Published on Friday, January 28, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
Washington's Egyptian Nightmare
As I watch events unfolding on the streets of Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and elsewere in the region I'm reminded of a summer I spent in Egypt studying Arabic language and Middle East politics at The American University in Cairo. For a time I was booked into the upscale Shepheard Hotel (on the Fulbright Commission's dime) on the banks of the Nile in downtown Cairo. Over the course of several weeks I came to know Mohammed, my regular breakfast server, and learned that he had a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering but owing to the abysmal economic situation considered himself fortunate to have any job to support his family.
One morning a young Kuwaiti prince swept in, sat down at an adjacent table and immediately began to berate Mohammed's as if he were a servant. As nearly as I could tell from my rudimentay Arabic he complained about the tea water's temperature, insufficient shine on the silverware and the food's quality. I noticed that Mohammed bowed, accepted this humiliating treatment and profusely apologized to avoid offending this arrogant punk.
After the Kuwaiti left, I asked Mohammed about their exchange and he replied "Yes, that happens quite frequently. These spoiled rich kids from the Gulf come to Cairo to whore around and load up on luxury goods. Yes, it's difficult to be treated this way but I can't afford to lose this job. They can do this way because the oil happens to be under their sand. My hope is that some day we will overthrow all these corrupt regimes, starting with our own, and this democratic movement will spread to the Gulf states. My dream is that we could use the oil wealth to benefit all people of the region and even extend it to people around the Third World. Then he wistfully said, "If your government didn't support these wretched regimes my dream might come true. Please tell your citizens that we are suffering because your government backed Sadat and now Mubarak."
Of course U.S. policymaker's recurring nightmare is that genuine democratization breaks out in in Egypt and spreads to the oil monarchies. And one assumes that at this moment Washington is doing everything in its power to sabotage this possibility or try to mitigate the damage. In a comment that won't surprise the Arab street, Secretary of State Clinton recently credited Mubarek's police state with "looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people."
We know that Mubarek's predecessor, "Pharoah" Anwar Sadat, sold out the Palestinians for thirty pieces of silver - U.S. taxpayer subsidies have averaged $2 billion a year for 30 years -- from Washington in 1979 and paid for it by being assassinated in 1981. I vividly recall the absolute puzzlement on the faces of U.S. journalists covering Sadat's funeral as they searched in vain for grieving Egyptians.
One hopes the current democratic stirrings succeed in toppling the three-decade old Mubarak dictatorhsip and then spread to Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and beyond. As Egyptian journalist Hossam El-Hamabwy recently noted about Tunisia, "We don't have only one Ben Ali in the Arab world; we have 22 Ben Alis, and they all need to go." I'm cautiously optimistic that more chickens have (finally) come home to roost in this part of the world for U.S. foreign policy and that it's yet another indicator of a declining U.S. empire.
Finally, some thirty years ago, when I made some research and study visits to the region, most of the activists I encountered were secular, nominally Muslim and sometimes Christian. Thanks to U.S. opposition to nationalism, U.S./Israeil intransigence toward Palestinian rights and Washington's embrace of brutal dictatorhips, "Islam is the answer" gained added support. I could be wrong but more recently, it seems that younger Arabs are returning to something more secular, a yearning for basic human rights, decency and democracy untethered to say, the Muslim Brotherhood or other sclerotic ideologies. And as we take inspiration from those in the streets of Tunisia and Egypt we'd do well to consider how we might match their courageous commitment.
What's even more troubling is news that one American company is aiding Egypt's harsh response [3] through sales of technology that makes this repression possible.
The power of open networks is clear. The Internet's favorite offspring -- Twitter, Facebook and YouTube -- are now heralded on CNN, BBC and Fox News as flag-bearers for a new era of citizen journalism and activism. (More and more these same news organizations have abandoned their own, more traditional means of newsgathering to troll social media for breaking information.)
But the open Internet's power cuts both ways: The tools that connect, organize and empower protesters can also be used to hunt them down.
Telecom Egypt, the nation's dominant phone and Internet service provider, is a state-run enterprise, which made it easy on Friday morning for authorities to pull the plug and plunge much of the nation into digital darkness.
Moreover, Egypt also has the ability to spy on Internet and cell phone users, by opening their communication packets and reading their contents. Iran used similar methods during the 2009 unrest to track, imprison and in some cases, "disappear [4]" truckloads of cyber-dissidents.
The companies that profit from sales of this technology need to be held to a higher standard. One in particular is an American firm, Narus [5] of Sunnyvale, Calif., which has sold Telecom Egypt "real-time traffic intelligence" equipment.
Narus, now owned by Boeing, was founded in 1997 by Israeli security experts [6] to create and sell [7] mass surveillance systems for governments and large corporate clients.
The company is best known for creating NarusInsight [8], a supercomputer system which is allegedly used by the National Security Agency and other entities to perform mass surveillance and monitoring of public and corporate Internet communications in real time.
Narus provides Egypt Telecom [5] with Deep Packet Inspection equipment (DPI), a content-filtering technology [9] that allows network managers to inspect, track and target content from users of the Internet and mobile phones, as it passes through routers on the information superhighway.
Other Narus global customers include the national telecommunications authorities in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- two countries that regularly register alongside Egypt near the bottom of Human Rights Watch's world report [10].
Anything that comes through (an Internet protocol network), we can record," Steve Bannerman, Narus' marketing vice president, once boasted [11] to Wired about the service. "We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on; we can reconstruct their (Voice Over Internet Protocol) calls."
Other North American and European companies are selling DPI to enable [12] their business customers "to see, manage and monetize individual flows to individual subscribers." But this "Internet-enhancing" technology has been sought out by regimes in Iran, China and Burma for more brutal purposes.
In addition to Narus, there are a number of companies, including many others in the United States, that produce and traffic in similar spying and control technology. This list of DPI providers includes Zeugma Systems (Canada), Camiant (USA), Procera Networks (USA), Allot (Israel), Ixia (USA), AdvancedIO (Canada) and Sandvine (Canada), among others.
These companies typically partner with Internet Service Providers to insert DPI along the main arteries of the Web. All Net traffic in and out of Iran, for example, travels through one portal -- the Telecommunications Company of Iran -- which facilitates the use of DPI.
When commercial network operators use DPI, the privacy of Internet users is compromised. But in government hands, the use of DPI can crush dissent and lead to human rights violations.
