الثلاثاء، 18 سبتمبر 2012

Eagle set to soar

Ahmed Eleiba reports that Sinai's military mission has simply been revised

Operation Eagle, the military campaign conducted in the wake of the killing of 16 Egyptian soldiers in Rafah last month by unidentified assailants, has not been put on hold, a military source told Al-Ahram Weekly. A tactical revision in deployment will take place in the next few days now that sufficient intelligence has become available to continue with the mission in which considerable progress has already been made, he said.

The source was effectively countering criticism that had been levelled against the operation which seemed to have ground to a halt since the feast that marked the end of Ramadan when many units returned to camps in Bir Al-Abed, Balouza and Khurba. According to his information, the tactical adjustments will involve dispensing with some heavy units while retaining those necessary to the operation.

The source noted that units of the Armed Forces will leave and be replaced by forces of the civil police especially in Area C.

He added that it was not advisable to reveal the plans of the operation at this point and that its accomplishments would be made public at the appropriate time.

In tandem with the military operations, a dialogue, backed by the government, has been in progress with Jihadist groups. In an interview with the Weekly, Nazar Ghorab, a member of the former parliament representing the Construction and Development Party and a leader of a group that has initiated a series of dialogues with Jihadist groups in the Sinai, said that the first meeting in this series was held last week. The purpose of this "political track" was to prevent the reproduction of the former exclusively military approach to the problem. "We are moving as fast as possible in our attempts to engage these movements in dialogue so that they do not become embroiled in violent confrontations with security agencies and in the hope of persuading them to join the Construction and Development Party's battle for the restoration of stability."

Ghorab, a lawyer by profession, said, "we spent time in prison with these people at the time of the clampdowns under the former regime. So we respect one another, which is why we were given permission to launch this dialogue for the sake of stability. We believe that these groups, some of which were armed, are no longer necessary under the new regime, which we support. However, there are some people with the old security mindset that do not want to handle this diplomatically and are bent on dragging us backwards. This is why the government and its security agencies need to be purged of supporters of the old regime and people who refuse to deal with this on the basis of the higher national interest. We are preparing a report condemning the security agencies on this score. But, even if the battle between the Jihadists and the old guard is over, the change in government means that people have to change their attitudes and beliefs. This applies to both Islamist and non-Islamist movements."

On the progress made in the dialogues, Ghorab says, "in our previous meeting with these groups we established that they had no connection whatsoever with the Rafah incident and that this incident was the work of foreign forces that were determined to tamper with the security in the Sinai using agents on the ground. There are genuine fears that Mossad has infiltrated the area and that the danger includes attempts to obstruct development in this impoverished area." Pausing to point out that his team submits regular reports to the president's office on the meetings, Ghorab continued: "We have virtually certain information that [the Rafah] operation was masterminded by foreign saboteurs and that it is not the work of Islamists. All the Islamists, including the militant ones, believe that they should not work against the president and, also, that they should work for the realisation of security and stability."

Ghorab is of the conviction that the former regime had set the Jihadist groups against it because of its pro-Western and pro-colonialist policies. "In fact, there are still many who regard the Sinai as though it were a milk cow," he said. But now, he continued, these [Jihadist] movements have become engaged in the political process and they have no desire to confront the state because they are convinced of the need to work with it."

Ghorab agrees that the military track of Operation Eagle has accomplished many of its objectives even if its successes have not been made public yet. "There is physical and eyewitness testimony, and agents who are unconnected with the Jihadist groups have been arrested," he said.

With respect to the security protocols associated with the Camp David agreement, Ghorab believes that they may have been instrumental in creating the security vacuum in the Sinai. In his opinion, the protocols needed to be reviewed and perhaps the peace agreement itself should be reconsidered. "Abolishing the treaty would not mean war," he stressed. He quickly added, "It is the political leadership that has to take the necessary decisions on this matter, for it possesses the relevant information that no one else has access to. At the political level, there has to be change. The political leadership appreciates this and we have confidence in that leadership."

Not all share Ghorab's faith in the dialogue track. A high-level source who had served as a senior officer in General Intelligence held that so far the dialogues produced little more than "dust in our eyes". "These groups fully control their members, some of whom the security agencies have caught in connection with the Rafah incident and others of which have been connected with other attacks, such as the bombings of the natural gas pipeline in the Sinai. So, if those Jihadists really want to cooperate with the government, they need to offer something tangible instead of just airy arguments, which is all we have seen until now."

Nor did the former intelligence official reserve great praise for Operation Eagle. "Its accomplishments are not clear, for it has not furnished any visual evidence of any progress. In all events, it wasn't necessary to bring in all those tanks, which only worked to fabricate a crisis with Israel. We have special airborne forces that are fully capable of dealing with the situation. They can put an end to the terrorist lairs and shut down the mountain caves and the tunnels for good, and they can remain on the ready to respond immediately to any danger." With regard to the reports regarding tactical redeployment, he said, "they suggest that we are looking at a long-term operation in the Sinai with the purpose of keeping it under siege and hunting down outlaws. Instead of relying on soldiers, it would be better to use radar warning systems that constantly scan the area."

A former political prisoner who belonged to the Jihad organisation and is now an academician specialising in Jihadist movements believes that the group that is currently conducting the dialogues in the Sinai is seeking to score political gains under the new regime. Previously, this group had scored considerable material gains in its capacity as the Islamist Lawyers Group which had defended members of Jihadist organisations in trials that took place under the old regime. The source went on to say, "the map of the Jihadists in the Sinai is diffuse and cannot be easily brought under control because their cells are dispersed over a large area. Also, the main Jihadist cells are opposed to dialogue and do not approve of the people who are holding the dialogues on the grounds that those people had lured former comrades into making ideological retractions. The main Jihadist cells now regard those former comrades as turncoats. They also reject dialogue with the government because it has not proclaimed an Islamic state and established rule by Islamic law. Accordingly, they believe that dialogue is futile." The source adds, "I don't know who imposed this idea of dialogue on the government because it is a strategic mistake."


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Brains behind the buttons

An alleged drug baron whose shady relationship with the former regime reportedly includes involvement in the orchestrated rioting and violence that accompanied the revolution is nabbed, Ramy Yassin reports

At the headquarters of the Lawyers Syndicate, the syndicate's Freedoms Committee is scheduled to hold a conference today, Thursday, to reply to statements made on 28 August by Justice Minister Ahmed Mekki about a new draft law to amend the current emergency law. Talk about a new emergency law has stirred debate about a possible presidential intention to revive the state of emergency which was lifted in May by a decree of the then ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).

The interior minister's statements about the necessity of applying the emergency law to confront thuggery has turned public doubts into near certainty.

According to Bahieddin Hassan, director of the Cairo Centre for Human Rights Studies, non-stop efforts to apply the emergency law once again means the Muslim Brotherhood finds difficulty in ruling Egyptians and controlling its opponents.

During a three-hour meeting held last week with a group of human rights activists, Mekki explained the aim behind issuing the new draft law and pledged that it will not be passed unless it is approved in a nationwide referendum.

The new draft, Mekki said, aims at "filtering the current faulty legislation of all the articles which shackle freedoms. So, if there is a state of emergency, the law will be void of all such ill-reputed articles," Mekki said, noting that the new amendments introduced to the law will maintain detainees' rights and guarantee that they will not be referred to the courts.

Mekki denied being instructed in any way by President Mohamed Mursi to issue the new draft. He stressed that he prepared the draft in his capacity as an Egyptian citizen before taking the ministerial seat.

By means of the new legislation, a presidential decree announcing the state of emergency should be referred to parliament within seven days following its issue to decide what should be done in this regard. The period defined for applying the state of emergency should not be extended unless getting public approval via a referendum.

However, while the state of emergency is applied, the president is entitled to issue a decree that would enforce censorship over newspapers and publications. The would-be legislation obliges the interior minister to inform the parliament, the Supreme Judiciary Council (SJC) and the National Council for Human Rights (NCHR) of names of detainees, reasons of their detention and their whereabouts every month. The new draft lends the president, in exceptional cases, the right to refer crimes of premeditated murder, robbery, blocking roads, and destroying public utilities to military tribunals.

Mekki's statements were disappointing to political figures and legal activists who regard Mekki as one of the defenders of freedom, and who wonder about the necessity of amending such a law now. "Everyone was shocked to hear Mekki, a reformist, veteran judge, talking about reviving a law which sickened Egyptians for almost 30 years," Mohamed El-Damati, deputy chairman of the Lawyers Syndicate, told Al-Ahram Weekly. "What doubles our shock is that Mekki took such a step a few months after the SCAF abolished the state of emergency."

According to legal experts, abolishing the state of emergency does not mean that the emergency law was annulled. Emergency Law 162/1958 still exists.

While admitting that the emergency law exists in all world countries, El-Damati stressed that it is applied in very limited cases, for example, when there are earthquakes, plagues or when a state of war is announced. "Confronting acts thuggery does not need an emergency law, as the current penal code and the law of legal procedures are enough to meet security challenges," El-Damati noted.

Lawyers Syndicate Chairman Sameh Ashour was quoted by the daily Al-Ahram as saying "we are not in need of passing such a law before the issue of the new constitution, which will define the main features for any law."

A statement issued by the leftist Tagammu Party stressed that the new draft law will open detention camps and stifle freedom once again. In the statement, the Tagammu called upon all political forces to unite "as one man" and to press for aborting the draft.

In a statement, the Egyptian Communist Party condemned the "arbitrary system which increases the structure of legislation that shackle freedoms," and warned of attempts to bring back Mubarak's system "that applied the emergency law for 30 years to harass opponents and silence outspoken critics."


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Stepping up the money hunt

Hopes are high that a newly-formed national commission will be able to recover money smuggled abroad by members of the former Mubarak regime, writes Gamal Essam El-Din

Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Mursi is about to issue a presidential decree to set up a national commission entrusted with recovering money smuggled outside Egypt by the family and cronies of ousted former president Hosni Mubarak.

The six-article decree states that the new commission will open an inquiry into all reports and lawsuits regarding money smuggled out of Egypt since 1992. A technical secretariat will be formed to take the measures necessary to trace the wealth of Mubarak, his family and henchmen.

