did not go thorugh. In 1991, another Republican, President Bush’ father , charged two Libyans with the bombing.
Today we know that the case was framed (see art “Lockerbie Bombing: Libya was Framed”, by LS. Heard in http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23362). One of the convicted was already released and the other one is about to get out from prison. “After suffering punitive UN sanctions which froze overseas Libyan bank accounts and prevented the import of spare parts needed for the country's oil industry, said Linda Heard, Tripoli reluctantly agreed to pay $2.7 billion to victims? families ($10 million per family), on condition the pay-out would not be deemed as admission of guilt. In February, 2004, the Libyan prime minister told the BBC that his country was innocent but was forced to pay-up as a "price for peace".
The recent US intervention and the oil factor.
The BBC on Feb. 22 showed footage of crowds in Benghazi pulling down the green flag of the republic and replacing it with the flag of the overthrown monarch King Idris – who had been a puppet of U.S. and British imperialism, said Sara Flounders in Libya and Imperialism (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23364). It is easy to suspect that the CIA is behind the operation of “fishing in a messy river”, pescando a rio revuelto.
Why Benghazi? Because is Libya’s richest oil fields as well as close to most of its oil and gas pipelines, refineries and its LNG port? Is there a plan to partition the country?. Sara continues: Bloomberg.com wrote on Feb. 22 that while Libya is Africa’s third-largest producer of oil, it has the continent’s largest proven reserves – 44.3 billion barrels. It is a country with a relatively small population but the potential to produce huge profits for the giant oil companies. That’s how the super-rich look at it, and that’s what underlies their professed concern for the people’s democratic rights in Libya.
How the process of US intervention is going on?
Libya has decided to take control of their oil reserves via military force and the US has decided to go unilaterally if the UN do not act in the name of Human Rights. After what happens in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine arguing Human Rights is nothing else than hypocritical cynicism. This has nothing to do with values of life, human rights, freedom, democracy, etc, it is just a business of war and plundering oil. Everybody knows that any US military intervention does not save life, it will be just one more genocidal intervention and barbarie.
viernes, 25 de febrero de 2011
NO AL INTERVENCIONISMO IMPERIAL EN LIBIA!
NO AL INTERVENCIONISMO IMPERIAL EN LIBIA
NO LA MASACRE DE JOVENES LIBIOS POR GADAFI
LA LIGA ARABE DEBE MEDIAR LA SALIDA DEMOCRATICA AL PROBLEMA!!
HAZ, Febrero 24, 2011
El ex Presidente estadounidense Ronald Reagan, enemigo jurado del nacionalismo arabe, bombardeó el palacio presidencial de Libia en 1986, parte de la familia de Gadafi murio en el atentado terrorista. Desde esa misma casa Gadafi lanzo un mensaje el 22 de Feb y dijo claro a los insurrectos, a quienes tilda de Al Qaedas: dijo que habrá baño de sangre. Eso es possible que ocurra, pero sera la excusa para otra intervencion militar USA pro-oil como la de Irak y Afganistan.
Solo que esta vez, parte de los casi 2 millones de barriles diarios de petroleo de Libia van a Europa (10%) y algo mas a China.
Europa a traves de la OTAN y mediante la ONU podria ingresar a esta aventura guerrerista. Pero tendrian que hacerlo sin la ONU pues China vetaria cualquier intervencion militar en un pais que le suministra petroleo.
De otro lado, Si Gadafi cae en la trampa de la option Tiananmen (massacre de la juventud rebelde) los EU y su OTAN podrian intervenir sin las NU, como lo hicieron en Yugoslavia (dividiendo el pais). El genocidio de Gadafi les ahorraria el trabajo de tener que enfrentar a una juventud rebelde ya borrada del mapa.
Desde Libia el imperio decadente de EU podria controlar mejor la situacion en Egypt y el resto del mundo arabe en rebeldia.
Que hacer? Los pacifistas del mundo estamos frente a un dilema: de un lado frente al nacionalismo pervertido de Gadafi, diria mejor perverso y criminal, resultado de negociados corruptos con grandes corporaciones de Europa (lease los extractos que acompanio) y de otro lado, frente a los intereses de corporacionas USA que, de controlar el petroleo Libio, tendrian mejor control sobre una Europa en crisis y una mano al cuello sobre la economia China.
Los guerreristas de EU y la OTAN tendrian dos problemas, uno interno y otro externo. El 1ro es que sus poblaciones internas estan estallando dada la crisis que se agravara si los precios del petroleo suben y 2do, la posibilidad de que los rebeldes arabes sean armados para una resistencia de mediano o largo plazo.
Es possible que la ocupacion de Libia sea cuestion de 48 horas para el imperio USA, si vienen con la bandera de la ONU y en nombre de la paz y los DDHH. Pero eso no garantiza que la rebellion arabe menguaria, es mas possible que esta recrudesca. Peor aun si se prueba que EU e Israel estan apoyando a los insurgentes libios anti-Gadafi. Ocurriria lo que ocurrio en Afganistan, que la juventud rebelde use esas contra los invasores, loo que se conectaria con el resto de rebeldes en la zona arabe.
CUAL ES LA SALIDA AL PROBLEMA
La solucion es que la LIGA ARABE o un organismo juridico regional para las paz y los DDHH medie de inmediato en el coflicto interno de Libia y que se forme un gobierno de transicion similar al de Egypt que llame a elecciones en el brebe plazo. Solo que despues de la masacre de jovenes rebeldes -si esto ocurre- el grupo politico de Gadafi no podria hacer parte del gobierno de transicion.
NO AL INTERVENCIONISMO IMPERIAL!
NO A LA MASACRE DE LIBIOS POR GADAFI!
=================== =============
1. QUIEN ES GADAFI? ES OTRO PRODUCTO DE LOS IMPERIOS DEL NORTE
Gadafi ha sido durante los últimos diez años un gran amigo de la UE y de EEUU y de sus dictadores aliados en la zona. Baste recordar las incendiarias declaraciones de apoyo del Calígula libio al depuesto Ben Alí, a cuyas milicias muy probablemente proporcionó armas y dinero en los días posteriores al 14 de enero.
Baste recordar también la dócil colaboración de Gadafi con los EEUU en el marco de la llamada “guerra antiterrorista”. La colaboración política ha ido acompañada de estrechos vínculos económicos con la UE, incluida España: la venta de petróleo a Alemania, Italia, Francia y EEUU ha sido paralela a la entrada en Libia de las grandes compañías occidentales (la española Repsol, la británica British Petroleum, la francesa Total, la italiana ENI o la austriaca OM), por no hablar de los suculentos contratos de las constructoras europeas y españolas en Trípoli. Por lo demás, Francia y EEUU no han dejado de proporcionarle armas para que ahora mate desde el aire a su propio pueblo, siguiendo el ejemplo de la Italia imperial desde 1911. En 2008 la ex secretaria de Estado Condoleeza Rice lo dejó muy claro: “Libia y Estados Unidos comparten intereses permanentes: la cooperación en la lucha contra el terrorismo, el comercio, la proliferación nuclear, África, los derechos humanos y la democracia”.
Cuando Gadafi visitó Francia en diciembre de 2007, Ayman El-Kayman resumió la situación en un párrafo que reproduzco aquí: “Hace casi diez años, Gadafi dejó de ser para el Occidente democrático un individuo poco recomendable: para que le sacaran de la lista estadounidense de Estados terroristas reconoció la responsabilidad en el atentado de Lockerbie; para normalizar sus relaciones con el Reino Unido, dio los nombres de todos los republicanos irlandeses que se habían entrenado en Libia; para normalizarlas con Estados Unidos, dio toda la información que tenía sobre los libios sospechosos de participar en la yihad junto a Bin Laden y renunció a sus “armas de destrucción masiva”, además de pedir a Siria que hiciese lo mismo; para normalizar las relaciones con la Unión Europea, se transformó en guardián de los campos de concentración, donde están internos miles de africanos que se dirigían a Europa; para normalizar sus relaciones con su siniestro vecino Ben Alí, le entregó a opositores refugiados en Libia”.
Como se ve, Gadafi no es ni un revolucionario ni un aliado, ni siquiera táctico, de los revolucionarios del mundo. En 2008 Fidel y Chávez (junto a Mercosur) denunciaron justamente la llamada “directiva de la vergüenza” europea que reforzaba la ya muy severa persecución en Europa de la humanidad desnuda de las pateras y los muros. De todos los crímenes de Gadafi quizás el más grave y el menos conocido es su complicidad en la política migratoria de la UE, particularmente italiana, como verdugo de emigrantes africanos. Quien quiera una amplia información sobre el tema puede leer Il Mare di mezzo, del valiente periodista Gabriele del Grande, o acudir a su página web, Fortresseurope, donde se recogen algunos documentos espeluznantes.
Ya en 2006 Human Rights Watch y Afvic denunciaban los arrestos arbitrarios y torturas en centros de detención libios financiados por Italia. El acuerdo Berlusconi-Gadafi de 2003 puede leerse completo en la página de Gabriele del Grande y sus consecuencias se resumen sucinta y dolorosamente en el grito de Farah Anam, fugitiva somalí de los campos de la muerte libios: “Prefiero morir en el mar que regresar a Libia”. A pesar de las denuncias que hablan de verdaderas prácticas de exterminio -o precisamente por ellas, que demuestran la eficacia de Gadafi como guardián de Europa- la Comisión Europea firmó en octubre una "agenda de cooperación” para la "gestión de los flujos migratorios” y el "control de las fronteras", válido hasta 2013 y acompañado de la entrega a Libia de 50 millones de euros.
La relación de Europa con Gadafi ha rozado la sumisión. Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero y Blair lo recibieron con abrazos en 2007 y el propio Zapatero lo visitó en Trípoli en 2010. Incluso el rey Juan Carlos se desplazó a Trípoli en enero de 2009 para promocionar a las empresas españolas. Por otro lado, la UE no dudó en humillarse y disculparse públicamente el 27 de marzo de 2010 a través del entonces ministro español de Asuntos Exteriores, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, por haber prohibido a 188 ciudadanos libios la entrada en Europa a raíz del conflicto entre Suiza y Libia por la detención de un hijo de Gadafi en Ginebra acusado de maltratar a su personal doméstico. Aún más: la UE no emitió la menor protesta cuando Gadafi adoptó represalias económicas, comerciales y humanas contra Suiza ni cuando efectuó un llamamiento a la guerra santa contra este país ni cuando declaró públicamente su deseo de que fuera barrido del mapa.
Y si ahora estos amigos imperialistas de Gadafi -que ven cómo el mundo árabe se voltea sin su intervención- condenan la dictadura libia y hablan de democracia.
FUENTE: QUE PASA EN LIBIA? Por Santiago Alba Rico y Alma Allende
Rebelión: http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=123027
===========================================
2. MAS SOBRE EL NACIONALISMO PERVERSO DE GADAFI:
Mercenarios o chivos expiatorios? Extracto de un articulo de Pepe escobar reproducido por rebelion. http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=123022
Hubo un tiempo en el que los africanos negros cruzaban durante días el desierto libio en atestados camiones sólo para tratar de encontrar trabajo. La otra cara desagradable de este emigración interna –económica- son los africanos negros cazados ahora en Libia como mercenarios. Al-Yazira ha exhibido los pasaportes de más de 100 mercenarios del Níger, Sudán, Chad y Etiopía que han estado disparando a matar a los manifestantes anti-Gadafi a los que apresaron en el sur de Libia. En Guinea y Nigeria se han publicado anuncios ofreciendo a los posibles mercenarios la inmensa suma de 2.000 dólares al día. Y según los tweets, hay ahora mercenarios apostados en las entradas de Trípoli para impedir que la gente pueda llegar a la capital.
El otro lado de la moneda es la Alta Comisión para los Refugiados de las Naciones Unidas (ACNUR), desesperada por el destino de los refugiados y de las personas de origen “somalí, eritreo y etíope” que buscan asilo en Libia y que, según la portavoz del ACNUR Laura Boldrini, “se arriesgan a convertirse en chivos expiatorios”.
Amnistía Internacional está pidiéndo al gobierno italiano que suspenda su acuerdo de inmigración con Libia de 2008. Es un pacto entre Gadafi y Silvio Berlusconi, por el cual Libia consigue 5.000 millones de euros a lo largo de veinte años como reparación por los años del colonialismo italiano, y Libia promete reprimir el flujo de la inmigración ilegal al sur de Europa. Nadie sabe cómo puede reaccionar ante la petición el asediado Berlusconi del “Rubygate”, sobre todo ahora que Gadafi ha llamado a su buen amiguete para que diga que “todo marcha fenomenal” en Libia.
"Berlusconi no es de los que aceptarian que EU interfiera en el flujo de petroleo que ingresa de Libia a Italia y podria pedir que los americanos corten el flujo de millones de dollars que recibe la mafia zionista de Israel (han sido calificados como profeteers del holocausto y campeones de la impunidad al ethnic cleansing que practican contra el pueblo Palestino) dedicados hoy al negocio de "regalar" casas construidas en terrenos ajenos. Este negocio de plantar "judios" en terrenos expropiados es fuente de problemas con los paises vecinos. Los zionistas estan exponiendo al pueblo de Israel a un ataque nuclear si se inicia una contienda mundial. Berlusconi podria alegar que los millones que Italia paga a Libia como reparacion por los danios ocasionados a ese pueblo en tiempos del colonialism, esa millonada no es nada comparada con lo que el zionismo a succionado del pueblo americano para cometer barbaries en esa region." (HAZ)
La cuestión del oro negro.
Estrategas de las inversiones, como Arjuna Manhendran de HSBC, están ya preocupados por el alza de los precios del petróleo “120 dólares el barril en los próximos tres meses”. Corrijamos: podría ser la próxima semana, o a primeros de marzo, ya que el precio del barril Brent para la entrega de abril estaba ya este martes pasado en Londres a 106,81 dólares. Nobuo Tanaka, el director de la Agencia Internacional de la Energía, ha sido más realista; dijo que si el petróleo permanece por encima de los 100 dólares el barril a lo largo de todo 2011, “tendremos el mismo tipo de crisis que en el 2008”; así pues, adiós al crecimiento económico global.
No sólo Libia, sino toda la región MENA (siglas en inglés de Norte de África-Oriente Medio) están pegando un susto de muerte a los mercados (ciertamente no a los autócratas del Golfo Pérsico, que tenían garantizados miles de millones en dólares de excedentes presupuestarios incluso antes de que se produjera el último repunte). La situación de los importantes campos petrolíferos, controlados más o menos por tribus independientes, si Libia llegara a desgarrarse, sería impredecible.
Libia produce 1,7 millones de barriles al día de un total global de 80 millones de barriles al día (pero retiene un importante 10% del mercado europeo). Los rebeldes que controlan el este de Libia han cortado ya el flujo del gas desde el campo de al-Wafa a Italia y a la Unión Europea, a través del gasoducto Greenstream, desde el lunes por la noche. Las terminales del petróleo libio están también inactivas.
Todo puede aún seguir siendo en cierta manera de color de rosa, en cuanto al petróleo, mientras la gran revuelta árabe de 2011 no toque a Arabia Saudí. Pero tampoco en eso hay seguridad. Cada productor energético puede reducir la producción forzando la subida de los precios, pero sólo Arabia Saudí puede aumentar la producción para que los precios caigan.
Fuente: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB24Ak05.html
NO LA MASACRE DE JOVENES LIBIOS POR GADAFI
LA LIGA ARABE DEBE MEDIAR LA SALIDA DEMOCRATICA AL PROBLEMA!!
HAZ, Febrero 24, 2011
El ex Presidente estadounidense Ronald Reagan, enemigo jurado del nacionalismo arabe, bombardeó el palacio presidencial de Libia en 1986, parte de la familia de Gadafi murio en el atentado terrorista. Desde esa misma casa Gadafi lanzo un mensaje el 22 de Feb y dijo claro a los insurrectos, a quienes tilda de Al Qaedas: dijo que habrá baño de sangre. Eso es possible que ocurra, pero sera la excusa para otra intervencion militar USA pro-oil como la de Irak y Afganistan.
Solo que esta vez, parte de los casi 2 millones de barriles diarios de petroleo de Libia van a Europa (10%) y algo mas a China.
Europa a traves de la OTAN y mediante la ONU podria ingresar a esta aventura guerrerista. Pero tendrian que hacerlo sin la ONU pues China vetaria cualquier intervencion militar en un pais que le suministra petroleo.
De otro lado, Si Gadafi cae en la trampa de la option Tiananmen (massacre de la juventud rebelde) los EU y su OTAN podrian intervenir sin las NU, como lo hicieron en Yugoslavia (dividiendo el pais). El genocidio de Gadafi les ahorraria el trabajo de tener que enfrentar a una juventud rebelde ya borrada del mapa.
Desde Libia el imperio decadente de EU podria controlar mejor la situacion en Egypt y el resto del mundo arabe en rebeldia.
Que hacer? Los pacifistas del mundo estamos frente a un dilema: de un lado frente al nacionalismo pervertido de Gadafi, diria mejor perverso y criminal, resultado de negociados corruptos con grandes corporaciones de Europa (lease los extractos que acompanio) y de otro lado, frente a los intereses de corporacionas USA que, de controlar el petroleo Libio, tendrian mejor control sobre una Europa en crisis y una mano al cuello sobre la economia China.
Los guerreristas de EU y la OTAN tendrian dos problemas, uno interno y otro externo. El 1ro es que sus poblaciones internas estan estallando dada la crisis que se agravara si los precios del petroleo suben y 2do, la posibilidad de que los rebeldes arabes sean armados para una resistencia de mediano o largo plazo.
Es possible que la ocupacion de Libia sea cuestion de 48 horas para el imperio USA, si vienen con la bandera de la ONU y en nombre de la paz y los DDHH. Pero eso no garantiza que la rebellion arabe menguaria, es mas possible que esta recrudesca. Peor aun si se prueba que EU e Israel estan apoyando a los insurgentes libios anti-Gadafi. Ocurriria lo que ocurrio en Afganistan, que la juventud rebelde use esas contra los invasores, loo que se conectaria con el resto de rebeldes en la zona arabe.
CUAL ES LA SALIDA AL PROBLEMA
La solucion es que la LIGA ARABE o un organismo juridico regional para las paz y los DDHH medie de inmediato en el coflicto interno de Libia y que se forme un gobierno de transicion similar al de Egypt que llame a elecciones en el brebe plazo. Solo que despues de la masacre de jovenes rebeldes -si esto ocurre- el grupo politico de Gadafi no podria hacer parte del gobierno de transicion.
NO AL INTERVENCIONISMO IMPERIAL!
NO A LA MASACRE DE LIBIOS POR GADAFI!
=================== =============
1. QUIEN ES GADAFI? ES OTRO PRODUCTO DE LOS IMPERIOS DEL NORTE
Gadafi ha sido durante los últimos diez años un gran amigo de la UE y de EEUU y de sus dictadores aliados en la zona. Baste recordar las incendiarias declaraciones de apoyo del Calígula libio al depuesto Ben Alí, a cuyas milicias muy probablemente proporcionó armas y dinero en los días posteriores al 14 de enero.
