With unemployment at 40 per cent, jobs will be a key issue when Jacob Zuma, the country’s president, delivers his ‘State of the Nation’ address to parliament. The government has promised to create five million jobs by 2020. Crime, corruption and education are also likely to be addressed in Thursday’s speech. Al Jazeera’s Jonah Hull reports from Bloemfontein.
Continue reading …Trade unions: the revolutionary social network at play in Egypt and Tunisia | Eric Lee and Benjamin Weinthal | Eric Lee and Benjamin Weinthal
February 10, 2011 No Comment
The media have focused on Facebook and Twitter, but the pro-democracy movements have flourished thanks to unions Perhaps the most overlooked factor in the demise of the authoritarian Ben Ali regime in Tunisia, and the weakening of Hosni Mubarak’s grip on state power in Egypt, has been the trade unions in both countries. While the media has reported on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook as revolutionary methods of mobilisation, it was the old-fashioned working class that enabled the pro-democracy movements to flourish. As working men and women in Egypt became increasingly vulnerable to exploitation and a deteriorating quality of life, the only legal trade unions – the ones affiliated to the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF) – proved worthless. The result of all of this was an unprecedented wave of strikes across the public and private sectors that began in 2004 and has continued to the present day. During the first four years of the current strike wave, more than 1,900 strikes took place and an estimated 1.7 million workers were involved. As one worker in a fertiliser company put it, the effect of going on strike was to convince the employer “that they had a company with human beings working in it. In the past, they dealt with us as if we were not human.” The strikes began in the clothing and textile sector, and moved on to building workers, transport workers, food processing workers, even the workers on the Cairo metro. The biggest and most important took place back in 2006 at Misr Spinning and Weaving, a company that employs some 25,000 workers. The state-controlled ETUF opposed these strikes and supported the government’s privatisation plans. A turning point was reached when municipal tax collectors not only went on strike, but staged a three-day, 10,000-strong sit-in in the streets of Cairo, opposite the prime minister’s office. This could not be ignored, and the government was forced to allow the formation last year of the first independent trade union in more than half a century. Pro-labour NGOs played a critical role in providing support and guidance to these strikes and protests. As a result, they were targeted by the regime, their offices closed and leaders arrested. The best known of these groups is the Centre for Trade Union and Worker Services (CTUWS), which has been around since 1990. Groups such as the CTUWS in turn enlisted the support of trade unions in other countries, and that support was invaluable – particularly in persuading the government to ease up on repression. Those links with the international trade union movement have proven critical in recent days as well. When the Mubarak regime tried to cut off Egypt from the internet, CTUWS activists were able to phone in their daily communiques to the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Centre in Washington. The messages were transcribed, translated from the Arabic, and passed on to the wider trade union world using websites such as LabourStart. In sharp contrast to the last seven years of Egyptian labour unrest, the Tunisian trade unions played a kingmaker role during the end phase of the uprising. After decades of lethargy, docility and state domination of the General Tunisian Workers’ Union (UGTT), Tunisia’s largest employee organisation –with roughly half a million members – helped not only eradicate Ben Ali’s regime , but determined the shape of the post-Ben Ali government. Working-class Tunisians were animated by the same goals as their Egyptian counterparts; namely, the desire to secure dignity and respect, bring about real political democracy, and improve their standard of living. Mushrooming disapproval of Ben Ali’s regime among trade union members, coupled with a vibrant youth movement demanding dignity and greater employment opportunities, seems to explain the shift of top-level UGTT officials who had hitherto been loyal Ben Ali. Cultivating democracy in Tunisia, and Egypt requires two pre-conditions. First, workers’ organisations must remain independent of state control. Second, to blunt the Iranian model, Islamists must be barred from hijacking free trade unions. This helps to explain the worries of Habib Jerjir, a labour leader from the Regional Workers’ Union of Tunis: “That’s the danger,” he said . “I’m against political Islam. We must block their path.” The UGTT, founded more than 60 years ago, has a history of strike action. Take the examples of the 1977 strike against a state-owned textile plant in Ksar Hellal, and a work stoppage involving phosphate miners in the same year, which secured a victory. The UGTT also called for an unprecedented general strike in 1978. In a precursor to the December-January protests against Ben Ali’s corrupt system, phosphate mine workers in Gafsa waged a six-month battle against a manipulated recruitment process which sparked resistance among young unemployed workers. Rising discontent with the nepotism and cronyism of the state-controlled UGTT prompted workers to occupy the regional office . This means that participatory economic democracy played a decisive role in Tunisian society before the Jasmine revolution. Ben Ali swiftly suffocated free and democratic trade union activity during his 23-year domination over organised labour (1987-2011). But he could not extinguish democratic aspirations among workers. There are no exact parallels, but much of this reminds us of what happened in Poland in 1979-80. There, as in Egypt and Tunisia, we saw a mixture of a repressive, single-party state with trade unions that functioned as an arm of the ruling party. But there was also a network of NGOs that quietly worked behind the scenes, in workplaces and communities. The result was the 1980 strike at the Lenin shipyard in Gdansk, the formation of Solidarnosc, and the end not only of the Communist regime in Poland but of the entire Soviet empire. Today’s pro-democracy revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia are the culmination of that process, and where it will lead we cannot predict – though Poland does provide an appealing model. The pressing point is that experts misjudged the tumult in Egypt and Tunisia largely because they ignored and overlooked the democratic aspirations of working-class Tunisians and Egyptians. To understand why so many authoritarian Arab regimes remain fragile, one need to only to look through the window on to the court of labour relations. Egypt Tunisia Protest Middle East Social networking Eric Lee Benjamin Weinthal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Al Jazeera English’s correspondent in Cairo, Ayman Mohyeldin, lets the American audience know that the network appreciates enthusiastic support for ongoing Egypt coverage.
Continue reading …
Amanda Palmer travels to the Morrocan city and discovers how modernity meets tradition.
Continue reading …
Ahmed Aboul Gheit resists American pressure for rapid political reform, saying Washington should not impose its will The Egyptian leadership is resisting American pressure for rapid political reform, again warning that mass demonstrations and spreading strikes calling for President Hosni Mubarak’s immediate resignation could lead to a military coup. The country’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, rejected Washington’s demand for concrete actions to show that major change is under way, saying that Washington should not impose its will. The White House responded by warning that Cairo has not done enough to satisfy what the Obama administration has previously described as legitimate demands of the protesters. “I think it is clear that what the government has thus far put forward has yet to meet a minimum threshold for the people of Egypt,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. Earlier this week, the US vice-president, Joe Biden, called Mubarak’s deputy, Omar Suleiman, the former intelligence chief who is now overseeing dealings with the opposition and the promised political transition, to urge him to immediately lift the oppressive 30-year state of emergency. In an interview with PBS television in the US, Aboul Gheit was asked if he regarded Biden’s call as helpful advice from a friend. “No, not at all. Why is it so? Because when you speak about prompt, immediate, now – as if you are imposing on a great country like Egypt, a great friend that has always maintained the best of relationship with the United States, you are imposing your will on him,” he said. The Times has reported that Saudi Arabia has threatened to prop up Mubarak if the White House tries to swiftly force him from power. It said that King Abdullah told Obama two weeks ago not to humiliate Mubarak and said Saudi Arabia would step in to replace the $1.5bn (£0.9bn) in annual US aid to Egypt, most of it to the military, if Washington cuts off assistance. Such an offer would embolden Suleiman who would otherwise be concerned about the impact on the army about the sudden loss of financing. Abdullah has defended Mubarak and accused “intruders” of meddling in Egypt’s affairs. Aboul Gheit said the US should accept the extended timetable for political change outlined by the Egyptian leadership which centres on Mubarak resigning at elections in September. “So for Americans to come and say ‘Change is now’, but already we are changing. Or ‘You start now’, we started last week. So better understand the Egyptian sensitivities and better encourage the Egyptians to move forward and to do what is required. That is my advice to you,” he said. However, talks with Mubarak’s political opponents have faltered before they even gained traction after the regime declined to consider the establishment of an interim government. Diaa Rashwan, a member of a key opposition group, the Council of Wise Men, told the Guardian that talks were going nowhere for now and that pro-democracy campaigners are alarmed at Suleiman’s warning – since reiterated by Aboul Gheit – that if the protests continue there could be a military coup. “The regime is taking a hard line and so negotiations have essentially come to an end. Suleiman’s comments about there being a danger of a coup were shocking to all of us. It was a betrayal of the spirit of negotiations, and is unacceptable,” he said. “The regime’s strategy has been just to play for time and stall with negotiations. 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.” Instead, the government was faced with its largest demonstration to date in Cairo on Tuesday with another mass turnout planned for Friday. Some trade unions have also thrown their weight behind the opposition cause with a series of strikes. Rashwan said the lack of swift progress in the talks and the upsurge in protest had shifted the initiative back to the street. The Egyptian foreign minister said Mubarak has not considered stepping down immediately as the demonstrators are demanding because it would lead to chaos and possibly a coup. “When you have a president who is stepping down, you have one of two possibilities. The demonstrators and the opposition insisting that they compose a government unconstitutional. And then maybe the armed forces would feel compelled to intervene in a more drastic manner,” he said. “Do we want the armed forces to assume the responsibility of stabilising the nation through imposing martial law, and army in the streets? The army is in defence of the borders of the country and the national security of the state. But for the army to rule, to step in, to put its friends on the scene, that would be a very dangerous possibility.” Egypt Middle East US foreign policy United States Obama administration Protest Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Paul Owen with the latest from Egypt as protests against the government enter their 17th day ترجم هذه الصفحة إلى العربية 9.53am: Good morning. Protests against the government in Egypt are entering their 17th day today. Protesters remain camped out in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and outside the People’s Assembly, calling for Hosni Mubarak, the president, to leave office immediately. The US and Egypt have got into a row over Washington’s call for rapid change in Cairo . Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Egypt’s foreign minister, has rejected a demand from the US that Cairo speed up the pace of reform. The US should not impose its will on a “great country”, Aboul Gheit said. But the White House said Egypt’s plans for change did not amount to enough to satisfy protesters. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said: I think it is clear that what the government has thus far put forward has yet to meet a minimum threshold for the people of Egypt. PJ Crowley, a spokesman for the US state department, said: If there’s some notion on the government side that you can put the genie back in this bottle, I think that’s gone a long time ago. Aboul Gheit also responded to calls by Joe Biden, the US vice-president, for Egypt’s emergency law to be lifted, saying that the escape of 17,000 prisoners meant this was impossible. Gibbs has previously hinted that Cairo’s behaviour may affect US aid to Egypt . But according to the Times today Saudi Arabia has said it would prop up Mubarak if the White House tried to force a change of regime, and would step in with financial aid if the US withdrew its assistance, which the paper says amounts to $1.5bn a year. Egypt is the fourth-highest recipient of American aid after Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel, with most of the money going to the Armed Forces. Slashing this was seen as a key weapon in Washington’s armoury should it wish to force Mr Mubarak from office, but Riyadh’s intervention seriously undermines America’s leverage. The White House declined to comment yesterday, saying that the Administration did not divulge what other leaders said to Mr [Barack] Obama. Some protesters slept in front of Egyptian army tanks last night in order to serve as human barricades to prevent the tanks from driving into the square. The BBC has a good map of the area . The government refuses to give ground on the demonstrators’ main demand, although Omar Suleiman, the vice-president, has promised there will be no reprisals against the protesters for their campaign to remove Mubarak. Mubarak has promised to stand down when his term expires in September, but the demonstrators want him gone now. Demonstrators are accusing the government of playing for time and say they will not give up until the “half revolution” has been completed. But the protesters are now in danger of losing momentum. Tomorrow’s demonstration will be the biggest test, as protesters try to bring as many people out on to the streets as they could last Friday and this Tuesday. Tuesday’s was the biggest demonstration yet, while yesterday protests spread to the parliament building. Meanwhile in China, Ma Zhaoxu, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, has expressed support for Egypt’s efforts to maintain stability and rejected the idea that foreigners should interfere with the country’s government. He said: China understands and supports the efforts made by the Egyptian side to protect social stability and return to normal law and order. We maintain that Egypt’s affairs should be decided by Egypt alone, and should not receive interference from outside. In the Guardian today: • Chris McGreal reveals allegations of detention and torture made against the Egyptian army . The Egyptian military has secretly detained hundreds and possibly thousands of suspected government opponents since mass protests against President Hosni Mubarak began, and at least some of these detainees have been tortured, according to testimony gathered by the Guardian. The military has claimed to be neutral, merely keeping anti-Mubarak protesters and loyalists apart. But human rights campaigners say this is clearly no longer the case, accusing the army of involvement in both disappearances and torture – abuses Egyptians have for years associated with the notorious state security intelligence (SSI) but not the army. • Robert Tait tells of his experiences being tied up and blindfolded by the Egyptian security services as his fellow detainees were electrocuted and beaten . I had been handed over to the security services after being stopped at a police checkpoint near central Cairo last Friday. I had flown there, along with an Iraqi-born British colleague, Abdelilah Nuaimi, to cover Egypt’s unfolding crisis for RFE/RL, an American radio station based in Prague. We knew beforehand that foreign journalists had been targeted by security services as they scrambled to contain a revolt against Mubarak’s regime, so our incarceration was not unique. Yet it was different. My experience, while highly personal, wasn’t really about me or the foreign media. It was about gaining an insight – if that is possible behind a blindfold – into the inner workings of the Mubarak regime. It told me all I needed to know about why it had become hated, feared and loathed by the mass of ordinary Egyptians. • Ian Black analyses the Egyptian regime’s intentions and the role of Suleiman . The first talks on Sunday were inconclusive. The impression is strengthening, say analysts in Egypt and abroad, that Suleiman is not serious about a constitutional review, a timetable for change, protecting freedom of expression, allowing peaceful protest, and ending the state of emergency. His remarks on Tuesday, rejecting an immediate departure by Mubarak or any “end to the regime”, did not sit well with his wish to resolve the crisis through dialogue. His warning of a possible “coup” sounded like a threat of more overt military intervention than has been seen so far. • Jack Shenker and Chris McGreal report from Cairo on the talks between the opposition and the government, the spreading of unrest, and the involvement of striking workers . • Timothy Garton Ash says ecstatic crowds in Cairo prove there is no clash of civilisations – everyone wants freedom. The question is, how to get it? • Ahmed Salah, a co-founder of the 6the April Youth Movement and the Egyptian Movement for Change, argues that the west has a duty to help end Mubarak’s rule . • And the Guardian’s leader column looks at the two faces of Egypt . Egypt Middle East Hosni Mubarak Protest Paul Owen guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Social media has been dubbed the new tool for revolutionaries. But with many of the protesters on the ground having little or no access to the internet in Egypt, can social media really be credited with sparking the recent uprisings across the Middle East?
Continue reading …
How will the return of former president Aristide affect the country’s troubled democratic process? How could Haiti’s former leaders affect the presidential run-off vote?