Setting the Bar High for DPI Sales
Even Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on this problem.
"Internet censorship is a real challenge, and not one any particular industry -- much less any single company -- can tackle on its own, " Rep. Mary Bono Mack wrote in a 2009 letter to Rep. Henry Waxman [13], then chair of the House Commerce Committee. "Efforts to promote freedom of expression and to limit the impact of censorship require both private and public sector engagement."
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Egypt's government [14] "not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on social media."
Bono Mack's letter and Clinton's statement echo Free Press' call [15] for a congressional inquiry into the issue. But this is just a start.
Before DPI becomes more widely deployed around the world and at home, the Congress ought to establish [16] clear criteria for authorizing the use of such surveillance and control technologies.
The power to control the Internet and the resulting harm to democracy are so disturbing that the threshold for using DPI must be very high.
Today we're seeing the grave dangers of this technology unfold in real time on the streets of Cairo.
One morning a young Kuwaiti prince swept in, sat down at an adjacent table and immediately began to berate Mohammed's as if he were a servant. As nearly as I could tell from my rudimentay Arabic he complained about the tea water's temperature, insufficient shine on the silverware and the food's quality. I noticed that Mohammed bowed, accepted this humiliating treatment and profusely apologized to avoid offending this arrogant punk.
After the Kuwaiti left, I asked Mohammed about their exchange and he replied "Yes, that happens quite frequently. These spoiled rich kids from the Gulf come to Cairo to whore around and load up on luxury goods. Yes, it's difficult to be treated this way but I can't afford to lose this job. They can do this way because the oil happens to be under their sand. My hope is that some day we will overthrow all these corrupt regimes, starting with our own, and this democratic movement will spread to the Gulf states. My dream is that we could use the oil wealth to benefit all people of the region and even extend it to people around the Third World. Then he wistfully said, "If your government didn't support these wretched regimes my dream might come true. Please tell your citizens that we are suffering because your government backed Sadat and now Mubarak."
Of course U.S. policymaker's recurring nightmare is that genuine democratization breaks out in in Egypt and spreads to the oil monarchies. And one assumes that at this moment Washington is doing everything in its power to sabotage this possibility or try to mitigate the damage. In a comment that won't surprise the Arab street, Secretary of State Clinton recently credited Mubarek's police state with "looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people."
We know that Mubarek's predecessor, "Pharoah" Anwar Sadat, sold out the Palestinians for thirty pieces of silver - U.S. taxpayer subsidies have averaged $2 billion a year for 30 years -- from Washington in 1979 and paid for it by being assassinated in 1981. I vividly recall the absolute puzzlement on the faces of U.S. journalists covering Sadat's funeral as they searched in vain for grieving Egyptians.
One hopes the current democratic stirrings succeed in toppling the three-decade old Mubarak dictatorhsip and then spread to Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and beyond. As Egyptian journalist Hossam El-Hamabwy recently noted about Tunisia, "We don't have only one Ben Ali in the Arab world; we have 22 Ben Alis, and they all need to go." I'm cautiously optimistic that more chickens have (finally) come home to roost in this part of the world for U.S. foreign policy and that it's yet another indicator of a declining U.S. empire.
Finally, some thirty years ago, when I made some research and study visits to the region, most of the activists I encountered were secular, nominally Muslim and sometimes Christian. Thanks to U.S. opposition to nationalism, U.S./Israeil intransigence toward Palestinian rights and Washington's embrace of brutal dictatorhips, "Islam is the answer" gained added support. I could be wrong but more recently, it seems that younger Arabs are returning to something more secular, a yearning for basic human rights, decency and democracy untethered to say, the Muslim Brotherhood or other sclerotic ideologies. And as we take inspiration from those in the streets of Tunisia and Egypt we'd do well to consider how we might match their courageous commitment.
Published on Friday, January 28, 2011 by Huffington Post
One US Corporation's Role in Egypt's Brutal Crackdown
The open Internet's role in popular uprising is now undisputed. Look no further than Egypt, where the Mubarak regime today reportedly shut down Internet [1] and cell phone communications [2] -- a troubling predictor of the fierce crackdown that has followed.
What's even more troubling is news that one American company is aiding Egypt's harsh response [3] through sales of technology that makes this repression possible.
The power of open networks is clear. The Internet's favorite offspring -- Twitter, Facebook and YouTube -- are now heralded on CNN, BBC and Fox News as flag-bearers for a new era of citizen journalism and activism. (More and more these same news organizations have abandoned their own, more traditional means of newsgathering to troll social media for breaking information.)
But the open Internet's power cuts both ways: The tools that connect, organize and empower protesters can also be used to hunt them down.
Telecom Egypt, the nation's dominant phone and Internet service provider, is a state-run enterprise, which made it easy on Friday morning for authorities to pull the plug and plunge much of the nation into digital darkness.
Moreover, Egypt also has the ability to spy on Internet and cell phone users, by opening their communication packets and reading their contents. Iran used similar methods during the 2009 unrest to track, imprison and in some cases, "disappear [4]" truckloads of cyber-dissidents.
The companies that profit from sales of this technology need to be held to a higher standard. One in particular is an American firm, Narus [5] of Sunnyvale, Calif., which has sold Telecom Egypt "real-time traffic intelligence" equipment.
Narus, now owned by Boeing, was founded in 1997 by Israeli security experts [6] to create and sell [7] mass surveillance systems for governments and large corporate clients.
The company is best known for creating NarusInsight [8], a supercomputer system which is allegedly used by the National Security Agency and other entities to perform mass surveillance and monitoring of public and corporate Internet communications in real time.
Narus provides Egypt Telecom [5] with Deep Packet Inspection equipment (DPI), a content-filtering technology [9] that allows network managers to inspect, track and target content from users of the Internet and mobile phones, as it passes through routers on the information superhighway.
Other Narus global customers include the national telecommunications authorities in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- two countries that regularly register alongside Egypt near the bottom of Human Rights Watch's world report [10].
Anything that comes through (an Internet protocol network), we can record," Steve Bannerman, Narus' marketing vice president, once boasted [11] to Wired about the service. "We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on; we can reconstruct their (Voice Over Internet Protocol) calls."
