Sarkozy visit to Damascus signals thaw in relationsIan ...



[pic]

Fri. 11 Feb. 2011

FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE

➢ Assad Avoids Unrest…………………….…………………..1

YEDIOTH AHRONOTH

➢ Assad backs synagogue renovation………….………………5

➢

ECONOMIST

➢ Syria's Reaction: An alternative is sighted…………………..6

BBC

➢ Syrian flag carrier struggles to keep flying…………….……8

INDEPENDENT

➢ Fisk: As Mubarak clings on... What now for Egypt?............12

➢ MidEast leaders react nervously to Mubarak's defiance…...17

LATIMES

➢ Israelis divided on how to respond to Egypt turmoil………20

FOREIGN POLICY

➢ 10 Reasons Americans Should Care About the Egyptian Revolution………………………………….………………24

➢ Mubarak's 9 biggest mistakes………………………...…….28

WASHINGTON POST

➢ Syria and Facebook: Not quite friends…………………..…30

➢ Dear Hosni Mubarak . . ………………………………...….32

➢ Do Egypt's protests mean American decline?.......................35

GUARDIAN

➢ Mubarak teases Egypt as his regime fragments……………37

➢ Trade unions: the revolutionary social network at play in Egypt and Tunisia………………………………………….40

➢ Egypt: Barack Obama's statement in full…………………..44

HOME PAGE

Assad Avoids Unrest

Ryan Mauro (is the founder of , the Israeli National Security Adviser for the Christian Action Network and an analyst with Wikistrat)

Front Page Magazine (Israeli),

10 Feb. 2011,

Syrian President Bashar Assad is one of the few Middle Eastern leaders who have been spared the wrath of his people following the overthrow of Tunisian President Ben Ali. This isn’t because he is well-liked. It is because his Baathist regime has worked hard to stamp out any potential beginning of an uprising and the opposition cannot organize, but that is something the West can and must change.

The secular democratic opposition picked Saturday, February 5 as their “Day of Rage,” though some protests were planned for the previous day. It was obvious that Assad knew he had trouble headed his way. He talked about an agenda of “reform” and increased heating oil subsidies by 72 percent and a $250 million aid package for poor families. There was an unconfirmed report of a self-immolation by a female student at Aleppo University and several tribes endorsed a democratic uprising. Facebook groups calling for regime change sprung up, including one called “The Syrian Revolution” that had 13,000 supporters. Demonstrations at the Yarmouk refugee camp and in Old Damascus were dispersed and a statue of Hafez al-Assad at Latakia was reportedly beheaded.

The Baathists worked diligently to prevent any demonstration from forming, unlike in Tunisia and Egypt where they were initially permitted. Facebook and YouTube had been blocked until this week, making it further difficult to organize. Antennas were seen being confiscated from roofs in Aleppo and the security services immediately dispersed any gathering. The army was deployed to the Kurdish areas of Aleppo and 2,000 members of Hezbollah were imported from Lebanon, substantiating an earlier report from the Reform Party of Syria, which added that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards had joined the army’s Battalion 108 in Damascus, Aleppo and Qamoshli.

One protest organizer said that security personnel showed up at every gathering, filmed those present and asked for identification from each person. Internet cafes were ordered to document who was using their computers in the week up to the “Day of Rage.” An activist named Suhair Atassi took part in a candlelight vigil supporting the protestors in Egypt and was attacked. When she went to file a report at the local police station, she was accused of being an Israeli agent.

As the “Day of Rage” neared, the Internet was slowed down or altogether inaccessible in some areas. Thousands of mobile phones were reportedly unable to get service. A group of protestors that met at a café before marching toward the parliament were locked inside the building for hours. The Reform Party of Syria reported that protestors in Hasakeh were attacked, some with pipes, and arrested. About 20 were reportedly arrested in Qamoshli and others were detained in Homs. Ultimately, the opposition was unable to assemble and the “Day of Rage” fell flat.

“The security forces have effectively suppressed civil society and scared people into submission,” said Mazen Darwish, whose Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression was shut down by the regime in 2009.

There are multiple reasons for the failure of the “Day of Rage” beyond the inability to access social networking websites and the immense security measures. The opposition suffers from a lack of organization and others feared sectarian conflict or violence by regime thugs like seen in Egypt. There has also been little international support for the opposition or media coverage of their struggles over the years.

“You can’t sit in Europe or the U.S. behind your screen and create a revolution as easy as clicking a mouse to create a Facebook group,” Ahed al-Hendi, the Arabic program coordinator at told FrontPage. He was imprisoned and tortured as a student in Syria and now lives in the United States.

The Syrian regime has successfully frightened the West out of supporting its dissidents by taking advantage of the perception that the only alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists. In the days leading up to the “Day of Rage,” the Reform Party of Syria’s website was hacked and verses from the Koran were posted.

The regime has allowed extremists like the late Abu Qaqa to assemble anti-American, radical Islamic protests attended by government officials while preventing any such demonstration by secular forces. Qaqa’s former second-in-command believes he was an agent of the regime. The Syrian government also organized riots following the publication of the cartoons mocking Mohammed in February 2006 to persuade the West that “This is what you will have if we allow true democracy and allow Islamists to rule,” in the words of a confidential source in a document released by Wikileaks.

The Reform Party of Syria estimates that the Islamists are only about 20 percent of the population. Ahed al-Hendi told FrontPage that he also thinks the strength of the Islamists in Syria is overestimated, saying the country is very diverse.

“I don’t think the Muslim Brotherhood would take over in a country like Syria. I lived most of my life in Syria and I have met lots of Sunnis who consider applying Sharia law in Syria to be a joke despite the fact that most of them are observant Muslims,” al-Hendi told FrontPage.

However, the fact remains that the secular opposition has been unable to organize as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. The Syrian regime was worried enough about the Islamist threat to abandon its tactic of allowing their voices to be periodically heard and arrested an Islamist activist named Ghassan al-Najjar in Aleppo.

The failure of the “Day of Rage” does not mean that Assad is safe. His regime consists of Allawites, which are only about 10 to 13 percent of the entire population. Its status as a secular dictatorship alienates both secular democrats and Islamists. A poll last year found that the top issue for Syrians is political freedom followed by corruption. About 60 percent feel the economy is “bad,” nearly 60 percent describe the human rights situation as “bad” or “very bad” and 47 percent feel that Syria is headed in the wrong direction. Despite all of the regime’s propaganda, only six percent rated the possibility of war as their top issue. About 80 percent of the population wants the state of emergency to be lifted.

The survey also found that 62 percent had heard of the Damascus Declaration, a document signed by the leading opposition figures calling for a transition into a democracy. Only 9 percent expressed disapproval of it, while 47 percent approve and 31 percent are neutral, indicating that they have not had access to enough information about it. These statistics indicate a longing for an alternative that will implement democratic reform, but the numbers do not let us determine the level of Islamist sentiment among the population.

In the days following the failed “Day of Rage,” the regime lifted the ban on Facebook and YouTube. This shows that Assad is still concerned and is trying to appease the youth. This is a decision that Assad will come to regret and inevitably reverse as it will allow the opposition to better organize. The time is ripe for a change in U.S. policy towards Syria that recognizes the regime’s many weaknesses.

Unlike the governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan and Yemen, the one in Syria is a fierce enemy of the United States. The West needs to help the secularists organize so they can assist the Syrian people in demonstrating their anger over the lack of political freedom, the state of emergency and the corruption. Bashar Assad isn’t dismissing the power of his population and neither should we.

HOME PAGE

Assad backs synagogue renovation

Syrian ambassador to US says plan to restore 11 synagogues across country 'has nothing to do with the conflict and is not a gesture to the Israelis'

Smadar Peri

Yedioth Ahronoth,

10 Feb. 2011,

Renovation experts plan to complete the restoration of the Al-Raqi Synagogue in the old Jewish quarter of Damascus by the end of the month as the renovation of 10 other synagogues in Syria's major cities continues.

"Assad sees the rebuilding of Jewish Damascus in the context of preserving the secularism of Syria,” Josh Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, told the Wall Street Journal. “This is an effort by the regime to show its seriousness and an olive branch to the Jewish community in America, which they have been wooing.”

The project was likely executed following Assad's meeting two months ago with Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

At the time, Hoenlein denied reports that he was sent to relay a message to the Syrian president from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He said he arrived to discuss a sensitive issue, related to the Jewish synagogues and cemeteries in Syria and received a "very positive response from Assad."

Despite the generous move, it is probably not meant as a message from Syria to Israel. "It has nothing to do with the Israeli-Syrian conflict," Syrian Ambassador to the US Imad Mustafa said Monday. "This is not a gesture to the Israelis."

Seeking closer ties with Syrian Jews

Commentators estimated that the move was aimed at improving Assad's image in the American administration, which views him as Iran's ally and a disturbance in Lebanon.

According to the commentators, the president seeks to use the gesture in order to strengthen Syria's ties with the large Syrian-Jewish community centered in Brooklyn, New York and New Jersey.

Many of the community members, estimated at 75,000, maintain close ties with Syria. Some of them visit their birthplaces and conduct regular business relations in the country.

Over the years, dozens of the community members returned to Syria after experiencing absorption difficulties in the US, mainly financial.

HOME PAGE

Syria's Reaction: An alternative is sighted

For the moment, the president is safe. But this may change

The Economist,

10 Feb. 2011,

BASHAR ASSAD, Syria’s president, has not been entirely immune to the unrest sweeping the region around him. Motley crews of mukhabarat, the secret police, are out in force. Syria’s surging population and high unemployment, as well as its curbs on freedom of expression, may appear to make it ripe for revolt. But Mr Assad has proved himself a tenacious leader.

The security forces render small gatherings—such as those in support of Egypt last week—virtually impossible. The state has unabashedly stepped up arrests and imprisoned activists. By recruiting key commanders from his minority Alawite sect and Sunni loyalists, Mr Assad controls the army and intelligence services. There are no signs of the internecine divides that led to an attempted coup against Hafez, Bashar’s father, by his brother in 1983, or the defection of the vice-president, Abdul Halim Khaddam, in 2005. A tacit pact between the Alawite and Sunni elites is cemented by the skilful doling-out of the fruits of economic liberalisation.

The president’s Baathist regime has also bred fear of upheaval by manipulating suspicions between the country’s numerous sects. For this reason, unrest in the eastern Kurdish areas never quite gains momentum, and opposition groups have been snuffed out. External contenders, including the banned Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, have few roots in the country. A coalition of intellectuals from Kurdish, secular and Islamic opposition groups provided the last internal push. Many of them now languish in jail; others, banned from leaving the country, creep around silently.

The new generation of Syrians, brought up on a diet of Baathist propaganda, has become depoliticised. Bloody civil wars in Lebanon and Iraq have convinced them that security is more worth having. Moreover, many of them like Mr Assad. He is youngish himself, at 45, and his ten years in power are a short spell by regional standards. By adopting the rhetoric of resistance, he has made himself immune from accusations that he is a lackey of the West. Some in Damascus discuss the protests in Egypt with glee, believing that the fall of Hosni Mubarak, America’s friend, will only assist Syria’s rise.

But wily as he is, Mr Assad would be wrong to relax. The regime’s image, if not its core, has been rattled. “People now have an insight into alternatives, even if they don’t want them yet,” says one activist. And economic woes may yet force the issue. Syria may not have the sprawling slums of Cairo, but poverty is growing; it may have new universities, but their graduates are often unable to find jobs.

How much does Mr Assad want economic reform? Ministers are split between unaffordable socialism and painful moves towards the free market. Increasing prosperity and freedoms will involve dismantling a support force of loyal allies, army generals and security chiefs that is used to growing rich through corruption. It will also mean cutting subsidies for the masses.

In mid-January, spooked by events in Tunisia, the government increased the fuel subsidy for public workers. In previous years it had been gradually repealing such subsidies, in the interest of unbinding the economy. Now Mr Assad clearly feels less confident. Intellectuals and members of the opposition can be kept down by his security forces; the masses, when they stir, may be harder to handle.

HOME PAGE

Syrian flag carrier struggles to keep flying

By Edwin Lane

BBC,

10 Feb. 2011,

Syria's national flag carrier, Syrianair, is running out of planes.

On the parched grass beside the runway of Damascus Airport stands most of its fleet - about half a dozen old Boeing 727s and two giant 747s dating from the 1970s.

All are out of service thanks to seven years of US sanctions, which prevent Syria from importing planes or their spare parts.

Today, Syrianair has just six Airbus A320s still capable of flying, a tiny number compared with neighbouring Royal Jordanian Airlines, for example, with its fleet of more than 30 planes.

Senior sources at the airline admit that the situation is "critical".

The company needs to buy new planes fast or could soon find itself running an airline without any airliners.

"This is an airline that is just aiming for survival right now," says Abdulkader Husrieh, a prominent Syrian financial consultant.

Beginning to bite

US sanctions on Syria, first put in place by the Bush administration in 2004, are having a particularly severe effect on the airline industry.

Imposed in response to Syria's support of the militant Hezbollah group in Lebanon and Islamist Hamas in Gaza, they ban the export of most US goods to the country.

That stops both the US giant Boeing and Europe's Airbus from exporting planes to Syria - two companies that between them dominate the global airliner market.

Smaller manufacturers such as Canada's Bombardier and Brazil's Embraer are also covered by the sanction rules because they use at least 10% of US-made components.

"Airlines are particularly vulnerable to US sanctions because it is one of the few things that America has a quasi-monopoly on," says Joshua Landis, a Syria-watcher and director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma.

The impact on the airline's passenger numbers is clear.

"Frankly, they are plummeting," says airline consultant Gordon Bevan from ASM Global.

Syrianair carried nearly 1.3m passengers in 2007, according to government figures.

By 2009, that figure had dropped to fewer than 740,000 passengers.

No exceptions

A change in US president, and Barack Obama's new policy of engagement with Syria and its authoritarian regime headed by President Bashar al-Assad, has improved the situation somewhat.

At the beginning of last year, Syrianair had just three Airbuses, until the US embassy in Damascus took pity and gave permission for some spare parts to be delivered, allowing the other three to be repaired and get back in the air.

Similar exceptions have now been made for the overhaul of the two ageing 747s, though those repairs have yet to begin.

While one-off concessions may keep Syrianair airborne for a few more years, expansion is out of the question.

No exceptions have been made to purchase new planes from either Airbus or Boeing, despite attempts by Syrianair to secure a deal with Airbus for the delivery of more than 50 new planes - the fleet size it says it needs to compete - over the next 20 years.

That is particularly galling for the airline given that its home market is growing rapidly, allowing the rapid expansion of its Middle East rivals.

The number of tourists coming to Syria is rising fast.

Some 8.5 million people visited the country last year, up 40% on 2009, according to the government.

There are plans to boost that number to 14 million by in the next five years.

'Left behind'

To cater for the boom, flights into Syria's airports are up, with 20 airlines now operating regular services.

Currently, it is neighbouring flag carrier Turkish Airlines that is benefitting at Syrainair's expense, along with several low-cost carriers and the three Gulf giants - Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways - now spearheading a boom in Middle East air travel.

"The Middle East is probably the most dynamic growth market in the world at the moment," observes Keith McMullen, the managing director of Aviation Economics, a global aviation consultancy.

"Traditional flag-carriers like Syrianair have been simply left behind."

In an increasingly desperate search for new aircraft, the airline has been forced to look east to its old Cold War patron Russia, and its state-run plane-maker Tupolev.

Tupolev's planes are less efficient, noisier and difficult to maintain - even the Russian state airline Aeroflot has now ditched its Tupolev fleet in favour of Boeings and Airbuses.

But Syrianair has little choice.

Tupolev uses less than 10% US parts, so the airline plans to receive two by the end of the year.

'It carries our flag'

Until US sanctions are lifted, there is little prospect of a more long-term and sustainable solution to give Syrianair the planes it needs to expand.

And despite the thawing of relations between Washington and Damascus, the chances that sanctions will be lifted anytime soon look equally bleak.

"Sanctions will be imposed for decades to come," says Professor Landis.

Syria would have to renounce its support for Hezbollah and Hamas for the US congress to consider easing sanctions, he says, measures Syria can never take for political reasons.

But even if sanctions are eventually lifted, that will not mark the end of Syrainair's problems, analysts say.

The airline has suffered from decades of inefficient management under government ownership, says financier Mr Husrieh, and is in urgent need of restructuring.

Since coming to power more than a decade ago, President Assad has promised far-reaching economic reform, including a concerted effort to boost the private sector.

But the public sector still dominates the economy, and old habits die hard.

