PM’s trip will not only be key event of Middle East tour but also marks a rebalancing of his foreign policy When prime ministers encounter a bumpy period there is always a pithy quote at hand from the late Harold Macmillan to explain the challenge. Two of the sayings of “Supermac” – the last Etonian to have served more than a year as prime minister – are apt as David Cameron becomes the first world leader to fly into Cairo since the recent revolution. “Events, my dear boy, events,” the old showman reportedly said to a journalist in response to a question about what is most likely to blow a government off course. The “events” could might be blowing Cameron’s foreign policy off course are the “wind of change” sweeping across the Arab world. The “wind of change” was one of Macmillan’s other great sayings as he told the South African parliament, during his 1960 tour of Africa, that the apartheid state had to accept the world was changing. Flying into the Middle East at the height of the Arab world’s “1989 moment” to promote British trade – the polite way of referring to the sale of arms – would have made Cameron look grossly out of touch. Over the weekend, Britain was forced to revoke arms export licences to Bahrain and Libya. Cameron, who is nothing if not fleet of foot, has responded to today’s “wind of change” by hastily adding a visit to Egypt at the start of a long-planned trip to the Middle East. Sprinkling a touch of democracy, by visiting some of the heroes of Tahrir Square, should do the trick, Downing Street hopes. The short five-hour hop to Egypt, in which Cameron will also urge the leadership of the country’s military council to live up to their commitments to hold free and fair elections, will easily be the most significant event of this week’s Middle East trip and not just because it will guarantee headlines across the world. It might also mark a rebalancing of Cameron’s foreign policy. When Cameron arrived in Downing Street he said that one of the main priorities of British foreign policy – after stabilising Afghanistan – was to promote trade. The new prime minister told a meeting of every British ambassador, summoned to a special conference in London on 6 July, that they should be “economic ambassadors for Britain”. This is what the prime minister told the Foreign Office Leadership Conference: “I want you to ask yourself every day: ‘What am I doing to promote British business?’ If you want to keep Britain’s great ambassadorial residences then I want you to show me that every day you are using them relentlessly to open new trade links and to generate new business for Britain.” Cameron, who made clear he believed that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had failed to do enough to promote trade, followed up his speech by taking the largest British trade delegation to India later that month. He then led another trade delegation to China in the autumn. This meant that, within months of taking office, he had visited two “Bric” countries – the world’s most important developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Today’s visit to Egypt is designed to show that Britain does not have a “one-legged” foreign policy focused solely on trade. The prime minister will insist that promoting political reform – his main mission today and a part of his mission throughout the week as he visits other Middle Eastern countries – is completely consistent with flying the flag abroad for British business. Cameron’s message is that promoting trade links and encouraging political reform creates stability. This, he will say, is in everyone’s interests. Critics will no doubt say that “events” have prompted a recasting of the prime minister’s approach to foreign policy. David Miliband, the former foreign secretary who has been one of his most eloquent critics, recently dubbed the prime minister’s focus on trade as “low-grade mercantilism”. This is what Miliband told the Commons foreign affairs select committee: “We kid ourselves if we think we’re going to do well at trade by retreating to become simply a group of tradesmen and women. In my view, we will diminish our trading possibilities with China, as well as elsewhere, if we think that just going on and on about trade will increase it: it won’t. “The way you have influence is through long-term relationships on big issues that matter to other countries. China cares about its own stability and about regional stability. It also cares about its place in the UN and we have to be players on those scenes. If we are not, we will become not like France, but sort of sub-France. Low-grade mercantilism is not a foreign policy.” At least Cameron is not “sub-France” when it come to Egypt – he has beaten Nicolas Sarkozy to Cairo. Egypt is a sensitive subject for Sarkozy, who recently ordered his ministers to take holidays at home after François Fillon, the prime minister, took a new year break in Egypt paid for in part by Hosni Mubarak. David Cameron Harold Macmillan Egypt Middle East Foreign policy David Miliband Nicolas Sarkozy Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Prime minister becomes the first leader to fly into Egypt after Hosni Mubarak ousted as president David Cameron has flown into Cairo amid tight security, becoming the first world leader to visit Egypt since Hosni Mubarak was ousted as president in the revolution 10 days ago. A news blackout was lifted as the prime minister landed in Cairo for a brief five-hour stopover hastily added at the start of a planned tour of the Middle East. Cameron arrives in Egypt at a delicate moment in the second month of protests across the Arab world, as violence intensifies in neighbouring Libya with the loss of hundreds of lives. The protests started in Tunisia, Libya’s neighbour to the west, in January. The prime minister, who made clear soon after arriving in Downing Street last year that promoting British trade should be a top foreign policy priority, will attempt to show he is in tune with the new times. Portraying Britain as a “candid friend” of Egypt, he will urge the country’s interim military rulers to abide by their commitments to hold free and fair elections. The prime minister is due to meet Field Marshal Mohammad Hussein Tantawi, Mubarak’s minister of defence who is head of the supreme council of the armed forces. The council assumed power on 11 February, when the former president finally stood down after 18 days of protests. Cameron is also due to meet Ahmed Shafik, another member of the military council who was appointed by Mubarak as prime minister at the end of January in response to the protests focused around Cairo’s Tahrir Square, and opposition figures. Downing Street arranged the visit to Egypt in great haste amid fears that a long-planned trade trip this week to other Middle East countries with questionable commitments to democracy would look out of step as a tide of protests sweep across the region. Arms sales are expected to be on the agenda throughout the week. Cameron will say today that promoting British commercial interests in the Middle East is consistent with encouraging political reform in the region. As a sign of his new approach, Cameron will depict himself as a “candid friend” of Egypt as he urges the interim military rulers to ensure they abide by their undertakings. These finally prompted most of the demonstrators to leave Tahrir Square. The military council has agreed to hold a referendum on constitutional changes within the next two months. Many pro-democracy campaigners fear that the military, which will govern by martial law for at least six months until elections are held, may present a weak package of reforms in the referendum. Downing Street, which points out that Cameron condemned the violence in Egypt in strong language, believes the military council is making initial moves in the right direction. But Britain believes that Egypt is still politically fragile and there is a long way to go until a broad-based government is in place. Cameron, who will urge Egypt’s interim leaders to waste no time in bringing on board opposition figures, will highlight the importance of what he calls the “building blocks” of democracy. These are: fostering an array of political parties, promoting non-governmental organisations and allowing a free media. The prime minister will say that Britain will help Egypt through the Foreign Office Arab Partnership Fund and other economic assistance. Cameron, who landed in Egypt a few hours before the EU foreign policy chief, Lady Ashton, will say that the EU should redirect its large funds more effectively to Egypt. Downing Street says Cameron’s visit to Egypt, and the rest of his tour of the Middle East, shows that Britain does not have a “one-legged foreign policy” focused solely on trade. Britain faced pressure over the weekend when it was forced to revoke arms export licences to Bahrain and Libya amid fears that British arms may have been used in the violent crackdown on protesters. Cameron outlined the approach he will take this week in a telephone call on Sunday with the King of Bahrain. A Downing Street spokesman said: “The prime minister stressed the importance of responding to peaceful protest through reform, not repression. The violence of previous days had been deeply concerning. “As a friend of Bahrain, the prime minister said that we supported the process of national dialogue which the Bahraini government had initiated. All sides now needed to engage urgently with that process.” These remarks illustrate the three priorities, all interlocked, of this week’s trip: • Encouraging political reforms, though these should happen in different ways in separate countries. Cameron believes it is important not to generalise because no two countries in the Middle East are the same. But he will say that the protests across the Arab world are of immense significance because they are driven by economic and political demands and do not represent a wave of Islamist fundamentalism. Amid this background, officials say that Cameron will be careful not to offer any lectures or to suggest any particular model is appropriate. He will simply speak up for his own values of freedom and tolerance. Cameron will say that Middle Eastern governments must not respond to the protesters’ demands through violence and repression. Governments must also listen to what the protesters are saying and allow their views to be heard. Failure to do so will simply lead to a boiling up of anger and frustration which will make matters worse. • Pushing British commercial interests. The prime minister will say that it is in Britain’s national interests to develop commercial links with one of the fastest-growing areas in the world. • Addressing security issues which are common to the Middle East and to Britain. The most pressing security threat is Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Cameron expects most of the Middle Eastern countries he will be visiting to share Britain’s concerns about Iran. Britain believes that the twin-track approach to dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions – negotiations and sanctions – is failing to make much headway. He expects to receive support for tightening sanctions. The other security issues throughout the week will be the stalled Middle East peace process, the instability of Yemen and piracy. Cameron will say achieving his three broad goals – promoting reform, delivering economic growth and facing up to security threats – are the best way of ensuring long-term stability in the region. David Cameron Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East Protest Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Comment is free interviews: Bestselling Turkish novelist Elif Shafak on multiculturalism, eastern stereotypes and the fallacy that democracy cannot work in the Middle East David Shariatmadari Elliot Smith Christian Bennett
Continue reading …The unrest in Libya started out as a series of protests inspired by popular revolts in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia but was met by a fierce security crackdown and the use of militias.
Continue reading …• Muammar Gaddafi will fight until “the last man standing”. • Unrest spreads to capital Tripoli • South Korean-run construction site in Tripoli attacked • Death toll rises to over 230 8.16am: Here is how the Associated Press reported Saif’s 40-minute speech. “We are not Tunisia and Egypt,” he said. “Muammar Gaddafi, our leader, is leading the battle in Tripoli, and we are with him. The armed forces are with him. Tens of thousands are heading here to be with him. We will fight until the last man, the last woman, the last bullet.” In his speech, the younger Gaddafi conceded the army made some mistakes during the protests because the troops were not trained to deal with demonstrators, but he added that the number of dead had been exaggerated, giving a death toll of 84. He offered to put forward reforms within days that he described as a “historic national initiative” and said the regime was willing to remove some restrictions and begin discussions for a constitution. He offered to change a number of laws, including those covering the media and the penal code. Dressed in a dark business suit and tie, Seif al-Islam wagged his finger frequently as he delivered his warnings. He said that if protests continued, Libya would slide back to “colonial” rule. “You will get Americans and European fleets coming your way and they will occupy you. He threatened to “eradicate the pockets of sedition” and said the army will play a main role in restoring order. “There has to be a firm stand,” he said. “This is not the Tunisian or Egyptian army.” 8.03am: This is the start of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s rambling nationwide address last night, when he said his father would fight “until the last bullet”. Saif is supposed to be Libya’s modern face, the man who wants the country to move into the 21st century. He has been assiduously courting the world’s foreign media, inviting them to Libya to see how it is adapting to the modern world. But with the regime under threat as it never has been in his father’s long rule, Saif was the man to appear on national TV to wield the regime’s iron fist. To see the video in full, turn off auto refresh at the top of the page. 7.52am: Libya appears to be the latest domino under threat as the wave of popular unrest that began in Tunisia rips through the Arab world. Muammar Gaddafi, who has ruled Libya for 41 years, may soon be following in the footsteps of Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Mubarak, but he is not giving up without a fight. His son, Seif al-Islam, who is supposed to be Libya’s moderniser, last night went on state television to declare that his father remained in charge with the army’s backing and would “fight until the last man, the last woman, the last bullet.” In his rambling and uncompromising comments, the regime’s first on the six days of demonstrations, Seif warned the protesters that they risked igniting a civil war in which Libya’s oil wealth “will be burned.” The Guardian’s coverage of the unfolding crisis in Libya this morning. Libya on brink as protests hit Tripoli : Muammar Gaddafi’s son went on Libyan TV to defend his father’s 41-year rule of Libya as protests spread to the capital Tripoli. Libya protests: gunshots, screams and talk of revolution : Benghazi student says fear of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime is ebbing away . Libya protests: More than 100 killed as army fires on unarmed demonstrators : World leaders condemn Muammar Gaddafi after army launches violent crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Benghazi . Gaddafi cruelly resists, but this Arab democratic revolution is far from over : The burning question is, where next? After Ben Ali and Mubarak, others may not fall so easily – but most regimes are candidates. Arab and Middle East protests Middle East Libya Yemen Bahrain Egypt Tunisia Algeria Mark Tran guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Does the political upheaval in Egypt spell the end of state-controlled media? It was a front page few thought they would ever see. After weeks of dismissing pro-change Egyptian protesters as traitors, anarchists and malevolent foreign agents – at one point it was even suggested that demonstrators were secretly receiving free meals from the American fast-food giant KFC – the country’s most venerable official daily carried a single headline in the heady hours after Hosni Mubarak’s fall. The people have brought down the regime, declared Al-Ahram, triumphantly. As one newspaper vendor remarked, state-controlled media’s own revolution had begun. But discontent at the status quo within Egypt’s colossal state media complex – which comprises eight TV channels, numerous radio stations, dozens of newspapers and magazines and 46,000 employees in Cairo alone – had been rumbling long before Mubarak’s resignation. Grievances against Egypt’s government-appointed paper editors and broadcast network chiefs – often ageing regime acolytes parachuted in – have been stewing for years, as has internal disillusion with an entity notorious for corruption scandals, compromises of editorial integrity and an institutional aversion to reform. Jaw-dropping videos It is only now though, in the aftermath of the president’s departure, that these frustrations are erupting messily into the open. Jaw-dropping videos are circulating of state TV bosses being chased out of their offices, writers at state newspapers are striking, and age-old bastions of regime propaganda are improbably restyling themselves as cheerleaders of radical change. Amid the turmoil, many are asking whether, as the new, post-Mubarak Egypt takes shape, state media will have a long-term role to play. “The great revolution in Tahrir Square that brought down the president has given rise to small revolutions in every Egyptian institution, including the media,” says Abdel Latif Al Manawy, the Egyptian state media’s head of news. Over the past week Al Manawy has required the protection of the army to save him from the wrath of underlings, who accuse him of fabricating news and spreading propaganda to discredit the revolution in its early days – a charge Al Manawy denies. He rejects any suggestion that his channels are facing an existential crisis. “I believe public media will always be there, as long as we serve the public,” he says. “The form and content will change, but we will always be the eyes of the public and its connection to the state.” Others are not so sure. Following a tumultuous 18 days of street protests that saw Al Manawy’s channels first ignore massive anti-government demonstrations, then pump out relentless pro-Mubarak propaganda, before finally switching sides as the ruling clique began to crumble – while tanks held back irate crowds from his downtown Cairo studios – there is a growing consensus among Egyptian media experts that state broadcasters and papers are facing an uncertain future. “There is a genuine desire for root and branch reform inside government media institutions as Egypt enters a new era, but I think it’s too late,” says Nailah Hamdy, a journalism professor at the American University in Cairo. “These outlets have lost their credibility completely owing to their initial anti-revolution bias and you can’t regain your audience overnight. It wasn’t one errant report, or a single misquote; this was the creation of a completely parallel reality. The last time that happened was during the 1967 war, and those that were alive then still don’t trust the state media to this day.” Hamdy adds: “We’re going to see major political alterations in the coming months, and that means altering the media landscape as well. In a democracy I can’t imagine that there will be any role to play for state TV channels or official newspapers which take diktats from a Ministry of Information; they will have to look to other models, such as BBC-style public broadcasting, to survive.” With unparalleled levels of penetration into every corner of Egyptian society, state media has long played a critical role in shaping public discourse within the Arab world’s most populous nation. It was therefore no surprise that, as a dictator was toppled, the media outlets found themselves stuck between pro-democracy activists and the old regime. This was not just a physical skirmish, and nor was it merely an ideological struggle between two opposing visions of Egypt’s political future. As communication blackouts cut Egypt off from the world and crowds rallying in Tahrir Square set fire to bundles of government newspapers, the nature of news dissemination itself was at stake. Here was a system built around the top-down distribution of information, pitted against a plethora of digital, collaborative networks from below. The latter emerged victorious. “To a large extent, the contest of wills between a spontaneous, grassroots movement and an entrenched authoritarian regime became a battle of words and images, in which issues of national authenticity were paramount and modes of communication vital,” says the Cairo-based reporter Ursula Lindsey. “Who could legitimately claim to speak for Egypt? Who could not?” Now, as a transitional army-led government takes the reins of power, state media employees are asking themselves that same question – and taking much-needed reform into their own hands in an attempt to recover a legitimate voice for themselves. Internal purges are under way; many hope that structural reform will follow. “Corruption is so deeply entrenched in these buildings, and so much money has been squandered,” claims Shahira Amin, a former deputy head of the state-run Nile TV news channel, who resigned at the start of the demonstrations. “I liken it to a carpet that needs to have the dust thoroughly beaten out, not just lightly swept, and unless that happens then nothing can really change.” Family connections Amin is planning to deliver a list of proposed media reforms to the military’s representatives in Maspero, the state broadcasting headquarters, which includes changes to journalist training programmes and a shakeup of recruitment policy. “Under my watch I saw so many good people being sent away because they were too good. They would have embarrassed other under-qualified employees who only secured their jobs through family connections,” she says. Lina Attalah, the managing editor of the independent Egyptian news outlet Al Masry Al Youm – expected to benefit if media liberalisation intensifies under a future democratic government – believes the changes have to go further, including less regulation. “We’re experiencing post-revolution euphoria right now, but soon we’ll have to engage with a broader campaign which looks at media organisation on the level of
Continue reading …Anti-government demonstrators in Bahrain woke up in their camps in the capital, Manama. Hundreds of people spent the night in the Pearl roundabout after the government ordered the military to withdraw from the area. Al Jazeera’s James Bays reports on what is next for the protesters.
Continue reading …The unhinged paranoia on the left knows no bounds. Take for example New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who believes that Governor Scott Walker's grand plan is to lessen democracy in Wisconsin and America eventually replacing government with a third-world-style oligarchy: [W]hat’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. After addressing some of the budget issues facing Wisconsin as well as labor's recent concessions, Krugman continued waxing paranoic: But Mr. Walker isn’t interested in making a deal. Partly that’s because he doesn’t want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers’ ability to bargain. As Ronald Reagan would say if he was still alive, “There you go again.” Contrary to Krugman's paranoid view, the pending legislation does not end public workers' ability to bargain. It instead limits collective bargaining to wages. As the budget-buster for most states including Wisconsin is healthcare insurance and pensions, this goes quite counter to Krugman's assertions. So does the fact that as George Will pointed out on ABC's “This Week” Sunday, “24 states limit or deny entirely collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.” Wisconsin would therefore become the 25th. Hardly the crisis Krugman suggests. Will also correctly noted that one of Krugman's heroes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, opposed public employee unions. On August 16, 1937, Roosevelt wrote the following letter to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees: My dear Mr. Steward: As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message. Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades “has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships.” Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs. The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.” successful. I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful. Very Sincerely Yours, (FDR) Maybe Krugman and all the other paranoid media members seeing demons hiding in Madison's Capitol building should read Roosevelt's words about public sector unions and stop trying to scare Americans into thinking what's happening in Wisconsin is about something bigger than a governor trying to comply with his state's requirement to balance the budget.
Continue reading …Rahma, an activist in Libya’s capital, tells Al Jazeera that her father – a US citizen – was arrested after a joining a peaceful protest in front of Tripoli’s main courthouse on Sunday.
Continue reading …In China, a severe drought has forced the government to look for alternative ways to find water. They have been digging deep underground in search of the much needed resource. But as Al Jazeera’s Melissa Chan finds out, they may create an even bigger problem.
Continue reading …