Other North American and European companies are selling DPI to enable [12] their business customers "to see, manage and monetize individual flows to individual subscribers." But this "Internet-enhancing" technology has been sought out by regimes in Iran, China and Burma for more brutal purposes.
In addition to Narus, there are a number of companies, including many others in the United States, that produce and traffic in similar spying and control technology. This list of DPI providers includes Zeugma Systems (Canada), Camiant (USA), Procera Networks (USA), Allot (Israel), Ixia (USA), AdvancedIO (Canada) and Sandvine (Canada), among others.
These companies typically partner with Internet Service Providers to insert DPI along the main arteries of the Web. All Net traffic in and out of Iran, for example, travels through one portal -- the Telecommunications Company of Iran -- which facilitates the use of DPI.
When commercial network operators use DPI, the privacy of Internet users is compromised. But in government hands, the use of DPI can crush dissent and lead to human rights violations.
Setting the Bar High for DPI Sales
Even Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on this problem.
"Internet censorship is a real challenge, and not one any particular industry -- much less any single company -- can tackle on its own, " Rep. Mary Bono Mack wrote in a 2009 letter to Rep. Henry Waxman [13], then chair of the House Commerce Committee. "Efforts to promote freedom of expression and to limit the impact of censorship require both private and public sector engagement."
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Egypt's government [14] "not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on social media."
Bono Mack's letter and Clinton's statement echo Free Press' call [15] for a congressional inquiry into the issue. But this is just a start.
Before DPI becomes more widely deployed around the world and at home, the Congress ought to establish [16] clear criteria for authorizing the use of such surveillance and control technologies.
The power to control the Internet and the resulting harm to democracy are so disturbing that the threshold for using DPI must be very high.
Today we're seeing the grave dangers of this technology unfold in real time on the streets of Cairo.
© 2011 Huffington Post
As the Campaign Director for Free Press and SavetheInternet.com [17], Karr oversees campaigns on public broadcasting and noncommercial media, fake news and propaganda, journalism in crisis, and the future of the Internet. Before joining Free Press, Tim served as executive director of MediaChannel.org and vice president of Globalvision New Media and the Globalvision News Network. Published on Friday, January 28, 2011 by Extra! Magazine (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)
Defining a Dictatorship: The US Role in Egypt
Yesterday (FAIR Blog, 1/27/11) the Washington Post tried to argue that U.S. policy under the Obama administration has shifted to one of open support for pro-democracy movements in Egypt and Tunisia. There was little, if any, evidence to support this idea.
Today (1/28/11) the New York Times steps in with a report based largely on WikiLeaksTimes put it, the cables cables that paints a rather unflattering portrait of Obama policy towards Egypt. As the
But U.S. policymakers are being asked the tough questions, right? Not exactly. Here's Jim Lehrer at the PBS NewsHour (1/27/11) in an exclusive sit-down with Joe Biden:
Today (1/28/11) the New York Times steps in with a report based largely on WikiLeaksTimes put it, the cables cables that paints a rather unflattering portrait of Obama policy towards Egypt. As the
show in detail how diplomats repeatedly raised concerns with Egyptian officials about jailed dissidents and bloggers, and kept tabs on reports of torture by the police.The Times story unfortunately buries some of the most damning details:
But they also reveal that relations with Mr. Mubarak warmed up because President Obama played down the public "name and shame" approach of the Bush administration. A cable prepared for a visit by Gen. David H. Petraeus in 2009 said the United States, while blunt in private, now avoided "the public confrontations that had become routine over the past several years."
American diplomats also cast a wide net to gather information on police brutality, the cables show. Through contacts with human rights lawyers, the embassy follows numerous cases, and raised some with the Interior Ministry. Among the most harrowing, according to a cable, was the treatment of several members of a Hezbollah cell detained by the police in late 2008.So a key U.S. ally is run by a torturing, election-rigging authoritarian who the U.S. mostly refrains from criticizing in public. "Cables Show Delicate U.S. Dealings With Egypt's Leaders" would seem to be a rather gentle way of putting it. Scanning coverage of the protests in Egypt overall, it seems like long-standing U.S. support (including billions in military aid) receives scant attention.
Lawyers representing the men said they were subjected to electric shocks and sleep deprivation, which reduced them to a "zombie state." They said the torture was more severe than what they normally witnessed.
To the extent that Mr. Mubarak has been willing to tolerate reforms, the cable said, it has been in areas not related to public security or stability. For example, he has given his wife latitude to campaign for women's rights and against practices like female genital mutilation and child labor, which are sanctioned by some conservative Islamic groups.
But U.S. policymakers are being asked the tough questions, right? Not exactly. Here's Jim Lehrer at the PBS NewsHour (1/27/11) in an exclusive sit-down with Joe Biden:
LEHRER: The word to describe the leadership of Mubarak and Egypt and also in Tunisia before was dictator. Should Mubarak be seen as a dictator?Lehrer has long viewed his job as not pushing his powerful guests too hard. "My part of journalism is to present what various people say," as he once put it . "I'm not in the judgment part of journalism." That's a good thing for Biden.
BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be--I would not refer to him as a dictator.
© 2011 FAIR
Peter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra, and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly" (Seven Stories Press, 2003).
Published on Friday, January 28, 2011 by The Independent/UK
Egypt's Day of Reckoning
Mubarak regime may not survive new protests as flames of anger spread through Middle East
A day of prayer or a day of rage? All Egypt was waiting for the Muslim Sabbath today – not to mention Egypt's fearful allies – as the country's ageing President clings to power after nights of violence that have shaken America's faith in the stability of the Mubarak regime.
Five men have so far been killed and almost 1,000 others have been imprisoned, police have beaten women and for the first time an office of the ruling National Democratic Party was set on fire. Rumours are as dangerous as tear gas here. A Cairo daily has been claiming that one of President Hosni Mubarak's top advisers has fled to London with 97 suitcases of cash, but other reports speak of an enraged President shouting at senior police officers for not dealing more harshly with demonstrators.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the opposition leader and Nobel prize-winning former UN official, flew back to Egypt last night but no one believes – except perhaps the Americans – that he can become a focus for the protest movements that have sprung up across the country.
Already there have been signs that those tired of Mubarak's corrupt and undemocratic rule have been trying to persuade the ill-paid policemen patrolling Cairo to join them. "Brothers! Brothers! How much do they pay you?" one of the crowds began shouting at the cops in Cairo. But no one is negotiating – there is nothing to negotiate except the departure of Mubarak, and the Egyptian government says and does nothing, which is pretty much what it has been doing for the past three decades.
People talk of revolution but there is no one to replace Mubarak's men – he never appointed a vice-president – and one Egyptian journalist yesterday told me he had even found some friends who feel sorry for the isolated, lonely President. Mubarak is 82 and even hinted he would stand for president again – to the outrage of millions of Egyptians.
The barren, horrible truth, however, is that save for its brutal police force and its ominously docile army – which, by the way, does not look favourably upon Mubarak's son Gamal – the government is powerless. This is revolution by Twitter and revolution by Facebook, and technology long ago took away the dismal rules of censorship.
Mubarak's men seem to have lost all sense of initiative. Their party newspapers are filled with self-delusion, pushing the massive demonstrations to the foot of front pages as if this will keep the crowds from the streets – as if, indeed, by belittling the story, the demonstrations never happened.
But you don't need to read the papers to see what has gone wrong. The filth and the slums, the open sewers and the corruption of every government official, the bulging prisons, the laughable elections, the whole vast, sclerotic edifice of power has at last brought Egyptians on to their streets.
Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, spotted something important at the recent summit of Arab leaders at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. "Tunisia is not far from us," he said. "The Arab men are broken." But are they? One old friend told me a frightening story about a poor Egyptian who said he had no interest in moving the corrupt leadership from their desert gated communities. "At least we now know where they live," he said. There are more than 80 million people in Egypt, 30 per cent of them under 20. And they are no longer afraid.
And a kind of Egyptian nationalism – rather than Islamism – is making itself felt at the demonstrations. January 25 is National Police Day – to honour the police force who died fighting British troops in Ishmaelia – and the government clucked its tongue at the crowds, telling them they were disgracing their martyrs. No, shouted the crowds, those policemen who died at Ishmaelia were brave men, not represented by their descendants in uniform today.
This is not an unclever government, though. There is a kind of shrewdness in the gradual freeing of the press and television of this ramshackle pseudo-democracy. Egyptians had been given just enough air to breathe, to keep them quiet, to enjoy their docility in this vast farming land. Farmers are not revolutionaries, but when the millions thronged to the great cities, to the slums and collapsing houses and universities, which gave them degrees and no jobs, something must have happened.
"We are proud of the Tunisians – they have shown Egyptians how to have pride," another Egyptian colleague said yesterday. "They were inspiring but the regime here was smarter than Ben Ali in Tunisia. It provided a veneer of opposition by not arresting all the Muslim Brotherhood, then by telling the Americans that the great fear should be Islamism, that Mubarak was all that stood between them and 'terror' – a message the US has been in a mood to hear for the past 10 years."
There are various clues that the authorities in Cairo realised something was afoot. Several Egyptians have told me that on 24 January, security men were taking down pictures of Gamal Mubarak from the slums – lest they provoke the crowds. But the vast number of arrests, the police street beatings – of women as well as men – and the near-collapse of the Egyptian stock market bear the marks of panic rather than cunning.
And one of the problems has been created by the regime itself; it has systematically got rid of anyone with charisma, thrown them out of the country, politically emasculating any real opposition by imprisoning many of them. The Americans and the EU are telling the regime to listen to the people – but who are these people, who are their leaders? This is not an Islamic uprising – though it could become one – but, save for the usual talk of Muslim Brotherhood participation in the demonstrations, it is just one mass of Egyptians stifled by decades of failure and humiliation.
But all the Americans seem able to offer Mubarak is a suggestion of reforms – something Egyptians have heard many times before. It's not the first time that violence has come to Egypt's streets, of course. In 1977, there were mass food riots – I was in Cairo at the time and there were many angry, starving people – but the Sadat government managed to control the people by lowering food prices and by imprisonment and torture. There have been police mutinies before – one ruthlessly suppressed by Mubarak himself. But this is something new.
Interestingly, there seems no animosity towards foreigners. Many journalists have been protected by the crowds and – despite America's lamentable support for the Middle East's dictators – there has not so far been a single US flag burned. That shows you what's new. Perhaps a people have grown up – only to discover that their ageing government are all children.
Internet and text messages fail in 'facebook revolution'
Egyptian authorities last night disrupted internet services and mobile-phone text messaging in efforts to stop protesters keeping in touch on social networking sites. The measure was taken as members of an elite counter-terrorism police unit were ordered to take up positions in key locations around Cairo in preparation for a wave of mass rallies today.
Among the places where they are stationed is Tahrir Square, where one of the biggest demonstrations took place. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social networking sites have played a vital role in Egypt's protest movement, just as they did in Tunisia, enabling demonstrators to keep in touch and to organise rallies.
Who could succeed Hosni Mubarak?
Gamal Mubarak
Protesters on the streets of Egypt aren't just rallying against the 30-year-reign of President Hosni Mubarak, they are also taking aim at his son Gamal Mubarak, 47, an urbane former investment banker who has scaled the political ladder, prompting speculation that he is being groomed for his father's post.
The youngest son of Mr Mubarak and his half-Welsh wife, Suzanne, Gamal was educated at the elite American University in Cairo, going on to work for the Bank of America.
He entered politics about a decade ago, quickly moving up to become head of the political secretariat of his father's National Democratic Party (NDP). He was heavily involved in the economic liberalisation of Egypt, which pleased investors but provoked the ire of protesters, who blame the policies for lining the pockets of the rich while the poor suffered.
Although he has always denied having an eye on his father's throne, a mysterious campaign sprung up last year, with posters plastered across Cairo calling for Gamal to stand for president in elections scheduled for later this year. His 82-year-old father has not yet declared his candidacy.
Certainly the protesters appeared unhappy with the chosen son, chanting "Gamal, tell your father Egyptians hate you" and tearing up his picture.
Mohamed ElBaradei
Protests in Egypt today will be different from the others that have swept the Middle East in recent weeks in one important way. Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), landed at Cairo airport last night to lead rallies against Hosni Mubarak's rule.
The 68-year-old was born in the Egyptian capital, from where he launched a legal career. He joined the IAEA in the 1980s, becoming head of the UN body in 1997.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq thrust Mr ElBaradei into the public consciousness. He demurred on the US rationale for attacking Saddam Hussein, describing the war as "a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it". The award, jointly with the IAEA, of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize further rankled with the Bush administration.
