I have announced I will stay with this post
and that I will continue to shoulder my responsibilities.
- President Hosni Mubarak
We'll go to the palace and tear him out.
- Chant in Tahrir Square
What's a revolution to do when it expected a decrepit dictator to pack up and go, live on al-Jazeera? Especially when a few hours earlier the expectation was of a military coup?
"Go back home"? Forget it.
Eerie Pharaoh Mubarak is indeed an immovable ancient statue buried in the desert sands. "I have laid down a clear vision"? Reforms will be "implemented by our armed forces"? Article 179 - the basis for emergency law - will be amended, maybe one day? Vague powers granted to Vice President Omar "Sheikh al-Torture" Suleiman?
(Octogenarian President Hosni Mubarak's deliberate vague language meant anything from "delegating power" - not all power - to "delegating the authorities" of the president, to the point that the Egyptian ambassador to the United States had to call CNN to explain that he is now a "de jure" president, Suleiman being "de facto". Translation: he's become an official ghost. A figurehead. Or maybe not.)
Compared to what the military dictatorship (Suleiman, Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi and army chief Lieutenant General Sami Annan) had been spinning all along this Thursday, none of that made sense.
Then came "Sheikh al-Torture", as sinister as a B-actor playing Nosferatu. It's as if Sheikh al-Torture was announcing that from now on all the excruciating practices under his supervision would be orderly transitioned towards a more democratic approach. We have "opened the door to dialogue"? "Don't listen" to the "sedition" of "satellite television stations"? "Go back home"? The same it's-us-or-chaos rant? Sheikh al-Torture at least remained in character. After all he had already threatened to unleash "dark bats of the night ... to terrorize the people". The street knows he's itching to go Medieval.
The regime as a whole had threatened the army could crack down big time by imposing martial law. Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit had told al-Arabiyya if "we want the armed forces to assume the responsibility of stabilizing the nation through imposing martial law, and army in the streets".
The Muslim Brotherhood's Essam al-Erian feared the army was about to stage a coup. The New York Times, in another characteristic amnesia attack, stressed, "The military intends to take a leading role" (modern Egypt has always been a military dictatorship).
For all the Nile of expectations, the street was not exactly sure whether they should prepare for a big party or a bloodbath. In the end, none happened.
The Egyptian High Command - crucially without Mubarak and Suleiman - had issued a bayan raqm wahad ("statement number one", in Arabic), which in the Arab world is standard code language for a military coup. The statement took pains to advertise its "support of the legitimate demands of the people". That's their idea for a new bright future for Egypt (median age: 24 years old); a lousy communique.
Yet part of the street even considered an "interim coup" better than having an interim Sheikh-al-Torture. They had already made it plain they will not tolerate a Sheikh al-Torture-led interim government - aka face-lifted Mubakarism.
In the end Mubarak himself announced that Sheikh al-Torture was taking over - or maybe not. So for the street there's no turning back. The stage is set for a regime-directed framework of "negotiations". The street knows Suleiman will manipulate this as the perfect cover to force his facelift and perpetuate the regime. Bye bye democracy. After all, Sheikh al-Torture himself has said Egypt is not ready for democracy.
Is the army cracking up?
Before the Mubarak/Suleiman state TV double bill, the hottest rumor in Cairo was that Washington was pulling no punches to have Mubarak transfer his powers - all of them - to Suleiman. Annan and a majority of senior officers were against it, but air force commanders and the top of the Republican Guard were in favor. Tantawi was sitting on the fence. The inside dope was that Annan would win.
He didn't. Will the army secede? Immediately after Mubarak's speech, people in Cairo started receiving text messages from the Egyptian High Command, saying that it is "monitoring" everything and will "decide how to act" - that's as ambiguous as it gets. Takes time to come up with communique number two.
All evidence seems to point to a serious palace civil war going on in Cairo. Perhaps a double split; inside the military dictatorship (the army against military intelligence), plus the army against Mubarak. That may turn bloody at any moment. The army simply cannot go on playing a double game and sitting on the fence. The street is left with the strategy of applying overwhelming pressure on army commanders and conscripts alike to force them to align with democracy.
Meanwhile, the top narrative in Washington is that the White House was once more horribly humiliated by a satrap; precedents, as we have already pointed out, exist, from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the Pakistani leadership. But considering the ultra high stakes, Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh more or less are getting what they want, as in their horse in charge of an "orderly transition".
They get Sheikh al-Torture as the new de facto rais; Mubarak as a ghost, or figurehead, or invisible master-puppeteer; and the army theoretically backing the new strongman. The only thing missing is the people. It's interesting that al-Arabiyya - which is essentially a House of Saud mouthpiece - was absolutely spot on about Mubarak's speech, at least one hour before the broadcast, while everyone else, White House and the US Central Intelligence Agency included, was sure he would step down.
On a parallel level, the closest US President Barack Obama has gone so far to unequivocally endorse people power, sort of, is this meek line in his statement post-Mubarak/Suleiman fiasco, which reads, "those who have exercised their right to peaceful assembly ... are broadly representative of Egyptian society". Mr President, the Egyptian street is watching you.
The larger-than-life ball is now in the Egyptian street's court. The fight now is to force the complete dismantling of the Egyptian police state. In the words of many a Tahrir Square protester; "Give me liberty or give me death." Egypt may burn because the regime is betting on it. So what's a revolution to do? Storm the Bastille or go on with endless passive resistance? Either way, the time for freedom or death is now.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
Despite Palestinian Authority (PA) officials banning anti-Mubarak demonstrations, hundreds rallied in support. On February 5, Jerusalem Post writer Khaled Abu Toameh headlined, "100s demonstrate in Ramallah in support of Egyptians," saying:
Marching in Ramallah with Egyptian flags, they publicly supported them "(f)or the first time since the beginning of the(ir( uprising...." Another Ramallah demonstration followed as well as a Bethlehem one.
Toameh's February 2 article was in stark contrast headlined, "PA launches pro-Mubarak demonstration in Ramallah," denouncing Mohamed ElBaradei as a "CIA agent."
On February 4, the Popular Committees Against the Israeli Occupation issued a press release saying:
"The Egyptian Arab nation....We salute this great Arab nation, our brothers. This is the salute of freedom from the people of Palestine who have been fighting for decades for freedom and independence, and to retain the honor of Arabs."
"The Palestinians are watching what is happening across the Arab world in general and Egypt in particular with great pride....We hope that the rebelling Arab people make it their priority to demand from any government or leadership to come to sever their ties with the Israeli occupation and abandon the Egyptian - Israeli peace treaty....We call on all free nations in the world, especially Europe and the US, to get out in massive demonstrations on 2/11/11 to confirm the right of peoples to live in freedom and dignity - a day of anger" for justice, the "beginning of the Global Intifada."
On February 3, Haaretz writer Amira Hass headlined, "Why isn't the PA supporting the Egypt uprising? saying:
Instead, it "banned demonstrations in solidarity with the rebelling peoples. Palestinian television has virtually ignored the events in Egypt." Demonstrators at Cairo's Ramallah consulate were monitored by plainclothes security forces.
"What is the (PA) afraid of....?" It has close ties with Mubarak like Israel, and "when a regime is insufficiently democratic, it fears that popular demonstrations might spin out of control."
On February 7, Hass headlined, "Palestinian security suppressing West Bank fervor over Egypt protests," saying:
PA security forces suppressed a Ramallah demonstration. Adnan Dmeiri, PA security forces spokesman, said "demonstrations could lead to chaos. The priority for Palestinians was to empower popular resistance against the occupation and to work for independence."
In fact, Abbas/Fayyad security forces work cooperatively with Israel against it, enforcing occupation harshness. They've been well trained and financed to do it. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:
America's Lt. General Keith Dayton, US security coordinator (USSC) for Israel and the PA, has been heavily involved in creating, building and training a 25,000-strong force. In recent years, Washington spent around $400 million institutionalizing hard-line control, supplementing Israel's efforts.
Dayton's in charge of building and renovating garrisons, training colleges, Interior Ministry facilities, and security headquarters. President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad head an illegitimate regime as Israeli/Washington enforcers, solidifying occupation and Israel's settlement project, including entirely Judaizing Jerusalem.
Governing as political opportunist traitors, their Mubarak moment awaits them, perhaps sooner than they imagine for exploiting and betraying their own people, including attacking peaceful protesters.
Commenting on Ramallah events, an anonymous demonstrator said:
"We had not yet done a thing. A number of policemen in uniforms began arguing with one of the demonstrators, apparently on purpose, so as to create a pretext for arresting him. They took his identity card and then began dragging him in the direction of the police station."
Human Right Watch (HRW) said PA policemen were joined by detectives, preventive security force personnel and others from general intelligence, "all of them plainclothesmen." They beat, kicked and dragged demonstrators away violently. Numerous arrests were made. Photograph-taking was prohibited. Cell phones and cameras were confiscated, and PA forces videotaped events, wanting activists identified for later arrests and detentions.
Their numbers, however, grew to about 2,000, marching and chanting the slogan heard in Tunisia and Egypt:
"The people want the fall of the regime....The people want the fall of Abbas," and an end to the internal Palestinian "inqisam (rift)!....Raise your voice, Arab masses! Dignity or death, we need a true unity!" Two (unnamed) "well-known" Fatah members joined them in solidarity.
On February 5, hundreds of Bil'in residents, joined by international and Israeli supporters, protested in solidarity with Egyptians and Tunisians. Calling for national unity, Israeli troops attacked them with tear gas and concussion grenades.
Gathering in Bil'in center for their weekly Friday demonstration, they marched toward Israel's Separation Wall, what they call the Annexation Wall on village land. Their public statement said:
(1) "We salute the Egyptian and Tunisian people" in solidarity with their struggle for freedom;
(2) "We call for national unity and the preservation of civil peace (to) pass this historic stage successfully;"
(3) "We hope that rebelling Arab people make it their priority to demand from any government or leadership to come to sever their ties with the Israeli occupation and abandon the Egyptian - Israeli peace treaty" that ignored Palestinian people, leaving them occupied and repressed under militarized harshness.
(4) "We call on all free nations in the world" to rally in solidarity with Arab people struggling to be free.
From his perspective, Omar Barghouti, a founder and director of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, expressed no surprise how PA forces reacted, saying:
"Unelected, authoritarian regimes tend to stand together. They are very scared of popular mobilization especially in light of the Palestine Papers. (They) agree on repression and have no interest in empowerment of people or mobilization."
On February 10, Haaretz writer Gideon Levy headlined, "The Middle East does not need stability," saying:
When children throw stones at tanks entering neighborhoods it's called "Disturbing the peace." When they're detained for resisting occupation, it's called "Restoring order."
"The occupier oppresses, the occupied people overcome their instincts and their struggle, and good order is maintained - for now. Stability."
Egyptians dared "disturb the peace," undermining Middle East stability. "Indeed, that stability should be undermined" throughout the region, including in Occupied Palestine. How else can oppressed people be free. Stability suffocates them. Resistance is liberating if sustained long enough.
Egyptians and Tunisians made a good start, but their struggle has just begun. When will Palestinians begin theirs? When tanks invade neighborhoods, "stones must be thrown at (them); the infuriating stability of the Middle East must be wiped out," replaced by liberating freedom, perhaps contagious enough to spread regionally, but never easily, quickly or without great risks and costs.
Egyptian Events Resonating Regionally
Egypt's outcome has regional implications, including in Occupied Palestine, especially given Mubarak's cooperative role with Israel and Washington. As a result, PA officials noticeably distanced themselves from uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and Algeria, fearing soon one may target them. They've also aggressively cracked down to prevent it through violence, intimidation and arrests.
So far, it's worked, but for how long. Egyptians endured three decades under Mubarak. In 1948, Palestinians lost their homeland, and for nearly 44 years suffered brutally under militarized occupation, exacerbated by collaborating PA enforcers.
Perhaps Egyptian courage will inspire them to summon theirs for liberating freedom under leaders they choose.
A Final Comment
On February, BBC's Jon Donnison headlined, "Gaza youth vent anger on Facebook," saying:
"Khaled (a pseudonym) had become something of an online sensation in Gaza, but is now effectively living in hiding" for his safety after cooperatively creating the Gaza Youth Manifesto for Change, "a 450-word tirade against the frustrations" of occupied life under siege. Posted in December, it has over 19,000 followers under the name Gaza Youth Breaks Out.
Everyone is pilloried, including Hamas, Fatah, Israel, Washington, and the UN, saying:
"We, the youth of Gaza, are so fed up (with) occupation, the violations of human rights and the indifference of the international community!"
"WE SAY STOP! This is not the future we want! We want to be free. We want to be able to live a normal life. We want peace. Is that too much to ask?"
Is Manifesto passion a prelude to mass street protests throughout Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, matching breathtaking Egyptian courage. It's how freedom at times is won, but never easily, quickly or longstanding without sustained vigilance to retain long-fought, hard-won gains, easily lost otherwise.
Numerous previous times, longtime insider Bob Chapman made impressive calls, often before others noticed. On air February 10 on the Progressive Radio News Hour, he said Washington overplayed its hand in Egypt. Now it has a tiger by the tail perhaps too hard to control and will end up losing its regional grip when events finally play out.
Others agree, including Immanuel Wallerstein in his February 3 article headlined, "The Second Arab Revolt: Winners and Losers," saying:
Months will pass before they're known. At this point, events are fluid, outcomes uncertain. Yet he calls Washington the "great loser," Iran the biggest winner, then Turkey for supporting the Arab revolt and confronting Israel.
Indeed, it's too soon to know, but it may be the right side of history. If so, it'll defy long odds favoring power over populist uprisings, an exception perhaps proving the rule if gains hold and aren't lost because of lack of eternal vigilance.
Note: Fast-breaking events in Egypt will be discussed in a forthcoming article. Things aren't always as they seem. Below the surface maneuvers, manipulation and machinations are far more important than what's visible on the surface. Major media reports, of course, won't explain. Real journalism and analysis are essential. Focus on them and Al Jazeera's online stream for up-to-date news.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/. posted by Steve Lendman @ 1:08 AM
The Central Intelligence Agency makes up fifty percent of U.S. embassy staff in certain countries, according to a former senior State Department official who has recently been in Afghanistan. In fact, the U.S. embassies in Kabul, Afghanistan and Baghdad, Iraq have the highest complement of CIA official cover and non-official cover agents of any U.S. embassy.
Along with the massive CIA presence among the U.S. diplomatic corps is the presence of independent air forces and armies that are operated in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries by the CIA. The operations are run out of U.S. embassies in the countries.
The issue of the CIA's large presence under diplomatic cover in foreign nations has recently taken on new significance with the arrest in Pakistan of Raymond Davis, an American "diplomat" charged by the Punjab provincial government with the shooting to death of two Pakistani men in the city of Lahore. Punjab authorities are also seeking the arrest of the driver and passengers of a U.S. consulate car that struck and killed a motorcyclist in Lahore just moments after Davis shot the two Pakistani men. There are reports that the CIA has successfully spirited out of Pakistan the car's driver and three passengers. The car was reportedly traveling with Davis's vehicle.
The Obama administration is playing hardball with Pakistan, which is refusing to recognize the diplomatic immunity claimed for Davis since he is a contractor for Hyperion Protective Consultants, LLC.
WMR has learned that Hyperion is part of the CIA's worldwide private army of paramilitary forces. There are reports that Davis knows enough about CIA operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan that Obama's national security adviser Thomas Donilon has threatened to expel Pakistan's ambassador to the United States if Davis is not freed. The Obama administration is concerned that Davis will spill the beans on the CIA's support for "militants" engaged in false flag terrorist attacks in Pakistan. There are reports that Davis had been in "professional contact" with Lashkar-e-Jhangvi guerrillas in South Waziristan before he was arrested for the murder of the two Pakistanis in Lahore.
The hardball being played by Obama toward Pakistan and his continued protection for the CIA-backed Hosni Mubarak-Omar Suleiman ("Sheik Al-Torture") regime in Egypt is additional proof that Obama is a product of years of loyal CIA employment, as well as grooming for higher office.
The CIA's global team of "State Department" agents, acting under virtual diplomatic immunity, is present in every U.S. mission and embassy abroad from the US mission to the Holy See to the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana, Mexico, just a few miles from San Diego. Other embassies and missions where between one-third and one-half the diplomatic complements are made up of CIA agents are Sanaa, Yemen; Islamabad, Pakistan; Damascus, Syria; Amman, Jordan; Cairo, Egypt; Tripoli, Libya; Khartoum, Sudan; and Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
So Omar "Sheik al-Torture" Suleiman has warned that the only alternative to dialogue with the opposition is "a coup". The suave United States Central Intelligence Agency point man for extraordinary renditions to Egypt, now Washington-anointed "orderly transition" conductor, may be more versed in electroshocks than onanism; otherwise he would have realized that a military dictatorship toppling itself still ends up as a military dictatorship.
Yet maybe that's exactly what he meant. Suleiman said protests are "very dangerous" - not so subtly implying the interference of hidden agendas by foreign journalists; a subversive coalition of the US, Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and al-Jazeera; the Muslim Brotherhood (MB); and all of the above (and all duly evoked by the regime).
Osama Saraya, editor-in-chief of the pro-government newspaper al-Ahram, who was there when Suleiman uttered his sinister warnings, is assured he meant not only a military coup, but an Islamist coup as well.
The street reaction was swift. The sit-in in front of parliament - a second front beside Tahrir Square - is now permanent; thousands of protesters have already forced military junta member turned Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq to relocate to the Civil Aviation Ministry on the other side of Cairo. Recapitulation: the current military junta in power is Suleiman, Shafiq, Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi (minister of defense for 20 years now) and Lieutenant General Sami Annan (the army chief).
And what about thousands of workers protesting in front of the Oil Ministry? Blogger Hossam El-Hamalawy is right on the money; the "working class has officially entered the battle".
The MB for its part is giving the regime a deadline of "one week" to comply with popular demands. The April 6 Youth movement, in an e-mail to all members of its Facebook page, reminded them there are no talks with the regime until President Hosni Mubarak goes. Only then comes the meat of the matter; key constitutional reforms on civil rights, political freedom and judicial independence; and key new economic policies to fight poverty, unemployment, social injustice and monstrous corruption.
As for Sheik al-Torture's "dialogue" with the opposition, the street as well as a more institutionalized opposition strand has seen it for what it is; a mirage. No wonder strikes are spreading like wildfire; state media employees are abandoning ship; new cabinet appointees are resigning; the regime is trying every trick in the book - from prosecuting former ministers to offering a 15% raise in salaries; and street protests are getting bigger and bigger.
Diaa Rashwan, of the self-described Council of Wise Men, says the negotiations are dead; "The regime's strategy has been just to play for time and stall ... They don't really want to talk to anyone. At the start of this week they were convinced that the protests were going to fade away."
Meanwhile, around the Potomac ...
That's what you get when the horse you bet is of the addicted-to-torture kind. Washington's power players, their dedicated imperial courtiers, their hordes of media sycophants in bad suits, they are absolutely stunned.
Very few, if any, scattered around this cozy, wealthy, high-tech, sprawling apparatchik land could even imagine being confronted by a non-violent, non-sectarian, non-Islamist, non-ideological, non-hierarchical, leaderless, street-level revolution conducted by decent, ordinary citizens of - Holy Koran! - an Arab client-state.
There's no (decrepit) army to fight - or to make a cynical deal with (well, "Sheik al-Torture" and his military cohorts can always be bought, but they are not the enemy; they are "our" horses). Where's Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Ruhollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden when you need them?
There's no one to demonize, there's no "you're either with us or without us", there's no territory to be bombed by shock and awe. Unless you consider the "enemy" the youth groups (and not "wise men") that spearheaded the revolution, who on Sunday formed a coalition called Unified Leadership of the Youth of the Rage Revolution. "Wow, that sounds communist!" - many will be whispering at Langley.
The "enemy" is young Egyptians - guys from the April 6 Youth Movement, the Justice and Freedom Group, the Popular Campaign to Support [Mohamed] ElBaradei, the Democratic Front Party, and - terrorist alert! - the MB. That makes for a combined leadership of 14 guys in their late 20s to early 30s. In an ideal "us against them" world, a crack special forces team - or, more cost-effectively, a Reaper - would drone some realpolitik into their skulls.
How to topple Mubarak when the 325,000 goons/informers at central security and the 60,000 soldiers from the National Guard are under Mubarak's Ministry of Interior? And how to do it keeping the military dictatorship in place - the same military that got filthy rich by Mubarakism? How to make them accept some token electoral concessions to appease and demobilize the street revolution? And how to make this all credible, with the working class now into the fray, so that a mass of poor, rural, conscripted soldiers also don't start entertaining revolutionary ideas? (and we're not even mentioning the countryside, where 57% of Egypt lives, and 40% with less than $2 a day).
No wonder Washington is scared. No drone-infested surges apply.
Meanwhile, the other dictatorial pillars of "stability" in the Middle East - routinely described by imperial sycophants as "moderate" - are even more scared. Jordan's King Abdullah is pressing for "a quiet and peaceful transition" - as if Sheik al-Torture and his gang were Disney characters. That bastion of enlightenment, the House of Saud, at least showed its true colors, warning Washington that a hasty Mubarak departure could "undermine US interests" - as in "we're next".
