Home » Archives by category »
News » Politics (Page 1803)

Click here to view this media The Egyptian prime minister would have you believe the arrests of dozens of journalists was all just a big misunderstanding. Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq feigned surprise Sunday when he was told that journalists and human rights activists had been arrested at anti-government protests in his country. “Why are you detaining them?” CNN’s Candy Crowley asked. “Oh, frankly speaking, it’s not intended at all, my dear,” Shafiq replied. “I insist to assure all of the authorities here not to ban anyone or not to bother anyone doing his work. But during some periods, such as the period we’re passing now, you will not be — it’s rather difficult to be sure 100 percent that this man or either men get some bad behavior… and he doesn’t understand their work or their job or something like that, so we have to excuse him for such action done with this group because this is not at all intended, my dear.” Al Jazeera said last week that six of their reporters had been arrested and later released. On Thursday, ABC News released a comprehensive list of dozens of reporters that either been threatened or detained while doing their jobs. Since then, Al Jazeera reporters Ayman Mohyeldin and Sherine Tadros have also reportedly been arrested. “We were told by our reporters today that you have arrested another Al Jazeera reporter from Al Jazeera English as well as more human rights activists,” Crowley told Shafiq. “Do you have a way to get them to stop those arrests?” “After our telephone now, our contact now, I will go directly to check this point,” the prime minister said. “They are not allowed at all to do something like that.” Shafiq also insisted that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would not leave office before September although demonstrators are calling for him to step down now. “A lot of points must be covered before he leaves,” he said.
Continue reading …

There are shades of the turmoil of the early 1970s in today’s inflation, financial instability and political chaos in Egypt For those with long enough memories, it all seems eerily familiar. Against a backdrop of already-rising inflation, the Middle East descends into chaos , sending the oil price surging and tipping the global economy into recession. Back in 1973-74, this is precisely what happened as a result of the Arab-Israeli war, via a boycott of the west by producers in the Opec cartel and a fourfold rise in the cost of crude oil. The crisis, though, had deeper roots: the inability of the US to anchor the international financial system, given the cost of the Vietnam war and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programmes, a steady increase in price pressures over the previous half-decade, and the easy availability of credit as politicians tried to keep the long post-war boom going. Not that difficult to read across from 1973-74 to 2010-11, is it? The period since 2007 has seen an international financial crisis which is, arguably, even more profound than the break-up of the Bretton Woods system in 1971. The US has been left severely impaired by military over-stretch and the bursting of its housing bubble. The flooding of the global economy with cheap money has hastened economic recovery, but at the cost of record food prices, copper at $10,000 a tonne, and Brent crude back above $100 a barrel. Now the dominoes are toppling across north Africa: yesterday Tunisia, today Egypt, tomorrow perhaps Algeria. The equally undemocratic regimes in the Middle East, sitting on a large chunk of global oil reserves, look on anxiously. Should history repeat itself, the result will initially be higher inflation as companies mark up prices and workers seek higher wages. This will be followed by deflation caused by a squeeze on corporate profitability and consumer real incomes from dearer food and energy, coupled with a tightening of monetary policy as central banks seek to bring inflation down again. Financial markets, it has to be said, appear remarkably relaxed about this Life on Mars scenario. Share prices are roaring away on the back of optimism about the growth prospects for the world’s two biggest economies, China and the US. Bond markets also seem to have shrugged off the risk that policy-makers may soon start to increase the cost of borrowing. This view of the world, however, is based on a series of assumptions, some more plausible than others. The first is that there will be a peaceful transition to democracy in Egypt. The second is that there will be no ripple effect across the oil-producing states of the Middle East. The third is that, even if the protests do spread to, say, Saudi Arabia, oil flows would be relatively unaffected. The fourth is that the global recovery is now robust enough to shrug off any local difficulties thrown up by events in north Africa and the Middle East. And finally, that rising commodity prices are a sign of a recovery that is starting to put down roots. Parts of this analysis ring true. Egypt in 2011 with Hosni Mubarak on his way out looks a lot different to Egypt in October 1973 with the Israeli army crossing the Suez canal. There is no inherent reason why a new government should adopt an anti-western stance, and in the longer term the transition to democracy across the region would add to geo-political stability. Nor is it inevitable that other regimes will crumble. High food prices and chronic levels of unemployment affecting a young population are as evident in Saudi Arabia as they are in Egypt, but high oil prices mean the government is rolling in money and would seek to buy off the dissent. Having said that, the Saudi King Abdullah’s description of the protesters in Egypt as “infiltrators who seek to destabilise their country” shows that the Saudis will offer stick as well as carrot should the calls for regime-change spread. The current situation in the Middle East is not anomalous to that in eastern Europe in 1989 (when Mikhail Gorbachev pulled the plug by withdrawing Soviet military support) but one lesson from the end of communism is that even the most stable-looking of regimes can topple quickly in the right circumstances. But for oil supplies to be seriously affected, the unrest would have to spread and lead to regimes willing to use their crude stocks for political purposes. There has been a spike in oil prices, but for the moment that is all it is. There are long-term reasons explaining high oil prices, but no obvious reason why events in Egypt should see the cost of crude approaching the record levels of almost $150 a barrel seen in 2008. But what’s “obvious” does not always matter that much in financial markets, where prices are influenced by waves of over-confidence interspersed with bouts of panic. At the moment, the mood is one of supreme optimism, marked not just by a willingness to shrug off events in Egypt but also to downplay evidence of overheating in Asia and the commodity speculation encouraged by the Federal Reserve’s cheap money policy. Ironically, this will lead to even higher oil prices and even dearer food, increasing the chances of an eventual hard landing. So where does this leave policy? Those pressing for monetary tightening argue that the lesson from 1973-74 is that once inflation becomes embedded it is awfully difficult to remove. Policy has been too loose for too long, they say. Doing nothing runs the risk of even more air being pumped into asset bubbles, which will eventually burst, leading to recession. Those arguing for policy to be left unchanged or loosened say that unions are much less powerful than in 1973 and cannot bid up the price of their labour in response to higher commodity prices. The rising cost of oil and food act in effect as a tax on consumers, they would argue, leading to deflationary pressures and eventually lower inflation. Tightening policy would simply turn a slowdown into recession, particularly in countries such as Britain, where high levels of personal debt mean individuals are vulnerable to higher interest rates. For the moment, interest rates are likely to be left unchanged but events in the Middle East have added to an already tricky policy dilemma. In truth, it is hard to see how this ends well. The reason oil is so expensive reflects what is going on in China and the US rather than Egypt and Tunisia, but we should still be concerned. Why? Because each of the four major recessions since the early 1970s have been preceded by a leap in oil prices. Crude facts Oil Economics Middle East Egypt Hosni Mubarak Inflation Larry Elliott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
This weekend, Republicans marked the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan with speeches celebrating his small government philosophy, anti-tax fervor and hard-line foreign policy. But if Reagan was a GOP candidate today, he would doubtless fall victim to violations of his own 11th Commandment , “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Because despite all of the right-wing hagiography , Ronald Reagan ballooned the national debt, repeatedly raised taxes, signed abortion rights legislation and negotiated with terrorists in Iran. For those and so many other perceived offenses, the GOP rank and file – and especially its purity-demanding Tea Partiers – would today brand a reanimated Ronald Reagan a Republican in Name Only . Meet RINO Reagan: Reagan tripled the national debt Reagan raised taxes 11 times Reagan expanded the size of government Reagan supported the “socialist” Earned Income Tax Credit Reagan negotiated with terrorists in Tehran Reagan sought to eliminate nuclear weapons Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants Reagan approved protectionist trade barriers Reagan signed abortion rights law in California Reagan eventually debunked AIDS myths Republicans continued to perpetuate 1. Reagan Tripled the National Debt . As most analysts predicted, Reagan’s massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous “rosy scenarios.” Forced to raise taxes twice to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It’s no wonder Stockman lamented last year : “[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.” Sarah Palin’s revisionist history Friday notwithstanding, it was Reagan who put the United States on “the road to ruin.” 2. Reagan Raised Taxes 11 Times As ThinkProgress noted, the inedible image of Ronald Reagan the tax cutter is “false mythology.” (It is also worth noting that it was President Obama and not Reagan who delivered the largest two year tax cut in American history.) While Governor Reagan doubled California’s state spending and signed the biggest tax hike up to that point, as President he raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” 3. Reagan Expanded the Size of Government On Friday, Sarah Palin told the Reaganauts assembled by the Young Americans for Freedom, “We need to stop spending and cut government back down to size.” If that’s the case, her role model should be Democrat Bill Clinton and not Republican Ronald Reagan . As USA Today pointed out five years ago, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product, average annual federal spending dropped far more under Bill Clinton (-1.8%) than Ronald Reagan (-0.6%). And as Slate’s Michael Kinsley explained ten years ago in marking Reagan’s 90th birthday: Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered. As a share of GDP, the federal government shrank from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent–a whopping one percentage point. The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. (Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president’s policies to take effect doesn’t materially change any of these results.) Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million. Federal spending grew by 11 percent in real terms–less than half as much as under Reagan. As a share of GDP, federal spending shrank from 21.5 percent to 18.3 percent–more than double Reagan’s reduction, ending up with a federal government share of the economy about a tenth smaller than Reagan left behind. As the Gipper’s biographer Lou Cannon aptly summed it up, “He was no Tea Partier.” 4. Reagan Supported the “Socialist” Earned Income Tax Credit Both during and after the 2008 presidential campaign , Republican candidates and commentators blasted Barack Obama’s proposals to offer Americans expanded tax credits as “socialism”, “welfare” and worse. If so, they should also be directing their ire at Ronald Reagan. While virtually all working Americans pay the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes ( levies increased by President Reagan ), many don’t pay federal income tax thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted in 2005, the EITC was not only very successful in lowering poverty, the provision “has enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. President Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, and President Clinton all praised it and proposed expansions in it.” While many of his conservative heirs now express disdain for the working poor , Ronald Reagan championed the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit. As the American Prospect recalled in 2006: Almost 20 years ago, as he signed into law the tax bill expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, President Ronald Reagan hailed it as “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” 5. Reagan Negotiated with Terrorists in Tehran . Criticizing President Obama as weak on Iran, Sarah Palin declared in December that “just as Ronald Reagan once denounced an ‘evil empire’ and looked forward to a time when communism was left on the ‘ash heap of history,’ we should look forward to a future where the twisted ideology and aggressive will to dominate of Khomeini and his successors are consigned to history’s dustbin.” That would be the same Ronald Reagan whose policy consisted of giving the mullahs in Iran a cake, a Bible – and U.S. arms. The Iran-Contra scandal , as you’ll recall, almost laid waste to the Reagan presidency. Desperate to free U.S. hostages held by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, President Reagan provided weapons Tehran badly needed in its long war with Saddam Hussein (who, of course, was backed by the United States). In a clumsy and illegal attempt to skirt U.S. law, the proceeds of those sales were then funneled to the contras fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And as the New York Times recalled, Reagan’s fiasco started with an emissary bearing gifts from the Gipper himself, including “a Bible with a handwritten verse from President Reagan for Iranian leaders” and “and a key-shaped cake to symbolize the anticipated ”opening” to Iran.’” The rest, as they say, is history. After his initial denials, President Reagan was forced to address the nation on March 4, 1987 and acknowledge he indeed swapped arms for hostages ( video here ): “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages.” 6. Reagan Sought to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons In late 2010, hard-line Republicans opposed President Obama’s new START treaty calling for joint reductions in the American and Russian nuclear stockpiles. Sadly for GOP hawks, it was Ronald Reagan and not Barack Obama who declared, “m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” And as the Washington Monthly recalled in 2003, Reagan’s idealism startled and shocked his advisers and allies: Driven by this dream, Reagan embraced Mikhail Gorbachev and initiated a series of negotiations that ultimately alarmed everyone in his administration. Hardliners like Patrick Buchanan, Richard Perle, and Caspar Weinberger reacted in horror to the very idea of engaging the Soviets in such talks, warning against the “grand illusion” of peace. “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as clout,” echoed New Right leader Paul Weyrich in The Washington Post. Administration pragmatists like George Shultz and Robert McFarlane, who supported negotiations but believed in deterrence, were shocked by how far Reagan took them. At the Reykjavik summit, he and Gorbachev almost agreed to the “zero option” to eliminate both sides’ thermonuclear arms. Reagan’s unwillingness to give up his cherished missile-defense program doomed the agreement, though the talks did yield the signature arms-reduction pact of his presidency, the 1987 INF treaty. 7. Reagan Gave Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Immigrants Codifying the growing xenophobia within the Republican Party, the 2008 GOP platform insisted: “We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.” Which is why, as ThinkProgres s again helpfully highlighted, conservatives are now so eager to hush up RINO Reagan’s history on immigration: Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives. 8. Reagan Approved Protectionist Trade Barriers Ronald Reagan believed in free markets and free trade. Except when he didn’t. In 2004, Alan Tonelson praised what he called Reagan’s “trade realism” : Reagan’s tactics were flexible. In autos, machine tools, and steel, his administration subjected foreign producers to so-called voluntary export restraints. In semiconductors, Reagan officials negotiated an agreement to secure a specific share of the Japanese market for U.S. companies, and then imposed tariffs on Japanese electronics imports when Tokyo briefly refused to keep a promise to halt semiconductor dumping. But it was Reagan’s decisive intervention to save legendary American motorcycle maker Harley Davidson which drew the ire of conservatives at the time, if not now. The libertarian Cato Institute groused about the 49.4% import tariff on foreign motorcycles Reagan authorized in 1983: Last spring, the import duties on large motorcycles were raised drastically. By any economic criterion, the new tariff is counterproductive, and the Reagan administration was fully aware of it. The decision is thus an interesting case study in the political economy of protectionism. 9. Reagan Signed Abortion Rights Law in California Despite his paeans to the pro-life crowd, RINO Reagan did very little to advance their radical anti-abortion agenda. As ThinkProgress summarized his record on reproductive rights: As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice. 10. Reagan Eventually Debunked AIDS Myths Republicans Continued to Perpetuate Not wanting to anger his allies on the Christian right when it came to what they deemed the “gay plague,” Reagan remained silent on the exploding AIDS epidemic throughout most of his presidency. And when he did speak up in 1985 (as he did at the urging of staffer and future Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ), Reagan ignored both basic science and basic compassion in setting back the cause of truth and public health: “I’m glad I’m not faced with that problem today [sending children to school where another student has AIDS] and I can well understand the plight of the parents and how they feel about it…And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said ‘This we know for a fact, that it is safe.’ And until they do I think we have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it.” The next day, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and the chief scientists at the National Institutes of Health called a news conference to correct President Reagan’s tragic error and confirm that AIDS was a blood-borne sexually transmitted disease not spread by casual contact. In what would be the first high-impact celebrity intervention among Republicans, it took a plea from Elizabeth Taylor to get Ronald Reagan to deliver a speech at the 1987 meeting of amfAR , the American Foundation for AIDS Research: As dangerous and deadly as AIDS is, many of the fears surrounding it are unfounded. These fears are based on ignorance… The Public Health Service has stated that there’s no medical reason for barring a person with the virus from any routine school or work activity. There’s no reason for those who carry the AIDS virus to wear a scarlet A. AIDS is not a casually contagious disease. We’re still learning about how AIDS is transmitted, but experts tell us you don’t get it from telephones or swimming pools or drinking fountains. You don’t get it from shaking hands or sitting on a bus or anywhere else, for that matter. And most important, you don’t get AIDS by donating blood. Education is critical to clearing up the fears. Education is also crucial to stopping the transmission of the disease. Five years later, future Arkansas Governor and current GOP White House frontrunner Mike Huckabee still hadn’t got the message. As a Senate candidate in 1992, he called homosexuality “an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.” Huckabee then called for Huckabee called for draconian – and discriminatory – action: “If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague. It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.” Fourteen years later, Senate Majority Leader and physician Bill Frist declined to say whether he thought HIV-AIDS could be transmitted through tears or sweat, as a disputed federal education program championed by some conservative groups had suggested. (For more debunking of the right-wing mythology surrounding Ronald Reagan, see these recent articles from the Washington Post , CNN , ThinkProgress and CBS . For the definitive account of the conservative revisionist history project, see Will Bunch’s excellent book, Tear Down This Myth .) (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …

enlarge Credit: The Chocolate Swirl Football, food, million dollar commercials. Who are you rooting for? What’s the best play of the game? Kickoff is at 6:30 pm Eastern / 3:30 Pacific. Also, Blue America has a Super Bowl game going on. Everytime The Packers score, donate to the Blue America fund to help get rid of Wisconsin’s biggest disgrace: Paul Ryan. Football open thread, Super Bowl 2011 Steelers 31% (4 votes) Packers 69% (9 votes) 13 votes
Continue reading …

Click here to view this media There’s something more than a little off-putting about someone once described as America’s “most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights,” arguing vigorously against those same rights of free expression and self-determination for another people. That he does so later by invoking Godwin’s law when he states as a fear of democracy emerging in Egypt with “The people of Germany chose Adolph Hitler in 1932 by democratic means” is just sickening. [And historically false anyway, as Hindenburg won the 1932 German election .] Dershowitz’s false equivalence of sacrificing America’s “only reliable ally in the middle east” for one who would never be more than a “fairweather friend” is an embarrassing straw man argument where he points as one thing only as possible, or at least likely, as a given result. That somehow supporting Egypt’s move towards real democracy would always be antithetical to our and Israel’s goals. Mona Eltahawy was blunt in her assessment of the manure Dershowitz was spewing, calling him “hypocritical and alarmist”. “You’re talking nonsense,” she said. David Gergen was given the last word which he used to back up Dershowitz’s call to maintain the status quo as in the best interests of the United States, stability above all else, and especially not the messy and unpredictable nature of democracy. Dershowitz nodded approvingly, content in his own sanctimony.