He has long been urged to challenge the 82-year-old President, but hitherto has bided his time, insisting first on electoral reform, but his participation in today's protests indicate he is ready. Recent speeches, including recently at Harvard, when he joked that he was "looking for a job" have done nothing to dissuade his supporters, but at 68 his presidency would surely be only a short-term fix to Egypt's problems.
© 2011 The Independent
Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper. He is the author of many books on the region, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East [1]. Published on Saturday, January 29, 2011 by the Guardian/UK
White House Wobbles on Egyptian Tightrope
Washington needs a friendly regime in Cairo more than it needs a democratic government
Caught off guard by the escalating unrest in Egypt, the Obama administration is desperate to avoid any public appearance of taking sides. But Washington's close, longstanding political and military ties to President Hosni Mubarak's regime, plus annual financial support worth about $1.5bn, undermine its claims to neutrality.
While the US favours Egyptian political reform in theory, in practice it props up an authoritarian system for pragmatic reasons of national self-interest. It behaved in much the same way towards Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s, when Iraq was at war with Iran. A similar tacit bargain governs relations with Saudi Arabia. That's why, for many Egyptians, the US is part of the problem.
Like tottering tightrope walkers, the balancing act performed by Barack Obama and the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has been excruciating to watch. When the protests kicked off, Clinton urged all parties "to exercise restraint". This phrase is useful when politicians are unsure of their ground.
Clinton also struck a lopsided note. "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people," she said. Against a backdrop of street battles, beatings-up, teargas, flying bricks, mass detentions and attempts to shut information networks, her words sounded unreal, even foolish.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the establishment rebel who joined the protests, was flabbergasted. "If you would like to know why the United States does not have credibility in the Middle East, that is precisely the answer," he said.
Clinton's emphasis shifted the next day, as if to correct the balance. Mubarak must allow peaceful protests, she said. "I do think it's possible for there to be reforms and that is what we are urging and calling for."
Today she said: "We are deeply concerned about the use of violence by Egyptian police and security forces against protesters. We call on the Egyptian government to do everything in its power to restrain security forces." Still she tried to face both ways: "At the same time, protesters should also refrain from violence and express themselves peacefully."
Obama maintained he had "always" told Mubarak that reform was "absolutely critical". But he also wobbled back in the other direction, saying the Egyptian leader was a good friend. "Egypt's been an ally of ours on a lot of critical issues. Mubarak has been very helpful," Obama said.
Amid the juggling, one fact may be pinned down: the US would not welcome Mubarak's fall and the dislocation a revolution would cause in Egypt and across a chronically unstable region. Gradual reforms of the kind Clinton discussed in a recent speech in Doha about the Arab world, and a competitive presidential election this autumn, would probably be Washington's preferred prescription. As matters stand now, this is the least likely outcome.
Either the regime will suppress the unrest, possibly by ever more brutal means, as happened in Iran in 2009; or the uprising will spiral out of control and the regime will implode, with unpredictable consequences, as in Tunisia. In this latter scenario, one outcome could be a military takeover in the name of national salvation. It has happened before in Egypt, in 1952, when the Free Officers Movement forced King Farouk to abdicate. If it happened again, the US might be expected to endorse it.
That's because, in the final analysis, the US needs a friendly government in Cairo more than it needs a democratic one. Whether the issue is Israel-Palestine, Hamas and Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, security for Gulf oil supplies, Sudan, or the spread of Islamist fundamentalist ideas, Washington wants Egypt, the Arab world's most populous and influential country, in its corner. That's the political and geostrategic bottom line. In this sense, Egypt's demonstrators are not just fighting the regime. They are fighting Washington, too.
While the US favours Egyptian political reform in theory, in practice it props up an authoritarian system for pragmatic reasons of national self-interest. It behaved in much the same way towards Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s, when Iraq was at war with Iran. A similar tacit bargain governs relations with Saudi Arabia. That's why, for many Egyptians, the US is part of the problem.
Like tottering tightrope walkers, the balancing act performed by Barack Obama and the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has been excruciating to watch. When the protests kicked off, Clinton urged all parties "to exercise restraint". This phrase is useful when politicians are unsure of their ground.
Clinton also struck a lopsided note. "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people," she said. Against a backdrop of street battles, beatings-up, teargas, flying bricks, mass detentions and attempts to shut information networks, her words sounded unreal, even foolish.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the establishment rebel who joined the protests, was flabbergasted. "If you would like to know why the United States does not have credibility in the Middle East, that is precisely the answer," he said.
Clinton's emphasis shifted the next day, as if to correct the balance. Mubarak must allow peaceful protests, she said. "I do think it's possible for there to be reforms and that is what we are urging and calling for."
Today she said: "We are deeply concerned about the use of violence by Egyptian police and security forces against protesters. We call on the Egyptian government to do everything in its power to restrain security forces." Still she tried to face both ways: "At the same time, protesters should also refrain from violence and express themselves peacefully."
Obama maintained he had "always" told Mubarak that reform was "absolutely critical". But he also wobbled back in the other direction, saying the Egyptian leader was a good friend. "Egypt's been an ally of ours on a lot of critical issues. Mubarak has been very helpful," Obama said.
Amid the juggling, one fact may be pinned down: the US would not welcome Mubarak's fall and the dislocation a revolution would cause in Egypt and across a chronically unstable region. Gradual reforms of the kind Clinton discussed in a recent speech in Doha about the Arab world, and a competitive presidential election this autumn, would probably be Washington's preferred prescription. As matters stand now, this is the least likely outcome.
Either the regime will suppress the unrest, possibly by ever more brutal means, as happened in Iran in 2009; or the uprising will spiral out of control and the regime will implode, with unpredictable consequences, as in Tunisia. In this latter scenario, one outcome could be a military takeover in the name of national salvation. It has happened before in Egypt, in 1952, when the Free Officers Movement forced King Farouk to abdicate. If it happened again, the US might be expected to endorse it.
That's because, in the final analysis, the US needs a friendly government in Cairo more than it needs a democratic one. Whether the issue is Israel-Palestine, Hamas and Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, security for Gulf oil supplies, Sudan, or the spread of Islamist fundamentalist ideas, Washington wants Egypt, the Arab world's most populous and influential country, in its corner. That's the political and geostrategic bottom line. In this sense, Egypt's demonstrators are not just fighting the regime. They are fighting Washington, too.