Bread and torture
Under three decades of Mubarak, Egypt was kept poor - 116th place in the world for gross domestic product per capita. It's fair to say that lately it has been kept even poorer by Wall Street.
Corn is up 92% in a year, wheat is up 80% - with the usual knock-on effect on the cost of bread, meat and dairy products. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization has shown that global food prices have hit a record high, even higher than during the 2007/2008 food crisis. Food inflation now rules all over the world, not only Egypt (where, crucially, more than half of an average income goes for food; food price inflation in Egypt is at an enormous 17% a year).
But the absolute key point in all this is not rising demand from emerging giants such as India and China; cuts in food subsidies; states using more corn-based biofuel; or droughts and poor harvests in Russia, Australia, Argentina, or the next one in China. These are all factors. But to ask the protesters to pray for rain in China is a cheap shot. The absolute crucial factor is casino speculation by investment banks in food commodities.
To sum it all up: as much as the mortgage bubble exponentially increased the wealth of already wealthy global bankers (and plunged millions into homelessness), the food bubble works the same way (and is plunging tens of millions into starvation), with no end in sight.
That's a direct consequence of the deregulation operated by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, approved by the Bill Clinton administration, and the advent of "dark" unregulated futures trading markets such as the Intercontinental Exchange in London - invented by Wall Street, European investment banks, and sectors of Big Oil.
Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar Robert Alvarez notes what hedge fund manager Michael McMasters told a US Senate panel in 2008; this amounts to "a form of electronic hoarding and greatly increases the inflationary effect of the market. It literally means starvation for millions of the world's poor."
Masters has estimated that on US exchanges, 64% of all wheat contracts were pure speculation. It's probably more by now. This is what George Soros described as "secretly hoarding food during a hunger crisis in order to make profits from increasing prices".
Then there's Goldman Sachs and its commodity index fund - plus the artificially created "demand shock", which is essentially inventing an artificial demand to buy wheat, and then setting up the price. Who cares about hungry people in Northern African countries when there are billions of easy dollars to be made? And the bubble will go on. And Egypt will keep suffering from it.
Talk about suffering. Creditors from the "international community" are already waiting like a pack of vultures to collect. Egypt owes 17.6 billion euros (US$24 billion) to France; 10.7 billion to the UK; 6.3 billion to Italy; 5.35 billion to the US; and 2.4 billion to Germany. The vulture-in-chief International Monetary Fund is preparing more structural adjustments.
The same "international community" is already busy diverting tourism flows to Egypt (55% of the country's foreign currency) to other destinations in Africa - while foreign capital is going, going, gone, following leads by the small Mubarak-linked oligarchy, which includes telecom tycoon Naguib Sawiris and steel tycoon Ahmed Ezz.
The Western power elites demand from Egypt political "stability" and preservation of the status quo. This implies total security for Israel, draconian isolation of Gaza and Egypt totally aligned with Saudi Arabia and Jordan as faithful US vassals.
That's not exactly what the street revolution wants - after they finish with phase I. The Unified Leadership of the Youth of the Rage Revolution, via its spokesperson, attorney Ziad al-Olaimai, 32, has laid out its seven key demands - for now. Here they are: resignation of Mubarak; immediate lifting of emergency law; release of all political prisoners; dissolution of both upper and lower chambers of parliament; formation of a national unity government to manage the transitional period; investigation by the judiciary of the abuses of security forces during the revolution; and protection of the protesters by the military.
And this would be only the beginning; a truly sovereign Egyptian government won't possibly behave as a subservient US satrapy. But now there's no turning back. The street knows that it simply can't pack up and go home - as the regime badly wants.
They know that in the dead of night Suleiman could order his immense "secret" goon squad to ship the hundreds of thousands of them to the torture chambers he runs on behalf of the CIA, such as Abu Zaabal, or the maximum-security dungeon Scorpion, so they can be waterboarded, or electro-shocked upside down, or forced to lie in a electrified bed frame, or be beaten by electric cattle prods, or be anally raped by specially trained dogs, or have their spines hyper-extended to the point of fracture, or be kept for days in the dreaded "tiny coffin" cage, or simply be left to rot wrapped head to toe in duct tape, like a mummy.
And Suleiman would be there to supervise it all. All in secret, of course, so the "international community" would not be disturbed in their silent praise of "stability".
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
It will be a long, winding, treacherous and perhaps bloody road before the popular Egyptian revolution even dreams of approaching the post-Suharto Indonesian model (the largest, most plural democracy in a Muslim-majority country) or the current Turkish model (also sanctioned at the ballot box).
As predicted (Rage, rage against the counter-revolution - Asia Times Online, February 1) the counter-revolution is on, and brought by the usual suspects; the Egyptian army; Mubarakism's comprador elites; and the triad of Washington, Tel Aviv and European capitals.
After more than two weeks of protests on the streets of Egypt against President Hosni Mubarak, this is what the White House's "orderly transition" is all about - with Washington still playing all sides even as the Egyptian street smashed the mirror and defied for good the "stability"/terror imposed on it by the dark side.
The counter-revolution goes way beyond comments by Frank Wisner, a United States Central Intelligence Agency/Wall Street asset who is US President Barack Obama's secret agent to Cairo and a personal friend of the Egyptian president, on the desirability of Mubarak stay and supervise the transition.
It comes across almost casually as Robert Springborg, professor of national security affairs at the US Naval Postgraduate School, tells Reuters, "The military will engineer a succession. The West - the US and the EU [European Union] - are working to that end. We are working closely with the military ... to ensure a continuation of a dominant role of the military in the society, the polity and the economy." Translation; erase the people to ensure "stability".
The tent city in Tahrir Square in the capital, Cairo, is very much aware that decades of Egypt as a US client-state plus endless International Monetary Fund/World Bank manipulations created the perfect economic storm that was a key cause of the revolution. That's also a key cause for the street to want - according to one of its top slogans - the whole regime brought down. Connecting the dots, the street also knows that a truly representative, sovereign Egyptian government cripples the entire US-controlled Middle East power arrangement.
Historically, what Washington always really feared is Arab nationalism, not crackpot self-made jihadis. Arab nationalism is intrinsically, viscerally, opposed to the 1979 Camp David peace accords, which have neutralized Egypt and left Israel with a free iron hand to proceed with its slow strangulation of Palestine; for As'ad Abu Khalil of the Angry Arab website, every Middle East expert who worked on the accords "helped construct a monstrous dictatorship in Egypt".
Former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy, now with the New America Foundation, spells it out further for the New York Times, "The Israelis are saying, apres Mubarak, le deluge ... The problem for America is, you can balance being the carrier for the Israeli agenda with Arab autocrats, but with Arab democracies, you can't do that."
Correction; in fact it's after Mubarak not the deluge but "our torturer" - Vice President Omar Suleiman, the head of the Mukhabarat, widely dubbed by protesters "Sheikh al-Torture", after his performance tossing at least 30,000 people in jail as suspected jihadis, accepting CIA renditions, and torturing the rendered. Innocents among them include Sheikh Libi, who, under torture, confessed that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's goons were training al-Qaeda jihadis; former US secretary of state Colin Powell had no qualms using this "information" at his infamous speech to the United Nations in February 2002 justifying war on Iraq.
Throw the bums into the Nile
Essentially, this is what the Egyptian street wants. Mubarak down immediately. Suleiman starts a national dialogue with an opposition coalition, observed by a neutral UN delegation. Then a constitutional assembly is established to amend articles 77, 78 and 88 of the constitution to enable any Egyptian to be a candidate for the presidency.
The state of emergency (in effect for over 25 years) is lifted. The judicial system establishes monitoring bodies for future elections. A national coalition body is established to monitor the transition during the next six months, and organize elections according to international standards. New guidelines are set for legal political parties not vetted by Mubarakism's National Democratic Party (NDP) but by an independent neutral body. The country starts over with the rule of law and an independent judiciary.
The youth groups central to the revolution go way beyond. They want; the resignation of the entire NDP, including Suleiman; a broad-based transitional government appointed by a 14-strong committee, made up of senior judges, youth leaders and members of the military; the election of a council of 40 public intellectuals and constitutional experts who will draw up a new constitution under the supervision of the transitional government, then put it to the people in a referendum; fresh local and national elections; the end of emergency law; the dismantling of the whole state security apparatus; and the trial of top regime leaders, including Mubarak.
The street simply does not trust the self-described "Council of Wise Men" - which includes secretary general of the Arab League Amr Moussa; Nobel prize-winner and Obama adviser Ahmed Zuwail; professor Mohamed Selim al-Awa; president of the Wafd party Said al-Badawi; powerful Cairo businessman Nagib Suez and lawyer Ahmed Kamal Aboul Magd - who are all in favor of Suleiman presiding over the "orderly transition", under the pretext that the opposition leadership is extremely divided and cannot agree on anything. But to believe that Suleiman will agree to dissolve his own party, dissolve parliament, dissolve the police state and change the constitution, they must be all under the spell of an Orientalist opium dream.
For the moment, the new Wafd party (six seats) and Tagammu (five seats) are the largest regime-approved opposition parties in parliament (518 seats). Then there's al-Ghad ("Tomorrow"), founded by Ayman Nour (he contested the last presidential election and ended up in jail). The Generation Y in the streets views them all as irrelevant; they congregate around the Kefaya ("Enough") movement, and have just formed a Youth Front for Egypt.
For the moment the only opposition group spelling out key economic demands is the brand new Egyptian Federation for Independent Unions; they want a monthly minimum wage of 1,200 Egyptian pounds (about US$204), annual raises matching inflation and guaranteed rights to bonuses and benefits.
Obviously nothing will change in Egypt without a new constitution capable of guaranteeing political rights to Copts, Shi'ites, Baha'i, Nubians, Bedouins, you name it. At the same time, secular Egyptians, Christians, the brand new Youth Front for Egypt, Nasserists, New Wafd partisans, socialists, all seem to agree there is no specter of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) turning Egypt into sharia law. Superstar scholar Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather Hasan al-Banna founded the MB in 1928, stresses this is "completely an ideological projection to protect geopolitical interests".
The MB by all local estimates does not represent more than 22% of the Muslim population; so 78% wouldn't vote for them. Egyptian society already practices what can be considered a very moderate brand of Islam. Islam is the state religion; the hijab and the niqab are common, as well as the galabiya for men.
And for those brandishing the specter of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran (and who obviously cannot tell a Shi'ite from a Sunni) Egypt's social and religions composition is completely different from Iran's. What's definitely more revealing is what the Arab world itself considers to be a threat. An August 2010 Brookings poll showed that only 10% of Arabs regard Iran as a threat; instead they consider the US (77%), and even more Israel (88%) as the major threats.
Allow me to spread you with democracy
The street has pyramids of reasons to worry. All evidence points out to these days that shook the world evolving towards a Washington-spun definition of "stability", with an "orderly transition" conducted by a former torturer and the regime fully in place, buying time, arguing that all crucial constitutional changes need to be discussed - plus the internal Egyptian argument that Mubarak cannot step down now either because it's unconstitutional or because then it would be chaos.
And as the standoff persists - even with the street still fully mobilized - what passes for dialogue between the regime and a few sectors of the opposition, including the usurpers of the revolution, is bound to split the already divided and essentially leaderless protest movement. Washington is not exactly unhappy. Nor are the EU minions. The EU's foreign policy chief Lady Catherine Ashton defends Suleiman - with whom she has spoken - as having a "plan in place" to meet some of the protester's demands. The crucial operative word here is "some".
Imagine the result of all this sound and fury, the hundreds dead and thousands wounded by the regime - in addition to the untold thousands eliminated these past three decades - being this aseptic "orderly transition" conducted by "Sheik al-Torture", hailed by politicians and corporate media in Washington, European capitals and Tel Aviv as a democratic victory for the street revolution/collective will of the Egyptian people.
Minimalist political/economic reforms are already being dangled as rotten carrots - even as foreign journalists keep being arrested, goons terrorize protest leaders and state media remains in Animal Farm mode. Egyptian public opinion is being slowly, methodically split. The military junta is showing no cracks. Suleiman and Annan are Washington darlings. Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi is Pentagon supremo Robert Gates' darling.
The military dictatorship certainly wants America to keep spreading democracy in Egypt - as in aid money paying for Abrams tanks assembled in suburban Cairo, Boeing selling CH-47 Chinook helicopters, Lockheed Martin selling F-16s (a $230 million contract), Sikorsky selling Black Hawks, L-3 Ocean Systems selling equipment for detection of submarine threats, CAE from Tampa, Florida selling C-130H weapons system, plus an influx of 450 brand new Hellfire II missiles, not to mention the very helpful tear gas canisters from Combined Systems Inc (CSI) in Jamestown, Pennsylvania.
And don't forget those Pentagon contracts showing the US government spent over $110 million to buy and maintain Mubarak's fleet of nine Gulfstream jets. Those in Tahrir Square would be wondering whether any one of the Gulfstreams could be used to jet him to Guantanamo?
A wily counter-revolution is exactly what the revolution needs right now to remain on maximum alert. When "orderly transition" is finally seen for what it is, there's a great probability not only Egypt but the whole Arab world will become a ball of fire.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
Events unfolding in Tunisia and Egypt hold much hope for the people of that region and indeed the entire world. What do those events show us?
The demonstrations are succeeding because in the main people are relying on the power of nonviolence. People are demonstrating nonviolently and young troops are refusing to violently stop them.
Two weeks ago, few people thought the events in Tunisia and Egypt could ever happen but they are happening.
In northern Africa, the words of Victor Hugo have come to life. "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world: and that is an idea whose time has come."
There is absolutely no reason Victor Hugo's words can't come to life in our own country.
A clear majority of U.S. troops and U.S. residents oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but few believe we can bring the killing to a swift conclusion.
If a small percentage of U.S. troops refused to fight and an even smaller percentage of U.S. residents halted business as usual by simply staying home from work and school, the killing would end.
Anyone who thinks Hugo's words are only a dream today in Egypt or America should be aware of what has already come to pass in Egypt, as in so many other places since then.
In Egypt, grassroots organizing during World War I led to a demand, only two days after the November 11 armistice in 1918, for a meeting to discuss independence with the head of the British forces that had occupied Egypt for 36 years.
The British refused, but the growing movement refused to back down. When four of its leaders were arrested in March, 1919 trying to represent Egypt at the Versailles Treaty talks, people began a general uprising.
All social classes participated. Organizers adopted as their symbol the "Crescent and the Cross," uniting majority Muslims and minority Coptic Christians. Within a week Egypt was economically paralyzed by strikes of every sort. The protests were mainly nonviolent in the cities but when the British tried to suppress the demonstrations violently, 800 Egyptians and nearly 30 British soldiers were killed by that summer.
Years later, Egyptian women chose March 16 as Women's Day because on that day in 1919, 300 women demonstrators led by Hoda Sha'arawi denounced British occupation and Hameida Khalil became the first woman to give her life for independence.
This mostly nonviolent revolution forced the British to recognize limited Egyptian independence in 1922. The following year, Egyptians adopted a new constitution.
Since the 1978 Camp David “Peace Accords,” the U.S. has given Egypt over $50 billion in military aid, plus forgiving $7 billion in military debt for Egypt’s support in the 1990 Persian Gulf War.The U.S. has a huge responsibility to see that Egypt does not use the weapons we gave it to crush a democratic movement.
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world: and that is an idea whose time has come."
$60 Billion US Aid to Egypt=$60 Billion Current Net-worth of Mubarak Family
With all eyes and attention on Egypt, the unsavory ‘US Foreign Policy’ has become the topic of choice among the intelligentsia, journalists, and the overly populated US analyst colony. There are scores of analyses out there; thousands of articles, millions of blog threads and unending ‘update’ headlines on TV screens. Yet, at least in ‘popular’ outlets, reality appears to be the missing link. Don’t worry, I am not about to hit you with a long-winded article on Egypt. If you are masochistic enough to actually want my take (pages and pages of history/analyses) you can revisit a few of our pieces on the topic of nefarious US foreign policy practices here, here and here; timeless and equally applicable to what we are witnessing with Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia today. Instead, I want to share with you a few select points and coverage that got my attention:
Let’s start with the tongue and cheek protest sign in the above picture: “USA Why You Support Dectatour” Of course, these demonstrators, in fact almost the entire population in that part of the world, know the answer to this rhetorical question. I think they are trying to get Americans to ask this question and seek ‘real’ answers, no matter how unsavory, nauseating, awful…You see, this is what the US media is selling the majority as to why we support and maintain (pay for, defend…you name it) corrupt ruthless dictators:
Alliance with new governments to protect U.S. interests: security for Israel, sustainability of world energy supply and the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
That’s right: the above, instead of: dictators who will purchase our arms from our mega corporations, serve Israel’s interests, give us cheap oil, and become our official or semi-official base (aka: colony), and that at any price (that is, the price to the population and human rights there). Think Saudi Arabia, think Turkmenistan, Think Uzbekistan…Think about all the dictator allies we support, maintain and sustain. While we are at the topic of ‘sustaining,’ let me illustrate what I mean:
The same article source above, Bloomberg, lightly mentions the following:
Egypt is the fourth-largest recipient of U.S. aid, after Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel, according to the State Department’s 2011 budget, receiving more than $1.5 billion a year.
Another semi alternative publication (alternative in name only) goes only half a step further and actually adds it up, the US taxpayers’ dollars that is:
American support for the Egyptian government — to the tune of $60 billion in aid over the last 30 years — garnered virtually no regular attention before the protests began.
But here is one article, written by a true alternative journalist (an independent one), where American taxpayer dollars spent on this Dictatorship ally for the last 30 years come together, and actually add up nicely:
According to a mix of United States, Syrian and Algerian sources his personal fortune amounts to no less than US$40 billion – stolen from the public treasury in the form of “commissions”, on weapons sales, for instance. The Pharaoh controls loads of real estate, especially in the US; accounts in US, German, British and Swiss banks; and has “links” with corporations such as MacDonald’s, Vodafone, Hyundai and Hermes. Suzanne, the British-Irish Pharaoh’s wife, is worth at least $5billion. And son Gamal – the one that may have fled to London, now stripped of his role as dynastic heir – also boasts a personal fortune of $17 billion.
Mubarak’s fortune, including his wife’s and son’s, is estimated to be …$40 Billion + $5 Billion + $17 Billion= $62 Billion. We Americans have been paying this man for 30 years, for a total of $60 Billion. Was it for infrastructure, job creation…you know, all those vital ingredients? Or was it to create another king, a dictator, or as Escobar puts it, a Pharaoh with a $Billions fortune?
Here is more by another true alternative reporter:
Now, if through some incredible circumstance Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak decides to flee the country, à la Ben Ali, there’s a good chance his first-class flight would come courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Pentagon contracts show that the US government has spent at least $111,160,328 to purchase and maintain Mubarak’s fleet of nine Gulfstream business jets. (For those keeping score, Gulfstream is a subsidiary of General Dynamics.)
And this:
Hounshell also noticed a report that Egyptian First Lady Suzanne Mubarak once “commandeered a bus that had been bought with money from the United States Agency for International Development and that had been meant to carry children to school.”
…
But wait a minute; let’s not forget another involved party these tax dollars happen to benefit. You know who I’m talking about, right? This is where our government takes our dollars, gives it to dictator allies, and then asks them to turn around, give that money (minus the personal share for personal wealth) to our military industrial complex corporations. Then, we have those CEO’s with $$$$$$$ salaries, and $$$$$$$ to the lobbyists and $$$$$$ to our elected representatives, who then in turn, sanction giving more money, aid, tax payers’ dollars, to these dictators; and the cycle repeats, repeats, repeats…well, it’s been repeating nonstop for more than half a century.
As for this great ally for ‘regional security’ my favorite site has the following on a recent Robert Gates-Egypt Defence Minister meeting involving the so-called partnership for ‘regional security’:
When the two military leaders met in May 2009 to discuss “a wide range of security issues,” Egyptian Defence Minister Hussein Tantawi presented US Defense Secretary Robert Gates with a set of gifts. They included a shotgun (with five bullets), a decorative rug and a gilded photo album.
With a confidence that, in retrospect, seems dubious, Gates said “he looks forward to expanding the two countries’ military-to-military relationships in ways that promote regional stability.”
Five months after that meeting, the Pentagon announced it would sell a new batch of two dozen F-16 fighter aircraft to Egypt—a $3.2 billion deal that is among the most recent of a long string of arms deliveries from America to its North African ally. These F-16s, according to the Pentagon announcement (pdf) would support “Egypt’s legitimate need for its own self-defense.”
Today the Egyptian Air Force buzzed a crowd of demonstrators in Cairo with fighter jets much like those supplied, over a period of decades, by the US. It was a tactical decision that bore little relation to “legitimate” national “self-defense,” although it can be construed as a desperate attempt to defend Hosni Mubarak’s three-decade hold on the presidency.
…
Rest assured the American mainstream media won’t delve into these ‘real’ issues, because that would get into the real disease, our hypocrisy-ridden sick imperialistic foreign policy, where American taxpayers and the people of these nations are among the victims-losers, and a handful of corporations have been reaping the benefits. The media’s neocons have been twisting and intentionally misinterpreting the recent developments in Egypt. Please don’t think of only the Neocons of the Right, because the neocons of the left have been equally if not more involved in this deception game, and here is a recent example provided by Antiwar.Com, with excellent questions directed at the Israel lobby’s outspoken Maddow:
So you thought it was only the wackos on the neocon right who support Mubarak? Wrong! I’m listening right now to Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s resident ultra-liberal, attack Rand Paul for being “offshore” because he calls for ending the $1.5 billion in “aid” to the Egyptian military. What I’d like to know is this, though: why does Maddow think funding the Egyptian torture machine, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, is good for America? How does it serve our legitimate interests? Is it “stimulus” money? Does she just support any and all government spending as a matter of high principle? Or does she really think it’s a good idea for us to be subsidizing a regime so brutal that even the US State Department characterizes it as “repressive”?
…
I am going to leave you with the following quotes from Escobar’s article:
Since the start of the protests, the Repulsive Ideology Trophy has got to go to former British prime minister and Iraq invader Tony Blair in his interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan. For Blair, democracy for the Middle East may be a good thing; but “we” have to manage it; and that means compromising with Mubarakism. Blair simply can’t understand that if Mubarakism survives with a facelift, blowback will be cosmic. And it will come from all sectors of Egyptian society, the young, the apolitical, secular and Islamists alike, and from the whole Arab world. Slovenian Slavoj Zizek, the Elvis of philosophy, is right on the monstrous hypocrisy of Western liberals (or so-called liberals); “They publicly supported democracy, and now, when the people revolt against the tyrants on behalf of secular freedom and justice, not on behalf of religion, they are all deeply concerned.” Real democracy can only be a dynamic grassroots process, from the bottom to the top. It’s not a fixed formula, it’s constantly reshaping itself. That’s bound to scare Western global elites – from “liberals” to the fear/warmonger set – because real democracy implies a huge loss of privilege for the “stable”, developing world comprador classes that are slaves to these haughty Western elites. No wonder they’re all as scared – and scary – as dead men walking.
Afastado alguns meses por outros compromissos das colunas semanais do Portal Vermelho, retorno agora ao objeto de meus estudos e pesquisa há quase trinta anos – o Oriente Médio árabe – a convite desta vez do portal da Fundação Maurício Grabois na condição de colaborador. E retorno em um momento especial: a terra treme em todo o Oriente Médio em termos políticos.
Dias de Fúria
Em termos de história, na maior parte do tempo, sejam em atitudes pessoais, atos coletivos e mesmo descobertas e invenções, nem sempre aquilatamos as dimensões que essas atitudes e descobertas podem ter na história da humanidade e no futuro imediato ou de médio e longo prazo.
Pois arrisco um palpite que o caso do jovem de 26 anos Mohammed Boazizi, vendedor de frutas ambulante, mas com formação universitária, é um desses casos. Inconformado com o fato da polícia ter tomado seu carrinho, seu ganha pão, decidiu imolar-se em frente ao palácio presidencial onde governava desde 1988, por longos 23 anos Zine Abdine Ben Ali. A partir desse momento, até a queda do ditador em 16 de janeiro, transcorreram 27 dias de grandes manifestações. A polícia atacou com fúria a multidão diariamente, que, de peito aberto, a enfrentou. O ditador – chamado durante todos esses anos de “presidente” por ser amigo de Washington – fugiu em debelada com sua família e, dizem, com mais de cem malas carregadas de ouro e dólares.
Em vários outros países ocorreram imolações nas capitais árabes. Essa forma de manifestação não é novidade no movimento popular. Foi muito usada pelos monges budistas na década de 1960, contra os EUA na Guerra do Vietnã. Na Guerra dos Bálcãs na década de 1990, em especial na Albânia esses episódios também ocorreram.
Toda a região do Oriente Médio, nos 22 países árabes (incluindo a palestina que ainda não tem seu Estado nacional), possui governos longevos. Ou são monarquias absolutistas ou são ditaduras disfarçadas de democracias, onde a cada cinco ou seis anos, fazem-se “eleições” farsescas, fraudulentas para tentar legitimar ditadores amigos dos Estados Unidos, para garantir ao império norte-americano a defesa de seus interesses nessa estratégica região, em especial a garantia do fluxo de petróleo para a América, a passagem dos seus navios petroleiros e cargueiros pelo Canal de Suez, garantir, fundamentalmente, a existência do estado racista e sionista judaico de Israel, algoz do povo palestino.
No entanto, há uma diferença imensa de alguns protestos e mesmo a derrubada de um ditador na Tunísia, protestos na Jordânia contra o Rei Abdulláh 2º, no Iêmen do ditador Ali Abdulláh Saleh no poder há 32 anos ou até contra o rei Abdulláh Bin Abdel Aziz, da família saudita que governa a Arábia Saudita há séculos (até o nome do país vem do ancestral Ibn Saud) e o que esta agora acontecendo no Egito.
O Egito, cujos protestos iniciaram-se desde a queda do ditador tunisiano, as coisas são completamente diferentes. É o maior país árabe, com 80 milhões de habitantes e aliado estratégico tanto dos Estados Unidos como de Israel, pois se coloca como inimigo dos árabes e dos palestinos.
Pretendia dar um panorama geral de todos os outros países árabes neste momento, com suas encruzilhadas históricas, em especial o Líbano, a Palestina e o Iraque. No entanto, ainda que os problemas desses países que mencionei se insiram no contexto geral de que comentarei sobre o Egito em particular, esta análise ficará por demais longa se tratasse de todos. Ficarão para as próximas colaborações que enviarei.
Egito, um país estratégico
O Egito é um dos países árabes mais milenares, ao lado da Síria. É claro que é justo falar de uma época dos faraós e suas dinastias e outra do momento no século VII quando foi ocupada pelos muçulmanos do Império Árabe.
O marco fundamental do Egito ocorre com a revolução de 1952 que derruba o rei Farouk e instaura a República, foi uma iniciativa dos jovens oficiais livres, liderados pelo coronel Gamal Abdel Nasser. Um presidente interino foi colocado no poder, o general Mohammad Naguib, que durou até 1954. Dessa data em Dante, esse país, que diz fazer eleições regulares para presidente, teve apenas e tão somente três presidentes. O primeiro deles, Nasser, o maior e mais querido líder árabe da história, governou de 1954 até 1970 quando morreu. Anuar El Sadat assume e é assassinado em 1981 e de lá para cá, Hosni Mubarak, o ditador de plantão foi “eleito” e reeleito nada menos que seis vezes, muitas vezes com votações que atingiam quase cem por cento.
Sempre foi amigo dos Estados Unidos. Governou com a mão de ferro esses trinta anos e nem sequer teve a pretensão e nem precisou indicar um vice-presidente. Era vice de Sadat desde 1975, como chefe da Força Aérea. Após a assinatura dos acordos de paz com Israel em 1979, sob os auspícios da administração Carter após as conversações de Camp David em 1978, Mubarak vai ganhando destaque até que, com o assassinato de Sadat por extremistas islâmicos que o consideraram traidor, assume definitivamente a presidência.
O Egito sob o seu governo viveu trinta anos de corrupção e repressão do povo, dos sindicatos e dos partidos de esquerda e progressistas. Reprimiu, em nome de uma suposta laicidade, a organização Irmandade (ou Fraternidade, dependendo da tradução) Muçulmana, fundada por Hasan Al Banna, em 1928, sob a inspiração de Sayyid Qutb (falaremos dela posteriormente).
O Egito é o país do OM que mais recebe ajuda direta do tesouro americano, autorizado pelo Congresso dos Estados Unidos. Isso significa em torno de dois bilhões de dólares ao ano nos últimos trinta anos pelo menos. Israel recebe o dobro, ainda que tenha um décimo da população egípcia.
Não é a primeira vez que as massas egípcias vão ás ruas e mesmo com as atuais dimensões (a manifestação do último dia 1º de fevereiro, terça-feira, atingiu dois milhões de pessoas, apesar da imprensa ocidental e brasileira falar em “alguns milhares”...). O povo já havia protestado contra a ocupação turca e depois britânica nos idos dos últimos anos da década de 1910 no século passado.
No entanto, as características atuais são completamente distintas.
O momento delicado que vive o Egito
Quero a seguir, com base na literatura internacional a que tivemos acesso, tecer diversas considerações sobre a realidade desse histórico e estratégico país, sob diversos aspectos, citando, sempre que possível, a fonte.
1. A economia do país – o Egito vive um modelo econômico de absoluta inspiração neoliberal. Privatizou praticamente metade das suas antigas 300 empresas estatais, em especial as estratégicas. É o chamado capitalismo financeiro, que engordou as contas das famílias e grupos rentistas do país em detrimento da pauperização das amplas massas árabes. Como diz Pepe Escobar em seu blog, é como se o vírus latino-americano contra o neoliberalismo tivesse contaminado o Egito e todo o OM. O desemprego é elevadíssimo e a renda per capita não cresce há anos. O FMI dizia para todo o mundo que o Egito era um “modelo de economia a ser seguido” (corte de gastos, juros altos, sem controle de câmbio, arrocho salarial... aliás, muito parecido com as primeiras medidas do governo brasileiro). Esse é o contexto econômico em que ocorreram as manifestações na Praça Tahrir (Praça da Liberdade);
2. A Questão política – o Egito e qualquer outro país árabe nunca foi exemplo de democracia. Não pelo menos nos moldes do que estamos acostumados no Ocidente e no Brasil desde a redemocratização em 1985. Não há liberdade de imprensa, nem liberdade partidária. No parlamento, o único partido consentido, a Irmandade Muçulmana, elegeu nas eleições parlamentares de 2005, 88 deputados de um total de 454 cadeiras (19,38%).
A parceria estratégica que o Egito mantém com os EUA tem diversos objetivos. O maior deles é o controle do Canal de Suez, por onde passam boa parte dos petroleiros e navios transoceânicos de luxo de todo o mundo. Boa parte da economia mundial depende dessa passagem que liga o Mar Vermelho ao Mediterrâneo. O Canal era explorado pela Inglaterra, mas foi nacionalizado por Nasser em 1956, na mais firme e heroica atitude tomada por um dirigente árabe em toda a história.
Além disso, a mais estratégica passagem entre o Egito e a Faixa de Gaza, a cidade de Rafah, esta sob total controle do governo Mubarak. Para asfixiar Gaza e os palestinos, Mubarak mantém com mão de ferro o total controle dessa fronteira, fazendo o jogo de Israel, que lhe pede repressão maior a cada dia. O exército americano esta inclusive construindo uma muralha de aço para separar a fronteira egípcia e palestina.
Em recente declaração do vice-presidente dos Estados Unidos, Joe Bidden, este confessou em público o que todos sabem: afirmou com todas as letras que Mubarak não pode ser chamado de ditador. Que seria ele então?
O exemplo tunisiano e algumas imolações ocorridas também no Cairo foi a gota d’água para as manifestações. A imprensa insiste em vincular isso com a questão islâmica, mas isso é um equívoco. O levante é popular e não islâmico. Isso esta claro. São cidadãos egípcios que saem às ruas para pedir um basta à ditadura Mubarak, que até outro dia era chamado de “presidente” por essa mídia internacional e a brasileira, hipócrita como sempre.
O que vimos na imprensa ser chamada de Revolução Egípcia, pode sim ter características de revolução, a depender de quem a dirija e dos rumos que ela possa tomar de ora em diante. Não há como negar que os Estados Unidos lutam com todas as suas forças e armas, para ter o controle de um processo de transição que não faça com que o aliado histórico se afaste de sua órbita de influência (mais abaixo comentarei sobre Israel ainda). O próprio Lênin dava as características de uma situação que pode ser revolucionária, quando ele dizia que “os de cima não mais conseguem governar como antes e os de baixo já não aceitam mais ser governados como antes”. É o caso do Egito.
Ainda assim, a chamada revolução egípcia ainda não da sinais de que tem seu caráter antiamericano, anti-EUA. É sim, de forma clara, uma revolução anti um regime apoiado abertamente pelos Estados Unidos, mas isso é diferente. Sigo de acordo com a opinião da imensa maioria dos analistas internacionais a que pude ler seus despachos, qual seja, de que qualquer regime que suceda Mubarak, é muito pequena a probabilidade de que seja serviçal e dócil com os Estados Unidos. Nesse sentido e por si só, isso já representa uma derrota para o império norte-americano e sinalizam problemas para Obama, mais dos que ele os têm, tanto no front interno e externo. É como se Washington tentasse a todo custo, sequestrar a revolução egípcia, realizando uma transição pacífica e de colaboração que preserve o futuro de Mubarak e seus aliados e os interesses norte-americano e israelenses. E que o modelo neoliberal seja preservado.
Aqui, registro algumas observações:
• Não há uma animosidade contra os Estados Unidos; sintonizo o tempo todo ao vivo a TV Al Jazeera (veja o link http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/) e não vi uma bandeira norte-americana sendo queimada; tampouco vejo animosidade contra os estrangeiros em geral; os cartazes não me parecem ser antiamericanos;
• Como diz Fisk, os egípcios deram gargalhadas quando viram Barak Obama na TV “conclamar” que Mubarak “abrace a democracia”, depois desse ter servido fielmente com sua ditadura aos interesses estadunidenses;
• Soa profundamente hipócrita, segundo Borón, que tanto Obama como sua secretária Hilary Clinton, apelando para que um regime corrupto e repressivo como poucos no mundo inteiro, trilhe agora um caminho de reformas democráticas, econômicas e sociais;
• O movimento popular não mirou em nenhum momento, como seus alvos estratégicos, como diz Chossudóvsky, que poderiam ser simplesmente a embaixada norte-americana no Cairo, os escritórios nacionais do FMI e do Banco Mundial, e mesmo as bases americanas no Egito;
• Vive-se, na visão de Pepe Escobar, uma espécie de Intifada egípcia, nos moldes das duas que ocorreram na palestina, em 1987 e 2000;
3. Os que protestam – como dissemos, a oposição vivia momentos de quase total desmobilização; milhares de seus líderes encontram-se ainda encarcerados e muitos foram cooptados pelo próprio regime. A juventude toma, como sempre, a dianteira. No entanto, os repórteres que acompanham de perto as manifestações na Praça da Liberdade, registram que são, além de estudantes e desempregados em geral, operários, a classe média, advogados e juízes, médicos, professores, doutores da mais antiga universidade do mundo, a Al Azhar, camponeses, teólogos, jornalistas e tantas outras profissões. Quanto à sua religiosidade, temos muçulmanos em sua maioria, mas cristãos cooptas. Mas, em momento algum se viu um caráter religioso das manifestações.
Formam-se neste momento por todo o país, os chamados comitês populares. O Partido Comunista Egípcio emitiu nota contundente condenando toda a repressão, conclamando o “Fora Mubarak” e a formação de um governo de unidade nacional. O povo nas ruas grita que “exército e povo são aliados”. O slogan que mais se escuta nas manifestações é “não a outro mandato; não á uma república hereditária”, em uma alusão a possibilidade de Mubarak indicar seu filho, Gamal, para assumir o poder em setembro (em árabe La lil-tamdid; La lil-tawrith). Nas paredes pichadas, como que lembrando Maio de 1968, lê-se “Queremos derrubar o sistema”. Cidadãos comuns, unidos, carregam a bandeira egípcia com orgulho. Quiçá isso retorne e desemboque na volta do nacionalismo e o pan-arabismo das décadas de 1950 e 1960 do século passado. Ouve-se ainda “Mubarak, vá-se para sempre! Mubarak, mostre alguma dignidade! (em árabe isso até rima).
4. A oposição – como tem dito a grande imprensa, parece que a revolução egípcia não tem rosto, não têm líderes, os partidos quase não aparecem. Quero comentar aqui alguns deles:
• Associação Nacional pela Mudança – é liderada pelo ex-presidente da Agência Internacional de Energia Atômica, Mohammed El Baradei, Prêmio Nobel da Paz. Baradei, um técnico de prestígio internacional e de carreira na ONU, passou quase 15 anos fora do país. Ninguém atinge um posto desse sem ter sido de confiança quase que absoluta dos EUA. No entanto, nos últimos dois anos de seu segundo mandato à frente da AIEA, Baradei desalinhou dos EUA quanto ao programa nuclear do Irã. Cumpriu um papel positivo, no sentido de afirmar ao mundo que os técnicos da agência não atestavam o programa iraniano com objetivos de fabricar a bomba. É claro, ele é um político moderado, independente. Mas, já esta tentando se cacifar pelo menos neste momento de transição e recebeu autorização de cinco partidos para tentar formar um gabinete de transição; pode emplacar ou não;
• Partido Al Ghad – de linha republicana, liderado por Ayman Nour, que disputou com Mubarak a presidência em 2005, sendo esmagado pela fraude eleitoral; de linha centrista;
• Partido Wafd – sob a liderança de Al Sayed Al Badawi, de linha liberal e moderada;
• Movimento “6 de Abril” – uma organização juvenil, de centro-esquerda;
• Kefaya – movimento laico, integrado por sindicalistas e intelectuais de classe média;
• Irmandade Muçulmana – disputam apenas o parlamento e nunca passam de 20% dos votos. Seu atual líder é Mohammad Badias. A Irmandade tem estado discreta nas manifestações, mas sabemos que participa ativamente. O Ocidente quer mostrar que é um pavor a tomada do poder pelos muçulmanos, mas isso apenas como forma de jogar terrorismo e preconceito na cabeça das pessoas. Ate porque esse agrupamento não propõe – assim como o Hamas na Palestina e o Hezbolláh no Líbano, nunca propuseram um estado islâmico (o Hamas na sua fundação propunha, mas mudou de posição). Essa Irmandade egípcia, que inspirou todas as outras nos países árabes, é na verdade uma organização moderada na política. Não falam em ruptura com o modelo capitalista e defendem a propriedade privada. É conservadora também do ponto de vista da moral e dos costumes. Presta mais serviços sociais de apoio à população pobre com baixa atuação na classe média de alta escolaridade e com intelectuais;
• Partido Comunista Egípcio – fundado em 1922, fará, tal qual o PCdoB, 89 anos. Atua na mais absoluta clandestinidade, tem influência em setores sindicais e estudantis. Possui muitos de seus quadros dirigentes encarcerados, mas atua na linha de frente das amplas manifestações deste janeiro.
Pelo fato da Irmandade ser o agrupamento mais importante na política egípcia, vale a pena saber quais seriam as suas propostas neste momento. Defendem a nomeação de um 1º Ministro interino e que uma comissão de juízes faça uma imediata revisão da constituição e que eleições livres e gerais sejam convocadas para o parlamento e para a presidência. Poderia aceitar o moderado do Baradei na linha de frente desse governo provisório de união nacional.
Mubarak ainda não deu sinais, apesar da pressão popular, da opinião pública e mesmo das pressões norte-americana para uma transição mais abreviada, ainda que controlada, de que vai deixar o poder. Para isso nomeou um vice-presidente. Não poderia ter sido pior, pois indicou um tenente-coronel do exército, vinculado ao setor de espionagem e informações, um homem avesso à democracia e ao processo de transição, conhecido torturador. Parece-nos que isso seria uma decisão parecida com a que tomou o Xá do Irã, Reza Pahlevi em 1978, um ano antes de sua queda e fuga para o mesmo Egito atual, quando indicou um 1º Ministro chamado Shapour Baktiar. Mas, tal manobra não surtiu efeito, pois a partir de março de 1979, uma insurreição popular, dirigida pelos setores mais progressista da sociedade iraniana, derrubou o governo despótico do Xá.
5. A cobertura da mídia – a mídia procurou esconder as manifestações iniciadas em Túnis, capital da Tunísia. De um modo geral, tanto no Brasil, como no mundo, o Oriente Médio é deturpado e mesmo desconhecido. Reforça-se um imenso preconceito contra esse povo e sua religião majoritária, o Islamismo. Estereótipos são reforçados, mostrando-se os muçulmanos como radicais e mesmo terroristas. A ombudsman da Folha, Susana Singer, em sua coluna de domingo, 30 de janeiro, criticou a cobertura do próprio jornal, dizendo que demorou para enviar correspondentes e nunca explicou bem aos seus leitores o significado daquela região do mundo. E agora, recebendo material e despachos das grandes agências, procura ficar na superficialidade e não mostra a questão central, política e ideológica.
Os jornalões brasileiros em particular, só despertaram para enviar correspondentes depois de quase um mês de manifestações e da queda do ditador tunisiano. Descobriram depois de 23 anos na Tunísia e 30 no Egito que ambos os países eram uma ditadura. Chamaram, até uma semana atrás, os respectivos ditadores Ben Ali e Mubarak de “presidente” (sic). E, mesmo quando enviaram correspondentes para a região, estes passaram a cobrir mais os que eles chamaram de atos de vandalismos e saques, desconsiderando o conteúdo político e mesmo revolucionário das manifestações.
Essa mesma imprensa, como diz Fisk, omite que tais saques e vandalismos são feitos por agentes e milicianos ligados ao governo Mubarak, chamados de battagi que em árabe quer dizer literalmente de “bandidos”. São, em sua maioria, ex-policiais, viciados em drogas. Como diz o competente jornalista Antônio Luiz Costa de Carta Capital, “a mídia Ocidental cobre os protestos do Cairo com muito menos entusiasmo do que os ocorridos em Teerã em 2009; protestos só interessam quando são pró-ocidentais e a democracia só convém quando a preferência dos eleitores coincide com os de Washington”. Uma conclusão correta e clara.
6. Ditadores e Legitimidade – ninguém gosta de ditadores. Mas, como disse em longa entrevista que concedi à Rádio CBN de notícias no último dia 30 de janeiro domingo (que o leitor pode ouvir por este link http://cbn.globoradio.globo.com/programas/revista-cbn/2011/01/30/MONARQUIAS-PRO-AMERICANAS-PODEM-SER-AFETADAS-POR-CRISE-NO-EGITO.htm) não se trata de escolher um ditador melhor que o outro. Todos sabem que Saddam Hussein, quando era amigo dos EUA, e bombardeou o Irã em uma guerra absurda em que morreram um milhão de pessoas de ambos os lados, era chamado pela imprensa norte-americana de “presidente” Saddam. Depois que passou a atacar os EUA, passou a ser “ditador” Saddam.
A legitimidade de um governo não provém e nem emana sempre das eleições ditas democráticas nos moldes que conhecemos no Ocidente. A prova disso é que a democracia norte-americana é uma farsa. Praticamente só dois partidos concorrem e só tem chance quem tem bilhões de dólares para pagar a propaganda nas mídias.
Gamal Abdel Nasser praticamente nunca foi eleito nos 16 anos que esteve á frente do governo do Egito. No entanto, era adorado pelos egípcios. As tarefas que ele executou, o conteúdo e o caráter de classe do Estado e do governo egípcios eram claramente antiimperialistas. Sua morte em 1970 levou um milhão de egípcios às ruas em seu funeral e outros milhões em todas as capitais árabes. Ele nunca foi chamado de ditador pela esquerda e pelo imprensa árabe.
Como diz Juan Cole em seu blog, o “estado nasserista com todos os seus problemas, teve legitimidade porque era visto como um estado para a grande massa dos egípcios, tanto para os de fora como os de dentro do país; o atual de Mubarak, é visto no Egito como um estado para os outros: EUA, Reino Unido, França e Israel e é um estado para poucos – os ricos e neoliberais”.
Isso vale para o presidente Bashar El Assad, da Síria. Ele “herdou” o governo de seu pai, Hafez El Assad, morto em 1999 (governava desde 1970). A Síria hoje é o país que mais enfrenta o imperialismo norte-americano, ao lado do Irã. Na sua capital, Damasco, grupos revolucionários, de esquerda, progressistas e patrióticos mantém livremente seus escritórios. É o país árabe que mais apoia a causa palestina. No entanto, as eleições ocorrem nos mesmos moldes que as egípcias. Não há comparação de um com o outro.
Na ciência política marxista costumamos dizer que o que assegura o caráter de classe de um estado pode ser respondida quando a seguinte questão estiver clara: contra quem (qual classe social) e a favor de quem age a máquina do estado. Respondido isso, sabe-se o caráter de classe de um estado. Não estou entre os que veem na democracia um valor universal.
Problemas para Israel. O fortalecimento do Irã
Também sobre isso não tenho a menor dúvida. Quem mais perde neste momento, nesta situação pré-revolucionária ou até mesmo revolucionária, a depender do andamento do processo, é Israel e seu governo reacionário de Benjamin Netanyahu. E essa opinião minha coincide com diversos analistas, em especial M. K. Bradakumar, do Asia Times. E ganha a República islâmica do Irã.
Mubarak é o principal parceiro de Israel. O Egito foi o primeiro país que assinou a paz em separado com Israel, seguido pela Jordânia. Nenhum outro assinou. Tecnicamente, Israel esta em guerra com a Síria e o Líbano, pois confiscou terras desses países (respectivamente as colinas de Golã e as fazendas chamadas de Shebaa). Entre os dias 27 de dezembro de 2008 e 22 de janeiro de 2009, Israel bombardeou sem pena nem dó a Faixa de Gaza. Matou a sangue frio 1,5 mil palestinos, dos quais dois terços crianças, mulheres e velhos, sob o pretexto de atacar o grupo Hamas, legitimo representante do povo palestino. Que fez Mubarak? Ao invés de abrir a fronteira de Gaza para deixar passar alimentos, remédios, materiais de construção pela cidade egípcia de Rafah, acabou fechando-a de uma vez, forçando milhares de palestinos a construir túneis na região de fronteira, reforçando o contrabando e encarecendo os preços.
Já temos notícias que dezenas de diplomatas israelenses e seus familiares já deixaram, há muito, o Cairo. Impera na chancelaria e em geral no governo israelense, um nervosismo excessivo. Isso foi registrado por diversos analistas. Israel sabe que um novo governo egípcio poderá romper o acordo de paz de 1979 e isso fará com que o estado judeu venha a ter que gastar muito mais em armamentos e despesas militares, pois há 32 anos ele desguarnece a fronteira Sul, com o Egito e concentra esforços com a front Norte do país, exatamente onde estão o Líbano, a Síria e Irã. Ruim para Israel isso.
Não tenho dúvidas que Israel vai ficando a cada dia mais isolado. E o Irã que não é um país árabe (é persa), se fortalece a cada dia. Senão, vejamos os motivos que elenquei:
• Papeis recentemente divulgado pelo WikiLeaks (Palestinian Papers), revelaram acordos e negociações secretas entre Israel e a ANP, do grupo Fatah, que fizeram enfraquecer ainda mais o grupo de Abbas e fortalecer novamente o Hamas, que tem apoio do Irã e da Síria;
• O Hezbolláh acaba de conseguir formar um governo de maioria no Líbano, derrubando o governo pró-EUA e Israel de Saad Hariri; registre-se que tal governo é chamado de Bloco Patriótico e é composto, além do Hezbolláh do sheik Hasan Nasralláh, mais o Movimento Patriótico Livre, do general cristão Michel Aoun, mais o grupo Amal, de orientação xiita, cujo líder é Nabi Berri, presidente do parlamento e pelo Partido Comunista Libanês;
• O Irã tem boa influência no governo do 1º ministro xiita do Iraque, Nur El Maliki;
• Desde os primeiros momentos, o Irã deu seu total apoio ao levante popular no Egito; Israel entrou em profundo mutismo e silêncio; reflete na verdade o seu imenso pavor de que todos os regimes árabes moderados e pró-Ocidente sejam derrubados no que alguns autores vêm chamando de Revolução de Jasmim ou Primavera Árabe;
• O Irã tem profundas ligações com a Fraternidade Muçulmana, que Israel tem pavor que assuma o comando do país (de meu ponto de vista esse agrupamento vai participar do novo governo, mas não defenderá um governo o islâmico; o Egito é fortemente laico);
• Todos os fracassos seguidos de Washington de barrar o programa nucelar iraniano para fins pacíficos – apoiado pelo Brasil inclusive – que agora deixa de ser o foco no OM; Israel perde seu discurso central;
• A questão palestina e seu estado nacional, a paz volta a ser o centro das negociações e Israel não vai ter como sair disso.
Conclusões preliminares
É um jogo ainda em andamento. As cartas estão na mesa e os jogadores se posicionando, articulando. Não se pode prever exatamente os resultados. Mas quero arriscar alguns palpites:
1. Obama perde nesse processo. Seu discurso do Cairo em julho de 2009, estendendo a mão para os muçulmanos provou-se uma farsa, uma hipocrisia. Não deu passo algum para respeitar os muçulmanos e os árabes em geral. Insiste em classificar, quase que à revelia da maioria dos países, os Partidos políticos Hamas e o Hezbolláh como “terroristas”; são movimentos de resistência e de libertação nacional;
2. Qualquer governo, por mais moderado que seja, não terá, jamais, as mesmas relações de subserviência com os norte-americanos como sempre teve Mubarak. O que tanto os Estados Unidos sempre tiveram pavor, poderá mesmo acontecer concretamente, que é a participação com destaque da Irmandade Muçulmana no futuro governo egípcio; isso não dará caráter religioso ao governo;
3. Israel sai profundamente derrotado e isolado. Perdeu seu discurso de que o maior inimigo é o Irã, que este precisaria ser derrotado e bombardeado e seu programa nuclear visa a construção da bomba atômica (fala como se ninguém soubesse que tem pelo menos 200 ogivas);
4. Ganham os palestinos, que devem se fortalecer na sua luta e na busca de seu estado nacional. Eu só lamento ainda a existência da divisão entre o Hamas e o Fatah e outras organizações. Espera-se até meados do ano eleições gerais, ou pelo menos municipais;
5. Um novo Oriente Médio será construído e isso é perfeitamente possível. O modelo neoliberal pode sofrer abalos. Deverá crescer a democracia mais ampla, os partidos terão maiores liberdades, bem como a imprensa. Eleições gerais devem ocorrer em curto prazo no Egito e na Tunísia. O OM nunca mais será o mesmo depois desse imenso tremor político ocorrido; mudanças profundas podem ocorrer inclusive nas monarquias da Arábia Saudita, Jordânia, Kuwait entre outras;
De minha parte, espero, com sinceridade que avancem as massas populares, no rumo de uma verdadeira revolução democrática, popular, patriótica e nacional. Que avancem os partidos comunistas e socialistas e de feições populares, independente da confissão religiosa de seus dirigentes. São todos árabes, sejam muçulmanos ou cristãos e mesmo judeus dos 22 países árabes.
Termino este artigo com uma frase de Helena Cobban, de seu blog, muito ferino contra os EUA: “no caso da política de Obama para o OM, são cegos guiando cego e cegos aconselhando cego no salão oval da Casa Branca”, em uma clara alusão a Bill Daley, Ben Rhodes, Tony Blinken, Denis McDorough, John Brennan e Robert Cardillo, assessores e conselheiros de diversos cargos de Obama, todos, indistintamente, militantes fanáticos pró-Israel e à serviço do lobbyie judaico. Como diz elas, que venham os arabistas de Washington.
PS: esclareço aos leitores que este é um típico artigo de Internet. Ele pode se dar ao luxo de ser longo, mas é datado, ou seja, vale para este momento histórico, em que a terra treme, no sentido político. De um dia para outro, a conjuntura pode ser alterada completamente.
_________
Sociólogo, Professor, Escritor e Arabista. Membro da Academia de Altos Estudos Ibero-Árabe de Lisboa e da International Sociological Association e colunista da Revista Sociologia da Editora Escala.
The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: Lord Cromers: "I like the White Man in the West when they set conditions for elections in the Arab world. I like when they said: that people can participate in elections provided they forswear violence. It is ironic because no one has used, and is using, more violence than the puppets of the US in the region. "
A million marching in the streets of Cairo this Tuesday, a million more marching towards the Egyptian presidential palace in Heliopolis in the upcoming "Friday of Departure". The top graffiti - also scrawled on khaki-colored US Abrams tanks - as well as the top slogan, remains "the people want the system to fall". The army seems to have chosen its side, tacitly affirming it "will not resort to use of force against our great people".
With Brent crude oil futures smashing the barrier of US$100 a barrel for the first time since September 2008; mounting fears for the oil flow through the Suez Canal; banks, schools and the stock market closed; people's committees running security; some police burning their uniforms and joining the protests; and rows of activists, protesters and bloggers tapping furiously at banks and banks of laptops to send the word (before the President Hosni Mubarak system "bravely" shut down the last functioning Internet service provider), the Egyptian revolution might be approaching the end game.
The Pharaoh and his "successor" Omar "the suave torturer" Suleiman's strategy to use the army to intimidate, and then reclaim, the street could only work if the Nile turned blood red this week. That seems unlikely. Still this ruthless military dictatorship will do whatever it takes to cling to power.
As the multiform Egyptian street sees it, the point is not, as the Wall Street Journal so quaintly put it, "maybe the new phase is a happy one for Washington". Those masses at Tahrir Square (Liberation Square) protesting with their lives couldn't care less - as they couldn't care less for the security of oil supplies to the West or the security of Israel. This is about Egypt, not America.
On Sunday, US President Barack Obama urged a meek "shift in Egypt's administration" - while the streets are yelling "out with the dictator". Al-Jazeera had to come out with an editorial reminding everyone that Obama's definition of "reform" simply cannot mean the same corrupt/repressive regime with a facelift.
This is a classic revolutionary situation; those few on top cannot impose their will like they used to, those many below refuse to be dominated like they used to. Infinitely puzzled, Washington and European capitals may play at best minimalist background vocals to the sound and the fury in the street. The street wants a solid political and institutional life, and to be able to make a decent living in a less corrupt environment. And that has proved to be impossible under the immutable rules of the game - the "our" dictator system supported by the industrialized West.
Among silly conspiracy theories that the Egyptian revolution is being funded by the Jewish lobby, the US Central Intelligence Agency, American financier George Soros or all of the above, the Egyptian street couldn't care less whether or not the Pharaoh decides to "lead an orderly transition"; they won't settle for anything less than his one-way ticket, perhaps to embrace his friends in the House of Saud. Especially now that the street has seen how, with Suleiman, Mubarak is pulling a Shah of Iran in 1978, when he installed Shapour Bakhtiar as his prime minister (it didn't work).
Talk to the Sphinx
The sensible way ahead points to an Egyptian civic alliance dominated by all the sectors opposed to the regime (virtually everyone in the country) and the inevitable component, the army. As much as sectors of the Washington establishment and US corporate media may have been frantically spinning it, there are no objective conditions for an Islamist takeover; this is just plain silly.
Washington may be about to give the green light to Mohamed ElBaradei - who has been crucially endorsed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet not even the Sphinx in Giza knows whether this will be enough for the street.
ElBaradei is a credible outsider. During the Pharaoh's hardcore years he was abroad. He is no pushover, and stoically stood his ground against the George W Bush administration as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency over Iran. ElBaradei, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, may in fact emerge as the "bridge" before free and fair elections, a new constitution and a new order in Egypt.
But there's no evidence he will concoct an economic policy much different from the usual International Monetary Fund-World Bank "structural adjustment" scam, with lots of dodgy privatizations mixed with that hazy Davos mantra, "good governance". If that's the case the street is bound to get really angry - again.
For the moment, there's not much evidence that Egypt could go the way of Iran in 1979. The secular left was in charge of Iran's post-revolutionary government (in Egypt, the left has been decimated by repression). Iran only became an Islamic republic months later, after a national referendum (were that to happen, Egyptians would overwhelmingly support a secular republic). The most probable, positive, scenario is that by 2012 Egypt may be closer, politically, to Turkey.
That leaves us the burning unanswered question to burn them all; what will be the post-revolutionary role of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)?
Brothers to the rescue
The MB elicits panic fear all across the West because the Mubarak regime always effectively equaled them to al-Qaeda. This is nonsense.
The MB was founded by Hasan al-Banna in the port of Ismailia in 1928 - then moved to Cairo. Its initial concern was to concentrate on social services, establishing mosques, schools and hospitals. Over these past decades, the MB managed to become the most important fundamentalist political force in the Sunni world. It's also the largest dissident party in Egypt, with 88 seats of the 454 in the lower house of parliament.
The MB does not endorse violence - although it did in the past, until the 1970s. The aura of violence is mostly related to the legendary Sayyid Qutb, considered by many as the spiritual father of al-Qaeda. Qutb, a literary critic who had studied in the US, joined the MB in 1951, and split years later.
Qutb's ideas were radically different from al-Banna's - especially his concept of a "vanguard", which is more Lenin than the Koran. He was convinced that parliamentary democracy was "a failure" in the Islamic world (unlike the overwhelming majority of Egyptians today, who are fighting for democracy; the MB, moreover, is a full participant of civil and political society.) Qutb does not even qualify as the most influential modern Islamist thinker; mainstream political Islam, personified by the authority of the imam of al-Azhar in Cairo, mercilessly refuted him.
Contrary to US neo-conservative propaganda, the MB also has nothing to do with fascist movements in 1930s Europe or socialist parties (they are in fact in favor of private property). It is above all an urban, lower middle class nativist movement, as defined by University of Michigan professor Juan Cole. Even before the revolution, the MB was committed to bring down the Mubarak regime, but peacefully and politically.
The Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1930s in Mosul, is now the Iraqi Islamic Party, and an important political actor who always had a dialogue with Washington. And in Afghanistan, the Jamiat-I Islami party was inspired by the MB.
The MB certainly does not shun technology and intellectual innovation.
It's very much everywhere in the streets of the Egyptian revolution, but very careful not to display an "in your face" attitude. According to spokesperson Gamel Nasser, they see themselves only as a small sector of the revolution. And the revolution is about the future of Egypt - not Islam.
Some may argue once again this is what the mullahs were saying in Tehran in 1978/1979. The shah was indeed deposed by virtually all sectors of society, including the Communist Party. Then the theocrats took over - violently. According to its background over the past three decades, there's no evidence the MB would have the reach to attempt the same move.
It's hard for outsiders to imagine how brutal has been the Mubarak repression machine/police state. The system relies on 1.5 million police - that's four times more people than the army. Their salaries are paid to a great extent by the annual $1.3 billion of US "aid", which also served to crack down really hard on the working class and virtually every progressive organization.
This state of things has been in place way before Mubarak. History will ask questions directly to the ghost of former president Anwar Sadat. Sadat built a trifecta to make his intifah policies work; the IMF advised him to build a rudimentary export economy, he manipulated religion to extract funds from Saudi Arabia and thus undercut the MB, and he got billions from the US for cutting a deal with Israel. The key inevitable consequence of all this was a mammoth police state bent on, among other repressive gems, a total crack down on working class organizations.
Meet the antidote to al-Qaeda
Even also being ravaged during the Sadat/Mubarak decades, the MB at least kept a structure. In free and fair elections the MB would certainly get at least 30% of the votes.
Global corporate media could do worse than trek to the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, in El Malek El Saleh, and learn something. The new head of the MB, Mohammed Badie, is more concerned with the social than the political arena. On the possibility of Egypt eventually becoming an Islamic state, he insists the decision will be "by the people".
Unlike Badie, Sherif Abul Magd, an engineer professor at Helwan University and the head of MB in Giza, was much more loquacious talking to Italian daily La Stampa. He was careful to point out that the protesters should not antagonize the military. He emphasized, "Our people already control the streets."
Above all he delineated the MB strategy for the next stage; to an interim prime minister should be added five judges to set up a presidential committee charged of rewriting the constitution and then calling for elections for parliament and the presidency.
Magd was adamant: "An Islamic state is not in conflict with democracy - but the people should be able to choose it." Washington already knows it, but will be alarmed anyway that the MB does not believe in that famous geopolitical cadaver - the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; "peace is impossible without a deal with Hamas." As for al-Qaeda, "today it is just a CIA invention to justify the war on terror."
The Arab street knows - and largely approves of - the fact that the MB has always opposed the 1978 Camp David accords, and does not recognize Israel. Strategically, the MB has realized it's counter-productive to project itself now; later it's another story. The crucial point is that the MB is adamantly opposed to violence against civilians - and thus resolutely dismisses al-Qaeda. An MB refuting violence and very active in civil politics in Egypt cannot possibly spook the West. As an established party of political Islam, the MB could not be a better antidote to al-Qaeda style fanatics.
Contrary to alarmist rightwing sirens, there's no "Islamic fervor" enveloping the Middle East. On the contrary - what one finds at the moment is plenty of moral turpitude, on top of it on the wrong side of history.
Israel's position is self-explanatory - from the Jerusalem Post describing the Egyptian revolution as "the worst disaster since Iran's revolution" to a columnist in Ha'aretz newspaper blaring that Obama betrayed "a moderate Egyptian president who remained loyal to the United States, promoted stability and encouraged moderation".?
As for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, he phoned Mubarak to say how sorry he is for all this mess; and then ordered his goons to stop Palestinians demonstrating their support for democracy in Egypt.
There's no question - with the MB as part of an Egyptian government, a really sovereign Egyptian government, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt will be renegotiated (the MB favors a referendum). And so we reach the heart of the matter. After this revolution, US and Israeli interests cannot possibly converge - even as optical illusion.
This is not an anti-American revolution; it's a revolution against an American-supported regime. A legitimate, sovereign, post-Mubarak government cannot possibly be a Washington puppet - with all the regional implications that entails. And that goes way beyond the MB. This is about the millenarian heart of the Arab world possibly on the verge of a dramatic seismic shift.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
With all eyes and attention on Egypt, the unsavory ‘US Foreign Policy’ has become the topic of choice among the intelligentsia, journalists, and the overly populated US analyst colony. There are scores of analyses out there; thousands of articles, millions of blog threads and unending ‘update’ headlines on TV screens. Yet, at least in ‘popular’ outlets, reality appears to be the missing link. Don’t worry, I am not about to hit you with a long-winded article on Egypt. If you are masochistic enough to actually want my take (pages and pages of history/analyses) you can revisit a few of our pieces on the topic of nefarious US foreign policy practices 