Lawrence of Arabia to Neo Cons by *Mansoor A. Malik

Nearly hundred years back when the British Empire was flexing their muscles in the Middle-East and South-West Asia, they had to face two powerful enemies: The Czar of Russia in Moscow and the Ottoman Turks in Istanbul. With the Russian Empire they managed to create Buffer Zones in Afghanistan and Azerbaijan to protect their interests in India and Iran respectively. Apart from this agreement, the British Empire also struck a friendly chord with the Russian Empire to dis-mantle their common enemy which they had mutually termed “The Sick Man of Europe” (Ottoman Turkey). The historical opportunity was provided to the British after the cessation of the First World War (1918) where the Ottoman Turks allied with the German Monarch were badly defeated by the Allied Forces. Lawrence of Arabia from the land and the British Navy from the sea were unleashed to carve out in the 1920s’ and the 1930s’ the existing map of the Middle-East to suit the Imperial Power in London and push the Ottomans back to Anatolia. The Russians regained their vantage position once again in the Balkans and Eastern Europe at the cost of the dwindling Ottoman Empire; whereas, the Union Jack flew all over the territories freed from the Ottoman Turks in the Middle-East. This British Mandate spread across Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, UAE in the Middle-East and through their holding in Iran connected them with their Golden Bird, India in the South/South-West Asia.

Till the dawn of the 21^st century, the map of the Middle-East remained the same as drawn by the British Empire. The new Power Center (USA) which emerged after the Second World War (1945) got its opportunity to enter the Middle-Eastern arena during the Suez Canal Crisis of the 1950s’ by supporting the claims of Egyptian Sovereignty over the Canal and getting the occupied forces from Britain/France/Israel vacate from the territories their armies had occupied after Gamal Abdul Nasser, the Egyptian President declared the Nationalization of the Suez Canal. This was, perhaps, the first and the last time that the Americans stood with the Arabian cause rather than with their natural western allies. In fact, the baton of power in the Middle-East was slowly but surely being passed from the Europeans to the Americans across the Atlantic. The status quo in the Middle-East as defined by the British was preserved by the Americans for the next fifty years or so till the Neo Cons in USA came to power and prepared their New American Century Doctrine.

The first demonstration of the Neo Cons’ policy in the new century was to be carried out by conquering Iraq and making it a model of American Democracy in the Middle-East for which Paul Wolfowitz, the Zionist thinker, implanted in the Department of Defense at the Pentagon was duly commissioned under the fossilized leadership of Mr. Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defense and a senior Neo Con leader. Never before in the history of mankind was a country conquered to make it Safe for Democracy. It could easily be compared with the invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet Union to make it Safe for Communism. As a result, Iraq was destroyed as a country in the name of Democracy and Afghanistan in the name of Communism.

The present indigenous youthful democratic movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and Yemen could provide a lesson or two to the American Neo Cons that Democracy cannot be thrust upon the people through the Barrel of the Gun (ala Iraq) but by the passionate desire of the people themselves. Anything thrust from outside cannot be long lasting unless it has a local flavor. The Neo Cons could have saved trillions of American tax payers’ dollars by winning the hearts and minds of the Middle-Eastern people rather than subjugating them like morons. The epi-center of Democracy in the Middle-East has now shifted from the one imposed in Iraq by the American War Machine unleashed by the Neo Cons to the peoples’ inspired one in Egypt.

The Neo Cons’ American Century has been challenged by the Muslim Youth of Egypt as well as by the majority population of Iraq, which now lies in ruin after ten years of Military Occupation. The majority of the young and internet suave population in the region is now demanding their democratic rights and would not accept the Western Imposed surrogate leaders any more. Political institutions have to be built from scratch in order to dis-courage future Bonaparte’s from taking over the reigns of their countries. The subjugated people have finally spoken after decades of deadly silence and the democratic die has now been casted leaving no chance to go back to the old ways.

The whole Middle-East is presently in a state of flux where the deeply entrenched Military/Civilian Dictators, one after the other, have fallen like king pins, leaving a big vacuum in its aftermath. Democratic and strong Turkey in its Northern Flank and Democratic Nuclear Armed Pakistan in its Eastern Flank along with Iran can provide stability, provided the Counter Revolutionaries aided and abetted by Outside Forces are checkmated and isolated. It would be very challenging for the elected political leaders of Turkey, Pakistan and Iran to guard the aroma of democracy spreading all along the youthful populations’ of the Middle-Eastern countries. In the beginning of the 20^th Century, the European Powers managed to out maneuver the Ottoman Turks to establish themselves in the Resource Rich Muslim lands and implant their surrogate state, Israel, in the heart of Palestine. Will the Democratic Muslim Countries of Turkey, Pakistan and Iran on the fringes of the embroiled Middle-Eastern countries fare better in the 21^st century to help their Muslim Brothers on the road to Democracy? Only time will tell.

*Mansoor A. Malik, has been Director General with over 33 year of experience in planning, establishing and managing national level, strategic, high-tech organizations. Director General, Marketing & Industrial Relations Organization (MIRO). Commandant, College of Aeronautical Engineering, Risalpur.

Muslim World in Leadership Crisis by *Jawad Raza Khan

Rise of European colonialism changed the perception of life wherever it reached. It brought modern Western ideas and concepts to the lands which were not known to them partially or utterly. Some of those new ideas were indeed responsible to bring revolutionary changes in native’s life of the conquered land but what it left on the face of it were divided groups of people with conflicting interests. No doubt, nation-state and its concomitant bureaucratic structure, ambitious political theories, human rights and new economic opportunities came as an excellent package to the new born nations but what they completely lost was their self confidence, identity, cultural values and most importantly potential as a nation to groom honest and dedicated leadership.

The recent uprising of common man in Arab world is indeed a sign of people coming out of a dangerous intellectual crisis, which was forced upon them after the fall of British Empire – Importantly it took nearly a century for them to do it.  Beginning of the end of colonialism and fall of Ottoman Empire happened more or less simultaneously – it changed the world map. The fall of Ottoman Empire immediately after the 2^nd world war dramatically shifted anarchy from Europe to the Muslim world, mainly due to selfish individualism of western and American society pouring and settling in Muslims selfless collectiveness – It took more than two generations to entirely wipe out the ill effects and now the political dynamics of the Muslim world is changing spectacularly and swiftly. The question arises why it took so long? It is yet another point to understand that end of British colonialism was the beginning of American’s neo colonialism in the garb of imperialism. This covert form of colonialism acted as a breather for westerners especially Europeans, which took its effect by controlling the political theater of the world through trained, tamed and corrupt leadership.

From the Islamic Republic of Iran to secular republics in the Arab world or Indonesia, from monarchies in the Arab world, Malaysia, Nigeria (where monarchies rule over provinces), and Brunei, to democracies in Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia, Muslim states include great diversity in politics and the workings of governments. One thing which is a purely common in these states is Islam, not only as a faith but also as a source of identity and an important factor in social relations and politics. The next thing which is more common amongst them is an impurity in the form of democratic dictators or dictatorial democrats with following important character traits.

• Chosen and placed by neo colonial powers by hook or by crook
• Most of them dishonest and corrupt
• Extremely lacking in self confidence for decision making and
• Rule and works for vested interest

It is by and large believed in most of the world that political upheaval in Arab world is a well designed act by Americans and is a continuation of pick and chose theory adopted by Americans since long. Even before the fall of communism, this theory has indeed worked miracles for them – at least in our part of the world. In case of Pakistan, from hanging of Bhutto to crash of Zia and removal of Musharraf, things really moved in right direction for them. The main reason for this unprecedented success is deplorable economic condition of the people of Pakistan which paved their way for this deadly power game for changing leadership. A country where bare minimum essentials of life like Roti Kapra aur Makaan canbecome a wining agenda for a political victory. This environment has also played a pivotal role in depleting the potentials of Pakistan for grooming leadership of their own – who can speak their language and work for their interest – situation in Arab world is little different from here at least in terms of individual and State economy. That is the main reason why most of the people in Muslim world think that turbulent political environment of the Arab world cannot be a case of collective change in Arabs forced or instigated by Americans – obviously all the Arab dictators have not lost their utility and faith for Americans.