© 2011 Guardian/UK
Published on Saturday, January 29, 2011 by the Toronto Star
Smashing Through Fear in Egypt
NEW YORK CITY -- As the people of my homeland, Egypt, stage a popular uprising against the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, the White Stripes keep singing in my head: "I'm gonna fight 'em off /A seven-nation army couldn't hold me back!"
I don't know if Jack and Meg of the White Stripes are watching the breathtaking developments taking place in my country. However, their thumping, pumping "Seven Nation Army" [1] is a perfect anthem for the defiance and adrenaline-fueled determination that must be propelling the tens of thousands of courageous, protesting Egyptians.
And against what odds!
On Thursday, an increasingly rattled regime did everything it could to stifle that courage by imposing an information lockdown. It actually shutdown the Internet? Who does that? I'll tell you who: the Burmese junta during the Monk's Uprising in 2007.
It was young people, who so nimbly move between the "real" and "virtual" worlds, who called for the protests, which began on Jan. 25. But their rallying cry brought together Egyptians of all ages and backgrounds.
It was, of course, Tunisia that unleashed their imagination and inspired them to think "No More!" After all, Tunisians managed in 29 days to end the rule of Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali, their dictator of 23 years. Why not, Egyptians asked.
While protests in both Tunisia and Egypt have focused on the corruption of their respective dictators and the ensuing unemployment and poverty, there are two demands that fuel the mass protests: freedom and dignity.
Think of that as we consider the days and ways ahead.
Even after Ben Ali fled, Tunisians continued to protest to get rid of his cronies from the interim government. And they're succeeding. They've written a great manual for leaderless uprisings - as both Tunisia and Egypt are experiencing. When people want to know who's in charge, and when people keep trying to ring the Islamists' alarm bell, the people answer: "We're in charge."
The thousands of Egyptians braving the brutality of Mubarak's security apparatus are having none of it. It's about freedom and dignity for them, not about the dictator and the Islamists. It's the West that's hung up on that. And it's hung up on it because for decades the West has sided with "stability" - which has come at the cost of the freedom and dignity of Egyptians, Tunisians and other Arabs.
Egyptians want to decide for themselves who should rule them. If they don't like emerging alternatives, those alternatives have been put on notice by the sight of tens of thousands of people whose imagination has been unleashed from fear and who dare say, "We deserve more."
I got two phone calls from Cairo under information lockdown. The first was from an activist with the Muslim Brotherhood who wanted me to know the regime was imposing a blackout so it could shoot and arrest with impunity.
The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest opposition group, supported the protest symbolically at first, without calling for its members to join as a movement. Still, many Muslim Brothers joined as individuals. But the activist who called me said the movement had been embarrassed into joining due to the momentum of the protests.
The Muslim Brotherhood certainly has some support in Egypt - estimates put it at 20 to 35 per cent - and as Egyptians who have been systematically targeted by the regime, jailed and tortured, of course its members would protest. In fact, the Mubarak regime was trying to make it seem like the Brotherhood was driving the protest, which it most certainly wasn't. That was just the Mubarak regime trying to frighten its allies into silence.
The regime has so far rounded up more than 1,000 people - from all backgrounds, not just the Brotherhood. It's a regime that represses all opposition.
That first caller and I hold very different political views. I am liberal and secular. But when the Mubarak regime jailed him, I wrote a column defending him; he has published my columns against the Brotherhood on a website he runs.
My politics are much more similar to those of the second caller, a human rights defender who is a member of liberal and feminist groups. He represents those young activists who have used social media with such agility against Mubarak's regime. The activist called to tell me that protesters were concerned their defiance of a Mubarak-imposed curfew would be met with even more brutal violence.
So, essentially, both calls from Egypt voiced the same concern.
One of the main demands of the protests is an end to Mubarak's rule. In presidential elections later this year, he was expected to seek a sixth term in office. I would sincerely love to see Mubarak go, and if he does, those Egyptians who smashed through fear must be the ones to decide who they want to replace him.
They don't want a Mubarak-lite. They will not sacrifice their freedom and dignity so Western allies can feel better about Egypt - which means a future government must reflect all those Egyptians out there, day after day.
Future leaders be warned: a seven-nation army won't hold them back.
Katherine Hawkins, an expert [1] on the US's rendition to torture program, in an email, has sent some critical texts where Suleiman pops up. Thus, Jane Mayer, in The Dark Side [2], pointed to Suleiman's role in the rendition program:
I don't know if Jack and Meg of the White Stripes are watching the breathtaking developments taking place in my country. However, their thumping, pumping "Seven Nation Army" [1] is a perfect anthem for the defiance and adrenaline-fueled determination that must be propelling the tens of thousands of courageous, protesting Egyptians.
And against what odds!
On Thursday, an increasingly rattled regime did everything it could to stifle that courage by imposing an information lockdown. It actually shutdown the Internet? Who does that? I'll tell you who: the Burmese junta during the Monk's Uprising in 2007.
It was young people, who so nimbly move between the "real" and "virtual" worlds, who called for the protests, which began on Jan. 25. But their rallying cry brought together Egyptians of all ages and backgrounds.
It was, of course, Tunisia that unleashed their imagination and inspired them to think "No More!" After all, Tunisians managed in 29 days to end the rule of Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali, their dictator of 23 years. Why not, Egyptians asked.
While protests in both Tunisia and Egypt have focused on the corruption of their respective dictators and the ensuing unemployment and poverty, there are two demands that fuel the mass protests: freedom and dignity.
Think of that as we consider the days and ways ahead.
Even after Ben Ali fled, Tunisians continued to protest to get rid of his cronies from the interim government. And they're succeeding. They've written a great manual for leaderless uprisings - as both Tunisia and Egypt are experiencing. When people want to know who's in charge, and when people keep trying to ring the Islamists' alarm bell, the people answer: "We're in charge."
The thousands of Egyptians braving the brutality of Mubarak's security apparatus are having none of it. It's about freedom and dignity for them, not about the dictator and the Islamists. It's the West that's hung up on that. And it's hung up on it because for decades the West has sided with "stability" - which has come at the cost of the freedom and dignity of Egyptians, Tunisians and other Arabs.
