Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1802)
Egypt’s elite fear instability

Much of the focus in Egypt has been on the protesters most of whom come from humble backgrounds. But what about the country’s wealthier residents? Al Jazeera’s Jacky Rowland reports from Cairo about how Egypt’s powerful elite feel about the instability in their country.

Continue reading …
Empire – Democracy in the Arab world?

The protests that overthrew half a century of autocratic rule in Tunisia are spreading. The governments of Egypt, Algeria, and Yemen are feeling the wrath of decades of repression as people take to the streets and demand freedom.

Continue reading …
Egypt protests – Monday 7 February

• Barack Obama says Egypt can’t go back to where it was • Opposition say new concessions don’t go far enough • Muslim Brotherhood under intense scrutiny 7.24am: Barack Obama has put further pressure on the Egyptian government to implement democratic reforms, but once he again stopped short of calling for President Hosni Mubarak to resign now. “What I want is a representative government in Egypt and I have confidence that if Egypt moves in an orderly transition process, that we’ll have a government in Egypt that we can work with together as a partner,” he told Fox News. Obama said: “Here’s what we know – that Egypt is not going to go back to what it was… The Egyptian people want freedom, they want free and fair elections, they want a representative government, they want a responsible government. So what we have said is you have to start a transition now.” Here are some clips of the interview from AP. You can see more of the interview with Bill O’Reilly here . The US policy towards Egypt is coming in for increasing criticism. The Guardian’s Washington bureau chief Ewen MacAskill writes: “Flexibility can be advantageous in international relations, but there comes a time when it starts to look like dithering . So it is in the US, where the official position on the Egypt uprising has been changing almost daily.” The Independent’s Robert Fisk reports on the business links to Mubarak of the US envoy Frank Wisner following his significant gaffe this weekend . Frank Wisner, President Barack Obama’s envoy to Cairo who infuriated the White House this weekend by urging Hosni Mubarak to remain President of Egypt, works for a New York and Washington law firm which works for the dictator’s own Egyptian government. Mr Wisner’s astonishing remarks – “President Mubarak’s continued leadership is critical: it’s his opportunity to write his own legacy” – shocked the democratic opposition in Egypt and called into question Mr Obama’s judgement, as well as that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In Cairo, the opposition says concessions offered by Vice President Omar Suleiman don’t go far enough . One of the protests groups in Tahrir Square has issued a seven point list of demands, from the resignation of Mubarak , to the release of the activist and Google employee Wael Ghuneim. The New York Times says Ghuneim (or Ghonim as it spells his name) could be released as early as today . After disappearing in Egypt more than a week ago, leaving an ominous message on his Twitter account, Wael Ghonim, who leads Google’s marketing efforts for the Middle East and North Africa, is expected to be released by Egyptian authorities to his family on Monday afternoon, a friend of the Ghonim family said Sunday night. “We are not confident, but we are hopeful,” said Habib Haddad, a Boston-based businessman and a close friend of Mr. Ghonim who has been helping lead efforts in recent days to help locate his friend, among many in Egypt who have gone missing in the two-week-old revolt there. “At this point in time, it is important to be hopeful and confident but not to call for celebration yet.” To follow yesterday’s event see Sunday’s live blog , and all the previous Egypt protests live blogs here. Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East Matthew Weaver guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Al-Jazeera’s coverage of Egypt protests may hasten revolution in world news

Al-Jazeera English is enjoying new-found global popularity in the wake of the chaos in Egypt Donald Rumsfeld demonised it and George Bush allegedly said he wanted to bomb it . No one was quite sure whether the then White House incumbent was joking or not, but its offices have been hit by US forces. Twice . Now something rather strange has begun to happen to the Arabic language news broadcaster al-Jazeera and the English language channel it launched nearly five years ago; American viewers have begun to demand it. It is clear some kind of watershed has been reached when the Kansas City Star publishes a cut-out-and-keep guide to the “easiest way to get al-Jazeera English” . The Qatar-based channel’s acclaimed coverage of the Egyptian crisis has been referred to as the broadcaster’s “CNN moment”, doing for al-Jazeera English what the first Gulf war did for CNN, pushing it to the forefront of the public’s consciousness. Put simply, must-see TV. Now the challenge is to translate the plaudits into the major cable or satellite distribution deal the channel has long sought without success in the US. The New York Times, which praised the channel’s “total immersion coverage of news events the whole world is talking about”, bemoaned the fact that US cable viewers were able to watch MTV’s controversial adaptation of E4′s teen drama Skins but not al-Jazeera English. “It seems like a perverse application of free speech,” said the paper . “But sex is sexier than foreign affairs and it certainly sells better.” Intimidation and violence With China investing $7bn in foreign language media , we may also be witnessing the beginning of a shift, albeit slight, in the nature of global TV news and debate. Stephen Claypole, the former senior BBC News and TV news agency executive who is now chairman of the London and Abu Dhabi-based consultancy, DMA Media , says: “Al-Jazeera has the game by the throat, both in Arabic and English, and it has certainly lived up to its reputation as the most watched broadcaster in the Arab world in spite of intimidation and violence against its staff in Egypt. “I have heard that [US secretary of state] Hillary Clinton [pictured] watches it constantly and that Barack Obama has been viewing from the situation room. Although al-Jazeera English has been competent since its launch, it has been waiting for a huge story to call its own. Egypt is certainly that,” Claypole adds. Al-Jazeera English is separate from the main al-Jazeera Arabic channel, which began broadcasting in 1996. Staffed largely by western TV journalists, the English-language service leveraged the advantages of its Arabic network and contacts in covering the emerging crisis. For a story of this scale in the Arab world, it absolutely had to be good. Al Anstey, the former ITN executive who is the managing director of al-Jazeera English, describes it as an “extraordinary week” for the channel and a “truly historical” one for Egypt. “We are being seen worldwide as a channel of reference on this story,” says Anstey. “There has been an exponential increase in the recognition of exactly what it is we do and the quality of our journalism and content. I always say the best way of addressing any misconceptions about al-Jazeera English is to switch on and watch.” Al-Jazeera English is available in around 220m homes in more than 100 countries worldwide, including viewers with Freeview, Sky or Freesat in the UK. But fewer than 3m of those homes are in the US including – helpfully for the White House – Washington DC. The failure to strike a major US distribution deal is partly a result of the political sensitivity that surrounded the perceived negative slant of al-Jazeera Arabic’s coverage of the Iraq war. It is also a reflection of the fact that cable operators do not think they can make money from a foreign news network on systems that are already full. BBC World News is distributed to around 6m homes in the US, against more than 10 times that for the entertainment channel BBC America (on which some World News bulletins air). “For a long time al-Jazeera was seen as the Fox [News] for the bad guys — that’s a really unfortunate way of looking at it,” says Jon Williams, the BBC’s World News editor. “With the change of [US government] administration there’s been a slight change of attitude, and if this means that it does now get carriage in the US, then we welcome that. Al-Jazeera has done some great stuff … It wouldn’t be fair to single out its Egyptian coverage – it has been doing this for a while.” US viewers have been watching the channel by other means – streamed live on YouTube, on set-top box digital video player Roku and on its own website, which reported a traffic increase of 2,500%, with more than half of the upsurge coming from the US. It also gained a valuable window on Link TV, which announced last week it would simulcast around 12 hours a day of al-Jazeera English on its satellite network available nationally on DirecTV and the Dish Network. Blogger and journalism professor Jeff Jarvis said it was a “sad vestige of the era of ‘Freedom Fries’ that the channel was not more widely available on cable, and started a Twitter campaign, #wewantouraje (referencing the line from Dire Straits’ Money For Nothing, but with a twist). “As much of an internet triumphalist as I am, internet streaming is not going to have the same impact — political and education impact — that putting AJE on the cable dial would have,” blogged Jarvis. “It is downright un-American to still refuse to carry it. Vital, world-changing news is occurring in the Middle East and no one — not the xenophobic or celebrity-obsessed or cut-to-the-bone American media — can bring the perspective, insight, and on-the-scene reporting al-Jazeera English can.” Anstey is cautiously optimistic: “I’m confident we will get distribution in the US, it’s just a question of when,” he says. “It’s a very important marketplace for us.” Especially in terms of revenue? “It’s not about the finances of getting into America, it’s about getting the content out there. At this stage of our evolution, the priority for the English channel is about building reputation and reach.” As the broadcaster is bankrolled by the billionaire Emir of Qatar , neither the English nor the Arabic al-Jazeera is under pressure to make a profit any time soon. It has also faced accusations of aligning itself closely to Qatari foreign policy; US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks at the end of last year suggested Qatar was using the Arabic channel as a bargaining chip in foreign policy negotiations with its neighbours. “Never once has Qatar interfered with our editorial,” says Anstey. “It is absolutely not a fair criticism and I can say that with total confidence. We are genuinely independent.” The English channel’s short history has not been without its problems — the launch was delayed and allegations of discontent among the ranks surfaced three years ago, accompanied by a string of staff defections . Anstey, the station’s former director of media development who was appointed managing director in October, says: “As a startup, where your competitors are very established and very good at what they do, there is going to be rapid evolution. We have gone into the next stage of development and things are much more settled. We are able to refine what we do and expand where we feel appropriate.” As the al-Jazeera channel eyes up further international expansion, funded by its backer’s seemingly bottomless pockets, western news organisations such as the BBC’s World Service are having to sharply cut back , with its shortwave Egyptian service among those facing the axe. Richard Sambrook, the former director of BBC Global News and now global vice-chairman of the PR firm Edelman , says it is part of a wider trend which could have far-reaching implications. “Western journalism and newsgathering, including the international networks, is shrinking as news organisations close bureaux and make staff redundant to cut costs. At the same time, states in other parts of the world are investing in journalism including international coverage and networks — al-Jazeera, Iran’s Press TV … and the Chinese have just invested $7bn in expanding [state news agency] Xinhua and CCTV [China Central Television]. So we may be seeing a shift from western dominated international news to Mid East and Asian dominance in the long run.” Every global media story produces its winners. Egypt’s drawn-out agony is a tailor-made opportunity for al-Jazeera English, which it has seized with careful on-the-ground journalism. If the US cable owners relent to the emerging public pressure, it will mark a coup for a news service that, until recently, was battling to prove it had credibility and salience with many Western audiences. Al-Jazeera TV news Television industry Egypt Protest Middle East John Plunkett Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
South Sudan to become world’s newest country

Preliminary results from southern Sudan’s referendum show that 99.5 per cent voted for independence from the north. But there has already been backlash – a mutiny by Sudanese troops refusing to leave the south, has spread through several towns. At least 50 people have been killed in the past four days. Al Jazeera’s Haru Mutasa reports from Juba in Southern Sudan on the challenges facing the new country.

Continue reading …
Ordinary Egyptians feel the pinch

More than 160 thousand tourists have fled Egypt, and many businesses have been shut for days. And as one of Al Jazeera’s correspondents in Cairo reports, ordinary Egyptians are now feeling the pinch.

Continue reading …

Genre: Gary Moore Title: Red House Artist: Blues , Rock and Roll RIP Gary Moore: Legendary rock guitarist and former Thin Lizzy star Gary Moore has died suddenly whilst on holiday in Spain. The 58-year-old guitar virtuoso, originally from Belfast, was found dead in a hotel room on the Costa del Sol. He died hours after checking into the Kempinski Resort Hotel for the start of a six-day holiday with a young woman believed to be his girlfriend. Gary was one of my all time favorite guitarists and I was really saddened to hear of his passing. He had early success with Thin Lizzy , but his best work by far, IMO, was his solo work and that’s why I chose the above video for tonight’s post. Moore was a master at blending speed with melodic blues/rock and always had sick tone that most players only dream of. Safe travels, Gary…you’ll be missed.

Continue reading …
Alan Simpson: ‘Dig Into the Big Four’ on Spending

Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe ) A rival for the McCrankypants moniker, former Senator Alan Simpson wants to know why we aren’t jumping on his drastic spending cuts recommendations for Social Security and other social safety net programs. And of course, State of the Union host Candy Crowley laps it up, wringing her hands over the lack of desire of Americans to “sacrifice”: SIMPSON: If you don’t do something with the ones that are on automatic pilot like Medicare, then it crushes out all the discretionary spending. It just wipes it out. I say to people, now what do you love? Well, I love education, I love whatever culture. Great. Don’t do anything then and then it just crushed out. And if you don’t do anything with Social Security when you waddle up to get your check in the year 2037, you’ll get 22 percent less. We’re not balancing the budget on the backs of Social Security. We’re trying to make it solvent for our children and grandchildren. If they don’t make the hard stuff on Medicare and Medicaid, and don’t forget what we’re doing with Social Security, we’re taking care of the lowest 20 percent and taking care of people over 80, changes in the COLA, we’re not talking about privatization. These jerks who keep dragging that up are lying. We never suggested that. We’re talking about doing a hideous thing, to change the retirement age to 68 by the year 2050. And hear people howl and bitch about that. Well, what do they care about their kids or their grandkids? CROWLEY: Let me ask you, I was talking to a historian on the 50th anniversary of Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” speech. And he said that was a generation that understood sacrifice. And, you know, the historian said he got it and there are few people, you know, now on the public scene that understand the idea of sacrifice when it comes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid because they had become — especially Medicare and Social Security have become sacrosanct, as had, until recently, the defense budget. Oh sweet Flying Spaghetti Monster on a stick. Remind me again, Candy and Mr. 300 Tits Milk Cow , what was the top marginal tax rate during Eisenhower’s day ? How about we ask those top income earners to sacrifice a little more instead of putting it on the backs of those who need Social Security and Medicare? How about lifting the income cap on Social Security? How about putting Social Security back in the lockbox as it was intended. None of those suggestions were in your Very. Serious. Report. And yet any one would fund fully those programs. And raising the retirement age to 68 in 2050 *IS* putting the sacrifices on the backs of our children and grandchildren. How old will they have to be to retire. I don’t disagree with Simpson that there is massive waste and inefficiency in the Defense Department that could be cut without hurting the military, including paying all those sub-contractors in the Middle East. But until he can start being honest about “sacrifices”, I keep fiddling along to his plaintive wails that no one is listening to him. Transcripts below the fold: CROWLEY: Joining me now here in Washington, Alan Simpson, co- chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is a mouthful, and it was a pretty big report. How optimistic are you that anything close to the kinds of cuts and revenue enhancements that you’d like to make are going to come — become a reality? SIMPSON: Well, the reality will come very soon and will come when the debt limit extension comes up, and that will be before April 1st. But the next time you hear any politician, in the range of my lovely voice, mellifluous voice, croaking — if you have a career politician get up and say, “I know we can get this done; we’re going to get rid of all earmarks, all waste, fraud, and abuse, all foreign aid, Air Force one, all congressional pensions,” that’s a sparrow’s belch in the midst of a typhoon. That’s about six, eight, 10 percent of where we are. So I’m waiting for the politician to get up and say, there’s only one way to do this, you dig into the big four, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense. And anybody giving you anything different than that, you want to walk out the door, stick your finger down your throat and give them the green weenie (ph). CROWLEY: Isn’t there a big selling job to be done here before you can get these politicians, who, after all, owe their jobs to the American people, to move? SIMPSON: Well, the god here in Washington is the god of re- election. And I think that god is a little tarnished. I think the feet are crumbling. I had — I won’t say who it was, a Democrat senator last — well, I won’t use the time. It was said to me, I’m ready to go out this time by carrying the ball on this program. In other words, I’m ready to do this even if it defeats me. CROWLEY: So when you look at the president saying, I want a discretionary spending freeze for five years — three years, and you see the Republicans saying, we want to go back to — and I can’t remember now what level… SIMPSON: 2008. CROWLEY: 2008 spending levels, peanuts both? SIMPSON: Peanuts. If you don’t do something with the ones that are on automatic pilot like Medicare, then it crushes out all the discretionary spending. It just wipes it out. I say to people, now what do you love? Well, I love education, I love whatever culture. Great. Don’t do anything then and then it just crushed out. And if you don’t do anything with Social Security when you waddle up to get your check in the year 2037, you’ll get 22 percent less. We’re not balancing the budget on the backs of Social Security. We’re trying to make it solvent for our children and grandchildren. If they don’t make the hard stuff on Medicare and Medicaid, and don’t forget what we’re doing with Social Security, we’re taking care of the lowest 20 percent and taking care of people over 80, changes in the COLA, we’re not talking about privatization. These jerks who keep dragging that up are lying. We never suggested that. We’re talking about doing a hideous thing, to change the retirement age to 68 by the year 2050. And hear people howl and bitch about that. Well, what do they care about their kids or their grandkids? CROWLEY: Let me ask you, I was talking to a historian on the 50th anniversary of Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” speech. And he said that was a generation that understood sacrifice. And, you know, the historian said he got it and there are few people, you know, now on the public scene that understand the idea of sacrifice when it comes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid because they had become — especially Medicare and Social Security have become sacrosanct, as had, until recently, the defense budget. Do you agree with that? SIMPSON: Oh, yes. And I think what we were — we were stunned, we’re like the people who know too much, the 10 months that all of us spent there. And I’ll tell you, we saw things — we asked the defense — we asked Conrad and Durbin, what do you hear from the Defense Department when we talk about cutting contractors? They don’t know how many contractors they have. It’s something between 250,000 and a million. So our proposal is to cut 250,000 contractors out of the game. Let me tell you, guys, nobody is going to hurt the military. We’re not going to hurt Iran and Iraq. But this is the first war in our history where we never had a tax to support a war, including the Revolution. And nobody has sacrificed in this country, nobody, except the people in the military. And in our report we use words like “sacrifice,” “self-sacrifice,” we used words like “going broke.” And it’s written in English. It’s not written for pundits or parliamentarians or journalists. It’s written for the American people. CROWLEY: It is as every bit as much our fault, it’s not like, oh, those darn politicians on Capitol Hill won’t do anything. It really is that there isn’t the will out there among the American people to say, yes, I’ll take that hit. SIMPSON: Well, there’s not much of that… CROWLEY: Is that where the fault lies? SIMPSON: Well, yes. I’ll tell you, they sent these people in Washington to bring home the bacon. I mean, they sent the — they elected these people who could get them the dam, who could get them the new money, who could get them the downtown redevelopment, who could get them more and more and more, and they re-elected them every time. And now, you can’t get guys to get on the Appropriations Committee, that’s a switch, because it’s not going — it’s going to be the “disappropriations”… CROWLEY: There’s no fun there. SIMPSON: But they asked me if I had any regret. And I’m going to say it to you because of the delightful person — you have always been real. And I’m not toadying up. You’re authentic. But I had one regret. I meant to say that America was a milk cow with 300 million teats and not just Social Security. CROWLEY: Senator Alan Simpson, rare and real, we could use a little more of that in Washington. SIMPSON: Well, but there are people, let me tell you, that commission, I respect every one of them completely and we all agree that deficit denial is dead as a dodo bird. And if they want to keep playing the violin, well, deficits mean nothing, well, I’ll buy the drinks.

Continue reading …
Richard Norton Smith: To What Degree do Modern Day Conservatives Want to Undo Johnson’s Great Society?

Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe ) As someone born during LBJ’s burgeoning “Great Society” who came of age during Reagan’s style-over-substance “Morning in America” conservative rebirth, it’s a little hard to take all of the deification of Ronald Reagan and the willful ignoring of the darker aspects of his legacy. LBJ’s legacy–for which we heard nary a peep on the centennial of his birth–was of true democratization of the United States: of eliminating economic and racial disparities, of fostering arts and culture, of being stewards of the environment . Reagan, on the other hand, offered up a rosy optimism that ignored his disdain for legislation of social justice. The reality of Reagan rarely lived up to his glossy coverage, as historian Richard Norton Smith writes: Before he became an icon, Ronald Reagan was a paradox: a complex man who appeared simple, at once a genial fundamentalist and a conservative innovator. As America’s oldest President, he found his most fervent supporters among the young. The only divorced man to occupy the Oval Office, Reagan as President rarely attended church. He enjoyed a relationship with his own children best described as intermittent. Yet his name was synonymous with traditional values, and he inspired millions of the faithful to become politically active for the first time. During eight years in the White House, Reagan never submitted a balanced budget or ceased to blame Congress for excessive spending. He presided over the highest unemployment rate since World War II and one of the longest peacetime booms ever. Smith, a former director of the Reagan Presidential Library (and four others) also wrote of Reagan in Time Magazine this week : If the Age of Reagan is anywhere consigned to the history books, it is among those who claim his mantle while practicing little of their hero’s sunny optimism and even less of his inclusiveness. Reagan, after all, excelled at the politics of multiplication. Too many of his professed admirers on talk radio and cable gabfests appear to prefer division. It’s interesting but not surprising that this meme comes from a white man on the (presumably) higher end of the socio-economic scale. Because speaking as a woman, I certainly didn’t find Reagan inclusive. In fact, Reagan’s use of coded bigotry lent itself directly to the open ignorance of today’s tea partiers. Reagan was more skillful than most when it came to spoken language, and he was no dummy. He knew about code language and how to use it to his advantage. He could, for example, use an incendiary phrase like “states’ rights” in a place like Philadelphia, Miss., where racial hatred and violence made a mockery of the “city of brotherly love” meaning of the name that is found in its native Greek — and get away with it. Reagan’s assertion was still a source of controversy more than a quarter of a century after he made it. He spoke of the urgency of spending money on defense but rarely, if ever, spoke of spending money on things that improve and enrich lives. In the interest of saving a few dollars, he could play games with school nutrition, suggesting that ketchup was a vegetable. He could ignore the growing AIDS crisis until a friend like Rock Hudson was afflicted with it and died, then he grudgingly approved limited funding for research. Reagan’s invocation of the mythical “Welfare Queen”, the use of the terms “reverse discrimination,” “welfare reform,” and “quotas” were all arguably code words meant to make uneasy white voters feel that the strides in civil rights made during the LBJ years were the result of their own privilege being taken away from them by undeserving minorities. Not exactly an inclusive concept. And Smith puts it in perfect highlight: You could make the case that the last forty years of American political history is in many ways a response to LBJ and “The Great Society”. When you think of what Johnson—what we take for granted – HeadStart, Medicare, Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act, the National Endowment for the Arts, PBS, clean water and air legislation, all sorts of environmental legislation, and on and on and on… More legislation than FDR passed. And most of it is still on the books. And it’s a very interesting thing, one of the really fascinating tests lies ahead: is to what degree modern-day conservatives want to undo elements of The Great Society? Because so far, I haven’t heard a lot of people calling for the repeal of HeadStart, for example. I suspect that Smith isn’t listening very hard. Eliminating federal funding for education (and by extension, HeadStart) has been a rallying cry at the tea parties. But that’s the point, isn’t it? Conservatives DO want to rid us of The Great Society. For them, things are only great when others don’t have as much as they do.

Continue reading …
Al Jazeera speaks to an Egyptian activist

Al Jazeera speaks to Ramy – a protester who has been camping out in the Egyptian capital Cairo’s Liberation Square for most nights.

Continue reading …