As a matter of fact, absence of quality leadership remains imminent in Arabs as well, despite of their booming economics there is no alternative in shape of credible leadership available to do the damage control especially with reference to volatile situation in Egypt and Libya. So all said and done American interests in the region will be taken care of by filling up this vacuum by different viable options prompted and supported by westerners – but on the other hand this quagmire can be a great source of inspiration for a poor but fortunately a democratic country like Pakistan, where vibrant media can trigger the public opinion by realizing them of all pros and cons in case of absence of quality leadership. The media can also do the all important job of awaking masses and can act as a credible institution for political awareness through social means.

* Jawad Raza Khan is a different politico-social analysts of the world, opine in a different manner about division of India.

US: Restoring Economic Sovereignty by *Ellen Brown

"It is time to declare economic sovereignty from the multinational banks that are responsible for much of our current economic crisis.  Every year we ship over a billion dollars in Oregon taxpayer dollars to out-of-state and multinational banks in the form of deposits, only to see that money invested elsewhere. It's time to put our money to work for Oregonians."

– Bill Bradbury, former Oregon Senate President and Secretary of State, quoted  inThe Nation

Responding to an unfilled need for credit for local government, local businesses and consumers, three states in the last month have introduced bills for state-owned banks — Oregon, Washington and Maryland – joining Illinois, Virginia, Massachusetts and Hawaii to bring the total number to seven.

While Wall Street is reporting record profits, local banks are floundering, credit for small businesses and consumers remains tight, and local governments are teetering on bankruptcy.  There is even talk of allowing state governments to file for bankruptcy, something current legislation forbids.  The federal government and Federal Reserve have managed to find trillions of dollars to prop up the Wall Street banks that precipitated the credit crisis, but they have not extended this largesse to the taxpayers and local governments that have been forced to pick up the tab.

In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed had ruled out a central bank bailout for state and local governments.  The collective state budget deficit for 2011 is projected at $140 billion, a mere 1% of the $12.3 trillion the Fed managed to come up with in liquidity, short-term loans, and other financial arrangements to bail out Wall Street.  But Chairman Bernanke said the Fed is limited by statute to buying municipal government debt with maturities of six months or less that is directly backed by tax or other assured revenue, a form of debt that makes up less than 2% of the overall muni market.  State and municipal governments, it seems, are on their own.

Faced with federal inaction and growing local budget crises, an increasing number of states are exploring the possibility of setting up their own state-owned banks, following the model of North Dakota, the only state that seems to have escaped the credit crisis unscathed.  The 92-year-old Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the only state-owned U.S. bank, has helped North Dakota avoid the looming budgetary disasters of other states.  In 2009, North Dakota sported the largest budget surplus it had ever had.  The BND helps fund not only local government but local banks and businesses, by providing matching funds for loans to commercial banks to support small business lending.

In the last month, three states have introduced bills for state-owned banks, following the North Dakota model.  On January 11, a bill to establish a state-owned bank was introduced in the Oregon State legislature; on January 13, a similar bill was introduced in Washington State (discussed in an earlier article here); and on February 4, a bill was introduced in the Maryland legislature for a feasibility study looking into the possibilities.  They join Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, which introduced similar bills in 2010.

Broad-based Support

The bills are widely supported by small business owners.  The Seattle Times reported on February 3 that 79% of 107 business owners surveyed by the Main Street Alliance of Washington supported the Washington bill.  More than half said they had experienced a tightening of business credit, and three-fourths of those said they could create additional jobs if their credit needs were met.

A survey by the Main Street Alliance of Oregon produced similar results.  Their survey, which covered 115 businesses in 28 communities, found that two-thirds of small-business owners had delayed or canceled expansions because of credit problems; 41 percent had been turned down for credit; and 42 percent had seen their credit terms deteriorate.  Three-quarters of the business owners surveyed supported the Oregon bill.

 Also supporting the idea of a state-owned bank is Oregon state treasurer Ted Wheeler, with this twist: he thinks Oregon can unlock additional lending capacity in partnership with existing institutions by creating a “virtual” bank.  The state would not need to build new brick and mortar banks requiring hundreds of new employees to service them.  The new tools afforded the state by being a “bank” could be arranged quickly and cheaply through a framework he calls a “virtual economic development bank.”  In an OpEd posted on Oregonlive.com on February 9, he wrote:

This new model would consolidate Oregon’s various economic development loan programs in one place, and allow state government to step in as a new lending participant, which will help qualified Oregonians to secure additional financing. We also have strategic investment tools such as the Oregon Growth Account that could be better utilized as part of this framework.

Banks “create” money by leveraging their capital into loans.  At an 8% capital requirement, they can leverage capital by a factor of twelve, so long as they can attract sufficient deposits (collected or borrowed) to clear the outgoing checks.  States give this leveraging power away when they put their deposits in Wall Street banks and invest their capital there.

State and municipal governments have assets tucked all over the state in separate rainy day funds, which are largely invested in Wall Street banks for a very modest return.  At the same time, states are borrowing from Wall Street at much higher interest rates and have to worry about such things as credit ratings, late fees, and interest rate swaps, which have proven to be very good investments for Wall Street and very bad investments for local governments.

By consolidating their assets into their own state-owned banks, state and local governments can leverage their own funds to finance their own operations; and they can do this essentially interest-free, since they will own the bank and will get the interest back.  The BND contributed over $300 million to state coffers in the past decade, a notable achievement for a state with a population that is less than one-tenth the size of Los Angeles County.

The growing movement to establish local economic sovereignty through state-owned banks has been a grassroots effort that has grown spontaneously in response to unmet needs for local credit. In Oregon, the push has come from an active volunteer group called Oregonians for a State Bank working with the Working Families Party.  In Washington, a major role has been played by theMain Street Alliance,a project of the Alliance for a Just Society (formerly NWFCO).  The chief legislative champion in Washington State is Rep. Bob Hasegawa.  In Maryland, the campaign was initiated by the Wisconsin-based Center for State Innovation (CSI), working with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Progressive States Network.  Progressive Maryland is a prominent NGO supporter.  Detailed analyses of the Washington and Oregon initiatives and their projected benefits have been done by CSI.  For grassroots efforts in other states and for petitions that can be signed, see http://publicbankinginstitute.org/state-info.htm.

*Ellen Brown is an attorney and the author of eleven books.  In Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money

Resurrecting the Neocons: Marc Grossman in … Richard Perle & Douglas Feith in Queue by *Sibel Edmonds

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has chosen a new special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan: a long-time controversial neocon, a man who has been famous for parading as a foreign agent in the lobby circuit, the scandalous former diplomat Marc Grossman. The not-so-gradual resurrection of the old neocon cabal under the Obama administration, led by Hillary Clinton, should not come as a surprise. According to Washington insiders, Daniel Perle and Douglas Feith have been consulted more than a few times in their ‘unofficial’ capacity, but are not far down in the queue to receive ‘official’ acknowledgement. This shouldn’t come as a surprise; at least to those who’ve been following the steady momentum building at the Obama White House towards a soon-to-come Neocon Easter.

Hillary Clinton appointed Dennis Ross as Special Advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia; a man well-known as a hard-core neocon,  Paul Wolfowitz’ protégé, cofounder of the AIPAC sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and one of the loudest advocates for the Israel lobby. A man who is known to consider himself more Israeli than American; a Jewish American who is known to have spent ‘a lot of time’ in Israel to find his real identity-nationality.

We had Frederick Kagan, a neocon of choice for Mr. Obama, who was hired to manage General Petraeus on Afghanistan. A man whose father was born into a Jewish family in Lithuania; a man cherished by his bosses at the American Enterprise Institute; a man who authored the book, While America Sleeps, arguing in favor of a large increase in military spending and warned of future threats, including the imaginary WMD program in Iraq. We are talking about the man who was one of the main signatories of Project for the New American Century manifesto – the Neocon Bible. The man who was one of the Bush-Cheney administration’s favorite masterminds when it came to perpetual wars.

Let’s jump to our newest and by far the boldest Neocon addition to the Obama-Clinton Whitehouse. Marc Grossman is chosen by the administration to fill the seat vacated by Richard Holbrooke; another Jewish American Neocon who had been a man of choice for every administration in the last four decades. I suggest you read the article titled ‘Obama’s Neocon’ if you want to know a bit more about the old neocon shoes Mr. Grossman will be filling. As for our media’s usual sanitized version for Mr. Grossman’s background, the following by the neocon circle PR machine, the Washington Post, sums it up well:

In a nearly three-decade career at the State Department, Grossman served as assistant secretary of state for Europe and ambassador to Turkey. His last assignment, before retiring from the foreign service in 2005, was undersecretary for political affairs during the first administration of George W. Bush.

He now is vice chairman of the Cohen Group, which advises international business clients on overseas enterprises. Although the consulting group, headed by former defense secretary William Cohen, has several clients with contracts in South Asia, administration officials said they did not foresee any problem in clearing Grossman for the post.

…

From the mainstream media reporting similar to the above, ordinary Americans should at least gather this much:

Mr. Grossman had to be a Bush-Cheney administration favorite to be appointed as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the State Department’s third-ranking official, in 2001. In 2004, Grossman attained the Foreign Service’s highest rank when the President appointed him to the rank of Career Ambassador.

Grossman works for the sin city’s (Washington DC) lobby industry. Not only that, he actually represents foreign governments, foreign businesses and interests. The Cohen Group represents some of the country’s largest weapons manufacturers, companies that stand to benefit from weapons sales: Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Sikorsky…among others. Their list of controversial and or criminal entities includes companies such as DynCorp International. Through their partnership with DLA Piper, the Cohen group also serves foreign clients such as the Turkish government and business interest groups, Australia’s scandalous AWB, India and UAE. 

And here is what many Americans won’t be getting from the US media:

-  The investigative reports on Marc Grossman and his role in planting moles in US nuclear facilities:

An unnamed high-ranking State Department official helps a nuclear smuggling ring connected to Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan and Pakistan’s ISI to plant “moles” in US military and academic institutions that handle nuclear technology, according to FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. The State Department official apparently arranges security clearance for some of the moles, enabling them to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities, including the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the US nuclear deterrent. The high-ranking State Department official who is not named by Britain’s Sunday Times is said to be Marc Grossman…

- John M. Cole, a former FBI Counterintelligence and Counterespionage Manager, has publicly confirmed FBI’s decade long investigation the former State Department Official, Marc Grossman:

John M. Cole, a former FBI Counterintelligence and Counterespionage Manager, has publicly confirmed the FBI’s decade long investigation of the former State Department Official Marc Grossman. Cole worked for 18 years in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. According to Cole, as in over one hundred cases involving Israeli espionage activities directed against the US government, the Grossman case was covered up and buried despite mountains of evidence that was collected.

Here is the public response from John Cole after the publication of The American Conserva

tive magazine’s cover story:

“I read the recent cover story by The American Conservative magazine. I applaud their courage in publishing this significant interview. I am fully aware of the FBI’s decade-long investigation of the High-level State Department Official named in this article, Marc Grossman, which ultimately was buried and covered up. It is long past time to investigate this case and bring about accountability…”

-Marc Grossman was the originator of the Plame Leak:

Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, prepares a memo about former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger to ascertain the truth or falsity of claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from that nation (see February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002). The memo refers explicitly to Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, as a CIA official and identifies her as Wilson’s wife, using the name “Valerie Wilson.” The second paragraph of the memo is marked with an “S,” denoting that Wilson is a covert operative for the agency.

-In late December 2005, Grossman joined Ihlas Holding, a large and alleged shady Turkish company which is also active in several Central Asian countries. Grossman is reported to receive $100,000 per month for his advisory position with Ihlas.
-In May 2010, DLA Piper, one of the world’s largest international lobby-law firms, hired Marc Grossman as their front man for their Turkish operations. The man in charge of one of DLA Piper major accounts-Turkey is none other than our good ole Dennis Hastert. That makes two former FBI criminal targets for one firm;-)
Now, with all these murky qualifications, you’d think the mainstream media would have a field day with Marc Grossman’s appointment by the Hillary-Obama administration; right? Wrong. So far, not a peep from the US media and that includes both the ‘R’ and the ‘D’ fronts. Same goes for the quasi alternatives. Not even a word about the ‘revolving door’ aspect of this scandalous appointment: A Foreign Agent, A Lobbyist, A man on the payroll of a shady foreign company for over $1 million a year…But then again, less than a month ago we witnessed another envoy, another appointment, with a major ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST’ flag rising to its top that went completely censored in the US media. The scandal was widely reported by foreign media, such as the Independent, who actually broke the story, and even after that, we barely heard a peep:
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.
The US State Department and Mr Wisner himself have now both claimed that his remarks were made in a “personal capacity”. But there is nothing “personal” about Mr Wisner’s connections with the litigation firm Patton Boggs, which openly boasts that it advises “the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and has handled arbitrations and litigation on the [Mubarak] government’s behalf in Europe and the US”. Oddly, not a single journalist raised this extraordinary connection with US government officials – nor the blatant conflict of interest it appears to represent.
…
Mr Wisner is a retired State Department 36-year career diplomat – he served as US ambassador to Egypt, Zambia, the Philippines and India under eight American presidents. In other words, he was not a political appointee. But it is inconceivable Hillary Clinton did not know of his employment by a company that works for the very dictator which Mr Wisner now defends in the face of a massive democratic opposition in Egypt. So why on earth was he sent to talk to Mubarak, who is in effect a client of Mr Wisner’s current employers?
…
Patton Boggs states that its attorneys “represent some of the leading Egyptian commercial families and their companies” and “have been involved in oil and gas and telecommunications infrastructure projects on their behalf”. One of its partners served as chairman of the US-Egyptian Chamber of Commerce promoting foreign investment in the Egyptian economy. The company has also managed contractor disputes in military-sales agreements arising under the US Foreign Military Sales Act. Washington gives around $1.3bn (£800m) a year to the Egyptian military.

Mr Wisner joined Patton Boggs almost two years ago – more than enough time for both the White House and the State Department to learn of his company’s intimate connections with the Mubarak regime. The New York Times ran a glowing profile of Mr Wisner in its pages two weeks ago – but mysteriously did not mention his ties to Egypt.
…
I find this sentence in the above quotes really funny: “Oddly, not a single journalist raised this extraordinary connection with US government officials” As far as our media goes, what’s odd about that?! They’ve been really consistent at remaining very ‘odd’ when it comes to reporting on ‘crucial, troublesome & very relevant’ facts like this one. And, Marc Grossman’s recent unofficial appointment to be official this Friday is another perfect example:

A long-time neocon, a Jewish-American with questionably strong ties to Israel, a long-term target of FBI counterespionage and counterintelligence investigations, a lobbyist, a foreign agent, an employee of a shady foreign business, a man associated with major treason scandals, Marc Grossman, is making his way back to the ‘new’ administration, following his several other co-species who’ve been sitting inside, leading the way for the rest of the co-species who’ve been eagerly waiting to be granted official entry cards. Thanks to the media, while the public is sitting in the dark, the Obama-Hillary White House is changing color to pastels,  getting ready for their Neocon Easter and the resurrection of the previously, and dubiously, advertised as long-gone and dead breed – Neo-cons.

*Sibel Edmonds is a freelance writer

Arab World: The US in Action by *Wayne Madsen

The Obama administration has ordered the Pentagon and CIA to draw a "line in the sand" to prevent the popular overthrow of other U.S. client dictatorial regimes in North Africa and the Middle East. The order comes after a New York Times report that Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates covertly supported Obama's envoy Frank Wisner, Jr's message of support and encouragement for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak before his ouster by the Egyptian military following the democratic opposition uprising in Egypt.

Using the CIA's and Mossad's contrived constructs of two "straw-man" terrorist organizations — Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) — created to justify U.S. military and security support for the oil states of the Arabian peninsula and U.S. natural gas interests in the Sahel region, the Pentagon has stepped up military support for Yemen's dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh and Algerian leader Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

Under the rubric of the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP), the United States, with the cooperation of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to Algeria's security police and military. The TSCTP was formerly known as the Pan-Sahel Initiative. The Algerian security police have used U.S.-supplied lethal military and non-lethal crowd control equipment, including night-vision equipment, armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles, global positioning systems, and secure radios, to forcibly put down pro-democracy protesters in Algiers who want the Bouteflika regime to follow in the steps of the Mubarak regime in Egypt and resign. Similarly, in Egypt, security police used U.S.-supplied tear gas and canisters on pro-democracy demonstrators.

Among the chief suppliers of military and security equipment to Algeria are Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, AM General, and Northrop Grumman.

In neighboring Morocco, TSCTP military assistance, including that provided through International Military Training and Education (IMET) programs, has been used to put down demonstrators in Western Sahara, illegally occupied by Morocco, who support the POLISARIO liberation movement. U.S. and neocon propagandists have falsely accused POLISARIO of links with AQIM. Tuareg liberation movements across the Sahara are also accused by the Pentagon and its neocon operatives of having ties to AQIM. However, the charges are a ruse to protect the operations of U.S. and other western natural gas and oil operations in the Sahara, particularly in southern Algeria where the United States has helped set up a regional military command center.

The events in Tunisia and Egypt have also brought out protesters in Morocco who want a curtailment of the powers of Morocco's pro-U.S. monarchy but who face a military and security force armed to the teeth by the United States.

U.S. military training for North Africa's autocratic regimes in provided annually during the Pentagon's OPERATION FLINTLOCK military exercise. Last year's exercise, conducted from May 3 to 22, included military forces from Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, Niger, Chad, and Nigeria. French and British troops also participated in the operation. Another Pentagon program that is involved in providing security assistance to the Algerian regime is Operation Active Endeavor.

U.S. Special Forces reportedly maintain a permanent presence in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Mauritania where they support local military operations against groups accused of being allied with AQIM and another insurgent group, now thought to be very few in numbers — the Salafist movement and an Islamist group accused of having links to Al Qaeda. The Salafist movement in Algeria, GSPC, was announced by Al Qaeda's Egyptian number two man, Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri, to have merged with Al Qaeda on September 11, 2006, creating AQIM. The announcement appears to have been another U.S. and Israeli intelligence-contrived ruse to justify stepping up U.S. military and intelligence support for the regimes in Algiers, Tunis, Rabat, and Nouakchott. In fact, many of the Islamist "militants" arrested by local military and police forces in the Sahel region and accused of being AQIM and Salafist "terrorists" are merely small-time criminals involved in smuggling drugs and weapons across poorly-protected national borders.

One of the chief Pentagon supporters for U.S. client-dictators across the Sahel to the Horn of Africa is Vicki Huddleston, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for African Affairs, who maintains particularly close connections to Algeria's military and security hierarchy, including Defense Minister-Delegate Abdelmalek Guenaizia and African and Maghreb Affairs Minister Abdelkader Messahel.

Details of Huddleston's October 2009 meeting in Algiers with senior Algerian officials remain shrouded in secrecy, according to the Algerian newspaper Liberté in an October 20, 2009 article. However, many in the Algerian opposition believe that Huddleston was discussing the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Algeria. Huddleston also had a meeting at the Algerian Defense Ministry at which "military and technical cooperation" was discussed. A prior visit by officers of the US European Command to Algiers concentrated on the training of Algerian intelligence, special security police, and gendarmes by Pentagon-and CIA-supplied instructors. There were also reports that Saudi Arabia covertly financed the purchase from the United States of armored security vehicles by Algeria and Mauritania for use against anti-regime activists.

Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, a known supporter of Israeli interests, also has established close ties with Algeria's leaders, notably Foreign Minister Ahmed Ouyahia. Just as with Israel's special relationship with Egypt's intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, Tel Aviv has established close links with the leaders of other Arab dictatorships, including Algeria, using trusted American interlocutors like Feltman and Huddleston. Huddleston has a long resume that includes past postings in locations where the CIA has been engaged in major covert activities: she was George W. Bush's head of the US Interests Section in Havana in 2002 where she was engaged in anti-Castro activities and ambassador to Ethiopia, where she helped provide political and military support to that nation's dictator Meles Zenawi.

As with Algeria, the Pentagon has been supplying the Saleh regime in Yemen with massive amounts of military and security hardware. US Special Operations forces have been training Yemeni security forces who have targeted Shi'a Zaidi tribal members in north Yemen and South Yemeni secessionist forces in the former People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, a formerly socialist nation that was forcibly kept within Yemen in a 1994 civil war, a war in which the Clinton administration provided north Yemeni forces with military hardware and satellite and communication intelligence.

The Pentagon has justified its $150 million in military and security assistance to Yemen for fiscal year 2010 by claiming it is needed to fight "AQAP," another CIA- and Mossad-constructed "Al Qaeda" franchise. The Pentagon has doubled military assistance to Yemen for fiscal year 2011 to $250 million. The assistance, which almost mirrors that given to the Algerian regime, includes night-vision equipment, armored vehicles, Humvees, Huey helicopters, and communications and Internet surveillance systems. Yemeni forces have used their U.S.-supplied military hardware and training to brutally suppress pro-democracy demonstrations in Sanaa, Aden, and other cities in the country.

While the Obama administration offers platitudes to the pro-democracy wave sweeping the Arab world, the military assistance provided by the Pentagon and CIA to repressive regimes speaks for itself. The last-ditch efforts by the Pentagon, State Department, and CIA to save the Mubarak regime in its final days will be repeated in Algiers, Sanaa, and the capitals of other U.S. client states in the North Africa and Middle East region.

FY 2011 official US military assistance to client dictatorships in North Africa and Middle East
Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP)        $20,000,000
IMET – Algeria                                                                                  $950,000
IMET – Yemen                                                                                  $1,100,000
Foreign Military Financing – Yemen                                            $35,000,000

*Wayne Madsen, is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written for several renowned papers and blogs.

Egypt: Post Revolution Problems by *General Mirza Aslam Beg

The revolution has crossed the first mile stone, overcoming the legacy of old and new colonialism, yet there are more milestones to be crossed to reach the goal of freedom, democracy and empowerment. A grim struggle lies ahead.

Thirty two years back, on this day the eleventh of February, Iranians snatched power from Shah of Iran – a staunch ally of America and consolidated the revolution under the leadership of Imam Khomeini. On this day, the eleventh of February, the Egyptians, after eighteen days of siege, brought Mubarak down – a staunch American ally, yet power remains transferred into the hands of the military and Mubarak prefers to stay on the Egyptian soil at the Red Sea resort of Sharmal Sheikh. How power will be transferred to the people, is the real issue, which can be analysed in the light of the conspiracies which were hatched to destroy the Iranian revolution.

The pro-American political forces, such as the Fidaeen-e-Khalq and others, were the main instruments in the hands of the conspirators, who eliminated over seventy top revolutionary leaders of Iran in one act of terror bombing. Efforts were made to create divisions in the ranks and file of the revolutionaries. Ultimately the Americans forced Saddam Hussain to invade Iran, hoping that “the revolution would be destroyed and both Iran and Iraq would kill each other.” But on the contrary, the invasion helped Iran consolidate the revolution.

With power handed over to the military and Mubarak allowed to stay in the country, there is a greater risk of confrontation with the masses, demanding full transfer of power. Thus, “Behind this unified hierarchical façade contradictory influences are at work, posing serious threats to national security.” And no doubt, people are talking about the Foreign Agenda “of dismantling the nation into sectarian components led towards infighting and tightening the siege and imposition of a peaceful solution with Israel.” The military have deep vested interests, as they had remained hand and glove with Mubarak, to build vast businesses, linked with big businesses in United States and Egypt. It would be extremely difficult for the military to hand over such privileges and power for the sake of the revolution. And they also know that the revolutionaries, as they gain full power and authority, would make the armed forces, including Mubarak, accountable for their past misdeeds. The Americans, therefore also would prefer the military to retain/share power to protect their interests and the interests of those who made hay during Mubarak’s regime. Such conflict of interests therefore would lead to deeper conspiracy, to block the process of transfer of power. Therefore, the very first step, military has taken is, abrogation of the constitution; dissolution of the assembly and the promise for holding of elections in September 2011. These are hollow promises and delaying tactics, similar to General Zia’s promise of elections in ninety days. The Egyptians won’t take it, and the protests will continue, to press for their demands.

The revolution has not been able to throw up any towering personality like Imam Khomeini of Iran, who could lead and maintain unity of the movement. Moreover, the revolutionaries, under Muslim Brotherhood, hold powerful elements with diverse views and vision of life. There is a strong element of Jehadis and militants who had been confronting Mubarak for the last three decades, under the leaders with regional status only. Side by side, there are a considerable number of youth amongst them, holding liberal and moderate views on life and belong to the new cyber generation, nationalist in outlook, having respect for democracy and freedom. Despite these differences of views, they stood as one, under the banner of Muslim Brotherhood and won the first battle of freedom. What is going to follow now is a struggle for power, which will provide enough space to the conspirators to accentuate the differences between the militants and the moderates. And if they succeed, it would help the military to retain power to safeguard their interests and the interests of others, they have been associated with, for the last five decades. The success of the revolution therefore, depends on their ability to force the armed forces for early transfer of power and subordination to the civil authority. Saddam helped Iran consolidate the revolution, but there is no Saddam around to help Egypt consolidate the revolution.

The Americans and their allies are allergic to Islamists coming to power. Hammas won the fair and free elections in Palestine, but was not allowed to form the government and the Israelis now are facing the consequences. Similarly, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, who fought the war to expel the Soviets, were not allowed to form the government and were pushed into a contrived civil war. And now, as they emerge as the winner, efforts are afoot, to deny them due share in power. This obsession, in fact has been the cause of Americans defeat in Afghanistan. They have lost the war in Afghanistan but find it difficult to rationalize the defeat, without hurting their ego and pride of a super power.

If the Americans want democracy and rule of law in Egypt, they must pay heed to the demands of the revolutionaries: release political prisoners; lift emergency; abolish state security apparatus and start negotiations for transfer of power. These are fair demands, to help Brotherhood to form the government, with Armed Forces accepting a subordinating role as the military in Pakistan has accepted its role and is no more willing to play the American game.

Intrigues and manipulations would damage the cause of revolution and the emerging process of democracy and rule of law. Let the people of Egypt determine the course of freedom and democracy, in the manner, the people of Pakistan, having found democracy and are now fighting corruption and bad governance. This is our struggle for democracy.  Struggle brings the best in the nation, in the worst of times and that is the struggle which lies ahead for the people of Egypt.

Military Rule in Egypt by *Brig. Asif Haroon Raja

In Egypt, Till very recent President Hosni Mubarak was flying high and leading an exhilarating life with no worries. Having ruled with full authority for 30 years and having amassed a fortune of over $40 billion and owning posh mansions in several western countries and counting himself among the richest men of the world, he was now looking forward to the coming elections in September 2011 in which he was all set to get his son Gamal elected and succeed him so that he could lead a quiet and comfortable retired life. There was no external threat to Egypt and internally no political party posed any challenge. Egypt enjoyed best of relations with the US, western world and Israel and after the death of Sadam Hussein and liquidation of Baathist Party, the Arab world by and large had reconciled with Egypt’s pro-US and pro-Israeli policies. Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies favored tough stance of Hosni against religious extremists since such elements posed a threat to their monarchies as well. Under such benign environments, none among the ruling regime in Cairo could contemplate an uprising of such a magnitude as has occurred.    

Egypt remained under British backed monarchy from 1936 till mid 1952. Col Gamal Abdel Nasser led free officers’ coup in July 1952 against moribund and corrupt rule of fun loving King Farouq and established Revolutionary Command Council. After one year he renamed Egypt as a Republic and installed Naguib as president and himself as prime minister but a little later took over as president and formulated a new constitution. He emerged as a strong and poplar nationalist leader of Egypt in particular and Arab world in general because of his pan-Arab ideas. Merger of Syria with Egypt was part of the scheme. He subsumed Egyptian nationalism and pan-Islamism into an overall Pan-Arabism orientation. His popularity got a fillip after he nationalized Suez Canal which antagonized Britain and France. It led to invasion of Sinai in November 1956 by Israeli forces in which British-French troops also took part. Egypt managed to carry the day when British and French forces had to withdraw under international pressure.

After the war, Nasser aligned Egypt with Soviet Union. His difficulties in acquiring US weaponry were instrumental in deciding to seek Soviet arms for Egyptian armed forces. In 1962 Nasser supplemented Pan-Arabism with a secular socialist component. He resigned after the 1967 debacle but took back his resignation on popular demand of Egyptians. His death in 1970 was widely mourned by the people of Egypt. He is still remembered with fondness since Egypt has not seen another charismatic leader of his caliber. Nasserites are still active in Egypt.

Nasser was succeeded by his Vice President Air Marshal Anwar al-Sadat who soon after taking over started to gravitate towards Washington. In all probability he had already been cultivated by the Americans. He ordered expulsion of Russian military advisers and technicians in July 1972 to reduce Russian influence. In 1976 he abrogated Egypt-Soviet Treaty of friendship & Cooperation.

It was during his rule that Egyptian forces broke the myth of invincibility of Bar-Lev Line built by Israelis all along the Suez Canal in Sinai soon after six-day 1967 Arab-Israeli war in which Arab armies were routed and enabled Israel to capture whole of Sinai including Gaza, Golan Heights and West Bank from Egypt, Syria and Jordan respectively.

The Bar-Lev Line was successfully breached on 6 October 1973 and several bridgeheads established across the Suez Canal which could not be eliminated by Israeli forces. This success was partially offset by Aerial Sharon’s pincer which exploited the gap between 2^nd and 3^rd Egyptian Armies in ‘Bitter Lakes’ area near Ismailia city and after crossing the Suez Canal, the pincer moved southwards but was contained and a stalemate occurred. It was in that critical timeframe that the Yom Kippur war ended as a consequence to US brokered ceasefire. Egypt’s 2^nd Army’s 8-10 km deep bridgehead east of Suez Canal and Sharon’s toehold west of canal were of no threat to either side. For the Egyptians, it was an astounding victory and a vindication of their humiliating defeat in 1967 encounter. It redeemed the lost dignity and honor of the Army.

Henry Kissinger used all his diplomatic skills to keep the tenuous ceasefire intact and to remove antagonism between two arch rivals. His almost four-year efforts bore fruits and resulted in both sides agreeing to come to terms. Sadat on the advice of Washington undertook a historical visit to Tel Aviv in November 1977. Since he was the first Arab leader to visit Israel, he was eulogized by the Jewish and western press but widely censored by the Arab world. Camp David agreement was signed by Jimmy Carter, Sadat and Menachem Begin in September 1978 and Egypt-Israeli peace agreement inked on 26 March 1979.

Surprisingly, Sadat showed little interest in occupied lands of Syria and Jordan and his commitment to Palestinian cause was perfunctory. His sole interest during the negotiations was to recover Sinai. Had he succeeded in getting Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem vacated from Israeli control and a road map for settlement of Palestinian dispute, it would have further enhanced his prestige and Egypt’s standing in Arab world.       

Egypt’s 1973 victory was turned into a political defeat when Egypt was removed from the camp of resisting states to Israeli occupation of Arab lands to the camp of appeasement. This shift in balance of power in the region and vacuum created by absence of Egypt, allowed Israel to eliminate resistance one by one starting with Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon again and Iraq again and now current rhetoric indicate that Iran and Syria are next.

Egypt lost respect of the Arab countries that had regarded Egypt as an intellectual and cultural leader. This change in perceptions encouraged Iraq under ambitious leader Saddam to claim leadership role of Arab world and led to serious differences between Egypt and Iraq. Taking advantage of the Egypt-Iraq cold war and Iraqi forces involvement in war with Iran, Israeli air force destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirek in June 1981.

Egypt’s change of heart encouraged several Arab states to restore diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv. Arab League became a dead horse since Egypt torpedoed any reprisal action like economic war or cutting off diplomatic ties with Israel or raising the issue of settlements in occupied lands in the UN. Arab countries paying only lip service to the Palestinian dispute added to the disillusionment and woes of Palestinians. 

  

Within Egypt, Sadat’s ties with USA and Israel saw intensification of opposition to his domestic and foreign policies. He was viewed as a betrayer of Arab cause. His economic liberalization and encouragement of private sector benefited the upper and upper middle class seculars, but weakening of public sector had a crippling effect on lower and middle classes. It widened the gulf between the rich and the poor and also fueled corruption among the bureaucrats. The deprived class languished under escalating prices of food items.

Muslim-Coptic sectarian clashes in June 1981 and their persecution by the state antagonized the two communities. Arrest of 1500 political opponents in September was roundly criticized at home and abroad. Consequent to welling up of hatred against Sadat, he was killed by grenade tossing and gun firing Lt Khalid al Islamboli and three soldiers on 6 October 1981 when he was reviewing the annual military parade in Cairo. 28 senior officers including air vice marshal Hosni Mubarak sitting on the dais received injuries. A state of emergency was declared which has not been lifted to this day.  

His successor Hosni Mubarak who had served as air force chief and his Vice President for six years brought no change in his predecessor’s policies. He pursued US policies faithfully and stuck to peace treaty with Israel which helped him in remaining in good books of both. He continued with the witch hunt of the Islamists. Worst kind of human rights abuses were committed against activists of religious parties forcing many to flee. He also colluded with Israel when latter’s forces invaded Gaza in December-January 2009 and helped Israel in affecting an economic blockade against Gazans by blocking Rafah crossing in Sinai.

Already outraged by Hosni’s pro-American and pro-Israeli policies and suffering under the weight of his oppressive policies, common people in Egypt were primed for explosion. The spark was provided by events in Tunisia where the people succeeded in ousting the dictator on 14 January. Its ripple effects were felt in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Yemen and Morocco as well.

In Egypt, the people came on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Ismailia and Suez in large numbers on 25 January and thereon made it into a daily routine. 350,000 strong Central Security Force (CSF) and National Police after vainly battling with the protestors gave up and breathed a sigh of relief when Hosni ordered the Army to take over and impose curfew on 28 January. Taking advantage of the turmoil and police helplessness, 13000 prisoners made their escape good.

470,000 strong Army, with equal number of reservists under Lt Gen Sami Hafez Annan, which had struck roots in national affairs in 1952 and is popular among the masses took over security duties in Cairo and Alexandria but put up a neutral and friendly face much to the chagrin of beleaguered Hosni. Latter refused to vacate his seat saying that he would stay in power till next presidential election scheduled in September to prevent chaos.

He however appointed ailing Intelligence Chief Lt Gen Omar Suleiman as his Vice President, dissolved the cabinet and formed a fresh cabinet under new Prime Minister Air Marshal Ahmad Shafiq who was performing as minister of civil aviation. The aging president promised that neither he nor his son would participate in next elections and also grudgingly agreed to carryout constitutional and political reforms. He also vacated his post of chairman National Democratic Party.

These measures however failed to placate the people and they stuck to their demand of immediate ouster of Hosni. The people hate the rulers, CSF and the police under the interior ministry but are friendly towards the Army. The protesters constantly wooed the soldiers to their side. About 300 people died and hundreds injured but protests continued despite curfew. They were fed up of insensitivity of their rulers, rampant corruption, large scale unemployment and political oppression whenever they asked for reforms.

Although the emotions of Egyptians were very high and their resolve to make the ‘Nile Revolution’ a success was strong, but they are without a leader. Muhammad ElBaradei doesn’t fit the bill since he is Mr. nobody in Egypt’s politics and is seen as America’s man purposely sent to deceive the people. The CNN and BBC commentators exposed their inner desire by opining that he could be a good replacement of Hosni. Another aspirant Amr Mussa heading Arab League is also not an ideal choice. Muslim Brotherhood kept a low profile because it didn’t want the uprising to be dubbed as an Islamic revolution. Although it has 88 seats in the legislature, it doesn’t have a charismatic leader to turn the tide in its favor.  

The uprising triggered by the youth on 25^th January took a dangerous turn on 04^th February when one million people assembled at Tahrir Square (Independence Square) in Central Cairo and refused to vacate the premises till ouster of the despot. When the Army refused to fire on the crowds, intelligence goons, ruffians and Salafi movement members tried to break up the assembly by using brute force but failed. Hosni became a sitting duck after the US and the west started to withdraw their support to him and the Army adopted an affable posture. The brewing storm climaxed on 11^th when the people besieged the presidential palace and left embattled Hosni with no choice but to resign and flee to his palace in Sharm el Sheikh. Like Ayub Khan, instead of handing over the reigns to the Speaker, he preferred to hand over the reigns to Supreme Council of Armed Forces.   

The power has slipped into the hands of Vice President Lt Gen Omar, Defence Minister Field Marshal M. Hussein Tantawi and Army Chief Lt Gen Annan. With no external threat, the Army has got too addicted to benefits of peace with Israel and is enjoying the fruits of US largesse for long. It is heavily involved in businesses, road building, construction works and running bakeries and laundries. Aging senior officers are holding key appointments in civil organizations and in government departments. Over 37 years of peace has dulled the warrior spirit among the officer cadre. Status quo is the most desirable option for the senior leadership of the Army.

The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies prefer status quo with some cosmetic reforms but the people do not want change of faces but a real change. They hate Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic laws and desire continuation of the present system under new faces. It is said that the Army while putting up a friendly face is keeping its options open. The constitution has been suspended and parliament dissolved on 13th, but the Army Command has so far not given any timeframe for polls and has made it clear that till completion of transition to democracy it will remain committed to international treaties including Camp David accord. Tahrir Square has still not been completely vacated by protesters and die hard among them say they will not depart till lifting of state of emergency, release of political prisoners, fair elections and swift handover of power to the civilians. Army’s role is considered critical for the future of Egypt. The wind of change has started to blow in North Africa, but it will take some more time for a real change. 

*Asif Haroon Raja,The writer is a defence analyst and Member Board of advisors, he has been Defence Attache to Egypt and Sudan, Directing Staff, Command and Staff College Quetta.

The Uprising in Egypt by *General Mirza Aslam Beg

It is not difficult to know what would be the ultimate out-come of the conflict in Egypt as it depends on the dialectics of the two opposing will and the stronger has already won. One represents the decades old dictorial rule of Hosni Mubarak, supported by the military and industrial group of United States of America, helping to grow a bloated Egyptian military business (Milbus), ‘big civil business mafia’, and Hosni Mubarak amassing US$ 75 billion, as the richest man in the world. The second, represents the broad masses of Egypt, led by Muslim Brotherhood, out-lawed and ruthlessly suppressed by the military dictators for over five decades. The uprising now has entered into the third week, demolishing Mobarak’s power and prestige, brick-by-brick, forcing the change, which has become inevitable.

The Uprising

It is led by Muslim Brotherhood founded by Hassan-al-Banna in 1920. By 1930 it launched the movement as a legalist non-violent anti-colonialist resistance against the Zionist expansionism. The objective was to establish a democratic Islamic state, based on broad-based educational and socio-economic reforms. Hassan-al-Banna was assassinated by the British in 1949, and Syed Qutub took over. He was hanged by Nasser in 1966, which led to the creation of the ‘Jehadi Wing’ and growth of militancy in the movement. Aiman-al-Zawahri, now as a leader of Muslim Brotherhood, remains a marginal figure because of his opposition to Muslim Brotherhood’s “policy of liberalism and peaceful participation in Egyptian politics.”

The main-stay of the popular movement is ‘Muslim Brotherhood,’ which provides the leadership and the organizational structure, sustaining the uprising and its growth, as more and more people are joining the movement, with its multi-faced identity. It has a ‘Jehadi’ wing as well as a ‘Militant wing’ and a large segment of youth, who value the western traditions of democratic freedom, human rights, secularism and nationalism, deeply rooted into their psyche. Yet there is no conflict within the movement led by Muslim Brotherhood, which considers itself a centrist religious mainstream political movement, consolidated by decades of confrontation and persecution. For definite, they do not want an Iranian model in Egypt.

Mubarak-Military-American Nexus

Since 1952, Egypt has been ruled by the military and with Hosni Mubarak coming to power, the Americans formed the Nexus, with the military, which enjoys huge defense budget, and a ‘Milbus Empire’ consisting of valuable properties, big businesses, defense industries and huge national development projects. It has strong links with the political leadership in Cairo and Washington and with the defense industries cartel, retired and serving bureaucrats, serving with multi-national business tycoons and the Jewish lobby. No wonder Washington has posted to Cairo, Frank Wisner as their special envoy, for “damage control sub-contracting crisis management and providing strategic global advice, concerning business.” He is a special choice of Obama and Hillary Clinton to bail-out Mubarak and protect the interests of the Nexus. He has blocked all moves for reconciliation with the movement, promising to protect Hosni Mubarak and his huge stock of wealth, property and assets, by prolonging the confrontation, trying to wear-out the patience and stamina of the movement, which unfortunately is gaining strength with each passing day. Mubarak, an Air Force officer himself, his Vice-President, the Chief of the Defence Staff, about 50% military legislators in the House of Representatives and the military governors, together, provide the last hope to the citadel of Mubarak’s power, built over the decades.

Possibilities

The movement led by Muslim Brotherhood is most likely to hold-out and win. Mubarak-Military-Washington nexus will yield, to their demands, through a negotiated settlement. The first round of talks has failed. The process is to be restarted to find a way-out, before the situation gets out of control. Ultimately, it is the military, maintaining a neutral stance, will come forward, to intervene and find a negotiated settlement. Following issues are critical:

• Dictatorship and the dominant role of the military has been rejected. The military therefore has to accept a subordinating role to the future democratic set-up.
• The movement draws ‘diverse vision’ together and would desire to be a full partner in the process of change – a democratic state in the ‘Turkish style’ despite, “behind the unified, hierarchal façade, contradictory influences being at work”
• The negotiations should focus on the formation of a national government first, made responsible to frame a constitution, formulate the election modalities and hold elections within a specified time frame.
• The change should not be taken as a set-back to the ongoing process of Arab-Israel rapprochement. In fact a more realistic and popular approach would be possible now.
• It is essential to ensure Israel’s security concerns, checks on nuclear proliferation and militancy.
• A balanced US-Egypt relationship must emerge, to ensure flow of aid and assistance, as central to the negotiated settlement and for the sake of peace in the region.
• The fall of Mubarak must herald a new era of freedom and democracy, to guarantee peace within the country and the region as a whole.
• The hoax of Islamic extremism, should not blur the vision for the greater cause of the people of Egypt.

Conclusion

This is a revolution in the real sense, which has galvanized the Egyptian nation, demanding freedom from decades of oppressive rules of the despotic rulers. There is no turning back for them. The government has lost the contest, though temporarily shielded by the military which has shrewdly maintained its neutrality and retains the ability to mediate.

The military should mediate, not to protect its own Milbus, not to protect Hosni Mubarak’s 75 billion dollar fortune, and not to become a part of the American Game to consolidate its hold and influence over Egypt, but to establish the supremacy of the democratic will of the people of Egypt. Change is inevitable and it must come at the behest of the military, to achieve balance between various elements of national power, safeguarding vital national security interests, as is the case in Pakistan now, enabling it to overcome successive waves of crises.

P.S.As I write these lines, the military under General Tantawi, is reported to have taken over the control of the country, not in a coup, but through consensus reached with Mubarak and the Americans. The Brotherhood leadership has not been consulted, which creates doubts about the intentions of the military. Hence the masses will remain on the streets, till the military accepts a subordinating role in the future democratic set-up, and Mubarak leaves the country.

*General Mirza Aslam Beg is former Chief Of Army Staff, Pakistan. After his retirement, he formed a Think Tank

US Media & Egypt Coverage: Dodging the Real Issues & Fudging the Real Culprits by *Sibel Edmonds

With all eyes and attention on Egypt, the unsavory ‘US Foreign Policy’ has become the topic of choice among the intelligentsia, journalists, and the overly populated US analyst colony. There are scores of analyses out there; thousands of articles, millions of blog threads and unending ‘update’ headlines on TV screens. Yet, at least in ‘popular’ outlets, reality appears to be the missing link. Don’t worry, I am not about to hit you with a long-winded article on Egypt. If you are masochistic enough to actually want my take (pages and pages of  history/analyses) you can revisit a few of our pieces on the topic of nefarious US foreign policy practices here, here and here; timeless and equally applicable to what we are witnessing with Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia today. Instead, I want to share with you a few select points and coverage that got my attention:

Let’s start with the tongue and cheek protest sign in the above picture: “USA Why You Support Dectatour” Of course, these demonstrators, in fact almost the entire population in that part of the world, know the answer to this rhetorical question. I think they are trying to get Americans to ask this question and seek ‘real’ answers, no matter how unsavory, nauseating, awful…You see, this is what the US media is selling the majority as to why we support and maintain (pay for, defend…you name it) corrupt ruthless dictators:

Alliance with new governments to protect U.S. interests: security for Israel, sustainability of world energy supply and the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

That’s right: the above, instead of: dictators who will purchase our arms from our mega corporations, serve Israel’s interests, give us cheap oil, and become our official or semi-official base (aka: colony), and that at any price (that is, the price to the population and human rights there). Think Saudi Arabia, think Turkmenistan, Think Uzbekistan…Think about all the dictator allies we support, maintain and sustain. While we are at the topic of ‘sustaining,’ let me illustrate what I mean:

The same article source above, Bloomberg, lightly mentions the following:

Egypt is the fourth-largest recipient of U.S. aid, after Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel, according to the State Department’s 2011 budget, receiving more than $1.5 billion a year.

Another semi alternative publication (alternative in name only) goes only half a step further and actually adds it up, the US taxpayers’ dollars that is:

American support for the Egyptian government — to the tune of $60 billion in aid over the last 30 years — garnered virtually no regular attention before the protests began.

But here is one article, written by a true alternative journalist (an independent one), where American taxpayer dollars spent on this Dictatorship ally for the last 30 years come together, and actually add up nicely:

According to a mix of United States, Syrian and Algerian sources his personal fortune amounts to no less than US$40 billion – stolen from the public treasury in the form of “commissions”, on weapons sales, for instance. The Pharaoh controls loads of real estate, especially in the US; accounts in US, German, British and Swiss banks; and has “links” with corporations such as MacDonald’s, Vodafone, Hyundai and Hermes. Suzanne, the British-Irish Pharaoh’s wife, is worth at least $5 billion. And son Gamal – the one that may have fled to London, now stripped of his role as dynastic heir – also boasts a personal fortune of $17 billion.

Mubarak’s fortune, including his wife’s and son’s, is estimated to be …$40 Billion + $5 Billion + $17 Billion= $62 Billion. We Americans have been paying this man for 30 years, for a total of $60 Billion. Was it for infrastructure, job creation…you know, all those vital ingredients? Or was it to create another king, a dictator, or as Escobar puts it, a Pharaoh with a $Billions fortune? 

Here is more by another true alternative reporter:

Now, if through some incredible circumstance Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak decides to flee the country, à la Ben Ali, there’s a good chance his first-class flight would come courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Pentagon contracts show that the US government has spent at least $111,160,328 to purchase and maintain Mubarak’s fleet of nine Gulfstream business jets. (For those keeping score, Gulfstream is a subsidiary of General Dynamics.)

And this:

Hounshell also noticed a report that Egyptian First Lady Suzanne Mubarak once “commandeered a bus that had been bought with money from the United States Agency for International Development and that had been meant to carry children to school.”

            …

But wait a minute; let’s not forget another involved party these tax dollars happen to benefit. You know who I’m talking about, right? This is where our government takes our dollars, gives it to dictator allies, and then asks them to turn around, give that money (minus the personal share for personal wealth) to our military industrial complex corporations. Then, we have those CEO’s with $$$$$$$ salaries, and $$$$$$$ to the lobbyists and $$$$$$ to our elected representatives, who then in turn, sanction giving more money, aid, tax payers’ dollars, to these dictators; and the cycle repeats, repeats, repeats…well, it’s been repeating nonstop for more than half a century.

As for this great ally for ‘regional security’ my favorite site has the following on a recent Robert Gates-Egypt Defence Minister meeting involving the so-called partnership for ‘regional security’:

When the two military leaders met in May 2009 to discuss “a wide range of security issues,” Egyptian Defence Minister Hussein Tantawi presented US Defense Secretary Robert Gates with a set of gifts. They included a shotgun (with five bullets), a decorative rug and a gilded photo album.

With a confidence that, in retrospect, seems dubious, Gates said “he looks forward to expanding the two countries’ military-to-military relationships in ways that promote regional stability.”

Five months after that meeting, the Pentagon announced it would sell a new batch of two dozen F-16 fighter aircraft to Egypt—a $3.2 billion deal that is among the most recent of a long string of arms deliveries from America to its North African ally. These F-16s, according to the Pentagon announcement (pdf) would support “Egypt’s legitimate need for its own self-defense.”

Today the Egyptian Air Force buzzed a crowd of demonstrators in Cairo with fighter jets much like those supplied, over a period of decades, by the US. It was a tactical decision that bore little relation to “legitimate” national “self-defense,” although it can be construed as a desperate attempt to defend Hosni Mubarak’s three-decade hold on the presidency.

            …

Rest assured the American mainstream media won’t delve into these ‘real’ issues, because that would get into the real disease, our hypocrisy-ridden sick imperialistic foreign policy, where American taxpayers and the people of these nations are among the victims-losers, and a handful of corporations have been reaping the benefits. The media’s neocons have been twisting and intentionally misinterpreting the recent developments in Egypt. Please don’t think of only the Neocons of the Right, because the neocons of the left have been equally if not more involved in this deception game, and here is a recent example provided by Antiwar.Com, with excellent questions directed at the Israel lobby’s outspoken Maddow:

BLACK LAW OF IMMUNITY by *Tanvir Ahmed Siddiqui

We as a nation are living through unspeakable tragedies and exploitations though as a nation we are now immune to all kinds of tragedies. Immunity is the latest form of exploitation that is being applied on us. We were yet not over with joys of PRESEDENTIAL IMMUNITY that is being applied on us as a License to Corruption. Now a latest shot of immunity is DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY as a License to Kill. This immunization syndrome is another fruit of that tree of civil rights and liberties in modern world.

KINGS CAN DO NO WRONG: “Magna Carta also known as Magna Charta is part of the un-codified but time to time modified constitution of England since 1215 & 1297. This Charta at face is considered in the modern world as a great charter to protect and guarantee civil rights and liberties and limits to the powers of King. But its continued abuse since colonial rules actually protected liberties and offered immunities to Royals, Barons, Bishops, Abbots and Nobles to ensure their r external and internal affects and influences. To my understanding Diplomatic Immunity as a black law is an offshoot of same mindset and abuse of Magna Carta mainly to strengthen colonial rule not only in sub-continent but also in other domains of British Raj.

As per Wickipedia encyclopedia:Diplomatic Immunity is a form of Legal Immunity and policy which ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the laws of host country’s land. Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance and sustenance of Govt relations during periods of difficulties even during armed conflicts. The British parliament first guaranteed immunity to foreign ambassadors in 1709, after Count Andrey Matveyev a Russian resident in London, had been subject by British bailiffs to verbal and physical abuse. Various events in ancient times clearly indicate in the history that European Monarchs at the time did not consider foreign ambassadors to be immune from punishments.  

In reality, most diplomats are representatives of nations with tradition of professional civil service are expected to obey regulations governing their personal behavior and must remain ready to suffer strict internal consequences / disciplinary action if they flout local laws. Professional diplomacy considered as compromised if they or even their family member disobey the local authorities or cause serious embarrassment. Such cases are at any rate, considered unethical and as violation of the spirit of Vienna convention. As per spirit of Vienna convention “It is possible for the official’s home country to waive immunity. This tends to happen only when the individual has committed a serious crime unconnected with his / her diplomatic role. But many countries ( so called most civilized and  being  trumped as champions and saviors of civil liberties and human rights in modern world )  however refuse to wave immunity as a matter of course”  as now being done in case of Reymond Davis.   These countries mostly do so by taking the advantage of the cases of overlap between the rules of “Functional Immunity” and “Personal Immunity” as per customary international law and treaty.

Not being an expert on international laws but still as a layman and an ordinary citizen of Pakistan for my understanding I would like to draw attention of my readers and would like to refer in brief with the Doctrine of International law of Immunity from prosecution for criminal offences. Immunities are of two types: Functional Immunity is granted to people who perform certain functions as act of state. This type of immunity is based on respect for sovereign equality and state dignity. The offices usually recognized as attracting Functional immunity are Head of States or Heads of Govts., senior cabinet members, Foreign Ministers and Minister of Defense.

Second is Personal Immunity: Which is enjoyed by  diplomatic agents and their families because of the office they hold rather than in relation to the act they have committed. When a person enjoying a personal immunity commits a criminal act , the personal immunity as usual, is removed. Personal immunities cease with the cessation of the post.

Ref: http//en.wikipedia.org/Immunity_from_prosecution_(international law)

My understanding is that perhaps in case of Raymond Davis, his country of origin is once again trying to take advantage of the cases of overlap in between Functional Immunity and Personal Immunity.  The beginning of Modern Immunity as parallel to modern diplomacy since 1709 was actually to guarantee diplomatic immunity from prosecution to foreign missions that actually indulged in violations and abuse of local laws not in order but  in disorder to intact the Colonial Rule of British Raj. In this age of modern diplomacy, diplomatic immunity continues to provide a means to safe guard hidden intents and vested interests of stronger states into the weaker states. In view of massive arousals and riots like in Tunisia,  Egypt, Algeria and so on  against prolonged exploitation of public rights  the civilized world therefore must review the possible impacts of irresponsible diplomacy.

Especially under perspectives of major accidents of wars so far occurred in the world the diplomacy must be tamed to the level of respects of sovereignties. In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, morality was not regarded as an important element in international relations. The history of Diplomacy reveals that personal attitudes and behaviors and conduct of diplomats and their agents covered under all kinds of immunities   infect aggravated the causes and effects of world wars.

Massive killings of wars brought much more critical attitudes towards their leaders:

• How and why had diplomats and diplomacy brought Europe and the world to this horror?
• Were the traditions and personnel of diplomacy a factor in prolonging the war?
• The diplomats were almost exclusively upper class and there was a growing feeling that there was not enough democratic control. The war revealed that the consequences of diplomacy were borne by all of society and were too serious to be left to small elite.

However, there began to be a growing movement and sentiment to alter the conduct of diplomacy and international relations.

Ref: Wallace G. Mills Hist. 203 12 Morality and Diplomacy.

This attitude and mindset is continued under prevailed Dichotomy of  ‘Might is Right’.  The violation and abuse of this Law of Immunity by diplomats especially of stronger countries particularly into socially, politically and economically weaker states includes not only espionage but all kinds of other crimes including rapes, murder, child custody, material theft, employer abuse and discrimination  in cases of employing local staff and labor. It is therefore the policy of the foreign service of United States neither to confirm nor to deny the existence of espionage and intelligence personnel in US embassies.

How the Government of  Pakistan, this time handle with the situation of Raymond Davis, will set the tone for the future of this black Law of protection of violence and exploitation of stronger states into weaker states. But greater possibility is that “Dichotomy of Might is Right “would prevail.

*Tanvir Ahmed Siddiqui is a freelance writer