Egyptians want to decide for themselves who should rule them. If they don't like emerging alternatives, those alternatives have been put on notice by the sight of tens of thousands of people whose imagination has been unleashed from fear and who dare say, "We deserve more."
I got two phone calls from Cairo under information lockdown. The first was from an activist with the Muslim Brotherhood who wanted me to know the regime was imposing a blackout so it could shoot and arrest with impunity.
The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest opposition group, supported the protest symbolically at first, without calling for its members to join as a movement. Still, many Muslim Brothers joined as individuals. But the activist who called me said the movement had been embarrassed into joining due to the momentum of the protests.
The Muslim Brotherhood certainly has some support in Egypt - estimates put it at 20 to 35 per cent - and as Egyptians who have been systematically targeted by the regime, jailed and tortured, of course its members would protest. In fact, the Mubarak regime was trying to make it seem like the Brotherhood was driving the protest, which it most certainly wasn't. That was just the Mubarak regime trying to frighten its allies into silence.
The regime has so far rounded up more than 1,000 people - from all backgrounds, not just the Brotherhood. It's a regime that represses all opposition.
That first caller and I hold very different political views. I am liberal and secular. But when the Mubarak regime jailed him, I wrote a column defending him; he has published my columns against the Brotherhood on a website he runs.
My politics are much more similar to those of the second caller, a human rights defender who is a member of liberal and feminist groups. He represents those young activists who have used social media with such agility against Mubarak's regime. The activist called to tell me that protesters were concerned their defiance of a Mubarak-imposed curfew would be met with even more brutal violence.
So, essentially, both calls from Egypt voiced the same concern.
One of the main demands of the protests is an end to Mubarak's rule. In presidential elections later this year, he was expected to seek a sixth term in office. I would sincerely love to see Mubarak go, and if he does, those Egyptians who smashed through fear must be the ones to decide who they want to replace him.
They don't want a Mubarak-lite. They will not sacrifice their freedom and dignity so Western allies can feel better about Egypt - which means a future government must reflect all those Egyptians out there, day after day.
Future leaders be warned: a seven-nation army won't hold them back.
© 2011 Toronto Star
Published on Sunday, January 30, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
The Torture Career of Egypt's New Vice President: Omar Suleiman and the Rendition to Torture Program
In response to the mass protests of recent days, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has appointed his first Vice President in his over 30 years rule, intelligence chief Omar Suleiman. When Suleiman was first announced, Aljazeera commentators were describing him as a "distinguished" and "respected " man. It turns out, however, that he is distinguished for, among other things, his central role in Egyptian torture and in the US rendition to torture program. Further, he is "respected" by US officials for his cooperation with their torture plans, among other initiatives.
Katherine Hawkins, an expert [1] on the US's rendition to torture program, in an email, has sent some critical texts where Suleiman pops up. Thus, Jane Mayer, in The Dark Side [2], pointed to Suleiman's role in the rendition program:Each rendition was authorized at the very top levels of both governments....The long-serving chief of the Egyptian central intelligence agency, Omar Suleiman, negotiated directly with top Agency officials. [Former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt] Walker described the Egyptian counterpart, Suleiman, as "very bright, very realistic," adding that he was cognizant that there was a downside to "some of the negative things that the Egyptians engaged in, of torture and so on. But he was not squeamish, by the way" (pp. 113).
Stephen Grey, in Ghost Plane [3], his investigative work on the rendition program also points to Suleiman as central in the rendition program:
To negotiate these assurances [that the Egyptians wouldn't "torture" the prisoner delivered for torture] the CIA dealt principally in Egypt through Omar Suleiman, the chief of the Egyptian general intelligence service (EGIS) since 1993. It was he who arranged the meetings with the Egyptian interior ministry.... Suleiman, who understood English well, was an urbane and sophisticated man. Others told me that for years Suleiman was America's chief interlocutor with the Egyptian regime -- the main channel to President Hosni Mubarak himself, even on matters far removed from intelligence and security.
Suleiman's role, was also highlighted in a Wikileaks cable [4]:
In the context of the close and sustained cooperation between the USG and GOE on counterterrorism, Post believes that the written GOE assurances regarding the return of three Egyptians detained at Guantanamo (reftel) represent the firm commitment of the GOE to adhere to the requested principles. These assurances were passed directly from Egyptian General Intelligence Service (EGIS) Chief Soliman through liaison channels -- the most effective communication path on this issue. General Soliman's word is the GOE's guarantee, and the GOE's track record of cooperation on CT issues lends further support to this assessment. End summary.
However, Suleiman wasn't just the go-to bureaucrat for when the Americans wanted to arrange a little torture. This "urbane and sophisticated man" apparently enjoyed a little rough stuff himself.
Shortly after 9/11, Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib was captured by Pakistani security forces and, under US pressure, torture by Pakistanis. He was then rendered (with an Australian diplomats watching) by CIA operatives to Egypt, a not uncommon practice. In Egypt, Habib merited Suleiman's personal attention. As related by Richard Neville [5], based on Habib's memoir:
Habib was interrogated by the country's Intelligence Director, General Omar Suleiman.... Suleiman took a personal interest in anyone suspected of links with Al Qaeda. As Habib had visited Afghanistan shortly before 9/11, he was under suspicion. Habib was repeatedly zapped with high-voltage electricity, immersed in water up to his nostrils, beaten, his fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks.
That treatment wasn't enough for Suleiman, so:
To loosen Habib's tongue, Suleiman ordered a guard to murder a gruesomely shackled Turkistan prisoner in front of Habib - and he did, with a vicious karate kick.
After Suleiman's men extracted Habib's confession, he was transferred back to US custody, where he eventually was imprisoned at Guantanamo. His "confession" was then used as evidence in his Guantanamo trial.
The Washington Post's intelligence correspondent Jeff Stein reported some additional details[6] regarding Suleiman and his important role in the old Egypt the demonstrators are trying to leave behind:
"Suleiman is seen by some analysts as a possible successor to the president," the Voice of American said [7] Friday. "He earned international respect for his role as a mediator in Middle East affairs and for curbing Islamic extremism."
An editorialist at Pakistan's "International News" predicted [8] Thursday that "Suleiman will probably scupper his boss's plans [to install his son], even if the aspiring intelligence guru himself is as young as 75."
Suleiman graduated from Egypt's prestigious Military Academy but also received training in the Soviet Union. Under his guidance, Egyptian intelligence has worked hand-in-glove with the CIA's counterterrorism programs, most notably in the 2003 rendition from Italy of an al-Qaeda suspect known as Abu Omar [9].
In 2009, Foreign Policy [10] magazine ranked [11] Suleiman as the Middle East's most powerful intelligence chief, ahead of Mossad chief Meir Dagan.
In an observation that may turn out to be ironic, the magazine wrote, "More than from any other single factor, Suleiman's influence stems from his unswerving loyalty to Mubarak."
If Suleiman succeeds Mubarak and retains power, we will likely be treated to plaudits for his distinguished credentials from government officials and US pundits. We should remember that what they really mean is his ability to brutalize and torture. As Stephen Grey puts it:
But in secret, men like Omar Suleiman, the country's most powerful spy and secret politician, did our work, the sort of work that Western countries have no appetite to do ourselves.
If Suleiman receives praise in the US, it will be because our leaders know that he's the sort of leader who can be counted on to do what it takes to restore order and ensure that Egypt remains friendly to US interests.
There are some signs, however, that the Obama administration may not accept Suleiman's appointment. Today they criticized the rearrangement of the chairs in Egypt's government. If so, that will be a welcome sign that the Obama administration may have some limits beyond which it is hesitant to go in aligning with our most brutal "friends."
We sure hope that the Egyptian demonstrators reject the farce of Suleiman's appointment and push on to a complete change of regime. Otherwise the Egyptian torture chamber will undoubtedly return, as a new regime reestablishes "stability" and serves US interests.
Published on Sunday, January 30, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
ElBaradei, Muslim Brotherhood Offer Political Path Out of Egyptian Confrontation
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader Essam el-Eryan said today that Egyptian opposition groups have agreed to back former IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to negotiate with the government, Al Jazeera reports [1]:
Egypt's opposition groups have agreed to support opposition figure Mohamed ElBaradei to negotiate with the government, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood said on Sunday. "Political groups support ElBaradei to negotiate with the regime," Essam el-Eryan told Al Jazeera.
This move by Egyptian opposition groups potentially offers a peaceful path out of the crisis not only for the Egyptian government, but also for the United States government, which is finding itself the object of increasingly bitter criticism from Egyptians who back the protesters' call for Mubarak to step down and see the policy of the United States of backing Mubarak as a key obstacle to the realization of their aspirations for free and fair elections. Failure to take advantage of this opportunity could lead to a bloody showdown in the streets - even worse than what we have seen already - for which the U.S. would bear significant responsibility.
One path to the holding of free and fair elections would be the establishment of a transitional government to prepare the elections. Yesterday, US officials seemed to indicate support for this possibility. The New York Times reported [2]:
Another possibility, American officials say, would be a transitional government led by an outsider, perhaps Mohamed ElBaradei, the former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who flew back to Cairo several days ago. [...] A frequent critic of United States policy, he could form a caretaker government in preparation for an election. As one American official said, "He's shown an independence from us that will squelch any argument that he's doing our bidding."
U.S. officials have said that the Egyptian government should engage in dialogue with the opposition. Now, apparently, there's a proposal on the table from opposition parties for such dialogue. What the opposition parties want to talk about is establishing a path to free and fair elections - the same thing they have been demanding for months.
The proposal from the opposition parties for negotiations with the government is an opportunity for the U.S. to "put its money where its mouth is." The US could publicly call on, and privately pressure, the Egyptian government to respond to the opposition parties' call for negotiations.
Of course, many want the US government to do much more than this. They want the US and other Western allies of the Egyptian government to publicly condemn Mubarak, publicly call on Mubarak to step down, and indeed to try to force Mubarak out; and many are increasingly frustrated that the U.S. is not even willing to condemn Mubarak.
The Washington Post reports [3] today:
In the streets of Cairo, many protesters are now openly denouncing the United States for supporting President Hosni Mubarak, saying the price has been their freedom. They say the Obama administration has offered only tepid criticism of a regime that has received billions of dollars in U.S. aid.
The New York Times reported yesterday that the U.S. says it does not want to call for Mubarak to step down because 1) it fears losing all leverage with Mubarak 2) it fears creating a power vacuum in Egypt 3) it wants to avoid the perception that the U.S. was "once again" engineering the ouster of a Middle East leader.
Regardless of whether one believes that these stated reasons are the full story, or whether they are also a cover for other U.S. motivations - the Times acknowledges that the administration's "restraint" is also driven by lack of enthusiasm for "dealing with an Egypt without Mubarak" - these are the stated reasons of the U.S. for not responding to the protesters' call.
But publicly and privately backing the opposition parties' call for negotiations would not, on the face of it, trigger any of the stated U.S. objections. It is a very modest demand, totally consistent with previous U.S. statements, which would not plausibly lead to "losing all leverage" with Mubarak; it would not create a "power vacuum"; it would not reasonably lead to a perception that the U.S. was "engineering" Mubarak's ouster. On the contrary: the U.S. would be raising the profile of a particular proposal for negotiations as a way out of the crisis, and increasing pressure on the Egyptian government to respond to it.
No doubt some folks who subscribe to the "cooties" school of international diplomacy may object to any U.S. endorsement of a process that involves the Muslim Brotherhood. But refusing to support this reasonable, pragmatic, and moderate proposal, just because the Muslim Brotherhood also supports it, would be extremely short-sighted. The Brotherhood brings a lot to the table in its potential to help peacefully establish a consensus government that could supervise elections that the majority of Egyptians would see as legitimate.
And the fact that the Brotherhood is endorsing ElBaradei to negotiate with the Egyptian government on its behalf indicates a key thing that ElBaradei brings to the table: since his return to Egyptian politics, ElBaradei has established a relationship of trust with the Brotherhood. This is a key asset for ElBaradei, the Brotherhood, and all Egyptians going forward towards the establishment of free and fair elections and of a government that the majority of Egyptians will see as legitimate.
The U.S. should take advantage of this asset, and of this proposal for negotiations, and act decisively to forestall a bloody confrontation between protesters and forces loyal to Mubarak which could be significantly worse than what we have seen already, and for which the U.S. would bear substantial responsibility.
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy
