STOP AUTHORITARIAN DIALOGUES

STOP AUTHORITARIAN DIALOGUES

THE ABC FOR A DEMOCRATIC DIALOGUE IN SOVEREIGN STATES
From Haz, February 8, 2011

Introduction.

In a recent statement to the nation President Obama said that “the Mubarak regime is gone”. Meaning: The CIA is in charge; the rulers now are Frank Wisner (the new chief of the CIA in Egypt) and Omar Suleiman (now a subordinated CIA agent). They both convened a conversation meeting with selected opposition leaders with the following hidden agenda:

A) legitimize the VP (transitional rule that implies a mocking on people demand for immediate resignation of Mubarak regime).

B) legitimize the official media so far totally discredited. They are presenting Suleiman as obedient servant of the people, a one that concedes in words everything the opposition want . They cover up the tactic of agenda setting : no word about the immediate renunciation of Mubarak , instead the media says every day that “the nation” is losing too much money because of the uprising.

C) the implementation of low intensive war : more Al Jazeera journalists are abused, Muslim leaders are chased and excluded from the meeting, later on what?.

D) Legitimize Mubarak political power, so Suleiman once legitimized can call anticipated elections and win them. In short: the restoration of Mubarak regimen with CIA puppet in power is in process and the army will be ready to cover order to this transition.

On top, the content of the conversation was intentionally distorted: they were talking about agreements reach by consensus. So, apparently this was a piece of cake for Wisner. Is that really so easy?. Let’s see what happens on Tuesday. Meanwhile check one people mistake and read some experience on “democratic dialogue”, then counter attack: agarrar el toro por las astas y al conejo por las orejas y los dos afuera.

REAL PRE CONDITIONS FOR A DEMOCRATIC DIALOGUE in a SOVERIGN STATE

We will refer here the conditions for a democratic dialogue inside nations that are NOT under political-military occupation by foreign states. Assuming that Egypt is not an occupied territory, that instead it is a politically and military independent and sovereign State-Nation, then the presence of well-known CIA agent Frank Wisner with dismal record of HR abuses on other nations, invalidates de facto the nature of a democratic dialogue in Egypt. So, the first pre-condition for a democratic dialogue in this country is the immediate get off of the Wisner team from Egypt. The alternative media should provide as much info as possible on the record of this criminal agent.

In sovereign State-Nations of Latino America there are some cannons for democratic dialogues to achieve peaceful resolution of conflicts that may be of interest in Egypt. We had similar situations in Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina and other Latino nations in which corrupt autocrats were removed by their people uprising. Peru is the nation who still has a former President and his CIA advisor in jail for crimes against humanity, corruption and establishing an autocratic regime. Peru is also the country who is still fighting against big international corporations whose damage to the nation have created similar conflicts and dialogue process to reach the demands of the nation. I will adapt these experiences to the current case in Egypt. I hope it will serve for internal debates in Egypt.

Dialogue main goal and pre-conditions for a democratic dialogue.

1.MAIN GOAL: Set up an interim government in Egypt to achieve the basic context for building peace, a united nation and the calling of immediate election.

2. Ensure democratic context for dialogue. To ensure full respect of civil and political rights stated in the UN universal declaration of HR (freedom of association, expression and participation, access to TV and press, alternative information, reparation to the families affected in State-society confrontation..) are the necessary and primary condition for the existence of democratic dialogue. Nobody owes obedience to a dictator regime, is a statement written in all constitutions of the world. This obligates us to remove from power all corrupt and autocratic state officials like Mubarak and the CIA agent Omar Suleiman, their staying in power delegitimize any democratic dialogue. This should be the point of departure that will define the post-processing of democracy in Egypt.

Dialogues can occur in three types of contexts:

a. dialogue when the tension starts (initial clashes between state authorities & citizens)

b. in the midst of a conflict (when interest of State & society are irreconcilable and violent), and

c. after a violent conflict (when State HR violations breaks down the structure of the system and the society is at the point of internal war) .

In a, b situations the condition for dialogue and peace restoration depends on the removal of corrupt and autocratic official and the State compensation to the families plus the restoring of UN civil and political rights. Otherwise there will not be a democratic dialogue. In c situation, the dialogue may need a third party to mediate the conflict (Regional or international HR organizations, and a Truth Committee for reconciliation with church delegates in it). If this dialogue don’t work, regional or UN legal bodies may intervene to avoid the danger of war conflict and/or regional separatism under ILO law on the right to self-determination for the part of the society that has been genocide or excluded.

3. Types of dialogue:

a. Faked: To sustain-confirm conflicting positions on key issues in debate. This dialogue is not a real dialogue. It is either a debate between deaf or a simulation-manipulation game in which both parts hide their real agendas by conceding little –info + legitimation on each part- to keep the essence or the bulk of the problem alive for further confrontation, while preserving the status quo. This is the nature of today dialogue in Egypt. The attendants went there to get some info for the coming elections while the state aim was to legitimate their designed “order” to leave untouched the main problem. Winner: the CIA agent acting as VP. Losers: the political opportunists.

b. Pre-problem-solving dialogue. To reflect, and evaluate the damage cause by tate intransigence in supporting autocracy and corruption and the same with people uprising (if any) to the future of society as a whole . The aim is to advance possible solution. This dialogue is deliberative in content; it does not resolve nothing nor carry abiding agreements.

c. Partial problem-solving dialogue to generate signed minimal agreement on main topic of conflict (quasi-decisive, but not helpful). None of the above represent real advance to solve the main problem

d. Democratic dialogue: Is a win-win situation that departs from full respect to civil and political rights and freedoms stated by the UN as a pre-condition for dialogue, then comes the cut of key knot or solution to the main people demand. This is a face-to-face, State-society dialogue with not under-the-table agendas and closing doors. If this proceeding is adopted at the beginning, then we save human life, time, and material resources. Otherwise we will have autocratic or pro autocratic dialogues; meaning: a waste of time and pure sham and farce.

4. The dynamics of dialogue.

A. Parts involve. There should be three parties in any pro conflict-resolution dialogue: the two parties in conflict and the mediator team (in odd number). The State rulers, the chamber of commerce u other entrepreneurial sector who benefit or is supported by the government will be one party. The pro-democracy labor unions (independent from state control ) plus the elected members of the social organizations who organize and lead the social movement (including the Al Jazeera Egyptian reporters and active Muslim organization) should conform the second party. Both parties (I suggest no more than 10 members at all, 5 in each part) will decide -by consensus- who will be the members of the mediator party.

B. The agenda setting for the talks (problems that go to the dialogue) is defined by consensus between both parties (State and society organizations in conflict).

C. Mediator (s). I suggest 3 lawyers from regional-international legal agencies, HR organizations or UN commissions. Their function is to provide a balanced proposal for the parties in conflict when they did not get an agreement by consensus (or 2/3 plus 1 vote). If two of mediator proposals are rejected they will decide by consensus a balanced one. Mediators are like judges of a court with the difference that they can be removed at the petition of one of the bodies in conflict. Who is and who is not member of a mediation team is defined by consensus by two parties in conflict. If one mediator is removed at the petitions of one party, the dialogue is postponed until an alternate takes charge as mediator.

D. The dynamics, stages and rules. The number of representatives for each party to the dialogue and the place of dialogue should be agreed by consensus (not defined by the government nor the mediators, but for both sides in conflict.). All rules of the process will be defined by consensus of both parties.

E. Place. Given the macro-regional context of this conflict, the should start in a neutral state nation (we suggest any country from the BRIC or in either Chile, Peru or Argentine). This dialogue should be televised live and worldwide, and it will conclude in the capital, and major cities of the uprising in Egypt, unless we want to pay tribute to the obsolete centralized presidential system and its autocratic and corrupted regimen. No tribute either to the political manipulators of the corporate mass-media.

5. Not improvisation. To avoid distortions as happens recently with the preliminary conversation with the VP, neither party should improvised their participation in a dialogue that -from now on- should be televised and broadcasted live to the national/ international public opinion. The aim is that the entire nation be informed fair in their own language -translated to other s- in order for them to judge the participation of their representatives and be abided by their agreements. This is the only way to prevent press distortions and bias in the process of making National Accords. As stated above: Pace, a united nation and immediate election plus set the interim government are the main goals of these dialogues.

6. Supervisory Commissions agreed. The implementation of the agreements of the dialogue should be monitored by both, state and society parties in conflict plus a third one, a regional court for human rights like the one that Latinos have in Costa Rica. In the part of the society should be included the pro-democracy unions and the organizations mentioned above (muslim organizations). Representing the state there will be kind of Ombudsman or general attorney team to protect de rights of the people, (bar associations can provide a team if the State constitution don’t have one). I should be an entity independent from the political system. This committee must receive budget and facilities (information and per diem at least) from the State for their independent investigation and processing before legal instances different type of people grievances. They should be members of the supervisory committee.

7. Information on progress. The three vigilance committees should inform regularly to the nation via TV and the national media –with total independence from the political regime- on a regular and ongoing advances in the process dialogue and conflict resolution.