Continue reading …
Images from the protests in Egypt have put the relationship between funding security and development in the spotlight Over the last two weeks, images emerged from Egypt revealing foreign aid as a crucial protagonist in the ongoing protests. Egyptian riot police had been photographed in the streets of Cairo hurling teargas canisters labelled “Made in the USA” , and fighter jets were filmed flying above the protests in a dramatic show of force. The images have propelled the relationship between security and development to the forefront of policy debates. What the development economist William Easterly had called “the dirty secret” of the international aid system – the nonchalance of donors in the face of government repression in recipient countries – is now (nearly) frontpage news. To be sure, US aid in Egypt has gone to fund programmes focused on health, education and trade, but the vast majority of the multibillion-dollar US aid package to Egypt has been spent on military and domestic security initiatives . Whether intentional or not, foreign aid to Mubarak’s regime is widely seen to have strengthened the government’s ability to confront popular movements. While the images from Egypt are extreme, the role of US foreign assistance there fits the trend of aid programmes becoming increasingly involved in “state-building” – training police, raising taxes and helping governments to win and maintain legitimacy. With budgets on the chopping-block in the US and a commitment to rapid deficit reduction in the UK, these images are a thorn in the side of those who argue that stability and security are essential preconditions of development (and thus argue for aid programmes to strengthen a state’s “capacity” to maintain such stability and security). Just last week, Britain’s shadow international development secretary, Harriet Harman, called on supporters of UK aid to remake the argument and relearn how to campaign for international development , arguing against those who say this is not the time to “grow the aid budget”. Development abroad “is in our national self-interest”, said Harman, as “poverty fosters conflict and drives global migration”. Andrew Mitchell, the UK international development secretary, last week unveiled plans to triple aid efforts in Somalia along precisely the same lines. Amid warnings of severe drought and an escalating malnutrition crisis , Mitchell said: “This is not just aid from Britain, it is aid for Britain too. Our aid to Somalia is helping to make Britain safer , because conflict doesn’t just claim innocent lives in Somalia, it also leads to international problems like piracy, migration and terrorism. None of these will be solved without tackling their root causes – ongoing instability and extreme poverty.” The increased focus on “fragile” and “conflict-affected” states – where the UK, for example, is set to increase spending from £1.8bn in 2010 to £3.8bn in 2014-15 – has renewed questions as to what exactly aid should be doing, and about what kind of relationship aid donors should have with recipients. Today, Oxfam releases a report on the “politicisation” of aid in conflict zones, outlining the human cost of blurring security and development policies and projects. On the ground, Oxfam points to the increased risk posed to those who give and receive aid. Meanwhile, the report argues that the subordination of needs-based aid decisions to national security objectives means that “strategic” countries – and “strategic” areas within countries – get disproportionate amounts of aid to the neglect of other equally poor, and equally “conflict-affected”, neighbours. Some would argue that there is nothing new about this, that aid has always been political, and that it would be unreasonable to expect states to ignore their own interests when signing off on budgets and overseas projects. Writing in Foreign Policy last month , Médecins Sans Frontières’ former country representative in Afghanistan, Michiel Hofman, said governments, along with private companies, “have made their choices and can claim neither neutrality nor independence” for themselves or for the aid projects they design and deliver. Hofman instead takes aim at NGOs that claim neutrality on the one hand and implement what he calls “nation-building projects” for government agencies on the other. By working with governments in a conflict zone, NGOs effectively choose sides in the war, says Hofman. But unlike government agencies, he argues that NGOs can and should make the choice to work independently and must reorient themselves so that they focus their assistance solely on needs. Others might reasonably point to forums like the UN, suggesting that the neutrality of aid could be better protected if funds flowed through multilateral organisations rather than through bilateral agreements between states. Though one could argue whether or not the UN could ever represent a truly even playing field, the hope of this argument is that the individual security interests of the wealthy and the powerful would at least be significantly diluted. Whether states would ever agree to send more of their aid through multilateral agencies is another question. Of course, a myriad of other questions remain. Even if NGOs distanced themselves from the security interests of governments, and even if more money flowed through multilateral organisations – diluting the influence of these security interests – what’s to say that aid projects would be any more effective? Could a “de-politicisation” of aid avoid producing casualties of its own? It’s clear that there are few other foreign policy debates as timely and as controversial as the relationship between security and development. Ongoing and intensifying scrutiny of government aid budgets offers an opportunity not (just) to “remake the argument for aid” or to “relearn how to campaign for aid”, but also to rethink what aid should do and reimagine relationships between aid donors and recipients. An opportunity not to be overlooked. Egypt Middle East Aid Claire Provost guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …