Home
The Chairman's Message
Dubai Biotechnology And Research Park
Syria Should Not Be Thrown To The Wolves
Egypt Signs Up To Democracy
Opposite Sides Of The Same Ideological Coin
Woman Distinction
Al Ghazali
How The Arabs Gave Coffee To The World
Diamonds... They're Forever
Irrigation Systems In Arabia
Green Dubai
Marawah Island
Sports: The Dubai World Cup
Engineering: The Qatar Hotel Towers
Habtoor News
About Us
Back Issues

Contact Us

 

 

“Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are – the future leaders of your free country,” said US President George W. Bush during his second term inaugural address.

By: Linda S. Heard


  Like his neo-con colleagues, Bush believes democratic systems, which promote a free market economy, go towards neutralizing the swamps of oppression, frustration and poverty, wherein “terrorists” breed.

  Egyptian parliamentarian Ayman Nour may have taken Bush’s words to heart. In face of emergency laws, the 41-year-old lawyer covered his mouth with sticky tape and along with like-minded fellows he did the unthinkable by initiating a protest outside the Parliament building against the longevity of the Egyptian government and the constitution’s one party system. “Enough is enough”, read the banners. “Kifiyah!”

  This kind of audacious demonstration challenging the leadership head on rarely takes place in Egypt, as participants know their fate in advance. They will either be roughed up or jailed or both. Nour was no exception and on January 29, he was arrested, officially on charges of forging signatures so as to register his new Ghad, or “Tomorrow” party.

  In his prison diary, published in Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Nour describes the experience as “humiliating”, adding, “There was nothing I could do in the face of this flagrant tyranny, but to raise my hands to the sky and ask God what they are doing. I cried out loudly: ‘Let the tyrant hear, the history record and Egypt witness… this is the fate of honest men in Egypt.”

  In fact, the jury’s still out as to whether Ayman Nour is, indeed, an honest man of Egypt prepared to risk life and limb in the name of democracy and freedom or, alternatively, a glorified agent provocateur in the pay of the Bush administration, an accusation he vigorously denies. 

  Such accusations are not new as during the 1995 election campaign, Nour escaped a bullet after being described an agent working on behalf of foreign powers. Five years later, he was ousted from the Wafd party for challenging the party leadership and, later, accused of accepting bribes.

  Nowadays, Nour takes flack for his frequent meetings with US ambassador David Welch at the American embassy and his recent tête-à-tête with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

  And even as Nour was disavowing his American connections, and distancing himself from the White House, Condoleezza Rice was calling him “a hero” and went so far as to cancel a planned visit to Egypt protesting his incarceration.

  Ambassador Welch has been condemned as acting like a new High Commissioner for Egypt and for trying to interfere with the Egyptian media. At one time the Journalists Union decided to ignore him, refusing to cover his press conferences.

  But Welch is unrepentant concerning his association with Nour as well as a visit he made to the Chairman of the opposition Tagammu party Rifaat El-Said, who also leads an opposition bloc of eight smaller parties.

  Said Welch: “I have a long history of contacting people in their offices and homes, and plan to continue to do so. These visits provide me with an excellent opportunity to listen and exchange views. Moreover, I am received with great hospitality…”

  Diaeddin Dawoud, leader of the Nasserists, strongly condemned the meeting with El-Said and threatened to pull his party out of the alliance, while Safwat El-Sherif, secretary-general of the ruling NDP party said opposition parties should not coordinate with foreign forces, describing the encounter between El-Said and Welch as “dangerous and negative”.

  For his part, El-Said defended his friendly chat with the US ambassador. “I met Welch in the name of the alliance,” he told his furious colleagues, “and made clear our view of US crimes in Fallujah and Abu Ghraib, as well as its unlimited support for Sharon.”

  There is no doubt that the vast majority of Egyptians dislike U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis the region and bristle at foreign interference in their own affairs. But at the same time, most ordinary Egyptians would agree that in this instance they stand to benefit even though they are under no illusion the U.S. is acting out of their best interests rather than its own.

  But despite too many American fingers in Egypt’s political pot, especially those dancing around Ayman Nour, the man in the street has taken him to heart, citing his numerous charitable works in the poorest areas of Cairo, his vigorous campaign against torture and his bravery in standing up to the government.

  Nour’s support base, garnered over several decades, lauds his ambition to rid the country of socialism, reduce the state of its all-pervading influence, as well as his desire to empower economic institutions.

  But until the February 26 announcement made by Hosni Mubarak promising to amend the constitution to allow for multi-party elections in October, Nour’s wish list remained a mere fantasy.

  For years, Mubarak has resisted the call to democratise. In fact, during a speech marking Labour Day in April 2003, he insisted that the imposition of foreign standards on Iraq would not necessarily lead to democracy in the Arab world or diminish extremism. “We reject the philosophy of imposing democracy by force,” he said, and when it came to Egypt, he later referred to such an exercise as “futile”.