"The secretariat will conduct negotiations with all international and regional organisations and foreign countries to gather as much information about Mubarak's wealth as possible," Article 2 of the decree says.

Article 5 states that the Ministry of Finance will open a special bank account at the Central Bank of Egypt for money recovered from abroad. Article 6 will make it obligatory for all state institutions to surrender the documents necessary for the commission to move forward.

Some sources put Mubarak's wealth at more than $70 billion, most of it in the UK and Switzerland. The fact that Mubarak's wife Suzanne is Anglo-Egyptian caused the family to invest most of its wealth in England, sources say. Legal experts in Egypt have lamented the fact that the British authorities are not helping in recovering money possessed by the Mubarak family in the UK.

The UK government announced this week that it was planning to send an expert to Egypt to help recover Mubarak's money. While UK Foreign Secretary William Hague once said that the UK was ready to offer all the help necessary to Egypt to recover the stolen money, his statement has never given rise to any concrete steps.

Hossam Eissa, a legal expert and member of the new commission, said "there should be adequate documented information about the money stolen and smuggled out of Egypt, so that European countries will assist in recovering this money."

Eissa criticised the UK for not doing enough to help Egypt in tracing the Mubarak family's illegal wealth in the UK. A report by the BBC this week indicated that the wealth of Mubarak's family in the UK was estimated at some 85 billion pounds sterling (about $135 billion) and that regime cronies also possess more than 15 billion pounds sterling in assets and personal accounts in the UK.

The report said a house owned by Gamal Mubarak in London's Knightsbridge district is estimated to be worth 10 million pounds sterling.

The wealth of the cronies of the former Mubarak regime has been the focus of public attention lately, when an investigative judge decided to place former presidential candidate and Mubarak's last prime minister Ahmed Shafik on a watch list on 29 August.

Shafik will be questioned over alleged corruption, notably by helping Mubarak's two sons Alaa and Gamal to obtain 40,000 metres of land near Ismailia at the low price of 70 piastres per metre. A complaint filed by Essam Sultan, a former parliamentary deputy and lawyer, alleged that Shafik had used his position as chair of the Association of Air Pilots in 1993 to sell Gamal and Alaa the land.

On Monday, the investigative judge, Osama El-Saidi, ordered that Nabil Shukri, former chair of the association, be placed in custody after he admitted being forced by Shafik to help Gamal and Alaa obtain the land.

Shafik's lawyer strongly denied that his client had been involved in corruption. Shafik, currently in Abu Dhabi, said "the charges levelled against me are politically motivated."

"An avalanche of accusations was directed at me after the end of the presidential elections, but this was no surprise due to the power of one party going after me," he said, referring to the Muslim Brotherhood, to which Shafik's opponent Mohamed Mursi, now Egypt's president, belongs.

Shafik's lawyer, Shawqi El-Sayed, said the complaints filed against Shafik were malicious and aimed at tarnishing his image. El-Sayed said Shafik had never been summoned for questioning and that his defence team should be informed of any charges against him.

Yehia Qadri, another of Shafik's lawyers, said that "Mubarak's two sons Gamal and Alaa bought the land from the board of the Association of the Air Pilots in 1990 and before Shafik was appointed its chairman in 1992." He said that "Shafik had just signed the purchase contract when Alaa and Gamal wanted to document it with the public notary."

Joining forces with Shafik, prominent sociologist Saadeddin Ibrahim said that "Islamist facism is out to get Shafik and all those who attacked the Muslim Brotherhood."

Closely related to the charges against Shafik are two complaints filed against Sami Anan, former military chief of staff and deputy chairman of the former ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and Mohamed El-Tohami, former chair of the Administrative Control Authority (ACA).

Lawyer Samir Sabri has charged that Anan made a huge amount of money from houses and plots of land in the upscale Golf district east of Cairo. "Anan violated the law by obtaining two plots of land in the same district, the first estimated at 600 metres and the second at around 1,000 metres," Sabri said.

President Mursi awarded Anan the Medal of the Republic when he was sent into retirement on 12 August, leading some to think that Anan would be immune to subsequent investigation.

El-Tohami is accused of using his position between 2008 and 2012 to help businessmen and cronies of the former regime to avoid investigation or trial.

In his complaint, Moetasem Fathi, a former ACA officer, said "El-Tohami declined to give the prosecution authorities documents about the corruption of former Mubarak regime officials and helped fake documents so they could avoid persecution."

Eissa said "it is natural that the wealth of Mubarak and his cronies will remain a major public issue for some time. We have a lot of statements and documents about the wealth of the former regime to look into, but it will take a while to make sure these are soundly based."

"Some of the complaints filed against former regime officials could be motivated by revenge and a desire to settle accounts. For this reason, we have high hopes that the new commission will put the inquiries on the right track," he said.

On 29 August after a year-and-a-half of inquiries, the state-affiliated Illicit Gains Authority (IGA) decided to refer Safwat El-Sherif, Mubarak's long-time minister of information and secretary-general of the former ruling National Democratic Party, for trial on charges of profiteering and securing wealth estimated at LE300 million ($50 million) by illegal means.

The IGA said El-Sherif, also former chairman of the Shura Council, the upper house of the Egyptian parliament, and his two sons Ashraf and Ihab had illegally taken possession of 56 villas, chalets and plots of land.

It said that El-Sherif had built a mosque on a plot of land he owned illegally. The report added that El-Sherif's two sons had used their father's job as minister of information to build a media empire that was able to manipulate television satellite channels.

El-Sherif is currently facing trial on charges of masterminding attacks on peaceful protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square during the revolution. He is one of several former Mubarak regime officials to be under investigation, among them Fathi Sorour, former speaker of the People's Assembly, who faces charges of manslaughter and profiteering.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Disputes plague the draft constitution

The 100-member constituent assembly has been moving by leaps and bounds to finalise Egypt's draft constitution, reports Gamal Essam El-Din Members of the constituent assembly are on the verge of finalising the constitution

Officials from Egypt's constitution-drafting assembly are doing their best to finalise the country's new draft constitution over the period of the next one or two months. They have high hopes that the constitution will be drafted and approved in a referendum before a court order invalidating the assembly can be issued, halting the process.

Farid Ismail, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and a member of the assembly, said last week that the draft constitution would be finalised by the upcoming Eid Al-Adha holiday in late October or early November. This is in contrast to other officials, who have recently said that the draft constitution would be ready by late September.

However, assembly spokesperson Wahid Abdel-Meguid has said that no statements can be made about the exact date when the draft constitution will be completed because of the disagreements that still plague the drafting committees.

These have been nowhere clearer than in the debates in the two committees in charge of drafting the constitution's chapters on the system of government and freedoms and rights.

The system of government committee, headed by constitutional law professor Gamal Gibril, has said that members have voted in favour of a presidential-parliamentary mixed system for Egypt.

"The US-style presidential system or Indian-style parliamentary system cannot be embraced by Egypt at the moment," Gibril said, adding that "we think it best to embark upon a mixed presidential-parliamentary system." This would mean that "the president of the republic will be forced to entrust the party that gets a majority in parliament with forming the government."

Gibril indicated that the committee wanted the present bicameral system to be kept in place. Under the proposals, the People's Assembly, Egypt's lower house of parliament, would be called the "House of Representatives", while the Shura Council, the upper house, would be called the "Senate".

According to Gibril, the House of Representatives would have complete legislative and supervisory powers. The Senate would have legislative powers and would also endorse senior officials, such as ambassadors, before they were officially appointed by the president of the republic.

"It is also proposed that the Senate supervise local councils," Gibril said.

Sobhi Saleh, a prominent FJP lawyer and member of the assembly, said members were divided over the issue of whether provincial governors should be elected or appointed under the new system.

Saleh said that most members favoured the president appointing governors, while giving elected local councils greater powers. "The governors will be in charge of seeing that local councils do not violate the law and that they implement the state's development plans," Saleh said.

Saleh indicated that most members were in favour of rejecting Minister of Justice Ahmed Mekki's proposal to group all the country's courts into one unified system.

"We think that the judicial authorities must remain independent, especially the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC), which will remain independent and be regulated under a separate chapter of the constitution," Saleh said.

He added that 33 supervisory agencies would be grouped under a single authority called the "National Council to Combat Corruption". This authority would investigate allegations of corruption and refer officials for questioning by the "administrative prosecution office", which would have sweeping powers.

Sharp divisions have erupted over how the new constitution would regulate military courts. Members of the former ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) want military and civil courts to be regulated under a single chapter of the new constitution. "This is to stress that both kinds of courts are the same in terms of guarantees of fairness," said SCAF member Mamdouh Shahin.

However, Shahin's argument did not strike a chord with most members of the assembly, especially the law professors. Ramadan Batikh, a professor of constitutional law, said that the military courts should be restructured to comply with the guarantees and requirements adopted in the civil courts.

Batikh said that "this issue will be left to the general meetings of the assembly to decide."

Meanwhile, Islamist members of the assembly have strongly objected to suggestions that new presidential elections be held after the constitution is approved by referendum, going against the demands of some liberal and leftist figures.

Former presidential-election candidate Hamdeen Sabahi said that "once the constitution has been promulgated, it would be natural for new presidential elections to be held."

According to senior FJP official Essam El-Erian, "when the people elected Mohamed Mursi as president of Egypt in June, they wanted him to stay in office for four years, so calls for new elections after the constitution has been drafted are not allowed."

Members of the assembly were also divided over whether the president should be able to declare war. Islamists led by El-Erian said that "the president should have an absolute right to declare war after consulting with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the National Defence Council [NDC]," adding that the president need not take their advice.

Liberal members of the assembly objected to granting the president absolute power to declare war, presumably especially if he is an Islamist, such as being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nour Ali, a liberal member of the assembly's Freedoms and Rights Committee, said that "most members believe that the president should not be given a free hand in declaring war and that he should consult with the SCAF and the NDC and seek the approval of the People's Assembly first."

Ali said that "Article 85 of the constitution regulating any declaration of war should be left to the 100-member assembly to decide on its final text in a plenary meeting."

The chapter of the constitution on freedoms and rights also witnessed fierce debates, with there being sharp disagreements over Article 2 that regulates the application of Islamic Sharia law. Salafi members of the assembly want the article to say that "Islamic Sharia [rather than the principles of Islamic Sharia] should be the major source of legislation in Egypt."

However, Ali said that "a majority of assembly members, including Brotherhood activists, want to see the text of this article from the 1971 Constitution remain in place, affirming that 'the principles of Islamic Sharia' should be the major source of legislation in Egypt."

Salah Abdel-Maqsoud, a member of the assembly and of the Salafist Nour Party, said on Tuesday that the issue of Article 2 would be resolved by a vote in the general committee of the assembly. Liberal and civil parties demanded that the article be kept unchanged to maintain the civil nature of the Egyptian state.

According to Abdel-Maqsoud, the vote on the article would offer three options: either that the article stay as it is in the 1971 Constitution, or that the phrase "principles of" be removed, making Islamic law the main source of legislation, or that the 1971 version of the article stay as it is with Al-Azhar being given the right to decide on particular pieces of legislation.

"An article concerning members of other religions was inserted in the freedoms and rights chapter of the constitution," Abdel-Maqsoud said, adding that he wanted to see Al-Azhar being made a "reference" in the chapter of basic principles.

Wahid Abdel-Meguid said there would be a great leap forward for press freedoms in the new constitution, since the chapter on freedoms and rights had been drafted to ensure that journalists accused of publication offences did not face time in jail.

"This is a giant step forward, especially since the draft stipulates that lawsuits against journalists cannot be filed by persons not directly affected by the published materials," Abdel-Meguid said.

The text of Article 12, which deals with the freedoms and rights of journalists, reads in draft that "lawsuits against journalists can only be filed by persons directly affected by publication offences; if journalists are convicted, they will not be sent to jail."

Instead of jail sentences, journalists could be fined large sums of money, he said.

Ordinary people would also be given the right to publish newspapers for the first time, meaning that this right is "no longer confined to companies, public institutions and political parties," he said.

"Article 10 of the same chapter will be drafted to prevent the closing of newspapers by judicial or administrative order," he said, though FJP official El-Erian appeared to disagree when he said that "we are all for press freedoms, but we are against the freedom of journalists to slander citizens and public officials."

El-Erian said that "journalists convicted of publication offences, for example spreading lies, would not be sent to jail, but those found guilty of direct libel would be subject to the penal code, which imposes a jail sentence."

Younis Makhyoun, a member of the Nour Party, said that "it is essential that journalists accused of libel and slander face jail terms, while for other offences, such as disseminating lies, it is enough for them to face tremendous fines."

The clash over press freedoms comes against the backdrop of a hostile campaign led by leading figures of the Muslim Brotherhood against what they deem to be insults directed against the president.

According to chair of the Shura Council and FJP official Ahmed Fahmi, "we are in favour of press freedoms, but we are against press hooligans who are fond of insulting public officials without risking harsh punishment."


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Tehran timeline

Abdel-Moneim SaidWhile the location of Tehran may have added a historic dimension to this year's NAM summit, most everything else appeared as business as usual, writes Abdel-Moneim Said

The world of international diplomacy has a way of preserving international organisations and conventions even when there is no longer any need for them. As a result, these organisations or conventions have an amazing ability to survive long after the historical circumstances that gave rise to them have ended and after the founding nations, themselves, have changed and, worse, when the newcomers are clueless as regards the original motives and ideas that led to their creation. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is a prime instance of one of those auto-driven organisations whose members are compelled to meet, not in order to achieve some objective but simply for the sake of meeting. Not that the speechwriters for the NAM president lack for "essential" justifications for convening a summit that brings together the heads of member states and that, in and of itself, is an "accomplishment". After all, who can predict the fruits that will develop when adversaries meet and rub shoulders, or when one president sits next to another at a banquet table? Undoubtedly, this is why it is very rare that anyone bothers to consider what happens between one summit and the next, for nothing will prevent NAM members from repeating the same exercise as predictably as ever.

To my generation, which grew up under the generation of Third World leaders of the 1950s and 1960s, the creation of NAM was a watershed in the history of the national liberation struggle. Newly independent states were taking up UN seats in rapid succession at a time when the Cold War was spiralling and its chief antagonists were exerting enormous pressures on the still tender shoots of the emergent nations. Whether for economic or strategic reasons, some of these nations immediately chose to side with either the socialist or capitalist camp. Regardless of which side they chose, the sense of dependency put them under constant moral and psychological strain. What was the point of all those sacrifices that were made for the sake of independence if these former colonies were only to end up in an orbit in which they would still have no say in their own fate? It was this very dilemma that gave rise to the notion of what was first referred to as "positive neutrality". A product of the Bandung conference of 1955, the concept held that it was not enough for newly independent nations to be passively neutral, like Switzerland. They needed to act constructively in order to alleviate the international tensions generated by the Cold War, especially given that the risks of the nuclear game would not be borne by the opposing camps alone.

The concept was originally championed by Nehru, Nasser and Tito, which is to say India, Egypt and Yugoslavia. Subsequently, many other countries that fell in the orbit of the soviet or capitalist camp came to support it. However, the Non-Aligned Movement represented a third option, a way for many national leaders to "whitewash" dependency. Thus, NAM broadened to include most of the countries of the Third World. They climbed on board and stayed aboard even after the celebrated leaderships that led them to independence had passed away or were overthrown by coups or simply crumbled, and even after the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union and its camp collapsed. As for the original founders, Yugoslavia disintegrated into several countries, India's drive to become a great power brought it into the Western camp where markets and technological progress abound, and Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel and forged a strategic relationship with the US. More significantly, there arose some far more powerful and effective international organisations with some very specific goals, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which includes most industrialised nations, and the G8 whose members consist of those powers that control the lion's share of the global economy. Meanwhile, NAM continues as ever. It convenes its summits periodically and its member states take their turns in the presidential seat. At the time of the last summit, Egypt held the chair and hosted the convention in Cairo with Hosni Mubarak presiding. This year the summit took place in Tehran against a historic backdrop very different to anything that preceded it. There were heads of state and national representatives of lower rank, although the meeting went ahead regardless of the status of the attendees. The political context was certainly unlike that which characterised all previous summits, which had all the excitement of arriving at a party just as all the guests are leaving. The context this year is an international conflict in which Iran is a chief protagonist. Some may argue that an element of the old Cold War still exists because of the tensions between Russia and the US. However, Russia is not the USSR and there is a world of difference between the mortal animosity that characterised the old Cold War and the sharp differences of opinion and conflicting interests that are often overridden by many types of cooperation between Washington and Moscow today. As for the notion of a global bipolarity between the US and China, that remains in the metaphysical realm. So this leaves Iran as a party to a conflict that has elements of a cold war, in which the other side consists of the US and Israel, backed by the West in general, which is driving to break Tehran through boycotts, sanctions and other means of pressure. These elements are combined with the spectre of a "hot war" that both sides seem to be preparing for as though it were about to erupt tomorrow morning. In other words, Iran can hardly be described as non-aligned or even positively neutral and constructively seeking to promote noble goals. It is caught in a mill that none of the participants in the NAM summit knew how to deal with apart from appealing to Tehran to demonstrate that it intends its nuclear programme for peaceful purposes.

Against this tense backdrop Egypt made its first appearance in a new form. During the past few decades, Egypt generally regarded NAM as one of those heavy but unavoidable obligations it inherited but often felt duty-bound to observe in order to show its gratitude to countries that had stood by it in difficult times while simultaneously realising that the alliance could come in handy when something new cropped up with regard to the Palestinian cause or the application of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to Israel. But all this had little relevance on this occasion. What marked this occasion, for Egypt, was that this was the first NAM summit it attended following the Egyptian revolution and the subsequent democratic elections that brought to power a president who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Egypt is still in the early phases of this change, but we can say that it is no longer the purely pragmatic Egypt that acted in accordance with the dictates of circumstance and the existing balances of power, as was the case under Mubarak, but rather an Egypt in which ideological motives are tempered by the force of the continuity of the Egyptian state and its foreign policy outlooks.

This new mixture has not yet settled, for which reason the force of continuity is what ultimately defined President Mursi's map of action on his way to the conference. There was no question of him not going, because his attendance was required by virtue of the diplomatic obligations that remain incumbent upon the state and its presidency, and because no one has the right to tell this state how to act with respect to a movement of which it was one of the chief founders. Above all, there were also Egyptian interests to pursue.

For Mursi, the summit amounted to a four-hour trip, of which 40 minutes were spent in a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Perhaps the visit was purely symbolic, but it carried some powerful messages. For one, it was impossible to keep Nasser out of the picture. As one of NAM's founding fathers, he remains an asset of the Egyptian state, however bitter the animosity had once been between this state and the Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time, the Syrian question, which loomed heavily over the meeting, served to demarcate some clear lines between the policy outlooks of Egypt and Iran, thereby driving home to people in the West and in the Gulf that the NAM summit was, indeed, a convocation of independent sovereign states, not a platform for Islamic revolutions. Finally, while all due respect was given to Shia Islam, Egypt remains a Sunni country and, therefore, still a member of a camp to which it belonged in the former era. Tehran may have been the setting, but ultimately the Egyptian state was engaged in the routine business of carrying out foreign policy in a conventional summit.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

الاثنين، 17 سبتمبر 2012

The elephant vanishes

Venus Fouad makes a virtual journey to a land of colour and charm

There has been a recent rise in the popularity of photography, both as a documentary tool and an artistic genre. The boost mobile phones have given to public appreciation of this medium is evident: the prolific documentation of the 25 January Revolution is just one example of it.

In recent years, foreign cultural centres have been inviting Egyptian photographers to events and activities abroad. The "Thailand Through Egyptian Lenses" exhibition by photographer Koukla Rifaat is the fruit of such cooperation

Rifaat travelled to Thailand in February 2012 on a trip organised by the Thai Embassy in Cairo. The journey culminated in the exhibition at the Cairo Opera House and a book entitled The Dance of Life: the Journey of an Egyptian Young Woman in Thailand.

Koukla Rifaat graduated from the Modern Sciences and Arts (MSA) University in Cairo in 2007 with a degree in mass communication and advertising. She studied photography at the SPEOS Institute in Paris and won awards from the Sawi Culturewheel in 2004 and 2005. Her work has been featured in Photo of the Month in the prestigious blog Photo Burst.

Since 2008, Rifaat has branched out into documentary photography. A journey to Kerala and Delhi, India in 2009 resulted in an exhibition on the art of Kathakali, also at the Cairo Opera House. Since then, she has been travelling the world in search of new adventures.

Rifaat's style combines artistic and documentary techniques, producing a genre that blends photojournalism with storytelling. Speaking of her current exhibition, she says it was an attempt to shed light on different cultures and creeds.

"My aim is to give the public a chance to relive what I experienced first hand, to bring them close to the life of people who live in different societies. I want to give people a chance to learn about the creeds and cultures and arts of other people, so that they can transcend the gap, no longer viewing others as mere strangers living in distant tribal or ethnic groups," she says.

Before travelling to Thailand, Rifaat had seen images of the country resplendent with elephants, beautiful colours and great beaches. When she arrived there, however, it seemed to her to be much more than a popular honeymoon destination.

"I learnt more about the culture and society, because I had the opportunity to observe the things casual visitors would miss. This is what I tried to capture with my camera."

On several visits to temples and mosques she was impressed by the religious and social harmony of the country. She also fell in love with the variety of dancing styles -- Khon, Wai Khru and other routines -- which are all thematic, part of a long-standing theatrical tradition.

"The dances embody the beauty and peace that are so deep-rooted in culture. They also reflect respect for the individual, which is the essence of Thai culture."

One thing that attracted her attention was the fact that the national anthem was played on loudspeakers twice a day. The Thai people would stop what they were doing and listen to the anthem. Other things reminded her of Egypt.

"There are things in common, such as the importance of the family and the difference in roles between men and women, even the sebai-sebai attitude, meaning that everything is just fine."

In Dance of Life Rifaat relates the story of her journey in Thailand, maintaining that everything she saw was a dance of sounds, colours and nature.

"I felt that with every step I took I was cutting small pieces of a mosaic which I would put together later to make a bigger picture of Thailand, a country like no other."

Thailand is not the only country Rifaat has documented in recent years. Previously she travelled to the magical island of Bali in Indonesia, where she photographed religious ceremonies and spiritual rituals.

In 2010, Rifaat climbed Mount Kilimanjaro as part of the Right to Climb Initiative, which publicised the needs of people with special needs in Egypt.

Rifaat's exhibition is one of few artistic endeavours that aim to rediscover human similarities everywhere. Let us hope there will be many more such documentary adventures.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

In Focus: Peace treaty must be revised

Galal NassarInsecurity in Sinai could engulf the whole country, already teetering following the revolution. Egypt must act, which means first untying its hands, writes Galal Nassar

Egypt is in a state of disarray. In spite of the great Egyptian grassroots revolution, anarchy remained the primary trait of the transitional period, regardless of the degree to which it was fed by political developments, constitutional and legal controversies, and major and minor events in the capital, up and down the Nile from Alexandria to Aswan, and along the fringes of the country, in Sinai, Al-Wadi Al-Gadid and Marsa Matrouh. The chaos, aggravated by mounting polarisations between the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), the Muslim Brotherhood, and other political forces, has persisted in spite of the election of a new president. But more than any other locus of tension in the country, the current conflict in Sinai epitomises the crisis of the erosion of central control, security breakdown, and their socio-political and strategic ramifications. The recent events in Sinai, which were triggered by the terrorist attack that killed 16 Egyptian soldiers, cast to the fore numerous crucial domestic and foreign policy questions not least of which are the security of Sinai and Egyptian-Israeli relations.

The situation in Sinai had already begun to deteriorate well before the January Revolution. This was largely due to two factors. The first was the security agencies' mismanagement of a series of difficulties and crises in that area, generating a growing gap between the people of Sinai and the central government. On one side, some entertained doubts as to the patriotism of the Sinai Bedouin in spite of the fact that they bore the burden of the resistance against the Israeli occupation of Sinai following the 1967 war. On the other was mounting resentment against a regime that ignored the developmental needs of Sinai, failed to open job opportunities to Sinai youth in tourist projects that proliferated after control over the area was restored to Egypt, and did not recruit them into military academies as a means to assimilate Sinai's society into national structures. The second factor was the spread of extremist thought in a religious guise during the Sadat and Mubarak eras. Almost intrinsically hostile to many domestic and foreign policy orientations, that type of thought inevitably spread to Sinai.

As the situation in Sinai deteriorated in the Mubarak era, Israel increasingly began to complain that this posed a threat to its own security. While a chief cause of that situation -- the malpractices of the security agencies -- may have been eliminated following the January Revolution, the grip of the central state had weakened at the same time. In Sinai, that grip became almost non-existent. The result was an unprecedented boost to terrorist groups operating in that area. They became increasingly active and more and more audacious until the latest tragic attack. The repercussions of their activities also became increasingly dangerous, especially after Israel was forced to respond to the latest attack when two of the terrorists stormed across the border into Israeli territory. Israel has since seized upon this incident as a pretext for levelling harsh criticisms against Egyptian policy in Sinai and calling into question Egypt's ability to control that peninsula. This, in turn, has stirred suspicions in Egypt that Israel may be planning to reoccupy part of Sinai or to grant itself licence to undertake military operations there or, at the very least, to call for an international force to be stationed on our side of the border.

Islamist political forces and the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) in particular were quick to accuse Israel of being behind the latest attack, though to be fair a number of non-Islamist forces shared the opinion. Nevertheless, I believe that part of the Islamists' motive for pointing fingers in that direction was to deflect blame from themselves. The terrorists espouse extremist ideas that they erroneously attribute to Islam, upon which Islamist forces presumably base their political legitimacy. Also, in the immediate aftermath of the Rafah attack, President Mohamed Mursi came under fire for his "ill-considered" decision to establish closer relations with Hamas. It was argued that steps taken in this context made it easier for terrorist groups in Gaza to coordinate with and join their counterparts in Sinai in order to carry out the attack. Mursi was simultaneously criticised for his decision to grant amnesties to prisoners who had been found guilty of involvement in terrorist attacks that had claimed the lives of many Egyptians and foreigners. The critics hold that the amnesties helped create a climate conducive to terrorism which encouraged those who carried out the Rafah attack and could inspire similar attacks in the future, and all the more so if the newly released persons turn around and issue supportive "fatwas" or even actively collude in plots.

Naturally, there is always some logical basis for suspecting Israel. It remains the foremost threat to Egypt's national security to which history offers ample testimony. However, if blame is to be cast, at the very least it should be founded upon concrete evidence and clearheaded reasoning so that we do not find ourselves chasing after groundless hypotheses that prevent us from properly attributing responsibility and, hence, from ending the vicious cycle of insecurity and instability in Sinai. Proceeding from this basis, three observations weaken the contention that Israel was behind the recent attack. First, it issued several warnings of an impending attack and sufficiently in advance to give Egyptian security agencies time to take precautions. Second, sources in SCAF mentioned that the terrorists had received support from inside Gaza while they were carrying out their operation. Apparently, mortar bombs were fired from the vicinity of Gaza airport with the purpose of distracting Israeli forces from what was happening in Sinai. Third, there is no denying the already dangerously deteriorating situation that existed in Sinai and the gross negligence on our part in handling that situation. That security breakdown, mismanagement, general anarchy and disintegration at the fringes helped clear the way for the operation, regardless of the ideological or national affiliation of the perpetrators.

So, what needs to be done? Egyptian military command has deployed land and air forces, destroyed tunnels that are often suspected of being used as a transit for terrorists, and laid siege to rugged mountainous areas used as terrorist hideouts. Often such measures produce immediate results. Unfortunately, however, the benefit is temporary because they fail to address the root causes. Recourse to the "iron fist" approach cannot, in and of itself, remedy the security breakdown, the root causes of which are to be found in economic, social and educational problems that lay the grounds for extremism. Simultaneously, the "iron fist" approach will remain a kind of mirage unless the protocols of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty are revised, especially with regards to the deployment of Egyptian forces in Area C in Sinai. The provisions of those protocols were originally devised on the basis of two fallacious assumptions: firstly, that Egypt poses a threat to Israeli security rather than the reverse; and secondly, that the only threat that Egypt faces comes from Israel. Theoretically, under a peace agreement, both assumptions are invalid. Be that as it may, the situation has changed radically since 1979, which should be reason enough for revising the treaty or even abolishing it. We cannot rule out, at this juncture, the possibility that some ultra-extremist forces assume power in Israel and execute a plan to reoccupy all or part of Sinai, or assume the right to send in forces in pursuit of targets or other "security" aims. More immediately, the provisions of the treaty do not reflect the reality that terrorism in Sinai is an immediate threat to Egypt before being a potential threat to Israel. While Israel has certainly given the Egyptian military command the green light to bring in forces that are not necessarily provided for under the arrangements of the peace agreement for the purpose of counterterrorist operations, there is no logical reason why Egypt should remain at the mercy of the whims of this or that Israeli government for permission to deploy our forces as needed on our own territory.

It follows that our primary concern, now, should be to push for a revision of the unfair conditions of the protocols of the peace treaty. Indeed, President Mursi should declare this as one of his foremost priorities. The treaty does provide for the possibility of amendment, but it requires the agreement of both sides in order to set the process into motion. Therefore, as a first step, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry should submit an official request to Israel for this purpose and the president should form a negotiating team, reminiscent of our "Taba team", consisting of our best legal, military and diplomatic experts. At the same time, we should pre-empt possible Israeli intransigence by bringing in reinforcements into Area C in sufficient force to confront the threat of terrorism in Sinai, for otherwise we will be laying ourselves open to the likelihood that intermittent terrorist attacks will escalate into a flood that could overflow the bounds of Sinai and threaten the entire country.

We cannot overstate the need to succeed in restoring security to Sinai. Success there will reverse the trend of deterioration and mounting anarchy and herald the restoration of stability throughout the country.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.