Baste recordar también la dócil colaboración de Gadafi con los EEUU en el marco de la llamada “guerra antiterrorista”. La colaboración política ha ido acompañada de estrechos vínculos económicos con la UE, incluida España: la venta de petróleo a Alemania, Italia, Francia y EEUU ha sido paralela a la entrada en Libia de las grandes compañías occidentales (la española Repsol, la británica British Petroleum, la francesa Total, la italiana ENI o la austriaca OM), por no hablar de los suculentos contratos de las constructoras europeas y españolas en Trípoli. Por lo demás, Francia y EEUU no han dejado de proporcionarle armas para que ahora mate desde el aire a su propio pueblo, siguiendo el ejemplo de la Italia imperial desde 1911. En 2008 la ex secretaria de Estado Condoleeza Rice lo dejó muy claro: “Libia y Estados Unidos comparten intereses permanentes: la cooperación en la lucha contra el terrorismo, el comercio, la proliferación nuclear, África, los derechos humanos y la democracia”.
Cuando Gadafi visitó Francia en diciembre de 2007, Ayman El-Kayman resumió la situación en un párrafo que reproduzco aquí: “Hace casi diez años, Gadafi dejó de ser para el Occidente democrático un individuo poco recomendable: para que le sacaran de la lista estadounidense de Estados terroristas reconoció la responsabilidad en el atentado de Lockerbie; para normalizar sus relaciones con el Reino Unido, dio los nombres de todos los republicanos irlandeses que se habían entrenado en Libia; para normalizarlas con Estados Unidos, dio toda la información que tenía sobre los libios sospechosos de participar en la yihad junto a Bin Laden y renunció a sus “armas de destrucción masiva”, además de pedir a Siria que hiciese lo mismo; para normalizar las relaciones con la Unión Europea, se transformó en guardián de los campos de concentración, donde están internos miles de africanos que se dirigían a Europa; para normalizar sus relaciones con su siniestro vecino Ben Alí, le entregó a opositores refugiados en Libia”.
Como se ve, Gadafi no es ni un revolucionario ni un aliado, ni siquiera táctico, de los revolucionarios del mundo. En 2008 Fidel y Chávez (junto a Mercosur) denunciaron justamente la llamada “directiva de la vergüenza” europea que reforzaba la ya muy severa persecución en Europa de la humanidad desnuda de las pateras y los muros. De todos los crímenes de Gadafi quizás el más grave y el menos conocido es su complicidad en la política migratoria de la UE, particularmente italiana, como verdugo de emigrantes africanos. Quien quiera una amplia información sobre el tema puede leer Il Mare di mezzo, del valiente periodista Gabriele del Grande, o acudir a su página web, Fortresseurope, donde se recogen algunos documentos espeluznantes.
Ya en 2006 Human Rights Watch y Afvic denunciaban los arrestos arbitrarios y torturas en centros de detención libios financiados por Italia. El acuerdo Berlusconi-Gadafi de 2003 puede leerse completo en la página de Gabriele del Grande y sus consecuencias se resumen sucinta y dolorosamente en el grito de Farah Anam, fugitiva somalí de los campos de la muerte libios: “Prefiero morir en el mar que regresar a Libia”. A pesar de las denuncias que hablan de verdaderas prácticas de exterminio -o precisamente por ellas, que demuestran la eficacia de Gadafi como guardián de Europa- la Comisión Europea firmó en octubre una "agenda de cooperación” para la "gestión de los flujos migratorios” y el "control de las fronteras", válido hasta 2013 y acompañado de la entrega a Libia de 50 millones de euros.
La relación de Europa con Gadafi ha rozado la sumisión. Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero y Blair lo recibieron con abrazos en 2007 y el propio Zapatero lo visitó en Trípoli en 2010. Incluso el rey Juan Carlos se desplazó a Trípoli en enero de 2009 para promocionar a las empresas españolas. Por otro lado, la UE no dudó en humillarse y disculparse públicamente el 27 de marzo de 2010 a través del entonces ministro español de Asuntos Exteriores, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, por haber prohibido a 188 ciudadanos libios la entrada en Europa a raíz del conflicto entre Suiza y Libia por la detención de un hijo de Gadafi en Ginebra acusado de maltratar a su personal doméstico. Aún más: la UE no emitió la menor protesta cuando Gadafi adoptó represalias económicas, comerciales y humanas contra Suiza ni cuando efectuó un llamamiento a la guerra santa contra este país ni cuando declaró públicamente su deseo de que fuera barrido del mapa.
Y si ahora estos amigos imperialistas de Gadafi -que ven cómo el mundo árabe se voltea sin su intervención- condenan la dictadura libia y hablan de democracia.
FUENTE: QUE PASA EN LIBIA? Por Santiago Alba Rico y Alma Allende
Rebelión: http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=123027
===========================================
2. MAS SOBRE EL NACIONALISMO PERVERSO DE GADAFI:
Mercenarios o chivos expiatorios? Extracto de un articulo de Pepe escobar reproducido por rebelion. http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=123022
Hubo un tiempo en el que los africanos negros cruzaban durante días el desierto libio en atestados camiones sólo para tratar de encontrar trabajo. La otra cara desagradable de este emigración interna –económica- son los africanos negros cazados ahora en Libia como mercenarios. Al-Yazira ha exhibido los pasaportes de más de 100 mercenarios del Níger, Sudán, Chad y Etiopía que han estado disparando a matar a los manifestantes anti-Gadafi a los que apresaron en el sur de Libia. En Guinea y Nigeria se han publicado anuncios ofreciendo a los posibles mercenarios la inmensa suma de 2.000 dólares al día. Y según los tweets, hay ahora mercenarios apostados en las entradas de Trípoli para impedir que la gente pueda llegar a la capital.
El otro lado de la moneda es la Alta Comisión para los Refugiados de las Naciones Unidas (ACNUR), desesperada por el destino de los refugiados y de las personas de origen “somalí, eritreo y etíope” que buscan asilo en Libia y que, según la portavoz del ACNUR Laura Boldrini, “se arriesgan a convertirse en chivos expiatorios”.
Amnistía Internacional está pidiéndo al gobierno italiano que suspenda su acuerdo de inmigración con Libia de 2008. Es un pacto entre Gadafi y Silvio Berlusconi, por el cual Libia consigue 5.000 millones de euros a lo largo de veinte años como reparación por los años del colonialismo italiano, y Libia promete reprimir el flujo de la inmigración ilegal al sur de Europa. Nadie sabe cómo puede reaccionar ante la petición el asediado Berlusconi del “Rubygate”, sobre todo ahora que Gadafi ha llamado a su buen amiguete para que diga que “todo marcha fenomenal” en Libia.
"Berlusconi no es de los que aceptarian que EU interfiera en el flujo de petroleo que ingresa de Libia a Italia y podria pedir que los americanos corten el flujo de millones de dollars que recibe la mafia zionista de Israel (han sido calificados como profeteers del holocausto y campeones de la impunidad al ethnic cleansing que practican contra el pueblo Palestino) dedicados hoy al negocio de "regalar" casas construidas en terrenos ajenos. Este negocio de plantar "judios" en terrenos expropiados es fuente de problemas con los paises vecinos. Los zionistas estan exponiendo al pueblo de Israel a un ataque nuclear si se inicia una contienda mundial. Berlusconi podria alegar que los millones que Italia paga a Libia como reparacion por los danios ocasionados a ese pueblo en tiempos del colonialism, esa millonada no es nada comparada con lo que el zionismo a succionado del pueblo americano para cometer barbaries en esa region." (HAZ)
La cuestión del oro negro.
Estrategas de las inversiones, como Arjuna Manhendran de HSBC, están ya preocupados por el alza de los precios del petróleo “120 dólares el barril en los próximos tres meses”. Corrijamos: podría ser la próxima semana, o a primeros de marzo, ya que el precio del barril Brent para la entrega de abril estaba ya este martes pasado en Londres a 106,81 dólares. Nobuo Tanaka, el director de la Agencia Internacional de la Energía, ha sido más realista; dijo que si el petróleo permanece por encima de los 100 dólares el barril a lo largo de todo 2011, “tendremos el mismo tipo de crisis que en el 2008”; así pues, adiós al crecimiento económico global.
No sólo Libia, sino toda la región MENA (siglas en inglés de Norte de África-Oriente Medio) están pegando un susto de muerte a los mercados (ciertamente no a los autócratas del Golfo Pérsico, que tenían garantizados miles de millones en dólares de excedentes presupuestarios incluso antes de que se produjera el último repunte). La situación de los importantes campos petrolíferos, controlados más o menos por tribus independientes, si Libia llegara a desgarrarse, sería impredecible.
Libia produce 1,7 millones de barriles al día de un total global de 80 millones de barriles al día (pero retiene un importante 10% del mercado europeo). Los rebeldes que controlan el este de Libia han cortado ya el flujo del gas desde el campo de al-Wafa a Italia y a la Unión Europea, a través del gasoducto Greenstream, desde el lunes por la noche. Las terminales del petróleo libio están también inactivas.
Todo puede aún seguir siendo en cierta manera de color de rosa, en cuanto al petróleo, mientras la gran revuelta árabe de 2011 no toque a Arabia Saudí. Pero tampoco en eso hay seguridad. Cada productor energético puede reducir la producción forzando la subida de los precios, pero sólo Arabia Saudí puede aumentar la producción para que los precios caigan.
Fuente: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB24Ak05.html
lunes, 21 de febrero de 2011
Critiques to James Petras on the Revolution in Egypt
Critiques to James Petras on the Revolution in Egypt
By HAZ , February 20, 2011
Review of “Egypt: Social Movements, the CIA and the Mossad
The Limits of Social Movements
James Petras 02.15.2011
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1838&more=1&c=1
1. Let’s depart from the last paragraph of the attached article written by James Petras. He start with a concept of revolution that does not fit with any serious theory on the subject, his version of revolution is as incoherent as saying "this lady is half pregnant" Read: "Democratic revolutions occur when the vast majority of a people arise and say “enough”, take the streets, paralyze the economy, dismantle the authoritarian state and demand freedom and democratic institutions without imperial tutelage and colonial subservience"
This concept includes two mutually excluding statements:
A) There is a democratic revolution if "the vast majority of people arise and say " enough ", take the streets, and paralyze the economy." This is a peaceful version of revolution applicable to the case of Egypt. Thus, the social movement in Egypt is a revolution. But ...
B) There is a revolution if it “dismantle the authoritarian state..”, then the Egyptian social movement is not a revolution. It did not even “demanded freedom and democratic institutions without imperial tutelage and colonial subservience”. The CIA committee presided by Frank Weisner is dictating what the army has to do in term of transition to democracy. It should be noted here that the “dismantle of the state” involves the uses of revolutionary violence, as Lenin stated in Russia. Since this is not the case in Egypt, Petras concludes that this social movement does not deserve the label of “revolution”. They do not deserved because they did not defeat the army, the army is still controlling the state.
As we see the concept used is based on the wrong assumption that all revolutions involve revolutionary violence to dismantle the state. This mistake makes inconsistent all the arguments in Petras. This does not happens with other analysts of the subject like Theda Skocpol. She made explicit that violence is a key element in the Marxist theory of oppressed social class vs the oppressors as social class. Petras instead uses a vague and inconsistent tool for analysis that does not serve to describe nor explain what happened in Egypt.
On the other hand, not only Marxists but also anarchists have abandoned the ingredient violence and quick destruction of the oppressive state as basic condition of a revolution. Among the Marxist socialists was Fidel Castro the one who just declared obsolete the violence. Among the anarchists the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico are leading a revolution based on the theory of "Change the world without taking power”.
Petras’ concept –besides having not theoretical basis- is thus outdated and irrelevant to explain current revolutions. This is why he makes the folly suggestion that Egypt revolt was a historical accident because the CIA and the Mossad did not works as it should be. He also suggest that Egypt was merely an explosion of youthful rebellion with popular support does not achieve the stature of revolution. “Egypt, as in the case of the student and popular social movements against the dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Indonesia, demonstrate that the lack of a national political organization allows neo-liberal and conservative “opposition” personalities and parties to replace the regime .They proceed to set up an electoral regime which continues to serve imperial interests and to depend on and defend the existing state apparatus”. The story of lacking “a national political organization” –he means a political party- also belongs to the old generation of revolutions. Petras inconsistency went even further when he suggested that the rebellion of Egypt was an act planned and supported by Washington. This Manichean version of revolutions is incredible in a person who boasts of expertise in the area.
Let’s read some other paragraphs:
2. "While the White House may tolerate or even promote social movements in ousting (“sacrificing”) dictatorships, they have every intention in preserving the state .In the case of Egypt the main strategic ally of US imperialism was not Mubarak, it is the military" Since Egyptians did not win the battle against the army, that's not a revolution that should be of concern to the empire. What the empire should worry about is that the CIA and the Mossad did not have reliable parts to fix the system as soon as the revolt breaks up, suggest Petras. Whose interest is served with this “theoretical concern” of Petras?. Petras may have many good observations on imperialism, he described it well, but on the track of revolutions he is skating like an 80 years old crab. He is not a good observer on these matters and observers like him must be observed too.
3. The people revolution was planned in advance? "Washington as Israel sought and promoted the military coup to preempt further radicalization." So, according to Petras everything was planned in advance by the think tank of the empire. No comments!
4.Petras stated "In the case of Egypt, the main strategic ally of U.S. imperialism, the enemy to defeat is not Mubarak, is the army." Such statement is so general that hides many particularities in Egypt. It is because people knew the army that they avoid confronting them. It was the best move for both the army and the people to simulate alliance. The army got time to negotiate their status with their foreign “bosses” and the people time to lose the fear to a possible Tianamin square massacre to their demonstrations. Once such fear was broken, people took control of streets and squares in all major cities.
The army was not their immediate enemy, that is a fact, their enemy was the police. One person interviewed in Tahrir said clearly that the enemy of the revolution is a monster with several heads, and the main head to cut now is Mubarak. They got it. When the army broke the alliance with people and allow the thugs supporting Mubarak to massacre the peaceful demonstration in the black Friday, people responded almost immediatelly with the strike in the Suez Canal that paralyze the economy. That hit the Achilles Heel of the army. This army runs a network of business at national level with prosperous companies like El Nasr with almost 8,000 employees, the biggest chemical factory in Egypt.
The army is a quasi commercial enterprise in Egypt, said Bloomberg BusinessWeek in his last issue. The major question for them –regarding people’s revolution is “preserving the financial base of their members”. And they are more afraid of Americans than to Egyptian people, because of neoliberal policies and the greed of big American corporations who are ready to dispossess them. That explain tactical alliance with the people. So, the generality of Petras statement have no sense in Egypt.
5. Regarding the lack of "party" to organize the revolution. The question is why to have it?. There are small organizations that serve more effectively such task. If later on the need for a party emerges, people will respond to the challenge. Meanwhile the validity of this revolutionary process cannot be measured by leftist empty frames like saying that because of the "lack of national political leadership, the movements were not able to seize political power and fulfill their demands" .. "The millions of people mobilized by social movements to overthrow the dictatorship have been excluded in practice by the new military junta." This is an unfinished process and the fact so far is that those millions of people are alive and kicking, and totally committed to continue the fight. When Petras said that "The masses will be praised for their" heroism "and young people for their" idealism ", but in no event they will be recognized as key agents in the new regime." That expresses only the wishes of Petras.
6. What would happens if Petras would have used the same logic to evaluate the great revolutionary movement in the US during the 50th and 60th?. That one was started by a single person, a black woman named Rosa Parks who refused to give up her seat to a white in a public transport bus. This rejection of racism, and segregation lit the bonfire of the largest U.S. popular revolution in recent times: the civil right Movement. I don’t think he would say that this movement was condemned to failure, as he say today on the Egyptian revolution. In Egypt is not one person starting the revolution, there are millions of people that took the squares for 18 days to put down a dictator whose political-economic system excluded millions in Egypt. They carry the spirit of the revolution with them. Revolution is a process as it was the movement initiated by Rosa Parks and continued by Martin Luther King Jr. To suggest that the revolution in Egypt has concluded in a failure only expresses the desire to Petras and those who are temporarily in power in Egypt. [[Do, 19 to 11 February]]
===========================
Egypt: Social Movements, the CIA and the Mossad
The Limits of Social Movements :: The mass movements which forced the removal of Mubarak reveal both the strength and weaknesses of spontaneous uprisings.
James Petras 02.15.2011
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1838&more=1&c=1
On the one hand, the social movements demonstrated their capacity to mobilize hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in a successful sustained struggle culminating in the overthrow of the dictator in a way that pre-existent opposition parties and personalities were unable or unwilling to do.
On the other hand, lacking any national political leadership, the movements were not able to take political power and realize their demands, allowing the Mubarak military high command to seize power and define the “post-Mubarak” process, ensuring the continuation of Egypt’s subordination to the US, the protection of the illicit wealth of the Mubarak clan ($70 billion), and the military elite’s numerous corporations and the protection of the upper class. The millions mobilized by the social movements to overthrow the dictatorship were effectively excluded by the new self-styled “revolutionary” military junta in defining the political institutions and policies, let along the socio-economic reforms needed to address their basic needs of the population (40% live on less than $2 USD a day, youth unemployment runs over 30%).
Egypt, as in the case of the student and popular social movements against the dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Indonesia, demonstrate that the lack of a national political organization allows neo-liberal and conservative “opposition” personalities and parties to replace the regime .They proceed to set up an electoral regime which continues to serve imperial interests and to depend on and defend the existing state apparatus .In some cases they replace old crony capitalists with new ones. It is no accident that the mass media praise the ‘spontaneous’ nature of the struggles (not the socio-economic demands) and put a favorable spin on the role of military (slighting its 30 years as a bulwark of the dictatorship). The masses are praised for their “heroism”, the youth for their “idealism”, but are never proposed as central political actors in the new regime. Once the dictatorship fell, the military and the opposition electoralists “celebrated” the success of the revolution and moved swiftly to demobilize and dismantle the spontaneous movement, in order to make way for negotiations between the liberal electoral politicians, Washington and the ruling military elite.
While the White House may tolerate or even promote social movements in ousting (“sacrificing”) dictatorships, they have every intention in preserving the state .In the case of Egypt the main strategic ally of US imperialism was not Mubarak, it is the military, with whom Washington was in constant collaboration before, during and after the ouster of Mubarak, ensuring that the “transition” to democracy (sic) guarantees the continued subordination of Egypt to US and Israeli Middle East policy and interests.
The Revolt of the People: The Failures of the CIA and MOSSAD
The Arab revolt demonstrates once again several strategic failures in the much vaunted secret police, special forces and intelligence agencies of the US and Israeli state apparatus none of which anticipated, let along intervened, to preclude successful mobilization and influence their government’s policy toward the client rulers under attack.
The image which most writers, academics and journalists project of the invincibility of the Israeli Mossad and of the omnipotent CIA have been severely tested by their admitted failure to recognize the scope, depth and intensity of the multi-million member movement to oust the Mubarak dictatorship. The Mossad, pride and joy of Hollywood producers, presented as a ‘model of efficiency’ by their organized Zionist colleagues, were not able to detect the growth of a mass movement in a country right next door. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was shocked (and dismayed) by the precarious situation of Mubarak and the collapse of his most prominent Arab client – because of Mossad’s faulty intelligence. Likewise, Washington was totally unprepared by the 27 US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, with their hundreds of thousands of paid operatives and multi-billion dollar budgets, of the forthcoming massive popular uprisings and emerging movements.
Several theoretical observations are in order.
The notion that highly repressive rulers receiving billions of dollars of US military aid and with close to a million police, military and paramilitary forces are the best guarantors of imperial hegemony has been demonstrated to be false. The assumption that large scale, long term links with such dictatorial rulers, safeguards US imperial interests has been disproven.
Israeli arrogance and presumption of Jewish organizational, strategic and political superiority over “the Arabs”, has been severely deflated. The Israeli state, its experts, undercover operatives and Ivy League academics were blind to the unfolding realities, ignorant of the depth of disaffection and impotent to prevent the mass opposition to their most valued client. Israel’s publicists in the US, who scarcely resist the opportunity to promote the “brilliance” of Israel’s security forces, whether it’s assassinating an Arab leader in Lebanon or Dubai, or bombing a military facility in Syria, were temporarily speechless.
The fall of Mubarak and the possible emergence of an independent and democratic government would mean that Israel could lose its major ‘cop on the beat’. A democratic public will not cooperate with Israel in maintaining the blockade of Gaza – starving Palestinians to break their will to resist. Israel will not be able to count on a democratic government, to back its violent land seizures in the West Bank and its stooge Palestinian regime. Nor can the US count on a democratic Egypt to back its intrigues in Lebanon, its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its sanctions against Iran. Moreover, the Egyptian uprising has served as an example for popular movements against other US client dictatorships in Jordan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.For all these reasons,Washington backed the military takeover in order to shape a political transition according to its liking and imperial interests.
The weakening of the principle pillar of US imperial and Israeli colonial power in North Africa and the Middle East reveals the essential role of imperial collaborator regimes. The dictatorial character of these regimes is a direct result of the role they play in upholding imperial interests. And the major military aid packages which corrupt and enrich the ruling elites are the rewards for being willing collaborators of imperial and colonial states. Given the strategic importance of the Egyptian dictatorship, how do we explain the failure of the US and Israeli intelligence agencies to anticipate the uprisings?
Both the CIA and the Mossad worked closely with the Egyptian intelligence agencies and relied on them for their information, confiding in their self-serving reports that “everything was under control”: the opposition parties were weak, decimated by repression ad infiltration, their militants languishing in jail, or suffering fatal “heart attacks” because of harsh “interrogation techniques”. The elections were rigged to elect US and Israeli clients – no democratic surprises in the immediate or medium term horizon.
Egyptian intelligence agencies are trained and financed by Israeli and US operatives and are amenable to pursuing their masters will. They were so compliant in turning in reports which pleased their mentors, that they ignored any accounts of growing popular unrest or of internet agitation. The CIA and Mossad were so embedded in Mubarak’s vast security apparatus that they were incapable of securing any other information from the grassroots, decentralized, burgeoning movements which were independent of the “controlled” traditional electoral opposition.
When the extra-parliamentary mass movements burst forward, the Mossad and the CIA counted on the Mubarak state apparatus to take control via the typical carrot and stick operation: transient token concessions and calling out the army, police and death squads. As the movement grew from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, to millions, the Mossad and leading US Congressional backers of Israel urged Mubarak to “hold on”. The CIA was reduced to presenting the White House with political profiles of reliable military officials and pliable “transitional” political personages, willing to follow in Mubarak’s footsteps. Once again the CIA and Mossad demonstrated their dependence on the Mubarak apparatus for intelligence of who might be a “viable” (pro-US/Israel) alternative, ignoring the elementary demands of the masses. The attempt to co-opt the old guard electoralist Muslim Brotherhood via negotiations with Vice-President Suleiman failed, in part because the Brotherhood was not in control of the movement and because Israel and their US backers objected. Moreover, the youth wing of the Brotherhood pressured them to withdraw from the negotiations.
The intelligence failure complicated Washington and Tel Aviv’s efforts to sacrifice the dictatorial regime to save the state: the CIA ad MOSSAD did not develop ties to any of the new emerging leaders. The Israeli’s could not find any ‘new face’ with a popular following willing to serve as a crass collaborator to colonial oppression. The CIA had been entirely engaged in using the Egyptian secret police for torturing terror suspects (“exceptional rendition”) and in policing neighboring Arab countries. As a result both Washington and Israel looked to and promoted the military takeover to preempt further radicalization.
Ultimately the failure of the CIA and MOSSAD to detect and prevent the rise of the popular democratic movement reveals the precarious bases of imperial and colonial power. Over the long-run it is not arms, billions of dollars, secret police and torture chambers that decide history. Democratic revolutions occur when the vast majority of a people arise and say “enough”, take the streets, paralyze the economy, dismantle the authoritarian state and demand freedom and democratic institutions without imperial tutelage and colonial subservience.
By HAZ , February 20, 2011
Review of “Egypt: Social Movements, the CIA and the Mossad
The Limits of Social Movements
James Petras 02.15.2011
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1838&more=1&c=1
1. Let’s depart from the last paragraph of the attached article written by James Petras. He start with a concept of revolution that does not fit with any serious theory on the subject, his version of revolution is as incoherent as saying "this lady is half pregnant" Read: "Democratic revolutions occur when the vast majority of a people arise and say “enough”, take the streets, paralyze the economy, dismantle the authoritarian state and demand freedom and democratic institutions without imperial tutelage and colonial subservience"
This concept includes two mutually excluding statements:
A) There is a democratic revolution if "the vast majority of people arise and say " enough ", take the streets, and paralyze the economy." This is a peaceful version of revolution applicable to the case of Egypt. Thus, the social movement in Egypt is a revolution. But ...
B) There is a revolution if it “dismantle the authoritarian state..”, then the Egyptian social movement is not a revolution. It did not even “demanded freedom and democratic institutions without imperial tutelage and colonial subservience”. The CIA committee presided by Frank Weisner is dictating what the army has to do in term of transition to democracy. It should be noted here that the “dismantle of the state” involves the uses of revolutionary violence, as Lenin stated in Russia. Since this is not the case in Egypt, Petras concludes that this social movement does not deserve the label of “revolution”. They do not deserved because they did not defeat the army, the army is still controlling the state.
As we see the concept used is based on the wrong assumption that all revolutions involve revolutionary violence to dismantle the state. This mistake makes inconsistent all the arguments in Petras. This does not happens with other analysts of the subject like Theda Skocpol. She made explicit that violence is a key element in the Marxist theory of oppressed social class vs the oppressors as social class. Petras instead uses a vague and inconsistent tool for analysis that does not serve to describe nor explain what happened in Egypt.
On the other hand, not only Marxists but also anarchists have abandoned the ingredient violence and quick destruction of the oppressive state as basic condition of a revolution. Among the Marxist socialists was Fidel Castro the one who just declared obsolete the violence. Among the anarchists the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico are leading a revolution based on the theory of "Change the world without taking power”.
Petras’ concept –besides having not theoretical basis- is thus outdated and irrelevant to explain current revolutions. This is why he makes the folly suggestion that Egypt revolt was a historical accident because the CIA and the Mossad did not works as it should be. He also suggest that Egypt was merely an explosion of youthful rebellion with popular support does not achieve the stature of revolution. “Egypt, as in the case of the student and popular social movements against the dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Indonesia, demonstrate that the lack of a national political organization allows neo-liberal and conservative “opposition” personalities and parties to replace the regime .They proceed to set up an electoral regime which continues to serve imperial interests and to depend on and defend the existing state apparatus”. The story of lacking “a national political organization” –he means a political party- also belongs to the old generation of revolutions. Petras inconsistency went even further when he suggested that the rebellion of Egypt was an act planned and supported by Washington. This Manichean version of revolutions is incredible in a person who boasts of expertise in the area.
Let’s read some other paragraphs:
2. "While the White House may tolerate or even promote social movements in ousting (“sacrificing”) dictatorships, they have every intention in preserving the state .In the case of Egypt the main strategic ally of US imperialism was not Mubarak, it is the military" Since Egyptians did not win the battle against the army, that's not a revolution that should be of concern to the empire. What the empire should worry about is that the CIA and the Mossad did not have reliable parts to fix the system as soon as the revolt breaks up, suggest Petras. Whose interest is served with this “theoretical concern” of Petras?. Petras may have many good observations on imperialism, he described it well, but on the track of revolutions he is skating like an 80 years old crab. He is not a good observer on these matters and observers like him must be observed too.
3. The people revolution was planned in advance? "Washington as Israel sought and promoted the military coup to preempt further radicalization." So, according to Petras everything was planned in advance by the think tank of the empire. No comments!
4.Petras stated "In the case of Egypt, the main strategic ally of U.S. imperialism, the enemy to defeat is not Mubarak, is the army." Such statement is so general that hides many particularities in Egypt. It is because people knew the army that they avoid confronting them. It was the best move for both the army and the people to simulate alliance. The army got time to negotiate their status with their foreign “bosses” and the people time to lose the fear to a possible Tianamin square massacre to their demonstrations. Once such fear was broken, people took control of streets and squares in all major cities.
The army was not their immediate enemy, that is a fact, their enemy was the police. One person interviewed in Tahrir said clearly that the enemy of the revolution is a monster with several heads, and the main head to cut now is Mubarak. They got it. When the army broke the alliance with people and allow the thugs supporting Mubarak to massacre the peaceful demonstration in the black Friday, people responded almost immediatelly with the strike in the Suez Canal that paralyze the economy. That hit the Achilles Heel of the army. This army runs a network of business at national level with prosperous companies like El Nasr with almost 8,000 employees, the biggest chemical factory in Egypt.
The army is a quasi commercial enterprise in Egypt, said Bloomberg BusinessWeek in his last issue. The major question for them –regarding people’s revolution is “preserving the financial base of their members”. And they are more afraid of Americans than to Egyptian people, because of neoliberal policies and the greed of big American corporations who are ready to dispossess them. That explain tactical alliance with the people. So, the generality of Petras statement have no sense in Egypt.
5. Regarding the lack of "party" to organize the revolution. The question is why to have it?. There are small organizations that serve more effectively such task. If later on the need for a party emerges, people will respond to the challenge. Meanwhile the validity of this revolutionary process cannot be measured by leftist empty frames like saying that because of the "lack of national political leadership, the movements were not able to seize political power and fulfill their demands" .. "The millions of people mobilized by social movements to overthrow the dictatorship have been excluded in practice by the new military junta." This is an unfinished process and the fact so far is that those millions of people are alive and kicking, and totally committed to continue the fight. When Petras said that "The masses will be praised for their" heroism "and young people for their" idealism ", but in no event they will be recognized as key agents in the new regime." That expresses only the wishes of Petras.
6. What would happens if Petras would have used the same logic to evaluate the great revolutionary movement in the US during the 50th and 60th?. That one was started by a single person, a black woman named Rosa Parks who refused to give up her seat to a white in a public transport bus. This rejection of racism, and segregation lit the bonfire of the largest U.S. popular revolution in recent times: the civil right Movement. I don’t think he would say that this movement was condemned to failure, as he say today on the Egyptian revolution. In Egypt is not one person starting the revolution, there are millions of people that took the squares for 18 days to put down a dictator whose political-economic system excluded millions in Egypt. They carry the spirit of the revolution with them. Revolution is a process as it was the movement initiated by Rosa Parks and continued by Martin Luther King Jr. To suggest that the revolution in Egypt has concluded in a failure only expresses the desire to Petras and those who are temporarily in power in Egypt. [[Do, 19 to 11 February]]
===========================
Egypt: Social Movements, the CIA and the Mossad
The Limits of Social Movements :: The mass movements which forced the removal of Mubarak reveal both the strength and weaknesses of spontaneous uprisings.
James Petras 02.15.2011
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1838&more=1&c=1
On the one hand, the social movements demonstrated their capacity to mobilize hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in a successful sustained struggle culminating in the overthrow of the dictator in a way that pre-existent opposition parties and personalities were unable or unwilling to do.
On the other hand, lacking any national political leadership, the movements were not able to take political power and realize their demands, allowing the Mubarak military high command to seize power and define the “post-Mubarak” process, ensuring the continuation of Egypt’s subordination to the US, the protection of the illicit wealth of the Mubarak clan ($70 billion), and the military elite’s numerous corporations and the protection of the upper class. The millions mobilized by the social movements to overthrow the dictatorship were effectively excluded by the new self-styled “revolutionary” military junta in defining the political institutions and policies, let along the socio-economic reforms needed to address their basic needs of the population (40% live on less than $2 USD a day, youth unemployment runs over 30%).
Egypt, as in the case of the student and popular social movements against the dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Indonesia, demonstrate that the lack of a national political organization allows neo-liberal and conservative “opposition” personalities and parties to replace the regime .They proceed to set up an electoral regime which continues to serve imperial interests and to depend on and defend the existing state apparatus .In some cases they replace old crony capitalists with new ones. It is no accident that the mass media praise the ‘spontaneous’ nature of the struggles (not the socio-economic demands) and put a favorable spin on the role of military (slighting its 30 years as a bulwark of the dictatorship). The masses are praised for their “heroism”, the youth for their “idealism”, but are never proposed as central political actors in the new regime. Once the dictatorship fell, the military and the opposition electoralists “celebrated” the success of the revolution and moved swiftly to demobilize and dismantle the spontaneous movement, in order to make way for negotiations between the liberal electoral politicians, Washington and the ruling military elite.
While the White House may tolerate or even promote social movements in ousting (“sacrificing”) dictatorships, they have every intention in preserving the state .In the case of Egypt the main strategic ally of US imperialism was not Mubarak, it is the military, with whom Washington was in constant collaboration before, during and after the ouster of Mubarak, ensuring that the “transition” to democracy (sic) guarantees the continued subordination of Egypt to US and Israeli Middle East policy and interests.
The Revolt of the People: The Failures of the CIA and MOSSAD
The Arab revolt demonstrates once again several strategic failures in the much vaunted secret police, special forces and intelligence agencies of the US and Israeli state apparatus none of which anticipated, let along intervened, to preclude successful mobilization and influence their government’s policy toward the client rulers under attack.
The image which most writers, academics and journalists project of the invincibility of the Israeli Mossad and of the omnipotent CIA have been severely tested by their admitted failure to recognize the scope, depth and intensity of the multi-million member movement to oust the Mubarak dictatorship. The Mossad, pride and joy of Hollywood producers, presented as a ‘model of efficiency’ by their organized Zionist colleagues, were not able to detect the growth of a mass movement in a country right next door. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was shocked (and dismayed) by the precarious situation of Mubarak and the collapse of his most prominent Arab client – because of Mossad’s faulty intelligence. Likewise, Washington was totally unprepared by the 27 US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, with their hundreds of thousands of paid operatives and multi-billion dollar budgets, of the forthcoming massive popular uprisings and emerging movements.
Several theoretical observations are in order.
The notion that highly repressive rulers receiving billions of dollars of US military aid and with close to a million police, military and paramilitary forces are the best guarantors of imperial hegemony has been demonstrated to be false. The assumption that large scale, long term links with such dictatorial rulers, safeguards US imperial interests has been disproven.
Israeli arrogance and presumption of Jewish organizational, strategic and political superiority over “the Arabs”, has been severely deflated. The Israeli state, its experts, undercover operatives and Ivy League academics were blind to the unfolding realities, ignorant of the depth of disaffection and impotent to prevent the mass opposition to their most valued client. Israel’s publicists in the US, who scarcely resist the opportunity to promote the “brilliance” of Israel’s security forces, whether it’s assassinating an Arab leader in Lebanon or Dubai, or bombing a military facility in Syria, were temporarily speechless.
The fall of Mubarak and the possible emergence of an independent and democratic government would mean that Israel could lose its major ‘cop on the beat’. A democratic public will not cooperate with Israel in maintaining the blockade of Gaza – starving Palestinians to break their will to resist. Israel will not be able to count on a democratic government, to back its violent land seizures in the West Bank and its stooge Palestinian regime. Nor can the US count on a democratic Egypt to back its intrigues in Lebanon, its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its sanctions against Iran. Moreover, the Egyptian uprising has served as an example for popular movements against other US client dictatorships in Jordan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.For all these reasons,Washington backed the military takeover in order to shape a political transition according to its liking and imperial interests.
The weakening of the principle pillar of US imperial and Israeli colonial power in North Africa and the Middle East reveals the essential role of imperial collaborator regimes. The dictatorial character of these regimes is a direct result of the role they play in upholding imperial interests. And the major military aid packages which corrupt and enrich the ruling elites are the rewards for being willing collaborators of imperial and colonial states. Given the strategic importance of the Egyptian dictatorship, how do we explain the failure of the US and Israeli intelligence agencies to anticipate the uprisings?
Both the CIA and the Mossad worked closely with the Egyptian intelligence agencies and relied on them for their information, confiding in their self-serving reports that “everything was under control”: the opposition parties were weak, decimated by repression ad infiltration, their militants languishing in jail, or suffering fatal “heart attacks” because of harsh “interrogation techniques”. The elections were rigged to elect US and Israeli clients – no democratic surprises in the immediate or medium term horizon.
Egyptian intelligence agencies are trained and financed by Israeli and US operatives and are amenable to pursuing their masters will. They were so compliant in turning in reports which pleased their mentors, that they ignored any accounts of growing popular unrest or of internet agitation. The CIA and Mossad were so embedded in Mubarak’s vast security apparatus that they were incapable of securing any other information from the grassroots, decentralized, burgeoning movements which were independent of the “controlled” traditional electoral opposition.
When the extra-parliamentary mass movements burst forward, the Mossad and the CIA counted on the Mubarak state apparatus to take control via the typical carrot and stick operation: transient token concessions and calling out the army, police and death squads. As the movement grew from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, to millions, the Mossad and leading US Congressional backers of Israel urged Mubarak to “hold on”. The CIA was reduced to presenting the White House with political profiles of reliable military officials and pliable “transitional” political personages, willing to follow in Mubarak’s footsteps. Once again the CIA and Mossad demonstrated their dependence on the Mubarak apparatus for intelligence of who might be a “viable” (pro-US/Israel) alternative, ignoring the elementary demands of the masses. The attempt to co-opt the old guard electoralist Muslim Brotherhood via negotiations with Vice-President Suleiman failed, in part because the Brotherhood was not in control of the movement and because Israel and their US backers objected. Moreover, the youth wing of the Brotherhood pressured them to withdraw from the negotiations.
The intelligence failure complicated Washington and Tel Aviv’s efforts to sacrifice the dictatorial regime to save the state: the CIA ad MOSSAD did not develop ties to any of the new emerging leaders. The Israeli’s could not find any ‘new face’ with a popular following willing to serve as a crass collaborator to colonial oppression. The CIA had been entirely engaged in using the Egyptian secret police for torturing terror suspects (“exceptional rendition”) and in policing neighboring Arab countries. As a result both Washington and Israel looked to and promoted the military takeover to preempt further radicalization.
Ultimately the failure of the CIA and MOSSAD to detect and prevent the rise of the popular democratic movement reveals the precarious bases of imperial and colonial power. Over the long-run it is not arms, billions of dollars, secret police and torture chambers that decide history. Democratic revolutions occur when the vast majority of a people arise and say “enough”, take the streets, paralyze the economy, dismantle the authoritarian state and demand freedom and democratic institutions without imperial tutelage and colonial subservience.
domingo, 13 de febrero de 2011
Egypt's army dissolves parliament
Egypt's army dissolves parliament
Military rulers say they will remain in charge for six months until elections are held as some protesters vow to remain.
Last Modified: 13 Feb 2011 [here only extracts]
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011213132610927713.html
Egypt's military has dissolved parliament and suspended the constitution, two days after Hosni Mubarak, the long-serving president, stepped down in the wake of a popular uprising.
The country's Supreme Council of Armed Forces announced on Sunday that it would remain in charge of the country for six months until a new government is formed.
The military council announced the move in a statement on state television, adding that it would form a panel to amend the constitution before submitting the changes to a popular referendum.
The announcement came shortly after Egypt's prime minister announced that the cabinet appointed by Mubarak shortly before he stepped down, would stay in place.
Ahmed Shafiq, speaking after his first cabinet meeting since Mubarak left on Friday, said Egypt's caretaker government will remain for the country's transition towards democracy.
He said that security would remain a priority and pledged to fight corruption and restore peace in the country, following 18 days of pro-democracy protests.
"The first priority for this government is to restore security and to facilitate daily life for its citizens," he said. "I guarantee that this [cabinet] will return rights to the people and fight corruption."
Our correspondent in Cairo said the confrontations between troops and protesters was something of a "flashpoint".
"I think it reflects a bigger problem, that the military believes that now Mubarak is out, it's time for stability," he said.
"But some of the protesters think not enough has been done yet. They don't want to clear that square until the army has handed over to a civilian government."
Police protest
At one point a group of several dozen police officers marched into the square bearing flowers, proclaiming their solidarity with the uprising and chanting: "The police and the people! With one hand!"
But they were soon chased away by protesters, who accuse the police of decades of arbitrary arrests, torture and extortion, as well as a heavy-handed attempt to crush the revolt that left hundreds dead.
Meanwhile, normality began to return to other parts of Egypt. The tents, where protesters camped out during the 18 days of protests, were removed from Tahrir Square.
In the northern city of Alexandria, Al Jazeera's Jamal ElShayyal said people had also begun to get back to work, adding that Sunday's military announcement was likely to reassure activists in the city.
"Alexandria didn't have the same amount of sit-in protesters that we've seen in Tahrir, however those that have said they will continue their demonstrations have been assured a lot more by this time frame given by the military."
But Ashraf Ahmed, a protester in Cairo, vowed that he was not going to leave "because so much still needs to be done. They haven't implemented anything yet".
Protest organisers have threatened more rallies if the governing military council fails to accept their agenda for reform.
"If the army does not fulfil our demands, our uprising and its measures will return stronger," Safwat Hegazi, a protest leader, said.
================================
NOTE:
IRAN planning protest or CIA plans? Now the CIA like the revolution fever. They got it with Tantawi but this is just the first round of three. Will they like one in Israel? Why not..the sharonees are the ones that brutalized their neighbors with the military power and the ones who never abide to UN resolutions. Live Iran alone! they had their own revolution. Let the comedians in the US mass media alone too, they first wanted Iran be bombed and now they want a tweet manipulated revolt there. Why don't think about a revolution here in America. I wonder when American people will rid of their own dictators:the big corporations?. In our Senate and judiciary we have more than one Mubarak with retardatarian mind. And the servants of the big corporation in the Executive, always obeying their commands. Big corporations not only rig elections, they have created a trap for Americans: they have only one choice, they have to choose from their lesser evil (Democrat and Republican party), this is a faked choice since they finance both servants of power. On top, the financial corporations are the cause of the big economic mess we have today inside the country and all over the world: the economic crisis. It is owed a revolution here. When we will have another peaceful democratic revolution in America like the one Martin Luther King Jr lead? It is time to change the political and economic structures of this great country. (HAZ, February 13, 2011)
================================
OTHER TITLES FROM AL JAZEERA
Egypt army tries to clear Tahrir
Israel's options after Mubarak
Egypt's army dissolves parliament
Egypt: Why is Israel so Blind?
Algeria protesters push for change
Wealthy Egyptians fear change
The resurrection of pan-Arabism
Suleiman: The CIA's man in Cairo
Iran opposition 'planning protests'
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011213132610927713.html
Military rulers say they will remain in charge for six months until elections are held as some protesters vow to remain.
Last Modified: 13 Feb 2011 [here only extracts]
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011213132610927713.html
Egypt's military has dissolved parliament and suspended the constitution, two days after Hosni Mubarak, the long-serving president, stepped down in the wake of a popular uprising.
The country's Supreme Council of Armed Forces announced on Sunday that it would remain in charge of the country for six months until a new government is formed.
The military council announced the move in a statement on state television, adding that it would form a panel to amend the constitution before submitting the changes to a popular referendum.
The announcement came shortly after Egypt's prime minister announced that the cabinet appointed by Mubarak shortly before he stepped down, would stay in place.
Ahmed Shafiq, speaking after his first cabinet meeting since Mubarak left on Friday, said Egypt's caretaker government will remain for the country's transition towards democracy.
He said that security would remain a priority and pledged to fight corruption and restore peace in the country, following 18 days of pro-democracy protests.
"The first priority for this government is to restore security and to facilitate daily life for its citizens," he said. "I guarantee that this [cabinet] will return rights to the people and fight corruption."
Our correspondent in Cairo said the confrontations between troops and protesters was something of a "flashpoint".
"I think it reflects a bigger problem, that the military believes that now Mubarak is out, it's time for stability," he said.
"But some of the protesters think not enough has been done yet. They don't want to clear that square until the army has handed over to a civilian government."
Police protest
At one point a group of several dozen police officers marched into the square bearing flowers, proclaiming their solidarity with the uprising and chanting: "The police and the people! With one hand!"
But they were soon chased away by protesters, who accuse the police of decades of arbitrary arrests, torture and extortion, as well as a heavy-handed attempt to crush the revolt that left hundreds dead.
Meanwhile, normality began to return to other parts of Egypt. The tents, where protesters camped out during the 18 days of protests, were removed from Tahrir Square.
In the northern city of Alexandria, Al Jazeera's Jamal ElShayyal said people had also begun to get back to work, adding that Sunday's military announcement was likely to reassure activists in the city.
"Alexandria didn't have the same amount of sit-in protesters that we've seen in Tahrir, however those that have said they will continue their demonstrations have been assured a lot more by this time frame given by the military."
But Ashraf Ahmed, a protester in Cairo, vowed that he was not going to leave "because so much still needs to be done. They haven't implemented anything yet".
Protest organisers have threatened more rallies if the governing military council fails to accept their agenda for reform.
"If the army does not fulfil our demands, our uprising and its measures will return stronger," Safwat Hegazi, a protest leader, said.
================================
NOTE:
IRAN planning protest or CIA plans? Now the CIA like the revolution fever. They got it with Tantawi but this is just the first round of three. Will they like one in Israel? Why not..the sharonees are the ones that brutalized their neighbors with the military power and the ones who never abide to UN resolutions. Live Iran alone! they had their own revolution. Let the comedians in the US mass media alone too, they first wanted Iran be bombed and now they want a tweet manipulated revolt there. Why don't think about a revolution here in America. I wonder when American people will rid of their own dictators:the big corporations?. In our Senate and judiciary we have more than one Mubarak with retardatarian mind. And the servants of the big corporation in the Executive, always obeying their commands. Big corporations not only rig elections, they have created a trap for Americans: they have only one choice, they have to choose from their lesser evil (Democrat and Republican party), this is a faked choice since they finance both servants of power. On top, the financial corporations are the cause of the big economic mess we have today inside the country and all over the world: the economic crisis. It is owed a revolution here. When we will have another peaceful democratic revolution in America like the one Martin Luther King Jr lead? It is time to change the political and economic structures of this great country. (HAZ, February 13, 2011)
================================
OTHER TITLES FROM AL JAZEERA
Egypt army tries to clear Tahrir
Israel's options after Mubarak
Egypt's army dissolves parliament
Egypt: Why is Israel so Blind?
Algeria protesters push for change
Wealthy Egyptians fear change
The resurrection of pan-Arabism
Suleiman: The CIA's man in Cairo
Iran opposition 'planning protests'
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011213132610927713.html
If the army don’t fulfill demands of people, next uprising will be stronger
If the army don’t fulfill demands of people, next uprising will be stronger
HAZ, Sunday, 13 2011.
Whatever Tantawi does or don’t, is being highly scrutinized by Egyptian citizens and the whole international community. Here we start with two articles, one from Reuters (France) and the other from The Guardian (UK) and then I will make a comment on the Egyptian perspectives for real democracy.
Yesterday Reuters article reads: “Egypt military rulers under pressure from protesters” many of them are decide to stay in the Tahrir Square until the military in power announce the time-table for meeting the demands of the people. Sat Feb 12, 2011: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/13/us-egypt-idUSTRE70O3UW20110213
Today (Sunday Feb 13) the Guardian said “After the revolution, the ballot box” or else. Their job is to help implement the demands of the people. Their job is not to run the elections, they rig many of them. They have to allow a Civilian Council do this job. This hybrid of popular revolution with military coup has not sustainable bases. A civilian council for democracy can and must emerge. So far the military is acting in its own interests, and as usual serving the interest of the White House rulers.
“There is a fundamental mismatch between the kind of political movement represented by the activists in Tahrir Square and the kind of state that is run by men with guns” said The Guardin, “There is no evidence yet that the army plans to renege on its commitments to facilitate a transition to popular rule.” But in the absence of mature civil institutions, the fear of chaos can be used as excuse to prolong their rule, though the Law states that in cases like this (real coup d’état) they have 60 days to call election. The generals may argue that democracy is a project for the long term and then they will try to extend their length in power ever further. However, the fact is that most Egyptian are fed up with militaries in civilian dress, they want a civilian government.
The need for organization to run elections
“Egyptians have demonstrated a passion for free speech and free association over the last 18 days, but the process of channeling those impulses into party politics is not simple.” It is true as is true the fact that that the only organized political force is the Muslim brotherhood (MB).
This keep nervous the US and Israel, but the not the Egyptian people. The fact is that the flag and the spirit of the Tahrir Square revolution had a dominaant secular tones. The sheers with the flags displayed were more secular and the singing of the national anthem also reveals a sense of unity in the social movement that has much to do with secularism than with Islamism. So, if chaos or the pretext of chaos is used as excuse to postpone elections under Civilian Committee for Democracy, this manipulation of fear will not prevent the pacific emergence of civilian Committees to run election in different towns and from the bottom up. This feeling in favor of a civilian committee to run elections is now being supported for broad social base at local and national level.
If the military coup do not help the implementation of the civilian committee to run elections, it is very likely that this will emerge independently from them. The central civilian committee will NOT be either Muslim or Christian. But religious groups cannot be excluded from the process of national rehabilitation, so there are chances that they will be included as separate counselor or advising committee in support of the political ones. The religious committee may have voice but not decision making power. Secularism will prevent the rush in American and Israelites.
The army’s conflict of interests
The army is deeply involved in economic business, its corruption, and the mismanaged of the national economy. “The military controls large estates of land and has stakes in businesses ranging from tourism to olive oil production" and trade business in the Suez Canal. "That creates an obvious conflict of interest. The army is now expected to manage a process of political liberalization, but that will be hard to deliver without economic change. Unemployment and inflation were key spurs to popular revolt”.
The army has earned a well deserved respect from the civilian population, but I can be lost if they do not transfer power to a civilian committee before 60 days. New uprising may result in more HR violations could come in the name of order and the file on crimes against humanity will be big, incorporating the uses of children inside the thugs who caused several death in Tahir Square at the begining of the revolution, there are more than 300 civilians killed and this envolve the new staff in power.
Other Guardian article reproduce this statement. “In Tahrir Square, we lost our fears and found ourselves”. This statement describes what millions of people feel right now. It means that while the liberation square exist, that energy that fuel the revolution will exist. This feeling won’t be erased from their memory and spirit with brutal repression –if the army plan to do so-, it will be more likely that the respect for past military glories will be erased in the mind of the nation.
Sources
1. Sat Feb 12, 2011 Reuters editorial: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/13/us-egypt-idUSTRE70O3UW20110213
2. The Guardian: “Egypt: After the revolution, the ballot box” The job of the generals is to help implement the demands of the people. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/13/observer-editorial-egypt-democracy
3.The Guardin. In Tahrir Square, we lost our fears and found ourselves. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/13/actor-on-egyptian-overthrow
HAZ, Sunday, 13 2011.
Whatever Tantawi does or don’t, is being highly scrutinized by Egyptian citizens and the whole international community. Here we start with two articles, one from Reuters (France) and the other from The Guardian (UK) and then I will make a comment on the Egyptian perspectives for real democracy.
Yesterday Reuters article reads: “Egypt military rulers under pressure from protesters” many of them are decide to stay in the Tahrir Square until the military in power announce the time-table for meeting the demands of the people. Sat Feb 12, 2011: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/13/us-egypt-idUSTRE70O3UW20110213
Today (Sunday Feb 13) the Guardian said “After the revolution, the ballot box” or else. Their job is to help implement the demands of the people. Their job is not to run the elections, they rig many of them. They have to allow a Civilian Council do this job. This hybrid of popular revolution with military coup has not sustainable bases. A civilian council for democracy can and must emerge. So far the military is acting in its own interests, and as usual serving the interest of the White House rulers.
“There is a fundamental mismatch between the kind of political movement represented by the activists in Tahrir Square and the kind of state that is run by men with guns” said The Guardin, “There is no evidence yet that the army plans to renege on its commitments to facilitate a transition to popular rule.” But in the absence of mature civil institutions, the fear of chaos can be used as excuse to prolong their rule, though the Law states that in cases like this (real coup d’état) they have 60 days to call election. The generals may argue that democracy is a project for the long term and then they will try to extend their length in power ever further. However, the fact is that most Egyptian are fed up with militaries in civilian dress, they want a civilian government.
The need for organization to run elections
“Egyptians have demonstrated a passion for free speech and free association over the last 18 days, but the process of channeling those impulses into party politics is not simple.” It is true as is true the fact that that the only organized political force is the Muslim brotherhood (MB).
This keep nervous the US and Israel, but the not the Egyptian people. The fact is that the flag and the spirit of the Tahrir Square revolution had a dominaant secular tones. The sheers with the flags displayed were more secular and the singing of the national anthem also reveals a sense of unity in the social movement that has much to do with secularism than with Islamism. So, if chaos or the pretext of chaos is used as excuse to postpone elections under Civilian Committee for Democracy, this manipulation of fear will not prevent the pacific emergence of civilian Committees to run election in different towns and from the bottom up. This feeling in favor of a civilian committee to run elections is now being supported for broad social base at local and national level.
If the military coup do not help the implementation of the civilian committee to run elections, it is very likely that this will emerge independently from them. The central civilian committee will NOT be either Muslim or Christian. But religious groups cannot be excluded from the process of national rehabilitation, so there are chances that they will be included as separate counselor or advising committee in support of the political ones. The religious committee may have voice but not decision making power. Secularism will prevent the rush in American and Israelites.
The army’s conflict of interests
The army is deeply involved in economic business, its corruption, and the mismanaged of the national economy. “The military controls large estates of land and has stakes in businesses ranging from tourism to olive oil production" and trade business in the Suez Canal. "That creates an obvious conflict of interest. The army is now expected to manage a process of political liberalization, but that will be hard to deliver without economic change. Unemployment and inflation were key spurs to popular revolt”.
The army has earned a well deserved respect from the civilian population, but I can be lost if they do not transfer power to a civilian committee before 60 days. New uprising may result in more HR violations could come in the name of order and the file on crimes against humanity will be big, incorporating the uses of children inside the thugs who caused several death in Tahir Square at the begining of the revolution, there are more than 300 civilians killed and this envolve the new staff in power.
Other Guardian article reproduce this statement. “In Tahrir Square, we lost our fears and found ourselves”. This statement describes what millions of people feel right now. It means that while the liberation square exist, that energy that fuel the revolution will exist. This feeling won’t be erased from their memory and spirit with brutal repression –if the army plan to do so-, it will be more likely that the respect for past military glories will be erased in the mind of the nation.
Sources
1. Sat Feb 12, 2011 Reuters editorial: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/13/us-egypt-idUSTRE70O3UW20110213
2. The Guardian: “Egypt: After the revolution, the ballot box” The job of the generals is to help implement the demands of the people. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/13/observer-editorial-egypt-democracy
3.The Guardin. In Tahrir Square, we lost our fears and found ourselves. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/13/actor-on-egyptian-overthrow
sábado, 12 de febrero de 2011
The Emerging Counter-Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt
The Emerging Counter-Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23179
Global Research, February 12, 2011
"President Hosni Mubarak has decided to step down as president of Egypt and has assigned the higher council of the armed forces to run the affairs of the country," Suleiman said in a brief televised address. "May God help everybody."
Cheers could be heard in the streets of Cairo even before Suleiman stopped speaking. And while there was no way to know whether the army would make good on its previous pledges to safeguard democratic elections, the crowds were euphoric at the news that Mubarak's 30 years of authoritarian rule were over.
"Egypt is free! Egypt is free!" they shouted in Tahrir Square. "The regime has fallen!"
-The Washington Post (February 11, 2011)
An arrogant pharaoh has fallen. Egyptians may be chanting that their country is free, but their struggle is far from over. The United Arab Republic of Egypt is not free yet. The old regime and its apparatus are still very much in place and waiting for the dust to settle. The Egyptian military is officially in control of Egypt and the counter-revolution is emerging. A new phase of the struggle for liberty has started.
The so-called regime-desired "transitional phases" in Tunisia and Egypt are being used to buy time in order to do three things. The first objective is to erode and eventually break the people's popular demands. The second goal is to work to preserve neo-liberal economic policies, which will be used to subvert the political system, and to tighten the straightjacket of external debts. Finally, the third motivation and objective is the preparation of counter-revolution.
The Self-Selected Egyptian "Wise Men"
Unqualified figures are emerging, which claim to be speaking or leading the Arab people. This includes the so-called committee of "Wise Men" in Egypt. These unelected figures are supposedly negotiating with the Mubarak regime on behalf of the Egyptian population, but they have no legitimacy as representatives of the people. The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, is amongst them. Secretary-General Moussa has also said that he is interested in becoming a future cabinet minister in Cairo. All of these figures are either regime insiders or agents of the status quo.
Amongst these self-chosen individuals also is the chief of Orascom Telecom Holdings (O.T.H.) S.A.E., Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris. Bloomberg Newsweek had this to say about Sawiri: "Most Egyptian businessmen are keeping low profiles these days. The protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square blame them for Egypt's ills, and mobs have even trashed some of their properties. Yet Egypt's most prominent mogul, Naguib Sawiris, chairman of Orascom Telecom Holding, the Middle East's biggest telecome company is in Cairo fielding calls on his mobile phone, appearing on TV, and (as a member of an informal committee of "wise men") negotiating with newly appointed Vice-President Omar Suleiman about a gradual transfer of power away from President Hosni Mubarak. Far from discouraged, the billionaire thinks a more vibrant Egyptian economy may emerge from the turmoil." [1]
The so-called "Wise Men" in Egypt are involved in bravado. To whom is the power "gradually" being "transfered"? Another unelected figure, like Suleiman?
What is the nature of the negotiations? Power sharing between an unelected regime and a new cast? There is nothing to negotiate with unelected despots. The role that the "Wise Men" play is that of a "manufactured opposition" that will keep the interests behind the Mubarak regime in place and also dilute the real opposition movements in Egypt.
Al-Mebazaa Given Dictator Powers while Tunisian Military Reservists are Mobilized
In Tunisia, military reservists are being summoned for duty to manage the protesters. [2] The mobilization of the Tunisian military has been justified under the pretext of combating lawlessness and violence. The Tunisian regime itself has been behind most this lawlessness and violence.
At the same time as the mobilization of Tunisian reservists, Fouad Al-Mebazaa, the interim president of Tunisia, has been given dictatorial powers. [3] Al-Mebazaa was the man that Ben Ali selected as parliamentary speaker of Tunisia and a leading figure inside Ben Ali's Constitutional Democratic Rally (CDP) Party. Protesters peacefully tried to stop the members of the Tunisian Parliament from voting to grant dictatorial powers to Al-Mebazaa by blocking entry into the Tunisian Parliament.
The members of the Tunisian Parliament are all members of the "old regime." Amid the protests, the Tunisian Parliament still managed to go forward with the plan: "Lawmakers eventually bypassed demonstrators by accessing the voting hall through a service door, the TAP news agency reported. In a 177-16 vote, the lower house approved a plan to give Interim President Fouad Mebazaa temporary powers to pass laws by decree." [4] The next day, the Tunisian Senate would approve this too. [5]
Al-Mebazza can now select governors and officials at will, change electoral laws, give amnesty to whomsoever he pleases, and bypass all Tunisian state institutions through his decrees. The passing of the motion to give Al-Mebazza what amounts to dictatorial powers is an illustration of the facets of "cosmetic democracy." This act by the kangaroo Tunisian Parliament is being passed off as a democratic act of voting, but in reality all its members were undemocratically selected by the Ben Ali regime.
The Generals of the Egyptian Military and Vice-President Suleiman are a Continuation of Mubarak
In Egypt, the commanders of the military have stated that they will not allow the protests to continue for much longer. The military leadership of Egypt are all heavily invested into the kleptocratic status quo of the Mubarak regime. Egyptian generals or flag officers are all wealthy members of the Egyptian capitalist class. Without any distinctions, the leadership of the Egyptian military and the Mubarak regime are one and the same. All key figures in the Mubarak regime are from the ranks of the military.
Omar Suleiman, the newly appointed vice-president of Egypt and the general who was the former head of the intelligence services of Egypt, has started to back-track on the promises made by the Mubarak regime and himself. The New York Times reported that "Omar Suleiman of Egypt says he does not think it is time to lift the 30-year-old emergency law that has been used to suppress and imprison opposition leaders." [6] Just days before Mubarak's resignation, Suleiman has also stated: "He does not think that President Hosni Mubarak needs to resign before his term ends in September [2011]. And he does not think [Egypt] is ready for democracy." [7]
Battles have been Won, But the Struggle Continues...
The stakes are getting higher. The people of Tunisia and Egypt should be aware that the U.S. government and the European Union are politically hedging their bets. They support the counter-revolutions of the old regimes, but are also working to co-opt and control the outcomes of the protest movements. In another development, the U.S. and NATO are also making naval deployments into the Eastern Mediterranean. Specifically with Egypt in mind, this too could be meant to aid the counter-revolution, but it can also be used to intervene against a successful revolution.
The events in Tunisia and Egypt have proven wrong all the false assumptions about the Arab peoples. The Tunisian and Egyptian people have acted peacefully and intelligently. They have also proven that the assumption of an advanced political culture in Western Europe, North America, or Australia is merely utter nonsense used to justify repression of other peoples.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
NOTES
[1] Stanley Reed, "Egypt's Telecom Mogul Embraces Uprising," Bloomberg Businessweek, February 10, 2011.
[2] "Tunisia calls up reserve troops amid unrest," Associated Press (AP), February 7, 2011.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Kaouther Larbi, "Tunisia Senate grants leader wide powers," Agence France-Presse (AFP), February 10, 2011.
[6] Helene Cooper and David E. Sanger, "In Egypt, US Weighs Push For Change With Stability," The New York Times, February 8, 2011, A1.
[7] Ibid.
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23179
Global Research, February 12, 2011
"President Hosni Mubarak has decided to step down as president of Egypt and has assigned the higher council of the armed forces to run the affairs of the country," Suleiman said in a brief televised address. "May God help everybody."
Cheers could be heard in the streets of Cairo even before Suleiman stopped speaking. And while there was no way to know whether the army would make good on its previous pledges to safeguard democratic elections, the crowds were euphoric at the news that Mubarak's 30 years of authoritarian rule were over.
"Egypt is free! Egypt is free!" they shouted in Tahrir Square. "The regime has fallen!"
-The Washington Post (February 11, 2011)
An arrogant pharaoh has fallen. Egyptians may be chanting that their country is free, but their struggle is far from over. The United Arab Republic of Egypt is not free yet. The old regime and its apparatus are still very much in place and waiting for the dust to settle. The Egyptian military is officially in control of Egypt and the counter-revolution is emerging. A new phase of the struggle for liberty has started.
The so-called regime-desired "transitional phases" in Tunisia and Egypt are being used to buy time in order to do three things. The first objective is to erode and eventually break the people's popular demands. The second goal is to work to preserve neo-liberal economic policies, which will be used to subvert the political system, and to tighten the straightjacket of external debts. Finally, the third motivation and objective is the preparation of counter-revolution.
The Self-Selected Egyptian "Wise Men"
Unqualified figures are emerging, which claim to be speaking or leading the Arab people. This includes the so-called committee of "Wise Men" in Egypt. These unelected figures are supposedly negotiating with the Mubarak regime on behalf of the Egyptian population, but they have no legitimacy as representatives of the people. The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, is amongst them. Secretary-General Moussa has also said that he is interested in becoming a future cabinet minister in Cairo. All of these figures are either regime insiders or agents of the status quo.
Amongst these self-chosen individuals also is the chief of Orascom Telecom Holdings (O.T.H.) S.A.E., Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris. Bloomberg Newsweek had this to say about Sawiri: "Most Egyptian businessmen are keeping low profiles these days. The protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square blame them for Egypt's ills, and mobs have even trashed some of their properties. Yet Egypt's most prominent mogul, Naguib Sawiris, chairman of Orascom Telecom Holding, the Middle East's biggest telecome company is in Cairo fielding calls on his mobile phone, appearing on TV, and (as a member of an informal committee of "wise men") negotiating with newly appointed Vice-President Omar Suleiman about a gradual transfer of power away from President Hosni Mubarak. Far from discouraged, the billionaire thinks a more vibrant Egyptian economy may emerge from the turmoil." [1]
The so-called "Wise Men" in Egypt are involved in bravado. To whom is the power "gradually" being "transfered"? Another unelected figure, like Suleiman?
What is the nature of the negotiations? Power sharing between an unelected regime and a new cast? There is nothing to negotiate with unelected despots. The role that the "Wise Men" play is that of a "manufactured opposition" that will keep the interests behind the Mubarak regime in place and also dilute the real opposition movements in Egypt.
Al-Mebazaa Given Dictator Powers while Tunisian Military Reservists are Mobilized
In Tunisia, military reservists are being summoned for duty to manage the protesters. [2] The mobilization of the Tunisian military has been justified under the pretext of combating lawlessness and violence. The Tunisian regime itself has been behind most this lawlessness and violence.
At the same time as the mobilization of Tunisian reservists, Fouad Al-Mebazaa, the interim president of Tunisia, has been given dictatorial powers. [3] Al-Mebazaa was the man that Ben Ali selected as parliamentary speaker of Tunisia and a leading figure inside Ben Ali's Constitutional Democratic Rally (CDP) Party. Protesters peacefully tried to stop the members of the Tunisian Parliament from voting to grant dictatorial powers to Al-Mebazaa by blocking entry into the Tunisian Parliament.
The members of the Tunisian Parliament are all members of the "old regime." Amid the protests, the Tunisian Parliament still managed to go forward with the plan: "Lawmakers eventually bypassed demonstrators by accessing the voting hall through a service door, the TAP news agency reported. In a 177-16 vote, the lower house approved a plan to give Interim President Fouad Mebazaa temporary powers to pass laws by decree." [4] The next day, the Tunisian Senate would approve this too. [5]
Al-Mebazza can now select governors and officials at will, change electoral laws, give amnesty to whomsoever he pleases, and bypass all Tunisian state institutions through his decrees. The passing of the motion to give Al-Mebazza what amounts to dictatorial powers is an illustration of the facets of "cosmetic democracy." This act by the kangaroo Tunisian Parliament is being passed off as a democratic act of voting, but in reality all its members were undemocratically selected by the Ben Ali regime.
The Generals of the Egyptian Military and Vice-President Suleiman are a Continuation of Mubarak
In Egypt, the commanders of the military have stated that they will not allow the protests to continue for much longer. The military leadership of Egypt are all heavily invested into the kleptocratic status quo of the Mubarak regime. Egyptian generals or flag officers are all wealthy members of the Egyptian capitalist class. Without any distinctions, the leadership of the Egyptian military and the Mubarak regime are one and the same. All key figures in the Mubarak regime are from the ranks of the military.
Omar Suleiman, the newly appointed vice-president of Egypt and the general who was the former head of the intelligence services of Egypt, has started to back-track on the promises made by the Mubarak regime and himself. The New York Times reported that "Omar Suleiman of Egypt says he does not think it is time to lift the 30-year-old emergency law that has been used to suppress and imprison opposition leaders." [6] Just days before Mubarak's resignation, Suleiman has also stated: "He does not think that President Hosni Mubarak needs to resign before his term ends in September [2011]. And he does not think [Egypt] is ready for democracy." [7]
Battles have been Won, But the Struggle Continues...
The stakes are getting higher. The people of Tunisia and Egypt should be aware that the U.S. government and the European Union are politically hedging their bets. They support the counter-revolutions of the old regimes, but are also working to co-opt and control the outcomes of the protest movements. In another development, the U.S. and NATO are also making naval deployments into the Eastern Mediterranean. Specifically with Egypt in mind, this too could be meant to aid the counter-revolution, but it can also be used to intervene against a successful revolution.
The events in Tunisia and Egypt have proven wrong all the false assumptions about the Arab peoples. The Tunisian and Egyptian people have acted peacefully and intelligently. They have also proven that the assumption of an advanced political culture in Western Europe, North America, or Australia is merely utter nonsense used to justify repression of other peoples.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
NOTES
[1] Stanley Reed, "Egypt's Telecom Mogul Embraces Uprising," Bloomberg Businessweek, February 10, 2011.
[2] "Tunisia calls up reserve troops amid unrest," Associated Press (AP), February 7, 2011.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Kaouther Larbi, "Tunisia Senate grants leader wide powers," Agence France-Presse (AFP), February 10, 2011.
[6] Helene Cooper and David E. Sanger, "In Egypt, US Weighs Push For Change With Stability," The New York Times, February 8, 2011, A1.
[7] Ibid.
viernes, 11 de febrero de 2011
Tantawi a Mubarak's poodle and veteran defence minister, took power.
Tantawi a Mubarak's poodle and veteran defence minister, took power.Haz, February 12, 2011
Let’s evaluate the context and redefine the tactics to complete the 2nd stage of the revolution.
FACT 1. Who is Tantawi, the head of the Military Council in Power. Who are they?
Reuters said that Tantawi is a veteran Defense Minister of Mubarak regime. Considering that most Defense Ministers in States clients of the US are being controlled by the Pentagon-CIA, then what we have is more of the same.
FACT 2. Tantawi is also considered as conservative person, and as the “poodle” of Mubarak. The Guaerdian think that is difficult that this military council “accept a democratic transition that includes the legalisation of its bugbear, the banned Muslim Brotherhood, the most powerful opposition force in the country”. Even more difficult if the civilian population demands investigation on HR abuses and corruption during the Mubarak regime. Most of the top military are involved in such business.
FACT 3. Scholars and reporters expert on middle East politics consider that there won’t be any transition to democracy with this Military Council in Power. Jon Alterman for isntance said the “Egypt isn't moving towards democracy, it's moved into martial law and where it goes is now subject to debate.". Alterman is director and senior fellow of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) at Harvard. Prior to joining CSIS, he served as a member of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State and as a special assistant to the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.
FACT 4. What we saw in TV is that the VP-CIA officer Omar Suleiman introduced him with all the traditional American ritual of continuity and that Tantawi was very grateful to Mubarak. Tantawi did not mention anything about his transition plan. It was evident the complicity ** with Mubarak.
WHAT IS NEXT?.
My reading of the context suggest several possibilities for future action
1. People wil keep massive periodic movilizations (not every week) to let them now WE ARE WATCHING AT YOU?. Pancarts will show their demands
2. They will explore legal counseling to file Mubarak for crimes against humanity and corruption in international courts. They may also request to the UN support to set up a Truth Committee in Egypt.
3. They will evaluate if the Military has travel with the Judiciary or the Constitutional Court to introduce provisional amends so as to proceed in the calling of elections and demand that the voices of the civilian population be listen on this regards.
4. The fighter for democracy will explore at local level the way to create united front for democracy with the aim of taking control of the Local electoral committee.
5. If the military do not give voice to the cvilian population and plan to use previuos tactics to rig electiosn, they will initiate a 2nd round of struggles for democracy, this time agaisnt the miliatry council in power.
6. They may also postpone the fight to reform the constitution to the time the new President takes power. I do not thing Egyptian people will live the revolution incomplete.
SOURCES:
After Mubarak, Egypt looks forward. Feb 12 (Reuters) By Samia Nakhoul http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/8823330/after-mubarak-egypt-looks-forward/
Jon Alterman on the military to CNN :
(http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-30/opinion/alterman.egypt.military_1_military-government-upper-egypt-omar-suleiman?_s=PM:OPINION)
The Guardian: Egyptian army calls the shots as nation embarks on democratic transition guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 February 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/11/egypt-army-mubarak-political-reform
ARTICLES
Let’s evaluate the context and redefine the tactics to complete the 2nd stage of the revolution.
FACT 1. Who is Tantawi, the head of the Military Council in Power. Who are they?
Reuters said that Tantawi is a veteran Defense Minister of Mubarak regime. Considering that most Defense Ministers in States clients of the US are being controlled by the Pentagon-CIA, then what we have is more of the same.
FACT 2. Tantawi is also considered as conservative person, and as the “poodle” of Mubarak. The Guaerdian think that is difficult that this military council “accept a democratic transition that includes the legalisation of its bugbear, the banned Muslim Brotherhood, the most powerful opposition force in the country”. Even more difficult if the civilian population demands investigation on HR abuses and corruption during the Mubarak regime. Most of the top military are involved in such business.
FACT 3. Scholars and reporters expert on middle East politics consider that there won’t be any transition to democracy with this Military Council in Power. Jon Alterman for isntance said the “Egypt isn't moving towards democracy, it's moved into martial law and where it goes is now subject to debate.". Alterman is director and senior fellow of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) at Harvard. Prior to joining CSIS, he served as a member of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State and as a special assistant to the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.
FACT 4. What we saw in TV is that the VP-CIA officer Omar Suleiman introduced him with all the traditional American ritual of continuity and that Tantawi was very grateful to Mubarak. Tantawi did not mention anything about his transition plan. It was evident the complicity ** with Mubarak.
WHAT IS NEXT?.
My reading of the context suggest several possibilities for future action
1. People wil keep massive periodic movilizations (not every week) to let them now WE ARE WATCHING AT YOU?. Pancarts will show their demands
2. They will explore legal counseling to file Mubarak for crimes against humanity and corruption in international courts. They may also request to the UN support to set up a Truth Committee in Egypt.
3. They will evaluate if the Military has travel with the Judiciary or the Constitutional Court to introduce provisional amends so as to proceed in the calling of elections and demand that the voices of the civilian population be listen on this regards.
4. The fighter for democracy will explore at local level the way to create united front for democracy with the aim of taking control of the Local electoral committee.
5. If the military do not give voice to the cvilian population and plan to use previuos tactics to rig electiosn, they will initiate a 2nd round of struggles for democracy, this time agaisnt the miliatry council in power.
6. They may also postpone the fight to reform the constitution to the time the new President takes power. I do not thing Egyptian people will live the revolution incomplete.
SOURCES:
After Mubarak, Egypt looks forward. Feb 12 (Reuters) By Samia Nakhoul http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/8823330/after-mubarak-egypt-looks-forward/
Jon Alterman on the military to CNN :
(http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-30/opinion/alterman.egypt.military_1_military-government-upper-egypt-omar-suleiman?_s=PM:OPINION)
The Guardian: Egyptian army calls the shots as nation embarks on democratic transition guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 February 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/11/egypt-army-mubarak-political-reform
ARTICLES
POINT 3. THE SECOND STAGE OF THE REVOLUTION. THE FIGHT FOR POLITICAL & ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNITY
POINT 3. THE SECOND STAGE OF THE REVOLUTION:
THE FIGHT FOR POLITICAL & ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNITY
HAZ, February 10, 2011
“A genuinely representative Egyptian government [would] reject the slavish pro-American, pro-Israeli clientelism of its predecessor,” Dr. Hudson writes. “That need not mean that Egypt will become a spearhead for anti-Western, anti-Israeli projects. On the contrary, a genuinely legitimate Egyptian government could set a prominent example for non-authoritarian, participatory government throughout the region and play a decisive role in leading the Middle East out of its present dysfunctional condition.”. Michael Hudson. “Egypt on the Brink: The Arab World at a Tipping Point?”. January 29, 2011.
Egypt has three major general problems
A) At political level we have:
First a lawless state: obsolete constitution (centralist presidentialism) that procreates autocratic rulers.
Second, a political regimen without the minimums of democracy (no respect for civil and political rights of their citizens, not real separation of powers -legislative, executive and judiciary with checks and balances-, no fair elections.
Third, no respect for human rights (crimes against humanity have been committed over and over).
Fourth, rampant cronyism and scandalous corruption (The Guardian, Al Jazeera and Egiptian bloggers informed that 70 billion has been embezzled by Mubarak’s family with the complicity of the VP and those who run the central national bank and foreign bankers who are hiding the fortune stolen to the Egyptian people).
ALTERNATIVE
It is required a Transitional government that call elections for a National Constitutional Assembly to reform the current Constitution and once approved, call for immediate democratic elections to establish a new regimen.
B) At economic level we have:
B.1) Explosive economic crisis. In 2010 Egyptian had the lowest income per capita in the region, if we compare their GDP per capita with Iran, Turkey, Saudis and Israel, and the highest poverty rate (20% up). Both figure indicate that the official rate of unemployment (10%) is faked. The gap between rich and poor was also one of the highest. These statistics gathered from the WB (collapsed by the website www.allaboutmideast.com) speak for the explosive environment that give base to the social uprising.
B.2) Huge foreign debt and negative trade balance. Egypt has a foreign debt that is growing faster in the region: in the year 2000 it was 27 billion and in 2010 it was 35 billion in USD. This explains the cuts in social spending (education, health and Medicare). Besides, Egypt has the worst trade balance in the region: negative -23%. Both (foreign debt effects and negative trade deficit) indicate that Egypt has stagnant economy. That explains the inexistent job market for young people, one of the main actors of people’s rebellion.
Economic reality & History motivating people.
It is disturbing: people and soldiers of a country located just in the best commercial and geopolitical world spot, obligated to take the crumbs of the big business.. The Suez canal and the SUMED Pipeline that cross Egypt provides literally the biggest arteries of crude oil that fuels the European and the US economy. According to the US Energy Information Administration EIA, Almost 35,000 ships transited the Suez Canal in 2009, 10 percent were petroleum tankers.In November of 2010, petroleum (both crude oil and refined products) as well as liquefied natural gas (LNG) accounted for 13 and 11 percent of Suez cargos, measured by cargo tonnage, respectively. Total petroleum transit volume was close to 2 million bbl/d, below 5% of seaborne oil trade in 2010. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/world_oil_transit_chokepoints/Suez.html).
The revenues coming from this business did not go to the people nor to the army who in 1956 nationalized the Suez Canal with Naser, nor to those who gave their life to defended it when the Brits and Israelis declared war to Egypt after the canal was nationalized. If the American army did not invade Egypt was because the Russian threat to come too, and they make a clear warning by launching the Sputnik.
Today wars are different (the old ones drain the economy), today we have a financial war in process. China is one of the biggest user of the Suez canal and they want their business be done in SDRs, not in dollars. SDRs were created in 1969 by the International Monetary Fund to use as a reserve currency as the dollar tottered. SDR is a kind of synthetic currency whose value is determined by a basket of major currencies ($, Yen, Euro and Pound). See Wall Street Journal, march 24, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123785404446020041.html
Since early 1970s, some banks took deposits denominated in SDRs and some companies even issued bonds in the currency. But the market always remained small, the main use of SDRs today is to account for transactions between the IMF and its member nations. If the US insist in creating chaos in Egypt with Mubarak and the CIA-VP, they will push harder for SDR as main currency for international trade. 1970s was a warning more powerful than the sputnik in 1957.
Where is the money of the oil-trade business that cross the Suez canal?. It went to the pockets of Mubarak autocratic clan. This is the source of the 70 billion they stole from Egyptian people. Egyptians and the army were humiliated when Mubarak made them to obey US commands and to knee in front of Israelis who twice declared war against Egypt. The current uprising is loaded with these memories. Egyptian do not need Mubarak, nor Suleiman (the CIA agent) to take control of the nation. This is the meaning of the 2nd stage of the revolution, once Mubara and the VP (CIA agent) are out. The struggle will be for political and economic sovereignty. The aim will not be to retaliate, it will be to create a new democracy in which all Egyptian enjoy a decent life with peace.
b.3 the two biggest economic problems today
Egypt has to define two strategies, the first against neoliberal policies, and the 2nd against the Quantitative Easing (QE) that are threatening to disrupt emerging economies.
Quantitative Easings
The US has designed these QEs (the printing of billions of dollars) to flood clients states with credit in the hands of speculators to go buy foreign resources, real state, public and private infrastructure, bonds and corporate stock ownership with money that contain behind debt. It is a huge Ponzi scheme in process since they use debt money to buy resources abroad. It is also a device to sell the US debt among their partners with faked dollars by just taking advantage of the dollar as national reserve (central bank deposits) and the currency for trade business. So the US speculators can buy all those shipping companies (or others) in the Suez Canal that are in bad shape or buy the shares that Mubarak’s family has in this trade business as a condition to protect the part of the 70 billion he stole and is in dollars (maybe he bought US Treasury Bonds). The Germans want the part that is in euros too. It does not matter what they do with this puppet. What matter is what to do with the speculators coming with huge amount of credits flooding Egypt with QE money.
First, What is the meaning of neoliberalism? Why it is a big major problem?
Why we said that the Egyptian uprising is the result of the implementation of neoliberal politics?
Why? because the neoliberal formula prescribed the following:
1- Over protection of foreign capital investment (not national nor social capital) and not matter if foreign capital is speculative. This policy comes with severe criminalization of debt payment defaults and the elimination of the right to bankruptcy for small business n common people, this right is reserved only to big bankers via bailouts, currency devaluation and more taxes.
2- Privatization of State and public resources
3 Cuts in State social expenses (education, health, etc).
4- Tax policy in favor of the rich. The state is obligated to widen the tax base instead of taxing the rich. This implies the elimination of small informal business for not paying taxes but instead the tax evasion of the rich is protected.
5. Manipulation of bank interest rate and currency parity with dollar. The State central bank (ministry of economy n staff) is controlled by big financial corporation in New York and their job is to control domestic credit and raise interest rate to attract foreign financial inflows. The other job is to manipulate the currency parity rate with the dollar in their interest, not the national one, plus the usual functionalist work. [So people in Egypt or elsewhere can elect their puppet, but the Ministry of economy, Interior (the one who deals with the army and police), exterior (the one who deal with lobbyist of big corp in Washington) and Press-communication (if there is one) is controlled by the US agencies and the US embassy.].
6. Trade liberalization (at convenience of the US corp). Egypt can sing FTA with other nation but not with the privileges given to US free trade agreement. Besides, this freedom best serve the rich, nor poor and middle classes, these ones do not have the same leverage to associate and get similar advantages (if they find a niche) since the big circuits of trade are already monopolized by big corporation. So it is “free” trade with “exclusion” and exclusive trade privileges.
7. Full liberalization of foreign capital inversion (free to get in and free to get out whenever they one). They can dispossess native population from their land and water, pollute the environment and eliminate the protesters with thugs criminal organizations and private mercenaries from abroad.
8. Deregulation of labor policies, not minimum salaries nor adjustments according to profits. Child labor under the table is allow (sub-contracts and outsourcing contracts) and social benefits (helath among others) only if labor is trapped by private for-profit insurers co. (now this policy is being obligated in the same US, they are getting the taste of the poison they spread abroad).
9. Property right at convenience of big corp. Monsanto and other US corp can get inside the country, still cultural knowledge (the how to) on natural resources and patented as their own. They can modify the genetics and inside circuit of plants-animals reproduction system and create a similar one to replace the natural, if the maximize profit with them. The fact is that the right of private property is eliminated with the neoliberal policies. The foreclosures scandal in the US left millions of people without their house property.
All these “profit maximization” policies are called neoliberal. They were designed and implemented abroad since 1985 as the result of the so named “Washington Consensus”. Its implementation caused the current crisis in Egypt and many economic crisis abroad. The US is now victim of their own medicine. In the US there are big lobbies behind the corporations that profit from this economic model. They finance elections, bribe presidents and senator and create the type of mess we have right now all over the world. Egypt can escape the plague if now they create a new economic and political system.
ALTERNATIVES TO NEOLIBERALISM
1. There are many (the US had their own, the Glass Steagle Act, it was des-implemented). The one that I want to propose has two roots a) The Alternatives for the Americans 2001, that has been used as a manual by most people’s uprising in Latino America and b) the Transition to Market-Based Democracy, an adaptation of the previous one by the German Institute Bertelsmann in 2003. The later introduce a concept that they did not elaborate: “Socially responsible”, a concept that is here underscore as a statement that condition the market-based democracy. So the alternative proposal to neoliberalism can be called SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE MARKET-ORIENTED DEMOCRACY. (SR-MOD) Why?
1.1 To rid off the wrong assumption that market and democracy is an impossible match, as some socialist thinkers suggested. For us “ostracism” is an impossible match with reality. Market is an inescapable reality, as it is the need for capital.
1.2 The problem with current market is that it has been capture by big monopolist corporations oriented to speculation. That is what has to be controlled. By whom? .. by democratic states representing the nation. The claim of "None state control", has no sense, nothing to do with reality, the real fact is that big corporations need state bailouts and state rules on bankruptcy. Non state-society does not exist at all. Do we accept the principle of “profit maximization”. Yes, under the limits of State democratic rules. Speculative capital must be subject to national and international regulations.
1.3 The Washington Consensus should be modified with the Egyptian consensus resulting from deliberations in the National Constitutional Assembly called by the transitional government to draft the new Constitution as soon a Mubarak and his VP Suleiman are deposed. This is what IS called socially responsible, market oriented democracy (SR-MOD). With this premises in mind what are the possible scenarios in debate? I assumne their leaderS will elaborate an ACTION plan that could contain the following points
MINIMUM PLAN WITH SEVEN POINTS TO KEEP ALIVE THE REVOLUTION
MAIN OBJECTIVE
A socially responsible market oriented democracy departs from the principle that the market should be regulated at the national and regional level (other Arab states) in the interest of peace, parliamentarian democracy, sustainable development (the one that solve present needs and demands of society without compromising the needs of future generations) and economic stability (starting with the adoption of regional or international currency other than dollar). This implies a shift from over emphasis on exports based on exploitation of natural resources (raw material) and workers, to a national production-development rooted in domestic capital and in full respect of the rights of workers and human rights.
MINIMUM PLAN
1. Zero interference from international financial corporations and their military apparatus over the Egyptian State-Nation structures at economic and political level. This implies the immediate evacuation of US military troops. Egypt should not have any prison center for torturing innocent people. Immediate liberation of all political prisoners.
2. Investigate and Confiscate the 70 billion stole by Mubarak clan to pay the foreign debt and file him before International courts for crimes against humanity and corruption. This implies the setup of a Committee for Truth and Reconciliation
3. Voice and decision making power to people on the bases on information gather from direct and live broadcasting of all negotiation in the government palace regarding the economic future of Egypt
4. Strengthen environmental standards and labor rights protection for all, regardless of their immigrations status, gender, race or religious faith.
5. Immediate negotiation to adopt policies that implies financial shift from speculation to long term investments in productive activities
6. Immediate call for proposals to close the gap between rich and poor and regional disparities
7. Separation from religion and state. The right to have or not to have a religion should be protected for all citizens of Egypt. In public schools secularism and science should prevail.
Final note
The key for Egypt and Arab countries to open a path inside the global current context is to promote democratic governments via peaceful means, rather than living the future in the evil hands of the market forces and its current profiteers. Egypt should foster this aim and coordinate their actions with other movements at regional level.
THE FIGHT FOR POLITICAL & ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNITY
HAZ, February 10, 2011
“A genuinely representative Egyptian government [would] reject the slavish pro-American, pro-Israeli clientelism of its predecessor,” Dr. Hudson writes. “That need not mean that Egypt will become a spearhead for anti-Western, anti-Israeli projects. On the contrary, a genuinely legitimate Egyptian government could set a prominent example for non-authoritarian, participatory government throughout the region and play a decisive role in leading the Middle East out of its present dysfunctional condition.”. Michael Hudson. “Egypt on the Brink: The Arab World at a Tipping Point?”. January 29, 2011.
Egypt has three major general problems
A) At political level we have:
First a lawless state: obsolete constitution (centralist presidentialism) that procreates autocratic rulers.
Second, a political regimen without the minimums of democracy (no respect for civil and political rights of their citizens, not real separation of powers -legislative, executive and judiciary with checks and balances-, no fair elections.
Third, no respect for human rights (crimes against humanity have been committed over and over).
Fourth, rampant cronyism and scandalous corruption (The Guardian, Al Jazeera and Egiptian bloggers informed that 70 billion has been embezzled by Mubarak’s family with the complicity of the VP and those who run the central national bank and foreign bankers who are hiding the fortune stolen to the Egyptian people).
ALTERNATIVE
It is required a Transitional government that call elections for a National Constitutional Assembly to reform the current Constitution and once approved, call for immediate democratic elections to establish a new regimen.
B) At economic level we have:
B.1) Explosive economic crisis. In 2010 Egyptian had the lowest income per capita in the region, if we compare their GDP per capita with Iran, Turkey, Saudis and Israel, and the highest poverty rate (20% up). Both figure indicate that the official rate of unemployment (10%) is faked. The gap between rich and poor was also one of the highest. These statistics gathered from the WB (collapsed by the website www.allaboutmideast.com) speak for the explosive environment that give base to the social uprising.
B.2) Huge foreign debt and negative trade balance. Egypt has a foreign debt that is growing faster in the region: in the year 2000 it was 27 billion and in 2010 it was 35 billion in USD. This explains the cuts in social spending (education, health and Medicare). Besides, Egypt has the worst trade balance in the region: negative -23%. Both (foreign debt effects and negative trade deficit) indicate that Egypt has stagnant economy. That explains the inexistent job market for young people, one of the main actors of people’s rebellion.
Economic reality & History motivating people.
It is disturbing: people and soldiers of a country located just in the best commercial and geopolitical world spot, obligated to take the crumbs of the big business.. The Suez canal and the SUMED Pipeline that cross Egypt provides literally the biggest arteries of crude oil that fuels the European and the US economy. According to the US Energy Information Administration EIA, Almost 35,000 ships transited the Suez Canal in 2009, 10 percent were petroleum tankers.In November of 2010, petroleum (both crude oil and refined products) as well as liquefied natural gas (LNG) accounted for 13 and 11 percent of Suez cargos, measured by cargo tonnage, respectively. Total petroleum transit volume was close to 2 million bbl/d, below 5% of seaborne oil trade in 2010. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/world_oil_transit_chokepoints/Suez.html).
The revenues coming from this business did not go to the people nor to the army who in 1956 nationalized the Suez Canal with Naser, nor to those who gave their life to defended it when the Brits and Israelis declared war to Egypt after the canal was nationalized. If the American army did not invade Egypt was because the Russian threat to come too, and they make a clear warning by launching the Sputnik.
Today wars are different (the old ones drain the economy), today we have a financial war in process. China is one of the biggest user of the Suez canal and they want their business be done in SDRs, not in dollars. SDRs were created in 1969 by the International Monetary Fund to use as a reserve currency as the dollar tottered. SDR is a kind of synthetic currency whose value is determined by a basket of major currencies ($, Yen, Euro and Pound). See Wall Street Journal, march 24, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123785404446020041.html
Since early 1970s, some banks took deposits denominated in SDRs and some companies even issued bonds in the currency. But the market always remained small, the main use of SDRs today is to account for transactions between the IMF and its member nations. If the US insist in creating chaos in Egypt with Mubarak and the CIA-VP, they will push harder for SDR as main currency for international trade. 1970s was a warning more powerful than the sputnik in 1957.
Where is the money of the oil-trade business that cross the Suez canal?. It went to the pockets of Mubarak autocratic clan. This is the source of the 70 billion they stole from Egyptian people. Egyptians and the army were humiliated when Mubarak made them to obey US commands and to knee in front of Israelis who twice declared war against Egypt. The current uprising is loaded with these memories. Egyptian do not need Mubarak, nor Suleiman (the CIA agent) to take control of the nation. This is the meaning of the 2nd stage of the revolution, once Mubara and the VP (CIA agent) are out. The struggle will be for political and economic sovereignty. The aim will not be to retaliate, it will be to create a new democracy in which all Egyptian enjoy a decent life with peace.
b.3 the two biggest economic problems today
Egypt has to define two strategies, the first against neoliberal policies, and the 2nd against the Quantitative Easing (QE) that are threatening to disrupt emerging economies.
Quantitative Easings
The US has designed these QEs (the printing of billions of dollars) to flood clients states with credit in the hands of speculators to go buy foreign resources, real state, public and private infrastructure, bonds and corporate stock ownership with money that contain behind debt. It is a huge Ponzi scheme in process since they use debt money to buy resources abroad. It is also a device to sell the US debt among their partners with faked dollars by just taking advantage of the dollar as national reserve (central bank deposits) and the currency for trade business. So the US speculators can buy all those shipping companies (or others) in the Suez Canal that are in bad shape or buy the shares that Mubarak’s family has in this trade business as a condition to protect the part of the 70 billion he stole and is in dollars (maybe he bought US Treasury Bonds). The Germans want the part that is in euros too. It does not matter what they do with this puppet. What matter is what to do with the speculators coming with huge amount of credits flooding Egypt with QE money.
First, What is the meaning of neoliberalism? Why it is a big major problem?
Why we said that the Egyptian uprising is the result of the implementation of neoliberal politics?
Why? because the neoliberal formula prescribed the following:
1- Over protection of foreign capital investment (not national nor social capital) and not matter if foreign capital is speculative. This policy comes with severe criminalization of debt payment defaults and the elimination of the right to bankruptcy for small business n common people, this right is reserved only to big bankers via bailouts, currency devaluation and more taxes.
2- Privatization of State and public resources
3 Cuts in State social expenses (education, health, etc).
4- Tax policy in favor of the rich. The state is obligated to widen the tax base instead of taxing the rich. This implies the elimination of small informal business for not paying taxes but instead the tax evasion of the rich is protected.
5. Manipulation of bank interest rate and currency parity with dollar. The State central bank (ministry of economy n staff) is controlled by big financial corporation in New York and their job is to control domestic credit and raise interest rate to attract foreign financial inflows. The other job is to manipulate the currency parity rate with the dollar in their interest, not the national one, plus the usual functionalist work. [So people in Egypt or elsewhere can elect their puppet, but the Ministry of economy, Interior (the one who deals with the army and police), exterior (the one who deal with lobbyist of big corp in Washington) and Press-communication (if there is one) is controlled by the US agencies and the US embassy.].
6. Trade liberalization (at convenience of the US corp). Egypt can sing FTA with other nation but not with the privileges given to US free trade agreement. Besides, this freedom best serve the rich, nor poor and middle classes, these ones do not have the same leverage to associate and get similar advantages (if they find a niche) since the big circuits of trade are already monopolized by big corporation. So it is “free” trade with “exclusion” and exclusive trade privileges.
7. Full liberalization of foreign capital inversion (free to get in and free to get out whenever they one). They can dispossess native population from their land and water, pollute the environment and eliminate the protesters with thugs criminal organizations and private mercenaries from abroad.
8. Deregulation of labor policies, not minimum salaries nor adjustments according to profits. Child labor under the table is allow (sub-contracts and outsourcing contracts) and social benefits (helath among others) only if labor is trapped by private for-profit insurers co. (now this policy is being obligated in the same US, they are getting the taste of the poison they spread abroad).
9. Property right at convenience of big corp. Monsanto and other US corp can get inside the country, still cultural knowledge (the how to) on natural resources and patented as their own. They can modify the genetics and inside circuit of plants-animals reproduction system and create a similar one to replace the natural, if the maximize profit with them. The fact is that the right of private property is eliminated with the neoliberal policies. The foreclosures scandal in the US left millions of people without their house property.
All these “profit maximization” policies are called neoliberal. They were designed and implemented abroad since 1985 as the result of the so named “Washington Consensus”. Its implementation caused the current crisis in Egypt and many economic crisis abroad. The US is now victim of their own medicine. In the US there are big lobbies behind the corporations that profit from this economic model. They finance elections, bribe presidents and senator and create the type of mess we have right now all over the world. Egypt can escape the plague if now they create a new economic and political system.
ALTERNATIVES TO NEOLIBERALISM
1. There are many (the US had their own, the Glass Steagle Act, it was des-implemented). The one that I want to propose has two roots a) The Alternatives for the Americans 2001, that has been used as a manual by most people’s uprising in Latino America and b) the Transition to Market-Based Democracy, an adaptation of the previous one by the German Institute Bertelsmann in 2003. The later introduce a concept that they did not elaborate: “Socially responsible”, a concept that is here underscore as a statement that condition the market-based democracy. So the alternative proposal to neoliberalism can be called SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE MARKET-ORIENTED DEMOCRACY. (SR-MOD) Why?
1.1 To rid off the wrong assumption that market and democracy is an impossible match, as some socialist thinkers suggested. For us “ostracism” is an impossible match with reality. Market is an inescapable reality, as it is the need for capital.
1.2 The problem with current market is that it has been capture by big monopolist corporations oriented to speculation. That is what has to be controlled. By whom? .. by democratic states representing the nation. The claim of "None state control", has no sense, nothing to do with reality, the real fact is that big corporations need state bailouts and state rules on bankruptcy. Non state-society does not exist at all. Do we accept the principle of “profit maximization”. Yes, under the limits of State democratic rules. Speculative capital must be subject to national and international regulations.
1.3 The Washington Consensus should be modified with the Egyptian consensus resulting from deliberations in the National Constitutional Assembly called by the transitional government to draft the new Constitution as soon a Mubarak and his VP Suleiman are deposed. This is what IS called socially responsible, market oriented democracy (SR-MOD). With this premises in mind what are the possible scenarios in debate? I assumne their leaderS will elaborate an ACTION plan that could contain the following points
MINIMUM PLAN WITH SEVEN POINTS TO KEEP ALIVE THE REVOLUTION
MAIN OBJECTIVE
A socially responsible market oriented democracy departs from the principle that the market should be regulated at the national and regional level (other Arab states) in the interest of peace, parliamentarian democracy, sustainable development (the one that solve present needs and demands of society without compromising the needs of future generations) and economic stability (starting with the adoption of regional or international currency other than dollar). This implies a shift from over emphasis on exports based on exploitation of natural resources (raw material) and workers, to a national production-development rooted in domestic capital and in full respect of the rights of workers and human rights.
MINIMUM PLAN
1. Zero interference from international financial corporations and their military apparatus over the Egyptian State-Nation structures at economic and political level. This implies the immediate evacuation of US military troops. Egypt should not have any prison center for torturing innocent people. Immediate liberation of all political prisoners.
2. Investigate and Confiscate the 70 billion stole by Mubarak clan to pay the foreign debt and file him before International courts for crimes against humanity and corruption. This implies the setup of a Committee for Truth and Reconciliation
3. Voice and decision making power to people on the bases on information gather from direct and live broadcasting of all negotiation in the government palace regarding the economic future of Egypt
4. Strengthen environmental standards and labor rights protection for all, regardless of their immigrations status, gender, race or religious faith.
5. Immediate negotiation to adopt policies that implies financial shift from speculation to long term investments in productive activities
6. Immediate call for proposals to close the gap between rich and poor and regional disparities
7. Separation from religion and state. The right to have or not to have a religion should be protected for all citizens of Egypt. In public schools secularism and science should prevail.
Final note
The key for Egypt and Arab countries to open a path inside the global current context is to promote democratic governments via peaceful means, rather than living the future in the evil hands of the market forces and its current profiteers. Egypt should foster this aim and coordinate their actions with other movements at regional level.
miércoles, 9 de febrero de 2011
R. FISK The Great Tragedy is Obama Chose Not to Hold Out His Hand
The Great Tragedy is Obama Chose Not to Hold Out His Hand:
Robert Fisk on the Gap Between U.S. Rhetoric and Action in the Egyptian Uprising
Democracy now February 09, 2011
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/9/the_great_tragedy_is_obama_chose
The longtime Middle East correspondent of The Independent newspaper in London joins us from Cairo to talk about the popular uprising ongoing across Egypt, its regional implications, and how Obama should respond. “[The protesters] are asking for nothing less than Americans accept in their own lives,” Fisk says.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Robert Fisk of The Independent newspaper. He, too, is in Cairo. I asked him about the U.S. role in Egypt and the Middle East.
ROBERT FISK: What they’re calling out for are everything which ordinary Americans would agree with: multi-party democracy; a new constitution which gives equal rights to everyone; an end to fraudulent elections, which have allowed, of course, Mubarak to carry on year after year for three decades until the age of 83, based on elections that gave 97.8, 97.9 percent of the victory; and an end, in fact, to long presidential periods of six years in office, bringing it down to four years; and they want a maximum two terms for a president, rather than indefinite presidency or presidency for life, which is effectively what Mubarak got. These people are therefore asking for nothing less than Americans accept in their own lives.
And the great tragedy is that at this critical moment, Obama chose not to hold out his hand to the democrats and to say, "We support you, and Mubarak must go." He chose to support, effectively, Mubarak by saying orderly transition. You know, he wants another general—he’s already got one, Omar Suleiman, the Vice President—to take over. The army, which receives $1.3 billions of American taxpayers’ money every year, is going to be called upon to try and make this transition, even though Mubarak himself, of course, was the head of the air force. He was a general, too.
Omar Suleiman, the Vice President, is a general, head of intelligence, a very ruthless man. His people carried out a lot of tortures in the past against Islamist uprisings in Egypt. And for many of the people on the street, there was deep disappointment that at this critical moment the President of the United States, who came here to Cairo just under 18 months ago to tell the Muslim world—he held up their hand, and he said, "Do not clench your fists in response." When the democrats came onto the streets of Cairo and wanted what Obama had advertised to them, it was Obama who clenched his fist and Hillary Clinton who said that it’s a stable regime.
Only now, when they realize that perhaps Mubarak is going to go, mainly because the army want to get rid of him, not the protesters—and another part of the tragedy—are they beginning to say, "Well, we’ve got to get rid of this old man," but not, of course, to replace him with real democrats but to replace him with an army-backed regime, which is effectively Mubarak part two.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about the U.S. relationship with the military? I was talking to someone in a government agency in Washington, and they were deeply concerned, saying, "How do we counter the image that we’ve actually been supporting this despot for 30 years?" And someone else replied, "We can’t, because we have been supporting him."
ROBERT FISK: Yeah, and I think, in a way, you see, what happens is it becomes a sort of osmotic relationship. First of all, the Egyptians are wooed from the Soviet side under Sadat, who basically left the Soviet Union to the American side. Then the Americans arm them, feed them, clothe them, uniform them, after which, however independent they want to be, in order to feed, they’ve got to go to Washington.
It was interesting that when Tantawi, the commander-in-chief of the army, was coping with this crisis here, the Pentagon snapped its fingers, and he flew straight away to Washington for the serious consultations at the Pentagon—in other words, to get his instructions. I mean, he wouldn’t say that. It’ll be "advise," "Where are things going, General? You know, fill this out here. Give us a briefing," etc. But at the end of the day, he’d be left in no doubt that if he wanted to get more Abrams tanks and extra missiles, he’s got to do what America wants, which primarily now is get rid of Mubarak, but don’t make it look as if it’s our fault.
You see, American—the problem with the Americans is that when you—the moral values of the United States become disentangled from the national interest at critical moments like this. You know, we all want democracy, but not if we lose Mubarak, who is Israel’s man, etc., etc. And this, of course, doesn’t come as a great surprise to the Arabs, although, as I wrote in the paper, had Obama decided to say, "Look, I’m with the democrats; they’re doing what I talked about in Cairo 18 months ago, 17 months ago," there would have been American flags all over Cairo, all over Egypt. And indeed, it would have solved, in many Arab minds, all the wounds that the Arab and Muslim world has sustained from the United States, and particularly Britain as well, over the last 10 years.
AMY GOODMAN: In fact, there’s the current U.S. ambassador to Egypt, right? Margaret Scobey.
ROBERT FISK: Yeah. Well, I mean, there is, although she doesn’t seem to move around very much. One of the interesting things is that the one group of people you do not see on the streets of Cairo are American diplomats. Presumably they get their information from Egyptians who come and tell them what’s going on.
And there was, by the way, slightly to tangent, a very odd episode on the 28th of January, when a vehicle identified by the crowds as a U.S. armored limousine crashed through anti-Mubarak demonstrators, running many of them down, and went out the end of the street. They identified it as an American embassy vehicle. And the embassy then came out, unattributably, as saying, "Our diplomats don’t go out in the streets in such circumstances," which is clearly true. And then they suddenly said, "Several of our vehicles were stolen that day." They didn’t tell us that on the 28th of January; they waited until February to tell us. Well, how did they get those vehicles stolen? Did they lend them to the Mubarak government, perhaps? Or did they know the police had taken them and therefore chose to keep silent about it? There are many things like that.
I mean, another example is when the first M1 Abrams tanks came into the square on the Friday. I’m talking about when they were ordered to attack the crowds. I noticed that the coding on the front of the vehicle—it had Egyptian codings for the brigades and parachute units on the side, in Arabic and Arabic numerals. But on the front of the vehicle was a coding, which began MFR and then a series of numbers of each vehicle. And I actually took it down, and a parachute officer started shouting at me and told two soldiers to arrest me. And I actually ran away into the crowd to get away from them. And they chased me and then stopped, and obviously, confronted by about 10,000 demonstrators, decided better of it. And it seems that MFR stands for Mobile Force Reserve. And these are American-owned vehicles. These are American tactical deployment matériel, which is stored in Egypt, as it is also stored of course in Kuwait and now in Iraq for use in emergencies in the Gulf.
Now, these vehicles, these tanks, which were threatening at that point the demonstrators, appear to have been vehicles that actually belong to the American military, not to the Egyptian military, but which were obviously used by the Egyptians in this instance. The Egyptians do make the Abrams tank and also have some of their own, but these vehicles appear to be vehicles that effectively belong to you or the Pentagon or whatever. The question is, did the Americans know they were being taken? Did they give permission for this? But none of the soldiers minded pictures being taken of their vehicles or the coding on the side in Arabic, but the moment I took down letters in the Roman letters and the Roman numeral, or rather, modern numerals, they didn’t like it at all. So I have a feeling these were actually reserve vehicles belonging to your country which were being used by Mubarak’s government.
So there’s a whole series of unanswered questions that we don’t really know the answer to, and I don’t suppose we’ll find out yet. But like the tortures in police stations, which are now coming to light, I think that if this regime does crumble—and I think it is steadily crumbling; I mean, the whole National Democratic Party is now just a cardboard facade, especially since the burning of its headquarters—we’re going to learn a lot more of what went on behind the scenes. And it won’t be nice, and it won’t be something that U.S. governments will want to associate themselves with.
AMY GOODMAN: The implications of this for other countries, for a kind of pan-Arab rebellion? Of course, Tunisia, then Egypt. What do you see happening in Israel, Palestine, in Jordan?
ROBERT FISK: Clearly, we have maintained—first the British and the French, and then after the Second World War, with the Americans—we have maintained a system of patronage for ruthless, anti-democratic dictators across the region. We’ve called them kings, we’ve called them emirs, we’ve called them princes, we’ve called them generals, we’ve called them all kinds of presidents, and in Bahrain, for example, you’ve got His Supreme Majesty the King, who rules over an island about half the size of, I suppose, Detroit, if that. But because of this, you know, inevitably, when you have one country suddenly breaking through to freedom, through watching Al Jazeera, for example, the other people in the region, in Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Morocco, Mauritania, then begin—Algeria, especially—then begin to say, "Well, you know, we demand the same rights. We have a right to live. We have a right to oxygen."
But, you know, I think that in some ways the uprising here has more in common with the revolt of Iranians against the results of the Iranian elections in 2009, which, remember, the opposition was crushed after, than it does with sort of the Iranian Revolution or something on a bigger scale. And I’m not entirely certain—you know, these may be tribes with flags, as a Crusader historian or historian of the Crusades once described the Arab world, but these are not all the same people. For example, the opposition to King Abdullah in Jordan actually really comes from elements of the army who feel the Palestinians have become too strong in Jordan. The opposition in Syria would be Sunnis who object to the Alawite minority leadership of the country, where it becomes a more sectarian issue rather than an issue of democracy, which is the case in Egypt, because [inaudible] virtually everybody here is a Sunni Muslim, including of course our dear President Mubarak—or their dear President Mubarak. So I think that, you know, I’m a bit suspicious of the idea that just because the Tunisians have a revolution and it spreads to Egypt, therefore, you know—true, there are food demonstrations or high-price demonstrations and protests against the economy in Jordan and certainly protests against Saleh, the president of Yemen, but I’m not sure it’s all the same.
And remember that Tunisia, the famous Jasmine Revolution—this, I gather, is going to be called the Papyrus Revolution, heaven help us, in Egypt—in Tunisia, the revolution has actually only replaced so far Ben Ali with his mates. I mean, Ghannouchi is a friend of Ben Ali. He was one of his schoolmates, I believe. And here, you’ve got to remember that Omar Suleiman, the new savior of Egypt, with whom all these people are supposed to negotiate, he is a very close, personal, lifelong friend of Mubarak, and he was a general. So, while at the same time on the surface you’ve got this democratic uprising, and suddenly we’re going to have all these new countries, and they’re all going to be lovely and believe in our secular values, at the end of the day, the fear is not the Muslim Brotherhood Islamicism; it’s the fear that more generals will be appointed to work for the West. And that is basically what is happening. And, you know, if, say, King Abdullah were in some way persuaded to leave his country, the Jordanian army will be persuaded to find another member of the royal family to take over the job, but perhaps more constitutionally. So the idea that there’s going to be this massive sort of overthrow of dictators, yes, there might be, but there will be more dictators ready to take the role, but playing a sort of softer role and then gently introducing more emergency laws and restrictions on crowds gathering, and so on and so forth, and you’re back to square one.
Corruption has become so much part of the economy, the oil that makes the economy work—and corruption, of course, is the way in which dictators control their people—that the whole system, the whole functioning of society in the Middle East, has been almost irreparably damaged over the decades by the way in which we in the West have encouraged it to function and which the dictators are very happy to function, either on our behalf and of course financially on their own.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think President Obama should do?
ROBERT FISK: Well, it’s always the same case when you or anyone else asks me about U.S. policy. The question is what he should have done.
You know, I never really believed quite in Obama. I was very struck by his reference in the Cairo speech, the famous reach-out-my-hand-to-the-Muslims speech, when he referred to the relocation of the Palestinians in 1948, as if the Palestinians suddenly got up and said, "Oh, let’s all go skiing in Lebanon today and never quite go home again," rather than being driven from their homes or fleeing in terror from the new Israeli army at the time. And I think that, you know, because of his weakness vis-à-vis the Republicans and of course the recent midterm elections and because of his vanity—I mean, Obama should never have taken the Nobel Prize; Nobel Prize of Public Speaking, maybe, but, I mean, he should have said, "Look, I’m not worthy of it, but thank you"—he’s missed so many steps he could have taken to show that the moral values which he claimed to espouse in that famous Cairo speech, which I attended at Cairo University a few—just about a mile from where I’m talking to you now, and only two miles from Tahrir Square, actually.
You know, if only he had stuck to those moral values in the Arab world, the warmth of the Arab world towards America, which was there in the '50s and ’60s even after the establishment of Israel and was certainly there in the ’20s and ’30s, might have been reestablished. But it was a critical moment. And because of Israel's wishes—you know, the Israelis have made it fairly clear they don’t think, you know, these Arabs really should have these elections; I mean, keep Mubarak, you know? or keep some version of Mubarak—and because of his domestic critics—you know, "Are you going to lose Egypt now, Mr. President?"—I know that’s already coming up in editorials—he did blew it. He blinked. He was weak. He was vain. He chose not to support the good guys.
People say, well, you know—someone said to me on a radio show in Ireland yesterday, "Oh, come on, Robert, you’re always saying America should keep its nose out of other countries. Now you want it to interfere." But the fact is, it does interfere. It’s paying $1.3 billion to the regime every year. Therefore, it is time for it to take the right side in Egypt, and it failed to do so. And that failure will cost America yet again. It’s a tragedy in many ways. You know, here was an opportunity suddenly to get it right, and he flunked it. And he’s seen as being a very weak man in the Arab world. You know, Bush was seen as—in a sense, people preferred Bush, because they saw him as an intemperate bully, which is pretty much what he was out here, whereas Obama came forward with—you know, as a man who seemed to have something to offer of moral value. And at the end of the day, the moral values have gone out of the window, and we’re back with "Oh, the Egyptian people must decide, but it must be an orderly transition," where "orderly" can mean another six or seven months of Mubarak.
And, of course, the nightmare here is that if the demonstrators go home—whether they get arrested or not, and beaten and tortured afterwards is not the point—then there will be more stability, tourists will come back, the army will be happy, and then Mubarak will suddenly discover that, for the good of Egypt, he would like another six-year term starting in September this year. That, I think, is probably the nightmare scenario and not one that’s entirely, you know, without credibility.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, speaking to us from Cairo, the longtime Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper of London, author of a number of books, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.
Robert Fisk on the Gap Between U.S. Rhetoric and Action in the Egyptian Uprising
Democracy now February 09, 2011
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/9/the_great_tragedy_is_obama_chose
The longtime Middle East correspondent of The Independent newspaper in London joins us from Cairo to talk about the popular uprising ongoing across Egypt, its regional implications, and how Obama should respond. “[The protesters] are asking for nothing less than Americans accept in their own lives,” Fisk says.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Robert Fisk of The Independent newspaper. He, too, is in Cairo. I asked him about the U.S. role in Egypt and the Middle East.
ROBERT FISK: What they’re calling out for are everything which ordinary Americans would agree with: multi-party democracy; a new constitution which gives equal rights to everyone; an end to fraudulent elections, which have allowed, of course, Mubarak to carry on year after year for three decades until the age of 83, based on elections that gave 97.8, 97.9 percent of the victory; and an end, in fact, to long presidential periods of six years in office, bringing it down to four years; and they want a maximum two terms for a president, rather than indefinite presidency or presidency for life, which is effectively what Mubarak got. These people are therefore asking for nothing less than Americans accept in their own lives.
And the great tragedy is that at this critical moment, Obama chose not to hold out his hand to the democrats and to say, "We support you, and Mubarak must go." He chose to support, effectively, Mubarak by saying orderly transition. You know, he wants another general—he’s already got one, Omar Suleiman, the Vice President—to take over. The army, which receives $1.3 billions of American taxpayers’ money every year, is going to be called upon to try and make this transition, even though Mubarak himself, of course, was the head of the air force. He was a general, too.
Omar Suleiman, the Vice President, is a general, head of intelligence, a very ruthless man. His people carried out a lot of tortures in the past against Islamist uprisings in Egypt. And for many of the people on the street, there was deep disappointment that at this critical moment the President of the United States, who came here to Cairo just under 18 months ago to tell the Muslim world—he held up their hand, and he said, "Do not clench your fists in response." When the democrats came onto the streets of Cairo and wanted what Obama had advertised to them, it was Obama who clenched his fist and Hillary Clinton who said that it’s a stable regime.
Only now, when they realize that perhaps Mubarak is going to go, mainly because the army want to get rid of him, not the protesters—and another part of the tragedy—are they beginning to say, "Well, we’ve got to get rid of this old man," but not, of course, to replace him with real democrats but to replace him with an army-backed regime, which is effectively Mubarak part two.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about the U.S. relationship with the military? I was talking to someone in a government agency in Washington, and they were deeply concerned, saying, "How do we counter the image that we’ve actually been supporting this despot for 30 years?" And someone else replied, "We can’t, because we have been supporting him."
ROBERT FISK: Yeah, and I think, in a way, you see, what happens is it becomes a sort of osmotic relationship. First of all, the Egyptians are wooed from the Soviet side under Sadat, who basically left the Soviet Union to the American side. Then the Americans arm them, feed them, clothe them, uniform them, after which, however independent they want to be, in order to feed, they’ve got to go to Washington.
It was interesting that when Tantawi, the commander-in-chief of the army, was coping with this crisis here, the Pentagon snapped its fingers, and he flew straight away to Washington for the serious consultations at the Pentagon—in other words, to get his instructions. I mean, he wouldn’t say that. It’ll be "advise," "Where are things going, General? You know, fill this out here. Give us a briefing," etc. But at the end of the day, he’d be left in no doubt that if he wanted to get more Abrams tanks and extra missiles, he’s got to do what America wants, which primarily now is get rid of Mubarak, but don’t make it look as if it’s our fault.
You see, American—the problem with the Americans is that when you—the moral values of the United States become disentangled from the national interest at critical moments like this. You know, we all want democracy, but not if we lose Mubarak, who is Israel’s man, etc., etc. And this, of course, doesn’t come as a great surprise to the Arabs, although, as I wrote in the paper, had Obama decided to say, "Look, I’m with the democrats; they’re doing what I talked about in Cairo 18 months ago, 17 months ago," there would have been American flags all over Cairo, all over Egypt. And indeed, it would have solved, in many Arab minds, all the wounds that the Arab and Muslim world has sustained from the United States, and particularly Britain as well, over the last 10 years.
AMY GOODMAN: In fact, there’s the current U.S. ambassador to Egypt, right? Margaret Scobey.
ROBERT FISK: Yeah. Well, I mean, there is, although she doesn’t seem to move around very much. One of the interesting things is that the one group of people you do not see on the streets of Cairo are American diplomats. Presumably they get their information from Egyptians who come and tell them what’s going on.
And there was, by the way, slightly to tangent, a very odd episode on the 28th of January, when a vehicle identified by the crowds as a U.S. armored limousine crashed through anti-Mubarak demonstrators, running many of them down, and went out the end of the street. They identified it as an American embassy vehicle. And the embassy then came out, unattributably, as saying, "Our diplomats don’t go out in the streets in such circumstances," which is clearly true. And then they suddenly said, "Several of our vehicles were stolen that day." They didn’t tell us that on the 28th of January; they waited until February to tell us. Well, how did they get those vehicles stolen? Did they lend them to the Mubarak government, perhaps? Or did they know the police had taken them and therefore chose to keep silent about it? There are many things like that.
I mean, another example is when the first M1 Abrams tanks came into the square on the Friday. I’m talking about when they were ordered to attack the crowds. I noticed that the coding on the front of the vehicle—it had Egyptian codings for the brigades and parachute units on the side, in Arabic and Arabic numerals. But on the front of the vehicle was a coding, which began MFR and then a series of numbers of each vehicle. And I actually took it down, and a parachute officer started shouting at me and told two soldiers to arrest me. And I actually ran away into the crowd to get away from them. And they chased me and then stopped, and obviously, confronted by about 10,000 demonstrators, decided better of it. And it seems that MFR stands for Mobile Force Reserve. And these are American-owned vehicles. These are American tactical deployment matériel, which is stored in Egypt, as it is also stored of course in Kuwait and now in Iraq for use in emergencies in the Gulf.
Now, these vehicles, these tanks, which were threatening at that point the demonstrators, appear to have been vehicles that actually belong to the American military, not to the Egyptian military, but which were obviously used by the Egyptians in this instance. The Egyptians do make the Abrams tank and also have some of their own, but these vehicles appear to be vehicles that effectively belong to you or the Pentagon or whatever. The question is, did the Americans know they were being taken? Did they give permission for this? But none of the soldiers minded pictures being taken of their vehicles or the coding on the side in Arabic, but the moment I took down letters in the Roman letters and the Roman numeral, or rather, modern numerals, they didn’t like it at all. So I have a feeling these were actually reserve vehicles belonging to your country which were being used by Mubarak’s government.
So there’s a whole series of unanswered questions that we don’t really know the answer to, and I don’t suppose we’ll find out yet. But like the tortures in police stations, which are now coming to light, I think that if this regime does crumble—and I think it is steadily crumbling; I mean, the whole National Democratic Party is now just a cardboard facade, especially since the burning of its headquarters—we’re going to learn a lot more of what went on behind the scenes. And it won’t be nice, and it won’t be something that U.S. governments will want to associate themselves with.
AMY GOODMAN: The implications of this for other countries, for a kind of pan-Arab rebellion? Of course, Tunisia, then Egypt. What do you see happening in Israel, Palestine, in Jordan?
ROBERT FISK: Clearly, we have maintained—first the British and the French, and then after the Second World War, with the Americans—we have maintained a system of patronage for ruthless, anti-democratic dictators across the region. We’ve called them kings, we’ve called them emirs, we’ve called them princes, we’ve called them generals, we’ve called them all kinds of presidents, and in Bahrain, for example, you’ve got His Supreme Majesty the King, who rules over an island about half the size of, I suppose, Detroit, if that. But because of this, you know, inevitably, when you have one country suddenly breaking through to freedom, through watching Al Jazeera, for example, the other people in the region, in Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Morocco, Mauritania, then begin—Algeria, especially—then begin to say, "Well, you know, we demand the same rights. We have a right to live. We have a right to oxygen."
But, you know, I think that in some ways the uprising here has more in common with the revolt of Iranians against the results of the Iranian elections in 2009, which, remember, the opposition was crushed after, than it does with sort of the Iranian Revolution or something on a bigger scale. And I’m not entirely certain—you know, these may be tribes with flags, as a Crusader historian or historian of the Crusades once described the Arab world, but these are not all the same people. For example, the opposition to King Abdullah in Jordan actually really comes from elements of the army who feel the Palestinians have become too strong in Jordan. The opposition in Syria would be Sunnis who object to the Alawite minority leadership of the country, where it becomes a more sectarian issue rather than an issue of democracy, which is the case in Egypt, because [inaudible] virtually everybody here is a Sunni Muslim, including of course our dear President Mubarak—or their dear President Mubarak. So I think that, you know, I’m a bit suspicious of the idea that just because the Tunisians have a revolution and it spreads to Egypt, therefore, you know—true, there are food demonstrations or high-price demonstrations and protests against the economy in Jordan and certainly protests against Saleh, the president of Yemen, but I’m not sure it’s all the same.
And remember that Tunisia, the famous Jasmine Revolution—this, I gather, is going to be called the Papyrus Revolution, heaven help us, in Egypt—in Tunisia, the revolution has actually only replaced so far Ben Ali with his mates. I mean, Ghannouchi is a friend of Ben Ali. He was one of his schoolmates, I believe. And here, you’ve got to remember that Omar Suleiman, the new savior of Egypt, with whom all these people are supposed to negotiate, he is a very close, personal, lifelong friend of Mubarak, and he was a general. So, while at the same time on the surface you’ve got this democratic uprising, and suddenly we’re going to have all these new countries, and they’re all going to be lovely and believe in our secular values, at the end of the day, the fear is not the Muslim Brotherhood Islamicism; it’s the fear that more generals will be appointed to work for the West. And that is basically what is happening. And, you know, if, say, King Abdullah were in some way persuaded to leave his country, the Jordanian army will be persuaded to find another member of the royal family to take over the job, but perhaps more constitutionally. So the idea that there’s going to be this massive sort of overthrow of dictators, yes, there might be, but there will be more dictators ready to take the role, but playing a sort of softer role and then gently introducing more emergency laws and restrictions on crowds gathering, and so on and so forth, and you’re back to square one.
Corruption has become so much part of the economy, the oil that makes the economy work—and corruption, of course, is the way in which dictators control their people—that the whole system, the whole functioning of society in the Middle East, has been almost irreparably damaged over the decades by the way in which we in the West have encouraged it to function and which the dictators are very happy to function, either on our behalf and of course financially on their own.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think President Obama should do?
ROBERT FISK: Well, it’s always the same case when you or anyone else asks me about U.S. policy. The question is what he should have done.
You know, I never really believed quite in Obama. I was very struck by his reference in the Cairo speech, the famous reach-out-my-hand-to-the-Muslims speech, when he referred to the relocation of the Palestinians in 1948, as if the Palestinians suddenly got up and said, "Oh, let’s all go skiing in Lebanon today and never quite go home again," rather than being driven from their homes or fleeing in terror from the new Israeli army at the time. And I think that, you know, because of his weakness vis-à-vis the Republicans and of course the recent midterm elections and because of his vanity—I mean, Obama should never have taken the Nobel Prize; Nobel Prize of Public Speaking, maybe, but, I mean, he should have said, "Look, I’m not worthy of it, but thank you"—he’s missed so many steps he could have taken to show that the moral values which he claimed to espouse in that famous Cairo speech, which I attended at Cairo University a few—just about a mile from where I’m talking to you now, and only two miles from Tahrir Square, actually.
You know, if only he had stuck to those moral values in the Arab world, the warmth of the Arab world towards America, which was there in the '50s and ’60s even after the establishment of Israel and was certainly there in the ’20s and ’30s, might have been reestablished. But it was a critical moment. And because of Israel's wishes—you know, the Israelis have made it fairly clear they don’t think, you know, these Arabs really should have these elections; I mean, keep Mubarak, you know? or keep some version of Mubarak—and because of his domestic critics—you know, "Are you going to lose Egypt now, Mr. President?"—I know that’s already coming up in editorials—he did blew it. He blinked. He was weak. He was vain. He chose not to support the good guys.
People say, well, you know—someone said to me on a radio show in Ireland yesterday, "Oh, come on, Robert, you’re always saying America should keep its nose out of other countries. Now you want it to interfere." But the fact is, it does interfere. It’s paying $1.3 billion to the regime every year. Therefore, it is time for it to take the right side in Egypt, and it failed to do so. And that failure will cost America yet again. It’s a tragedy in many ways. You know, here was an opportunity suddenly to get it right, and he flunked it. And he’s seen as being a very weak man in the Arab world. You know, Bush was seen as—in a sense, people preferred Bush, because they saw him as an intemperate bully, which is pretty much what he was out here, whereas Obama came forward with—you know, as a man who seemed to have something to offer of moral value. And at the end of the day, the moral values have gone out of the window, and we’re back with "Oh, the Egyptian people must decide, but it must be an orderly transition," where "orderly" can mean another six or seven months of Mubarak.
And, of course, the nightmare here is that if the demonstrators go home—whether they get arrested or not, and beaten and tortured afterwards is not the point—then there will be more stability, tourists will come back, the army will be happy, and then Mubarak will suddenly discover that, for the good of Egypt, he would like another six-year term starting in September this year. That, I think, is probably the nightmare scenario and not one that’s entirely, you know, without credibility.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, speaking to us from Cairo, the longtime Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper of London, author of a number of books, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.
WHAT IS NEXT : POINT 3 & 4
WHAT IS NEXT POINT 3 & 4
HAZ , FEB 09,2011
Introduction: WHERE WE ARE?
Excellent the Tuesday 8 response to the dirty tactics of Wisner and Suleiman (divide and conquest): 48 hours last the happiness of winning the Sunday faked dialogue. Today’s meeting in Tahrir square has demonstrated that the real winner is the people’s revolution.
An American with a Latino spirit
As a Latino thinker I would say that the spirit of Che Guevara is alive in the current Middle East revolution. In his time he wanted to open one, two, three Vietnams to defeat the imperialist power and in fact it was defeated in Viet Nam, in Congo and in the same US were the civil rights movement break down the wall of racism and exclusion, but at the cost of too many lives. Today, war is business and we cannot defeat the profiteers of this business with old instruments of social change. Egypt is showing the world that instead of armed revolution, pacifist revolution is much more effective in putting down the collapsing empire. Create ten, twenty or more Egiptians revolutions would be Che’s words today.
Americans and the Egyptian revolution
America won’t fall down like Rome invaded and brutalized by Attilas form the East. America is falling down little by little and Egypt is helping, it is maybe the best euthanasia formula for the old crap, one that most American people wanted too. The other American are living in limbo, in self-denial, they do not want to accept the new reality that is emerging in front of their eyes. They are prisoners of the old habit: war mongerism. Perhaps the noise of the other falling wall, the dollar wall, will wake them up.
What this revolution is all about
Instead of a violent war revolution, Egypt is inaugurating a new age of anti-war revolutions. This pacifist and anti-war revolution is not breaking cement walls like in Berlin, is breaking and putting down the ideological walls of hate and other nasty stereotypes spread worldwide by the corporate media against Muslim people. This is what this revolution is all about, they are defeating the so called “anti-terrorist order” that victimized too many innocent people, while at the same time was the source of money for nasty corporations who profit from the destruction of entire nations accused of being terrorists. The internationalization of the “Patriot Act” that wipe out basic constitutional freedoms and rights in America is causing outside the devastating effects we see now in Egypt. This is what Arab revolutions are dealing with. This is why common people in American and the international community is supporting the Egyptian revolution. As in the time of Che Guevara, when the old colonialism fell down, today is falling down the neoliberal–terrorist order supported by big evil financial corporations.
Democracy as dream
America is already falling down because of wrong economic policies they implement and because they are now invaded ideologically by new recycled values –in fact old values- injected with a new spirit and content by people who really believe in them: democracy. Paradoxically but true, it is American media that spread these words. In Egypt they simply re-loaded with a new meaning, a one that best correspond to the word: direct participation and decision making power in political affaires. In the real political life of America, democracy is the most depictable and corrupted affair. Egyptians dream democracy in a different way, and as long as this revolution continues, and more people comes to the squares in Cairo and major cities, more sense of “direct democracy” will come to its meaning and more powerful will be the social change.
The worst: danger of violence
The worst that could happens to this revolution is the contamination of violence. This is why I consider a criminal act to send to Egypt the Frank Wisner team. This is an open provocation -I would say invitation- to violence. They could have sent the Carter’s team or better the Ocha team from the UN, but put in power the VP and sending Wisner-team was the most provocative and stupid thing in the part of the US administration. They were caught by surprise, someone would say, but not much because since the end of 2007 the debate of changing foreign policies and cut expenses in wars abroad was under the spot light on and now with the fiscal insolvency the old war-ism will no work at all. At this point the dropping bombs and drones to intimidate the pacific demonstrations –as some stupid in the corporate media is suggesting- wont work, it will flame the whole region with unpredictable consequences inside and abroad. Meanwhile, the values and dreams of democracy spread by the same American media, will continue be reloaded with direct decision making power .
WHAT IS NEXT: POINT THREE (later on)
HAZ , FEB 09,2011
Introduction: WHERE WE ARE?
Excellent the Tuesday 8 response to the dirty tactics of Wisner and Suleiman (divide and conquest): 48 hours last the happiness of winning the Sunday faked dialogue. Today’s meeting in Tahrir square has demonstrated that the real winner is the people’s revolution.
An American with a Latino spirit
As a Latino thinker I would say that the spirit of Che Guevara is alive in the current Middle East revolution. In his time he wanted to open one, two, three Vietnams to defeat the imperialist power and in fact it was defeated in Viet Nam, in Congo and in the same US were the civil rights movement break down the wall of racism and exclusion, but at the cost of too many lives. Today, war is business and we cannot defeat the profiteers of this business with old instruments of social change. Egypt is showing the world that instead of armed revolution, pacifist revolution is much more effective in putting down the collapsing empire. Create ten, twenty or more Egiptians revolutions would be Che’s words today.
Americans and the Egyptian revolution
America won’t fall down like Rome invaded and brutalized by Attilas form the East. America is falling down little by little and Egypt is helping, it is maybe the best euthanasia formula for the old crap, one that most American people wanted too. The other American are living in limbo, in self-denial, they do not want to accept the new reality that is emerging in front of their eyes. They are prisoners of the old habit: war mongerism. Perhaps the noise of the other falling wall, the dollar wall, will wake them up.
What this revolution is all about
Instead of a violent war revolution, Egypt is inaugurating a new age of anti-war revolutions. This pacifist and anti-war revolution is not breaking cement walls like in Berlin, is breaking and putting down the ideological walls of hate and other nasty stereotypes spread worldwide by the corporate media against Muslim people. This is what this revolution is all about, they are defeating the so called “anti-terrorist order” that victimized too many innocent people, while at the same time was the source of money for nasty corporations who profit from the destruction of entire nations accused of being terrorists. The internationalization of the “Patriot Act” that wipe out basic constitutional freedoms and rights in America is causing outside the devastating effects we see now in Egypt. This is what Arab revolutions are dealing with. This is why common people in American and the international community is supporting the Egyptian revolution. As in the time of Che Guevara, when the old colonialism fell down, today is falling down the neoliberal–terrorist order supported by big evil financial corporations.
Democracy as dream
America is already falling down because of wrong economic policies they implement and because they are now invaded ideologically by new recycled values –in fact old values- injected with a new spirit and content by people who really believe in them: democracy. Paradoxically but true, it is American media that spread these words. In Egypt they simply re-loaded with a new meaning, a one that best correspond to the word: direct participation and decision making power in political affaires. In the real political life of America, democracy is the most depictable and corrupted affair. Egyptians dream democracy in a different way, and as long as this revolution continues, and more people comes to the squares in Cairo and major cities, more sense of “direct democracy” will come to its meaning and more powerful will be the social change.
The worst: danger of violence
The worst that could happens to this revolution is the contamination of violence. This is why I consider a criminal act to send to Egypt the Frank Wisner team. This is an open provocation -I would say invitation- to violence. They could have sent the Carter’s team or better the Ocha team from the UN, but put in power the VP and sending Wisner-team was the most provocative and stupid thing in the part of the US administration. They were caught by surprise, someone would say, but not much because since the end of 2007 the debate of changing foreign policies and cut expenses in wars abroad was under the spot light on and now with the fiscal insolvency the old war-ism will no work at all. At this point the dropping bombs and drones to intimidate the pacific demonstrations –as some stupid in the corporate media is suggesting- wont work, it will flame the whole region with unpredictable consequences inside and abroad. Meanwhile, the values and dreams of democracy spread by the same American media, will continue be reloaded with direct decision making power .
WHAT IS NEXT: POINT THREE (later on)
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)