"Like all public sector companies in Syria, lots of the business decisions [at Syrianair] are made for political reasons, rather than commercial," Mr Husrieh explains.

But that may also be the airlines's saviour. The government will never allow Syrianair to shut up shop, planes or no planes.

"The government will never liquidate it," he says.

"It carries our flag."

HOME PAGE

Robert Fisk: As Mubarak clings on... What now for Egypt?

The fury of a people whose hopes were raised and then dashed

Independent,

11 Feb. 2011,

To the horror of Egyptians and the world, President Hosni Mubarak – haggard and apparently disoriented – appeared on state television last night to refuse every demand of his opponents by staying in power for at least another five months. The Egyptian army, which had already initiated a virtual coup d'état, was nonplussed by the President's speech which had been widely advertised – by both his friends and his enemies – as a farewell address after 30 years of dictatorship. The vast crowds in Tahrir Square were almost insane with anger and resentment.

Mubarak tried – unbelievably – to placate his infuriated people with a promise to investigate the killings of his opponents in what he called "the unfortunate, tragic events", apparently unaware of the mass fury directed at his dictatorship for his three decades of corruption, brutality and repression.

The old man had originally appeared ready to give up, faced at last with the rage of millions of Egyptians and the power of history, sealed off from his ministers like a bacillus, only grudgingly permitted by his own army from saying goodbye to the people who hated him.

Yet the very moment that Hosni Mubarak embarked on what was supposed to be his final speech, he made it clear that he intended to cling to power. To the end, the President's Information Minister insisted he would not leave. There were those who, to the very last moment, feared that Mubarak's departure would be cosmetic – even though his presidency had evaporated in the face of his army's decision to take power earlier in the evening.

History may later decide that the army's lack of faith in Mubarak effectively lost his presidency after three decades of dictatorship, secret police torture and government corruption. Confronted by even greater demonstrations on the streets of Egypt today, even the army could not guarantee the safety of the nation. Yet for Mubarak's opponents, today will not be a day of joy and rejoicing and victory but a potential bloodbath.

But was this a victory for Mubarak or a military coup d'état? Can Egypt ever be free? For the army generals to insist upon his departure was as dramatic as it was dangerous. Are they, a state within a state, now truly the guardians of the nation, defenders of the people – or will they continue to support a man who must be judged now as close to insanity? The chains which bound the military to the corruption of Mubarak's regime were real. Are they to stand by democracy – or cement a new Mubarak regime?

Even as Mubarak was still speaking, the millions in Tahrir Square roared their anger and fury and disbelief. Of course, the millions of courageous Egyptians who fought the whole apparatus of state security run by Mubarak should have been the victors. But as yesterday afternoon's events proved all too clearly, it was the senior generals – who enjoy the luxury of hotel chains, shopping malls, real estate and banking concessions from the same corrupt regime – who permitted Mubarak to survive. At an ominous meeting of the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces, Defence Minister Mohamed Tantawi – one of Mubarak's closest friends – agreed to meet the demands of the millions of democracy protesters, without stating that the regime would itself be dissolved. Mubarak himself, commander-in-chief of the army, was not permitted to attend.

But this is a Middle Eastern epic, one of those incremental moments when the Arab people – forgotten, chastised, infantilised, repressed, often beaten, tortured too many times, occasionally hanged – will still strive to give the great wheel of history a shove, and shake off the burden of their lives. Last night, however, dictatorship had still won. Democracy had lost.

All day, the power of the people had grown as the prestige of the President and his hollow party collapsed. The vast crowds in Tahrir Square began yesterday to move out over all of central Cairo, even moving behind the steel gates of the People's Assembly, setting up their tents in front of the pseudo-Greek parliament building in a demand for new and fair elections. Today, they were planning to enter the parliament itself, taking over the symbol of Mubarak's fake "democracy". Fierce arguments among the army hierarchy – and apparently between Vice-President Omar Suleiman and Mubarak himself – continued while strikes and industrial stoppages spread across Egypt. Well over seven million protesters were estimated to be on the streets of Egypt yesterday – the largest political demonstration in the country's modern history, greater even than the six million who attended the funeral of Gamal Abdul Nasser, the first Egyptian dictator whose rule continued through Anwar Sadat's vain presidency and the three dead decades of Mubarak.

It was too early, last night, for the crowds in Tahrir Square to understand the legal complexities of Mubarak's speech. But it was patronising, self-serving and immensely dangerous. The Egyptian constitution insists that presidential power must pass to the speaker of parliament, a colourless Mubarak crony called Fatih Srour, and elections – fair ones, if this can be imagined – held within 60 days. But many believe that Suleiman may choose to rule by some new emergency law and then push Mubarak out of power, staking out a timetable for new and fraudulent elections and yet another terrible epoch of dictatorship. The truth, however, is that

the millions of Egyptians who have tried to unseat their Great Dictator regard their constitution – and the judiciary and the entire edifice of government institutions – with the same contempt as they do Mubarak. They want a new constitution, new laws to limit the powers and tenure of presidents, new and early elections which will reflect the "will of the people" rather than the will of the president or the transition president, or of generals and brigadiers and state security thugs.

Last night, a military officer guarding the tens of thousands celebrating in Cairo threw down his rifle and joined the demonstrators, yet another sign of the ordinary Egyptian soldier's growing sympathy for the democracy demonstrators. We had witnessed many similar sentiments from the army over the past two weeks. But the critical moment came on the evening of 30 January when, it is now clear, Mubarak ordered the Egyptian Third Army to crush the demonstrators in Tahrir Square with their tanks after flying F-16 fighter bombers at low level over the protesters.

Many of the senior tank commanders could be seen tearing off their headsets – over which they had received the fatal orders – to use their mobile phones. They were, it now transpires, calling their own military families for advice. Fathers who had spent their lives serving the Egyptian army told their sons to disobey, that they must never kill their own people.

Thus when General Hassan al-Rawani told the massive crowds yesterday evening that "everything you want will be realised – all your demands will be met", the people cried back: "The army and the people stand together – the army and the people are united. The army and the people belong to one hand."

Last night, the Cairo court prevented three ministers – so far unnamed, although they almost certainly inc-lude the Minister of Interior – from leaving Egypt.

But neither the army nor Vice-President Suleiman are likely to be able to face the far greater demonstrations planned for today, a fact that was conveyed to 83-year-old Mubarak by Tantawi himself, standing next to Suleiman. Tantawi and another general – believed to be the commander of the Cairo military area – called Washington, according to a senior Egyptian officer, to pass on the news to Robert Gates at the Pentagon. It must have been a sobering moment. For days, the White House had been grimly observing the mass demonstrations in Cairo, fearful that they would turn into a mythical Islamist monster, frightened that Mubarak might leave, even more terrified he might not.

The events of the past 12 hours have not, alas, been a victory for the West. American and European leaders who rejoiced at the fall of communist dictatorships have sat glumly regarding the extraordinary and wildly hopeful events in Cairo – a victory of morality over corruption and cruelty – with the same enthusiasm as many East European dictators watched the fall of their Warsaw Pact nations. Calls for stability and an "orderly" transition of power were, in fact, appeals for Mubarak to stay in power – as he is still trying to do – rather than a ringing endorsement of the demands of the overwhelming pro-democracy movement that should have struck him down.

Timeline...

11.00 As demonstrators mass in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the Foreign Minister warns of a military coup if protests continue

15.15 The Egyptian Prime Minister, Ahmed Shafiq, tells the BBC Arabic Service that Mubarak may step down

15.20 The secretary general of the ruling NDP party, Hossan Badrawy, says he expects Mubarak to make an announcement that will satisfy protesters' demands

15.30 An Egyptian army commander tells protesters in Tahrir Square that: "Everything you want will be realised"

15.45 Egypt's military council releases a statement saying it is in continuous session and the army will take necessary measures to "safeguard the homeland", in the clearest sign that Mubarak will be on his way out soon

16.04 The Information Minister, Anas el-Fekky, says Mubarak is in fact not stepping down and remains Egypt's President

16.15 Al Arabiya television station carries an unconfirmed report that Mubarak has travelled to the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh with his army chief of staff

17.11 A senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the biggest opposition group, says he fears the army is staging a coup

20.50 Defying expectations Mubarak speaks on state TV, giving no indication that he will step down soon

HOME PAGE

Middle East leaders react nervously to Mubarak's defiance

By Catrina Stewart in Jerusalem

Independent,

11 Feb. 2011,

Reaction in the Middle East to President Mubarak's defiant address to the nation was muted late yesterday, with nervous regional leaders hesitant to prejudge the outcome of fast-moving developments in Egypt.

Many had anticipated that Mr Mubarak would use the speech to announce his decision to step down, but he stopped short of that, prompting confused and angry reaction on Tahrir Square.

Israel, which has publicly backed Mr Mubarak's continued claim on power, made only a brief comment as public pressure mounted on Mr Mubarak to step down.

The Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, who is in the United States, said that it was up to the Egyptian people to "find its way," according to the constitution.

Israel's leaders are clearly nervous about developments in Egypt, fearful that a chaotic overthrow could usher in a new Islamic order hostile to Israel, and one that would annul the 31-year peace concord between the two countries.

Israeli politicians have long seen Mr Mubarak as a steadying influence in the Middle East, and one who is receptive to Israeli security concerns. Egypt has joined Israel in blockading the Gaza Strip, which is governed by the Islamist movement Hamas.

Israel also fears a new regime that would be more sympathetic to Hamas, which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and might even review its cooperation with Israel in blockading the enclave, making it easier for militants to smuggle arms into the strip.

Israel has quietly signalled that it would accept a new government in Cairo with Omar Suleiman, the Vice-President and intelligence chief, at its head with backing from the army. Mr Suleiman is regarded with respect and liking in Jerusalem.

But Israel has been preparing its people for worst-case scenarios in recent weeks. The Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called last week for "bolstering Israel's might," a reflection of the growing realisation that Israel might face new military threats in the event of an unfriendly Egypt on its southern border.

Meanwhile, Arab rulers have also watched events unfold with some unease, clearly nervous that protests in Tunisia – where President Ben Ali was ousted last month – and Egypt, a pivotal country in the Middle East, could spread to other countries in the region.

Several Middle Eastern leaders, autocrats themselves, have urged the United States to drop its calls for a speedy transition in Egypt, and in doing so head off a chaotic and turbulent change.

In the last few days, the Saudi ruler, King Abdullah, had a tense phone call with US President Barack Obama, where he reportedly admonished the American leader for his haste in calling for Mr Mubarak to step down.

Middle Eastern autocrats have good reason to be unnerved. The rumblings of dissent are already being heard throughout the region, which is plagued by economic problems such as high unemployment on the one hand, and nepotistic and corrupt elites on the other.

Protests in Jordan and Yemen have prompted the rulers of those countries to take dramatic pre-emptive steps to stop the demonstrators in their tracks. King Abdullah of Jordan sacked his government and promised political reform, while the Yemeni President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, vowed to step down when his term ends.

Many of these leaders, some of whom have held power for decades, have now been forced to consider their own positions, which have long been propped up by an authoritarian system of governance backed by security forces that are quick to crack down on dissent.

They are now facing emboldened citizens, who realise that an important threshold has been crossed. Popular protest has swept a despot from power in Tunisia, and has pushed the Egyptian regime to the brink.

HOME PAGE

Israelis divided on how to respond to Egypt turmoil

Critics say Israel's leaders have seemed unprepared to react to the likelihood of regime change in Egypt, whose landmark 1979 peace treaty with Israel has been a cornerstone of Israel's stability.

Edmund Sanders,

Los Angeles Times

February 11, 2011

Reporting from Jerusalem — As Israel faces what many fear could turn into its most serious national security threat in decades, fault lines are widening over how it should respond and some critics say the government appears ill prepared.

The mounting pressure to force out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is widely seen as Israel's most predictable Arab ally, and the uncertainty about what sort of government might replace his is fueling anxiety and debate here over Israel's next move.

"This whole situation is making Israel's hawks more hawkish and the doves more dovish," said Yossi Alpher, a former government peace talks advisor and co-editor of , a Mideast political research firm.

Critics say Israel's leaders have seemed surprisingly unprepared to react to the likelihood of regime change in Egypt, whose landmark 1979 peace treaty with Israel has long been a cornerstone of Israel's stability.

"Israelis have obsessed over lesser threats like Hezbollah [in Lebanon], Hamas [in the Gaza Strip] and the notional threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, but they took for granted the relationship with Egypt, which is a much greater threat to Israel's survival," said George Friedman, chief executive of Stratfor, a global political research firm. "Israel focused on the Mubarak government as if it were eternal."

Even as many Israeli officials and commentators complain bitterly about what they see as the Obama administration's missteps in distancing itself from Mubarak, critics say Israel has failed to articulate a clear policy of its own.

Part of Israel's challenge, as it has been for the United States, is the sensitivity of openly advocating preferences in a region where it is unpopular. Turkey this week warned Israel against meddling in Egypt, and American officials have said that any public involvement by Israel right now might only make matters worse.

"We can't have any influence," said Eli Shaked, a former Israeli ambassador to Egypt. "We have to sit and watch how the two sides in Egypt work it out."

But Friedman said Israel has relied too heavily on the United States and the international community to protect its interests.

"What is Israel's national strategy to maintain the peace treaty with Egypt?" he asked. "There are things they could do, but they don't want to do them."

On Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak traveled back from a trip to Washington, where he discussed the issue and sought reassurances of continued U.S. security support for Israel.

In Israel, familiar camps are forming over how the country should act. On one side, many conservatives are pushing Israel to circle the wagons, bolster its defenses and lobby the international community to ensure that Egypt's next government is as friendly toward Israel as the current one.

Others say that now is the time to try to make friends in the region, by attempting to restore soured relations with Turkey, pursuing a peace deal with Syria and ending the occupation of the West Bank.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing government so far has focused its official statements on warning against an Islamist takeover of Egypt. In a speech Tuesday to European leaders, Netanyahu sounded an alarm that Egypt could "go the way of Iran."

Some Israeli leaders have also offered public praise of Mubarak, though television commentator Oded Granot quipped Thursday that "Israel is already changing that tune."

Behind the scenes, Israeli officials have asked the United States to move slowly in replacing Mubarak, but have said they'd be comfortable with one of his close aides in power. According to a newly released WikiLeaks cable, Israeli officials told U.S. officials in 2008 that they viewed Omar Suleiman, now Egypt's vice president, as a suitable replacement for Mubarak.

Egypt's military is also viewed by Israel as a stable authority likely to uphold the peace treaty. The two countries' armies have worked closely together in combating the threat of Islamic extremists.

Israel seems to be betting that whatever power takes control in Egypt, it will probably opt to honor the 1979 treaty rather than risk resumed hostilities with Israel. Nevertheless, Israel's military is preparing to boost its defenses along its southwestern border with Egypt, accelerating construction of a security fence now expected to be completed next year.

Regarding stalled U.S.-brokered peace talks, most expect Netanyahu's government to adopt a harder line, particularly when it comes to territorial concessions.

"The new situation will push Israel to be much more obstinate in demands from Palestinians," said Zvi Mazel, another former Israeli ambassador to Egypt. "We will need a lot of guarantees."

Israeli President Shimon Peres is among those countering that Israel should move aggressively to reach an agreement on a Palestinian state to bolster its moderate allies in Egypt.

"These dramatic events increase the necessity of removing the burden of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the regional agenda," Peres told a gathering of opinion makers at the annual Herzliya Conference.

Some believe a deal for Palestinian statehood would increase support for moderates in Egypt and Jordan, who have paid a political price in recent years for working with Israel even amid its controversial military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. Jordan's King Abdullah II, whose country signed a 1994 peace treaty with Israel, recently distanced himself from Netanyahu, citing the lack of progress on peace talks.

Others suggest that Israel should revisit its rejection of the 2002 Arab League peace initiative, which offered Israel normalized relations with Arab nations in return for an end to the occupation.

"Rejecting the Arab peace initiative was a grave mistake," said Moshe Maoz, a professor of Islamic and Mideast studies at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace. "We are becoming much more isolated. This may be our last chance."

Critics scoff at the notion that resolving the Palestinian problem would suddenly end hostility toward Israel, saying the poor relations are rooted in anti-Semitism or a refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. After three decades of a "cold peace" with Egypt, Israeli businesses complain that their attempts to bolster trade have been rejected. In 2010, the countries traded about $500 million worth of goods, a relatively small amount considering Egypt's size.

"We tried everything [to make peace with the Arab world]," former ambassador Mazel said. "They are not ready to accept us."

Alon Liel, a former director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry, said Israel must decide whether it wants to try to reach out to the Arab world. He said that a decade ago, Israel had diplomatic relations with nine Muslim countries that have all since closed their offices or withdrawn representatives. Egypt, he warned, may be next.

"Israel has been ousted from the Middle East," Liel said. "The Israeli government seems to be in this mood that says, "All right, if the Middle East is lost for now, we can do without it.' … Now we have to think about our action plan. We have two choices: accept it, or try to change it."

HOME PAGE

10 Reasons Americans Should Care About the Egyptian Revolution

From the U.S. budget to Israel, from morality to Facebook, here's why you should be following the amazing events in Cairo.

Stephen Walt,

10 Feb. 2011,

If you're a reader of my blog, you probably care a lot about foreign policy and you've probably already been riveted by events in Egypt, including President Hosni Mubarak's latest attempt to cling to power by offering largely meaningless concessions. But maybe one of your friends has asked you why Americans should care at all about who is governing that country or why it matters what its political system is. Although I think one can exaggerate Egypt's importance to the United States, here are 10 reasons why Americans should care about what is happening there.

1. Money

The United States gives Egypt about $2 billion each year in economic and military aid (mostly the latter). This is partly a bribe to reinforce the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and encourage Egypt to collaborate with the United States in other ways (extraordinary rendition, anyone?). That's not a huge amount of money for a country whose economy is $13 trillion, but in these troubled budgetary times, every dollar counts. So if you care about where your money is spent and on whom, you might want to pay attention to Egypt.

2. America's Reputation

Whatever strategic benefits the United States has received from the tacit alliance with Egypt (and there are some), it has also associated the country with a government that buggered elections, tortured its own people, suppressed free speech, and behaved in a lot of other unpleasant ways. Backing Mubarak at all costs thus made the United States look hypocritical at best and callous at worst. And that's why you might want to ask whether change is a good thing from America's point of view, to say nothing of the Egyptian people's.

3. Regional Stability

No one can say for certain how the upheaval in Cairo will affect regional events -- including the peace treaty with Israel -- but the possibility that it will have a big impact is enough reason to care about what is happening there. I'm more sanguine about this than some people are because I don't think Egypt wants to get back into the war business. But I recognize the possibility that it could have destabilizing repercussions. But that doesn't mean the United States should be propping up Mubarak at this point, because if he's doomed, America will want to have earned some goodwill with his successors (and with the Egyptian people). In any case, if you think regional stability in the Middle East is of some value, you might want to invest a little time and energy thinking about Egypt.

4. The War on Terror

One could argue that Mubarak has been a useful partner in the war on terror, though some of the things Egypt has done (like rendition) are things America shouldn't have been doing in the first place. But more importantly, a political transition in Egypt will remove one of al Qaeda's major talking points and recruiting pitches: namely, that the United States is in cahoots with a lot of illegitimate dictatorships. And if the reform movement succeeds in revitalizing Egyptian civic and political life (not to mention the economy), al Qaeda will suffer yet another blow.

5. Relations with Other Middle East Allies

No matter how you feel about the uprising in Egypt, it is bound to affect U.S. relations with other states in the region. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are undoubtedly worried about whether the United States is being too fickle, and Israel is clearly worried about what change in Egypt will mean for its security situation. The point is that change in Egypt is going to complicate U.S. ties with a lot of other countries (at least in the short term), and Americans ought to think a bit about that near certainty.

6. The Danger of Distraction

This reason follows from No. 5. Events in Egypt also matter because they are going to preoccupy Barack Obama's administration for a long time. And that means less time to devote to other pressing problems. In fact, one could argue that the big winner in the Egyptian upheaval is China. Why? Because this revolt will keep U.S. attention riveted on the Middle East, which means America won't be thinking and doing enough to maintain its economic competitiveness and reinforce the existing security architecture in Asia.

7. Morality

If you think that U.S. foreign policy ought to reflect America's political values -- including support for democracy and human rights -- then obviously you care about what is happening in Egypt. Even a good realist like me thinks that morality matters, and there are even some situations (and I think this is one of them) where America's moral instincts and long-term strategic interests coincide. There is an extraordinary human drama playing out in Cairo today, and it would be nice to be on the side of the good guys for a change.

8. The Role of New Media

There has been a lively debate in recent years over whether new media (the Internet, blogosphere, Facebook, etc.) will have powerful democratizing effects. I've been somewhat skeptical of that notion (if not as skeptical as Evgeny Morozov), but Egypt is clearly an important test case for this ongoing debate. I don't think we know enough to draw any firm conclusions (i.e., it's hard to know what the relative impact of new media has been, especially when compared with legacy media operations such as Al Jazeera, pre-existing social groups, grass-roots organizing, etc.), but it would be silly to argue that it played no role at all. In short, if you care about information technology, you should be watching this one closely.

9. Learning the Right Lessons

Because the final chapters have not been written yet, we really have no idea what lessons to draw from this experience. But we are going to want to draw some eventually, and that requires us to pay attention while it's happening. Here's one tentative lesson: Democracy promotion in the Arab world (and in lots of other places) is better achieved from the bottom up, and via indirect political means, than at the point of a rifle barrel (as in Iraq). If that lesson holds up, we ought to carve it in marble at the Pentagon, the State Department, and the American Enterprise Institute.

10. Judging Obama

Finally, Americans need to watch what is happening in Egypt because it is likely to become a political football at home. The administration has walked a wobbly tightrope for the past two weeks, seeking an outcome neither "too hot" (widespread violence, extremists in power, etc.) nor "too cold" (stability without reform). If these extremes are avoided, Obama and his team will deserve (and probably receive) kudos from most fair-minded observers, and his "no drama" approach to foreign policy will get some much-needed vindication. But if that "just right" Goldilocks outcome isn't reached, he'll face a firestorm of criticism either for "losing Egypt" or for turning a deaf ear to the Egyptian people's demands for justice and democracy. If you want to be able to judge that debate for yourself, you need to keep your eyes on Egypt (and on the administration) today.

HOME PAGE

Mubarak's 9 biggest mistakes

Blake Hounshell

Foreign Policy,

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

As hundreds of thousands of angry protesters mobbed downtown Cairo to denounce his 30-year rule, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak delivered an utterly unapologetic speech Tuesday evening, vowing to safeguard his country's stability and security while announcing that he would not seek a 6th term.

Defending his record and saying he would "die on Egyptian soil," Mubarak indicated that he he had no intention of following the example of former Tunisian president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and fleeing ignominiously into exile.

Almost immediately, the demonstrators in Tahrir Square renewed their calls for his ouster, rejecting his bid to remain in office for another few months. It seems that Mubarak has made yet another mistake, one that may ultimately lead him to share Ben Ali's fate. So what were his biggest blunders?

1. Failing to spread the wealth. Egypt's economy as a whole has grown by a respectable amount, but most Egyptians don't feel they've gotten their fair share. Instead, they see wealthy businessman with ties to the ruling National Democratic Party stealing the country's riches.

2. Allowing corruption to pervade Egyptian life. If there's one thing Egyptians complain about, it's the grand and petty corruption that makes it nearly impossible for anyone in the country to make an honest living. Getting anything done requires a bribe (the infamous baksheesh) and/or connections (wasta), and high-level embezzlement is rampant.

3. The vision thing. Say what you want about Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, but Mubarak's two predecessors knew where they wanted to take the country and had a plan for getting there. Nasser wanted to create a pan-Arab union under the banner of socialism and non-alignment, while Sadat sought to regain Egypt's martial pride before making peace with Israel and joining the West. As for Mubarak, what does he offer Egyptians? Crumbling infrastructure, decaying socio-economic conditions, and utter fealty to the United States.

4. Half-hearted reforms. Egyptians have grown rightly cynical at their-government's on-again off-again reform efforts, characterized by unpersuasive propaganda or Orwellian doublespeak. When they hear the word "reform," Egyptians look for the catch, such as the constitutional amendment that more or less bars independent candidates from contesting the presidency.

5. Grooming Gamal. If there's one thing nearly all Egyptians agree on, it's that they don't want to be ruled by Mubarak's British-educated son. Over the last decade, Gamal played an increasingly visible role in setting domestic policy, tying his fortunes to unpopular liberal economic reforms and wealthy businessmen who are seen as corrupt and out of touch with ordinary Egyptians. Some of the most popular chants at demonstrations in recent years were variants of "No to inheritence!"

6. Underestimating the activists. Clearly, the Interior Ministry and the police were not prepared for the surge of protesters that first hit the streets on January 25. Accustomed to small demonstrations organized by Egypt's utterly inept, fractious opposition parties, the security forces clearly expected more of the same. But the organizers behind the current uprising are networked, tech-savvy young people who obviously know how to connect with their audience and get the word out. They're not from the political parties. The police were clearly rocked back on their heels, exhausted, and outmaneuvered last Friday -- and that's when the army had to step in.

7. Cheating too much. In most of the parliamentary contests during his 30 year reign, Mubarak has allowed a token number of seats to go to opposition parties. But in the 2010 elections, the NDP's rigging got out of control, leaving only a handful of seats for the coopted Wafd Party. The Muslim Brotherhood was shut out, leaving it with no stake in the government and the patronage opportunities that go along with representation in parliament.

8. Sending in the thugs. After the police forces mysteriously dissolved Friday, reports came streaming in of looters attacking people in the streets, breaking into shops and homes, and otherwise intimidating ordinary Egyptians. Many of these thugs were found to be carrying police or state security IDs. If Mubarak's hope was to drive the middle class back into the loving arms of the state, it seems he badly miscalculated -- the protests have only gotten bigger since then.

9. Bringing in his cronies. Despite his Friday speech vowing to enact various unspecified political and constitutional reforms, Mubarak named his spy chief Omar Suleiman his vice president, dumped his cabinet, and named a retired Air Force general as his prime minister. Opposition leaders and analysts rightly interpreted this as a sign of business as usual.

This is hardly an exhaustive list, and I imagine Mubarak will make a few more major mistakes in the days ahead. What do you all think he got wrong? Please weigh in below.

HOME PAGE

Syria and Facebook: Not quite friends

By Sarah Lovenheim

Washington Post,

10 Feb. 2011,

Yesterday, less than a week after activists held a candlelight vigil in Damascus to show solidarity with protesters in Egypt, Syria's authoritarian government ended a national ban on Facebook and YouTube.

But the jury is out on whether the move by Bashar al-Assad's government was a legitimate effort to permit greater freedom of expression, a PR stunt or, worse, a means to monitor expressions of unrest.

Al-Watan, a newspaper with ties to the Syrian government, quoted analysts as saying that the decision to allow Syrians unrestricted access to social media indicated "the government's confidence in its performance" and shows "the state did not fear any threat coming from these two sites nor others."

But in truth, the government's move is not that much of a breakthrough. Plenty of Syrians were using Facebook in the past. It's common knowledge in Syria that cafes and other places of recreation host foreign proxy Web sites to let users get around state-run firewalls blocking access to social media.

The difference was that, until yesterday, Syrians often masked their identities. All that Syria's letting them do now is use social media with their names attached.

"Foreign proxy servers are traded among young people like baseball cards," Robert Worth wrote in the New York Times in 2010. Accessing the sites is a matter of finding the right café.

According to D-Press, a pro-government Syrian site, about 200,000 Syrians use Facebook. That's about one-twelfth the number of Syrians regularly using the Internet, according to the Open Net Initiative.

The downside is that many Syrians using these sites have had to do so anonymously, for fear of government reprisal. Will allowing people to interact online with their names attached matter much if Syria does not also respect their rights to free speech?

The United States has voiced this concern. After Syria's social media announcement, Alec Ross, senior adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called the decision "positive," but said he's "concerned that freedom puts users at risk absent freedom of expression & association."

Syria ranks a dismal 172nd out of 178 countries for press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders. The government closely watches what citizens say online and routinely imprisons critics of the regime. Syrian law prohibits criticism of President Bashar Assad, other state officials and even the economy.

And there are good questions about whether online protests, in Syria at least, will translate into action on the streets.

Just last week, for instance, Syrian Facebook users advocated a "day of rage" in Damascus -- a call for an anti-government protest that was reportedly inspired by demonstrations in Egypt and Tunisia.

The campaign, which began on Facebook, ultimately rallied about 16,000 supporters online, but no protesters were seen on the streets.

And the attempt by Syrians to mobilize candlelight vigils for Egyptian protesters was thwarted by security forces that hired locals to intimidate organizers, according to Human Rights Watch.

HOME PAGE

Dear Hosni Mubarak . . .

Jim Hoagland,

Washington Post,

Friday, February 11, 2011;

Not nearly enough, Mr. President. Not within a million miles of enough.

An open letter in response to your truculent, deeply misguided speech last night may seem presumptuous. But your good humor during meetings we had over the years encourages me to appeal to you urgently. You have pushed the Egyptian crisis to critical mass. The impending explosion could be devastating to your place in history, your country and mine, and to the entire Arab world - unless you pull back immediately.

When you scheduled your national address, I thought you understood that Egypt's uprising had reached a turning point similar to ones I have witnessed in Poland, East Germany, the Philippines and, most particularly, China. That point arrives when workers strike to support youthful reformers.

The choices for an authoritarian regime then narrow to ceding significant ground or striking back with brute force. You have not moved the real choices beyond those. But you must do so now, even though it means surrendering control to a national unity cabinet and becoming the symbol of all that has gone wrong in Egypt the past 30 years. The Hosni Mubarak I knew could live with that. And you may not be able to live without it.

You were once a man capable of laughing at yourself. Remember when people called you "the Laughing Cow" after you became president because your broad bovine smile resembled the wrapper of a popular French cheese? You accepted being seen by a succession of American presidents as a stolid, unimaginative but useful ally who planted his feet firmly in favor of continuing peace with Israel.

You once stopped mid-interview to ask me the name of "that politician who went out with Donna Rice." I saw a faint smile play across your face. You, too, understood that you had demonstrated a grasp of the human dimension of politics stronger than your understanding of Gary Hart's (or anyone else's) arms control policies.

Such self-awareness is vital in resolving this confrontation. The Egyptian army has cleverly positioned itself between you and the protesters. It is poised to crush either - or both - if its interests are gravely threatened - and you are a liability to the army.

Senior officers have enriched themselves with your connivance, but those under 40 struggle to make ends meet. A split in their ranks is the gravest threat to your nation's stability. The army will not risk it.

You should also recognize the remarkable, promising nature of the mass uprising in Tahrir Square. These protests have not drawn their energy from hatred and prejudice toward the United States and/or Israel. They may in fact reflect a new and authentic Egyptian nationalism that must be nurtured, not crushed. That nationalism can become the regional counterweight to the fanaticism of the Iranian revolution that you and fellow Arab leaders have sought but been unable to create.

And you have a responsibility to Arab and American leaders who have supported you. The longer people occupy the streets of Cairo, the more radical the outcome will be. Egypt cannot afford - as China could after Tiananmen - bloody repression that isolates it internationally. The rise of military leaders through a brutal coup or a government of civilians who reach power through bloody revolt will shake all Arab regimes and spur extremism through the region.

Your jabs at the Obama administration's "intervention" do not help anybody. The United States has bobbed and weaved with each day's developments; this White House is all about tactics, politics and immediacy. Each response to Egypt's crisis has been calibrated more for its effect on the American electorate than on global stability.

But Arab leaders see that kind of maneuvering as weakness. "When America is weak, the rats come out," says one Arab official, referring to turmoil in Lebanon and Yemen. Your stubbornness can only worsen U.S.-Arab relations and ultimately endanger your Arab allies.

A road map for stability can still be traced. Announce immediately a credible truth and reconciliation commission to provide a bridge from past abuses to a better future. Ask the United Nations to help establish an electoral commission and supervise presidential and parliamentary balloting in mid-September. Appoint a provisional national unity cabinet led by reformers. It could include establishment figures such as Vice President Omar Suleiman, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa and newly minted reformer Mohamed ElBaradei, on the condition that they retire from politics in September. Such action could buy you time as a figurehead president and let you live out your days in Egypt.

"This not about myself," you said Thursday. "It is about Egypt." Precisely, Mr. President. Cede power now. Save your country.

HOME PAGE

Do Egypt's protests mean American decline?

Michael Gerson,

Washington Post,

Thursday, February 10, 2011;

For those who are prone to be prone to such things, recent events in Egypt are further evidence of declining American global influence. President Hosni Mubarak, having taken a lot of American aid, now seems immune to both American advice and pressure. The protesters, one article complained, didn't even bother to burn our flag. We are seeing, according to some observers, a "post-American Middle East."

Never mind that the protesters are using Western technology to demand individual rights. Or that many of the young, secular bloggers who laid the groundwork for the revolution alternate between Arabic and English and have visited or studied in America. Lay aside the fact that Egyptians in the streets have focused their demands on only two actors, the Egyptian regime and the American government - not the United Nations or the Arab League or China. In fact, China's response was to remove the word "Egypt" from its Internet search engines and lie low, hoping the storm passes.

Such considerations should not be allowed to detract from our sense of impotence - a paradoxical tribute to our ambitions. People in Holland or Costa Rica do not celebrate or decry their lack of sway in Egyptian politics. Only Americans feel vindication or guilt at the limits of their power.

Those limits are obvious along the Nile. The outcome of this confused struggle matters greatly to American interests. The emergence of a Sunni version of Iran in Egypt would be a major blow. A democratic transition, even a messy and partial one, might eventually isolate or domesticate the extremists and defuse hatred for America. But the course of events in Egypt is determined by an internal contest of fear and hope that intensifies daily and that America can influence only on the margins.

And the limits of a certain American policy approach in the Middle East have never been more obvious. Decades of aiding a military dictator who presides over a corrupt, unresponsive government, who has managed his economy into stagnation and scarcity, and who has driven most legitimate opposition toward the radical mosque have not produced stability. There's a reason shahs are sometimes followed by mullahs - because religious extremism is the opiate of a humiliated people. Who can seriously argue that the denouement in Egypt will be better because Mubarak cannot seem to take a hint and board a plane?

But it is a tricky thing to extrapolate these limits into a theory of American decline. Decline compared to what? Compared to the heady, unipolar moment immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union? Or compared to the coldest days of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union sent military aid and advisers to Syria, Egypt, Libya and Iraq, attempting to block American actions at every turn?

The scholar Joseph Nye describes a layer cake of American influence. On the first level, military power, America remains unchallenged. On the second, economic influence, the world has been multipolar for a while now. On a third level - a transnational realm of bankers and terrorists, Facebook and hackers - power is diffused to a wide range of actors, both good and bad, who now have the ability to sponsor Sept. 11, 2001, or Jan. 25, 2011.

In the complex determination of national influence, those with the best story, the most compelling narrative, have an advantage. In the Middle East, does the old dictator speaking of past glories on Egyptian state television really seem like the wave of the future? Does Iranian theocracy, which in reaction to democratic protests has collapsed into military control, seem worthy of emulation? These systems may be imposed at the barrel of a gun. But on the streets of Cairo, self-government is the hope. It seems the system most likely to result in progress, social vitality and national achievement. And it seems that way because it is.

At least since Franklin Roosevelt, American leaders have viewed the appeal of democratic ideals as a source of national power. America now has less direct control, say, in Germany and Japan than it did in the 1950s. But both countries are monuments to American influence. Democracies do not always do our bidding, but in the long run they are more stable and peaceful than countries ruled by the whims of a single man. Democratic transitions are difficult and uncertain, especially in places with shallow democratic roots. But it is strangely disconnected from American history and ideals to regard a popular revolt against an oppressive ruler as a sign of American decline.

HOME PAGE

Mubarak teases Egypt as his regime fragments

Hosni Mubarak's insulting speech showed why he ought to go, but the struggle on the streets is no longer the only game in town

Brian Whitaker,

Guardian,

11 Feb. 2011,

The victory celebrations in Tahrir Square had been going on for hours when the moment arrived for what almost everyone assumed would be Hosni Mubarak's resignation speech, but the Egyptian president was determined to tease them a little longer.

On state TV, the news bulletin came and went, with no sign of the president. Then came the weather forecast. Then a promotional film showing what a wonderful place Egypt is and then, rather surprisingly, a discussion about high-level corruption.

Finally, the man who has presided over high-level corruption for the last 30 years appeared – about 40 minutes late. By that stage, anyone tuned to Alarabiya – the Saudi TV channel set up as a rival to al-Jazeera – already knew what he was going to say. Someone had leaked the speech to them.

And what a speech. By the standards of any modern politician, it was truly dreadful: in turns vain, arrogant, patronising, condescending and defiant. Above all, it showed Mubarak totally out of touch with the mood of the country and the will of the people that he governs. The only thing to be said in its favour is that it illustrated, in just a few hundred words, all the reasons why he ought to go (even if he's still refusing to do so).

He began by addressing the people as his "sons and daughters" – a phrase that might slip past unnoticed, though in fact it encapsulates the fundamental problem with Arab leaders and how they perceive themselves and their citizens. They behave like the traditional head of an Arab household, the paterfamilias – a remote, supposedly wise and almost God-like figure who rarely speaks but, when he does, must always be obeyed because he knows what's best for his children.

By the time he got to "I am determined to live up to my promises" a few sentences further on, it was clear he had no intention of resigning – and he followed this up with a series of "commitments" which, on past form, cannot be taken at face value.

He even appeared to backtrack on Egypt's much criticised and semi-permanent "emergency" law, saying it would be lifted only when "calm and stability" return and conditions are "suitable". Just a few months ago, the regime had been promising that the 43-year "emergency" would end as soon as the draft of its new anti-terrorism law had been finalised.

Before long, though, the speech was drifting off into familiar blather about Mubarak's service to the country and his military achievements:

"I was as young as Egypt's youth today, when I learned the Egyptian military honour, allegiance and sacrifice for my country.

I have spent a lifetime defending its soil and sovereignty. I witnessed its wars, with its defeats and victories …

It was the happiest day of my life when I raised the flag of Egypt over Sinai."

In Tahrir, the cheers turned to jeers and chants of "Mubarak out!" resumed. By the end, people were taking off their shoes and waving them at the TV screens – the ultimate Arab insult.

What are we to make of these extraordinary events, and what do they herald for today? One theory among Egyptians is that the speech was intentionally provocative, calculated to arouse the ire of the protesters, goading them into violence – and thus providing a pretext for martial law. That may be a bit too conspiratorial.

There is also the mysterious business of the ominously titled "Communique Number One" from the supreme council of the armed forces saying that the military has begun taking "necessary measures to protect the nation" and "support the legitimate demands of the people".

What exactly does that mean, and how does it relate to Mubarak's non-resignation speech? Indeed, why did Mubarak need to make a speech at all if he is not resigning?

According to reports, the supreme council has met only three times in its history: in 1967 and 1973 (when the country was at war) – and on Thursday. Thursday's meeting was held without its chairman, Mubarak, and apparently the meeting was adjourned without formally concluding. A second communique has failed to clarify the army's position.

Possibly, as one Egyptian commentator suggested on the BBC, the army was attempting a coup which Mubarak had fended off by threatening to unleash his Republican Guard upon them.

Whatever the truth in that, when the head of the ruling party says it's time for the president to step aside, when the government media seem increasingly uncertain about the message they are supposed to be conveying and three former ministers have been forbidden to leave the country pending possibly corruption charges, the inescapable conclusion is that the struggle on the streets is no longer the only game in town – and that key members of the regime are now fighting amongst themselves.

HOME PAGE

Trade unions: the revolutionary social network at play in Egypt and Tunisia

The media have focused on Facebook and Twitter, but the pro-democracy movements have flourished thanks to unions

Eric Lee and Benjamin Weinthal,

Guardian,

10 Feb. 2011,

Perhaps the most overlooked factor in the demise of the authoritarian Ben Ali regime in Tunisia, and the weakening of Hosni Mubarak's grip on state power in Egypt, has been the trade unions in both countries.

While the media has reported on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook as revolutionary methods of mobilisation, it was the old-fashioned working class that enabled the pro-democracy movements to flourish.

As working men and women in Egypt became increasingly vulnerable to exploitation and a deteriorating quality of life, the only legal trade unions – the ones affiliated to the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF) – proved worthless. The result of all of this was an unprecedented wave of strikes across the public and private sectors that began in 2004 and has continued to the present day. During the first four years of the current strike wave, more than 1,900 strikes took place and an estimated 1.7 million workers were involved.

As one worker in a fertiliser company put it, the effect of going on strike was to convince the employer "that they had a company with human beings working in it. In the past, they dealt with us as if we were not human."

The strikes began in the clothing and textile sector, and moved on to building workers, transport workers, food processing workers, even the workers on the Cairo metro. The biggest and most important took place back in 2006 at Misr Spinning and Weaving, a company that employs some 25,000 workers.

The state-controlled ETUF opposed these strikes and supported the government's privatisation plans. A turning point was reached when municipal tax collectors not only went on strike, but staged a three-day, 10,000-strong sit-in in the streets of Cairo, opposite the prime minister's office.

This could not be ignored, and the government was forced to allow the formation last year of the first independent trade union in more than half a century.

Pro-labour NGOs played a critical role in providing support and guidance to these strikes and protests. As a result, they were targeted by the regime, their offices closed and leaders arrested. The best known of these groups is the Centre for Trade Union and Worker Services (CTUWS), which has been around since 1990.

Groups such as the CTUWS in turn enlisted the support of trade unions in other countries, and that support was invaluable – particularly in persuading the government to ease up on repression.

Those links with the international trade union movement have proven critical in recent days as well. When the Mubarak regime tried to cut off Egypt from the internet, CTUWS activists were able to phone in their daily communiques to the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Centre in Washington. The messages were transcribed, translated from the Arabic, and passed on to the wider trade union world using websites such as LabourStart.

In sharp contrast to the last seven years of Egyptian labour unrest, the Tunisian trade unions played a kingmaker role during the end phase of the uprising.

After decades of lethargy, docility and state domination of the General Tunisian Workers' Union (UGTT), Tunisia's largest employee organisation –with roughly half a million members – helped not only eradicate Ben Ali's regime, but determined the shape of the post-Ben Ali government.

Working-class Tunisians were animated by the same goals as their Egyptian counterparts; namely, the desire to secure dignity and respect, bring about real political democracy, and improve their standard of living.

Mushrooming disapproval of Ben Ali's regime among trade union members, coupled with a vibrant youth movement demanding dignity and greater employment opportunities, seems to explain the shift of top-level UGTT officials who had hitherto been loyal Ben Ali.

Cultivating democracy in Tunisia, and Egypt requires two pre-conditions. First, workers' organisations must remain independent of state control. Second, to blunt the Iranian model, Islamists must be barred from hijacking free trade unions.

This helps to explain the worries of Habib Jerjir, a labour leader from the Regional Workers' Union of Tunis: "That's the danger," he said. "I'm against political Islam. We must block their path."

The UGTT, founded more than 60 years ago, has a history of strike action. Take the examples of the 1977 strike against a state-owned textile plant in Ksar Hellal, and a work stoppage involving phosphate miners in the same year, which secured a victory. The UGTT also called for an unprecedented general strike in 1978.

In a precursor to the December-January protests against Ben Ali's corrupt system, phosphate mine workers in Gafsa waged a six-month battle against a manipulated recruitment process which sparked resistance among young unemployed workers. Rising discontent with the nepotism and cronyism of the state-controlled UGTT prompted workers to occupy the regional office.

This means that participatory economic democracy played a decisive role in Tunisian society before the Jasmine revolution. Ben Ali swiftly suffocated free and democratic trade union activity during his 23-year domination over organised labour (1987-2011). But he could not extinguish democratic aspirations among workers.

There are no exact parallels, but much of this reminds us of what happened in Poland in 1979-80. There, as in Egypt and Tunisia, we saw a mixture of a repressive, single-party state with trade unions that functioned as an arm of the ruling party. But there was also a network of NGOs that quietly worked behind the scenes, in workplaces and communities.

The result was the 1980 strike at the Lenin shipyard in Gdansk, the formation of Solidarnosc, and the end not only of the Communist regime in Poland but of the entire Soviet empire.

Today's pro-democracy revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia are the culmination of that process, and where it will lead we cannot predict – though Poland does provide an appealing model.

The pressing point is that experts misjudged the tumult in Egypt and Tunisia largely because they ignored and overlooked the democratic aspirations of working-class Tunisians and Egyptians. To understand why so many authoritarian Arab regimes remain fragile, one need to only to look through the window on to the court of labour relations.

HOME PAGE

Egypt: Barack Obama's statement in full

US president calls for end to state of emergency and peaceful transition to democracy

Guardian,

11 Feb. 2011,

The Egyptian people have been told that there was a transition of authority, but it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient.

Too many Egyptians remain unconvinced that the government is serious about a genuine transition to democracy, and it is the responsibility of the government to speak clearly to the Egyptian people and the world. The Egyptian government must put forward a credible, concrete and unequivocal path toward genuine democracy, and they have not yet seized that opportunity.

As we have said from the beginning of this unrest, the future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people. But the United States has also been clear that we stand for a set of core principles. We believe that the universal rights of the Egyptian people must be respected, and their aspirations must be met.

We believe that this transition must immediately demonstrate irreversible political change, and a negotiated path to democracy. To that end, we believe that the emergency law should be lifted. We believe that meaningful negotiations with the broad opposition and Egyptian civil society should address the key questions confronting Egypt's future: protecting the fundamental rights of all citizens; revising the constitution and other laws to demonstrate irreversible change, and jointly developing a clear roadmap to elections that are free and fair.

We therefore urge the Egyptian government to move swiftly to explain the changes that have been made, and to spell out in clear and unambiguous language the step by step process that will lead to democracy and the representative government that the Egyptian people seek.

Going forward, it will be essential that the universal rights of the Egyptian people be respected. There must be restraint by all parties. Violence must be forsaken. It is imperative that the government not respond to the aspirations of their people with repression or brutality. The voices of the Egyptian people must be heard.

The Egyptian people have made it clear that there is no going back to the way things were: Egypt has changed, and its future is in the hands of the people. Those who have exercised their right to peaceful assembly represent the greatness of the Egyptian people, and are broadly representative of Egyptian society. We have seen young and old, rich and poor, Muslim and Christian join together, and earn the respect of the world through their non-violent calls for change. In that effort, young people have been at the forefront, and a new generation has emerged.

They have made it clear that Egypt must reflect their hopes, fulfil their highest aspirations, and tap their boundless potential. In these difficult times, I know that the Egyptian people will persevere, and they must know that they will continue to have a friend in the United States of America.

HOME PAGE

CNN Poll: Obama Will Not Win Re-Election in 2012

Nsenga Burton

The Root,

February 10, 2011

EURweb is reporting that roughly 51 percent of Americans expect President Obama to lose his 2012 re-election bid, according to the results of a new CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll. The new poll finds that 26 percent of registered voters will definitely vote for Obama in the 2012 election, and another 23 percent will probably vote for him. Thirty-five percent said that they will not vote for him, and 16 percent said that they probably will not.

The same thing was said about President Bill Clinton before he was re-elected, so polls like this aren't unusual. However, it does mean that Obama has serious work to do if he plans on winning the upcoming election.

NYTIMES: ‘The Next Step for Egypt’s Opposition’.. By Mohamed Elbaradei..

NYTIMES: ‘Next: Credible Elections’.. By Jimmy Carter..

UPI: ‘China eyes Mideast's energy resources’..

Irish Times: 'Syria lifts ban on Facebook in 'appeasement' move by Assad'..

Arutz Sheva: 'Syria Opens Up: Facebook, Youtube, Twitter Unblocked'..

Washington Post: 'Mubarak's speech: The tone deafness of a dictator'..

World Policy Blog: 'Syrians Rejoice as Government Lifts Ban on Facebook and YouTube'..

Haaretz: 'Greece vows to help Israel gain access to European markets'..

Jerusalem Post: 'Impatient, Obama sharply questions Mubarak pledge'..

Yedioth Ahronoth: 'US spy chief: Muslim Brotherhood secular'..

Guardian Editorial: 'Egypt: The army's fateful choice'..

Independent Editorial: 'The democratic world must stand with the Egyptian protesters'..

Washington Post Editorial: ‘Hosni Mubarak offers Egyptians far less than they demand’..

Gurdian: 'Saudi Arabia's king is 'alive and well''..

Guardian: 'Iranian opposition leader under house arrest after protests call'..

LATIMES: 'EGYPT: What it means when protesters wave shoes'..

LATIMES Editorial: 'Targeting Muslims'..

NYTIMES: 'Obama Tested on Whether to Break With Mubarak'..

NYTIMES: 'The Pharaoh Refuses to Go'..

Foreign Policy Magazine: 'Worst Speech Ever'..

Foreign Policy: 'Did Mubarak seriously think that speech was going to work?'..

➢ HOME PAGE

-----------------------

1

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download