  Egypt’s under-25s have known no other leader since Mubarak took office in 1981 following the assassination of Anwar El-Sadat. And over the following decades he has showed little sign of relinquishing his grip. Indeed, at one time, it was thought that the man who invariably received 98 per cent or more of the nation’s vote would anoint his son Jamal to one day take the reins.

  So why the sudden U-turn on the President’s part and why did it take him so long to realise democracy was the way to go, rather than the father-son dynasty most Egyptians believed he had in mind?

  There is no doubt that US pressure has played a prime role in Mubarak’s change of heart. Washington has made no secret of its wish to deliver its own brand of democracy to the region, whether its leaders like it or not.

  First there was Afghanistan, then came Iraq and now the sabres are rattling against Syria and Iran. Libya thought it prudent to take an “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em approach”, while Saudi Arabia has recently held historic municipal elections, albeit without the participation of women.

  The Egyptian government may have believed it would be exempt from the call given its unstinting cooperation with Bush’s ‘war on terror’, its broker status between Israel and the Palestinians and its recent détente with Israel over Sharon’s disengagement plan. Such thinking turned out to be wrong. When it comes to implementing its carefully drawn up neo-con agenda the US administration knows no friends and makes no exceptions.

   

  When rumours were put about that Egyptian-born Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the nuclear watchdog the IAEA, might be covering up a possible transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan to Egypt, Mubarak may have finally seen the writing on the wall. The choices were thus: resist the pressure to democratise from without and within, or pragmatically go with the flow.

  As far back as August 2002 came a hint that Egypt might be in America’s sights when the Rand Corporation, a think tank, was asked by arch neo-con Richard Perle to give a presentation to the Pentagon Defense Policy Board.

  Advising on Mid-East future strategy, Rand spokesman Laurent Murawiec described Iraq as “the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot,” and Egypt as “the prize”.  This had experts scratching their heads. What kind of prize would Egypt be and who exactly gets the jackpot?

  Even more to the point is there a jackpot to be had? Egypt under an American-friendly leader like Ayman Nour out to mould people’s perceptions of the West and using US dollars to lift them out of their poverty, would be a coup for the White House.

  Such a leader could be counted upon to further Arab-Israeli rapprochement and use the country’s cultural clout in the region to dampen down anti-American sentiments. He could, further, open up the economy and encourage privatisation as well as multi-national investment.

  However, even if Mubarak follows through on his promise and Nour’s Ghad party competes in free and fair elections, it is unlikely to capture anywhere near the lion’s share of the vote. This is because it has opened a crack in the door for other parties to put their heads above the parapet, including the banned Moslem Brotherhood, which is the largest and most organized opposition group.

  When members of the Brotherhood recently took to the streets, their sheer numbers dwarfed the fledgling pro-Western Kifiyah movement. The Brotherhood currently holds 17 seats in parliament (the second largest number of seats after the ruling NDP), although officially its members are there as independent candidates.

  In any event, experts predict another Mubarak win. They say he holds all the cards in a country where people aren’t allowed to gather under emergency law and the media is virtually government-controlled. Getting a message across to the electorate is what it’s all about and this is no easy task for the opposition.

  Still, throughout the land the new excitement is palpable. In a country where over half the population is illiterate and, according to the Wafd newspaper 36 million are subsisting below the poverty line, any change is better than the status quo.

  As far as they are concerned, it isn’t the party ideology, which counts but who can provide jobs, improve educational standards, reduce inflation and inject the economy with new life.

  The politicians, the elite, the religious fundamentalists and the intellectuals might disagree but in the event of a real ‘for the people, by the people’ milieu, they’re not the ones with the final say.

  America may be stirring the pot, but it's the Egyptian public who'll throw in the final ingredients. Methinks, however, that the final meal will be home cooked to suit local tastes leaving meddlesome foreigners with a bitter flavour.

  In truth, the West, and in particular the US, isn’t so much interested in bringing democracy to the region but rather working towards the rise of Western-friendly leaders, using every trick in the book to ensure their ascendance as we witnessed in the Ukraine.

  A prime example of Western double standards is Algeria, where in 1992 a popular Islamic party easily won an election. When its members were thwarted from taking the reins of government by a military coup, the West turned a blind eye. 

  In Palestine, Yasser Arafat was overwhelmingly elected Palestinian president, only to be declared “irrelevant” by the White House, while in Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide the first democratically elected leader for 200 was forcibly exiled by U.S. forces and flown to Africa.  And let’s not forgot Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez, another elected president, says the US has been financing an anti-government conspiracy.

  George Bush, and his army of speechwriters, can certainly produce fine words and sentiments, but behind the rhetoric are an army of foreign agents, rabble rousers and carpetbaggers with one aim in mind: U.S. interests first. If the people’s interests happen to coincide, then so be it. If they don’t, then from the point of the view of the White House that’s simply tough luck.

   

| Top | Home | Al Habtoor Group | Metropolitan Hotels | Al Habtoor Automobiles |
|
Diamond Leasing | Emirates International School |