Continue reading …
As much as I often disagree with the administration about their policy choices, at least there’s some kind of coherent strategy behind them. (I may not agree with them, but clearly there’s some kind of thought behind them.) But this one? She’s just plain crazy. She swallows Fox News and religious extremism whole, and spits them back out as “truth”, blithely beating the drum for a religious government and ignoring the concept of separation of church and state: Sarah Palin blasted the Obama administration’s handling of the Egypt crisis on Saturday in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. “This is that 3 a.m. White House phone call, and it seems for many of us trying to get that information from our leader in the White House, it seems that that call went right to the answering machine.” Palin’s reference to a 3 a.m. phone call referred to the 2008 bruising primary battle between now-President Obama and now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over responsiveness to unexpected foreign policy crises. In the CBN interview, which was conducted Friday immediately following Palin’s speech in honor of President Ronald Reagan’s 100 birthday but aired Saturday night, the former Alaska governor questioned who might lead Egypt after President Hosni Mubarak if he were to resign. “Is it going to be the Muslim Brotherhood,” Palin asked. “We should not stand for that, or with that, or by that. Any radical Islamists. No, that is not who we should be supporting and standing by … we need to find out who was behind all of the turmoil and the revolt and the protests so that good decisions can be made in terms of who we will stand by and support.” Palin suggested in the interview that the Obama Administration is keeping such information from the American public. “Nobody yet has explained to the American people what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know, who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak and I’m not real enthused about what it is that, that’s being done on a national level and from D.C. in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt. “And in these areas that are so volatile right now because obviously it’s not just Egypt but the other countries too where we are seeing uprisings, we know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House.” It’s beyond irony that she’s so worried about religious extremists taking over Egypt — you know, considering that she’s talking to the Christian Broadcasting Network : “You know, I’m reminded so often of 2 Timothy 1:7 knowing that God does not give us a spirit of timidity or of fear, but he gives us a spirit of power and love and a sound mind. A sound mind so that we can keep things in perspective . We can stay grounded, we can know what is real, we can know truth, so just calling on that verse, reminding myself over and over again what’s God promises, that gets me through the tough times.” Sorry, Sarah. You don’t have a sound mind and apparently you never did.
Continue reading …

Islamist movement has evolved and expresses readiness to work within a democratic framework Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which held landmark talks today with vice-president Omar Suleiman, is used to controversy over its ideology and tactics but has never before received such intense scrutiny at home and abroad. The veteran Islamist movement was slow to respond when the unrest began, although it has made clear that whatever happens next, it will be involved. It is hard to imagine a successful democratic transition without it. Egypt’s best-organised opposition group, which has an estimated 600,000 members, is formally banned but has been a significant force since it was founded in 1928. Its reputation and role have changed markedly in recent years – though it still arouses suspicions and has many enemies. Hosni Mubarak’s regime often seemed obsessed by it. Without vote-rigging the Brotherhood would have won far more than the 88 seats (20% of the total) it took in the 2005 elections – its candidates ran as independents to evade the ban on religion-based parties. The Brotherhood – or Ikhwan as it is known in Arabic – boycotted last year’s rigged elections. Since then it has again seen its offices closed down and leaders harassed, arrested and released in a cat-and-mouse game with the authorities. In 2010, 6,000 activists were detained. Like other Islamist movements, its popularity is based on a reputation for not being corrupt and charity work in clinics, nurseries and after-school tutoring. Volunteers fill gaps left by a state that has seen illiteracy rise and services fail as liberal economic reforms enriched businesses close to the regime. It is known for its ability to mobilise supporters. In 2006 Suleiman, then Mubarak’s intelligence chief, described the Brotherhood as “neither a religious organisation, nor a social organisation, nor a political party, but a combination of all three” – though the regime exaggerated its importance to present itself as a bulwark against extremism. It used terrorist methods before and after the 1952 revolution and its underground wing was kept under surveillance by state security, which tortured thousands of its members. But it was also exploited by presidents Nasser and Sadat as a counterweight to the left. It used anti-western, anti-Zionist, and anti-Semitic language. Nowadays it eschews violence and is attacked by al-Qaida for urging young Muslims to vote in elections instead of taking up jihad. Its hostility to Israel and Zionism remain unchanged. It has evolved in other important ways, expressing a readiness to work within a democratic framework that uses sharia law “as a reference” – an ambiguous formula that worries secularists and the large Christian Coptic minority. “Islam is the solution,” remains the Brotherhood’s signature slogan. “Although the Brotherhood entered the political system in order to change it, it ended up being changed by the system,” commented the American scholar Carrie Rosefsky Wickham on the website Foreign Affairs . “The Brotherhood is too savvy, too pragmatic and too cautious to squander its hard-earned reputation among Egyptians as a responsible political actor or invite the risk of a military coup by attempting to seize power on its own.” Most experts predict that if free elections were held in Egypt, the Ikhwan might win 25-40% of the vote, though that would depend on the ability of smaller rival democratic and secular parties to carve out the space deliberately denied them by the Mubarak regime. In a multiparty system the Brotherhood would certainly voice its hostility to the peace treaty with Israel. But it is hard to imagine that any party exercising responsible power in a democratic, post-Mubarak Egypt would seek to return to the bad old days of a permanent war with the country’s unassailably powerful neighbour. Egypt Middle East Protest Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …

Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, has an extensive network of business connections and homes in some of the most sought-after locations around the world. But while Egypt’s economy may be suffering, Mubarak’s personal wealth remains strong. Al Jazeera’s Paul Brennan reports on the Mubarak empire.
Continue reading …

The Obama administration’s official position on the Egypt uprising has been changing almost daily 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 Obama administration’s immediate response was to back the president, Hosni Mubarak, to the dismay of the protesters. Joe Biden, the vice-president, insisted on 27 January that Mubarak was not a dictator. By last Tuesday that position was reversed. Obama abandoned Mubarak an hour after the Egyptian president said he would remain in office until September, saying it would be better if the transition process began “now”. That was the message on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. On Saturday, the US envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, told a defence conference in Munich that Mubarak should be allowed to stay in office during the transition process: “I believe that President Mubarak’s continued leadership is critical.” The US state department distanced itself from this, saying Wisner was speaking on his own behalf. Today, the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said America would adopt a wait-and-see approach to the involvement in talks of the Muslim Brotherhood, despite harbouring deep suspicions about the opposition movement. She was speaking a day after she aligned the US with the Egyptian vice-president, Omar Suleiman, whom she backs to lead the transition from dictatorship to free and fair elections – in an apparent move to sideline Mubarak. Obama suporters, in a series of interviews today, said the seemingly abrupt policy changes were needed to allow Mubarak to exit with dignity. Opponents argued they reflect uncertainty at the heart of an Obama administration. Egypt Middle East Barack Obama Hillary Clinton United States Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …

In Tahrir Square, Christians and Muslims link hands in common cause and suspicion of US motives in backing ex-security chief The news dribbled in to Tahrir Square in phone calls, text messages, by word of mouth. The details were vague but the demonstrators, some of whom have been camped in the square for nearly a fortnight, agreed that concessions offered by the man who increasingly appears to run Egypt, the vice president and former intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, were a good sign. The regime was crumbling. But what of President Hosni Mubarak? The news was disappointing. Tens of thousands of people packed in to Tahrir Square again, as determined now to rid Egypt of the man who has ruled for 30 years as they were when the uprising began nearly a fortnight ago. Some welcomed news of talks between Suleiman and opposition figures as further evidence that the regime’s power is waning. But they still wanted to see the protests through until their central demand – for Mubarak’s resignation – has been met. Many were wary of the apparent deal being cooked up between Washington and Suleiman, with European backing, for the old regime to oversee the transition to democracy. “If Mubarak is still president, nothing will happen. If he will leave, then Omar Suleiman, no problem if he meets our demands,” said Amr Mahmoud, who has spent 12 days in the square with his wife, Reem. “But Suleiman was part of the old system. We want a new system.” Mahmoud was among many pro-democracy demonstrators suspicious of US backing for Suleiman’s plan to control the transition. After all, Suleiman was head of the intelligence services that played a commanding role in suppressing political dissent and free speech. He also served the US in co-operating with its rendition of alleged terrorists, some of whom were interrogated under torture on behalf of the Americans in Egyptian jails. “Why does America want to work with this man?” asked Mahmoud. “He has not been good for Egypt. He has not been good for us. He has served Mubarak and he has served America. We do no trust him and if they have chosen him, then we do not trust America. We will stay here until we get what we want.” There was no particular anti-US sentiment in Tahrir Square, but there was a wariness of its role. Had the US pushed Mubarak out the door last week, it might have taken the sting out of the protests and made it easier to sell the arrangement Washington is now promoting. But Mubarak remains and some of the protesters were concerned that the US was attempting to manoeuvre Suleiman into power to perpetuate a pliable regime or at least keep out a more hostile one. Widespread scepticism greeted the US claim that its primary concern was to maintain stability on the path to free elections. To many Egyptians, the American definition of stability can be seen in the context of concern about Israel’s security and fear of Islam. Washington’s focus on the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the demands from some in American politicians that it be kept from power at all costs, concerns large numbers of people who see the organisation as part of the patchwork of their country’s politics – even if some Egyptians share American fears. The protesters sought to demonstrate to the outside world that no religious division exists among them, with services to remember those killed in the protests. Officially the death toll stands at 12 but the UN says as many as 300 people may have been killed with significant numbers of casualties in cities beyond Cairo where the protests against the government have been just as vigorous. In Tahrir Square, Christians and Muslims held hands and formed protective guards at each other’s services in a demonstration of solidarity designed to convey that the protesters are united in common cause and that heated debate in the west about the role of the Muslim Brotherhood is of less concern to Egyptians. Beyond the square, banks reopened for the first time in days, relieving a desperate shortage of cash for many people who did not have money to buy food. The authorities called on people to return to their jobs today, the first day of the working week in Egypt. The government also wanted the stock market to reopen in the morning after a fortnight’s closure in a drive to restore normality and stem the financial losses caused by the uprising, but the move was cancelled. Bankers estimate that the upheaval has cost the economy more than $3bn (£1.87bn) over the past fortnight. The prime minister said one million tourists had fled the country and there was little sign of them returning soon. But in Tahrir Square, there appeared to be little interest in getting the country back to normal. “We don’t want normal with Mubarak. We want normal without Mubarak,” said Ayman Faroud, who has spent 10 days living and sleeping in the square. “Normal will be when we elect our president, elect our parliament, do not have a secret police and we never have to think about Mubarak again. Right now we think about him every minute of the day because that is the only reason we are here.” As fear of the regime subsides, some big names joined the protesters. Nader ElSayed, a goalkeeper for the Egyptian national team, led chants of: “People will overthrow the regime.” Not everyone in the square was quite so enamoured at the idea of change. Oma Abu Aziza owns a small gift shop down one of the side streets barricaded by the protesters. He doesn’t sell anything Egyptians want to buy and the tourists have evaporated. The mass-produced wooden pharaohs and bottles of lotus oil sit have been sitting untouched on the glass shelves. “It’s a very bad 12 days. If you have money, you’ve spent it to eat,” he said. “I like Mubarak. Mubarak is a good man. The people are wrong. The president has done a lot of things for them but they don’t believe in him.” Abu Aziza ticked off Mubarak’s achievements – head of the air force, confronting the Muslim Brotherhood, bringing stability to Egypt for 30 years – but then acknowledged that there had been problems recently. “The price rises. That is a big problem. Sugar was E£1 [11p]. Now it is E£6. Meat was E£7. Now it is E£70,” he said. Abu Aziza is not blind to reality. The people may be wrong but outside the window of his empty gift shop they have been speaking for much of Egypt and the political momentum remains with them. “If the people do not want him, Mubarak should go home now. He should stay at home. We Egyptians do not need to fight brother against brother. They are right. Let’s have an election,” he said. Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East US foreign policy Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …