In a democratic country a minister reaches his position through fair elections, is indebted to the voters, and does his utmost to retain their trust and their votes. If a minister there disagrees with the president he submits his resignation immediately because he knows he will regain his position if he wins in the next elections. But in a despotic system the minister does not care at all what people think because he does not obtain his position through his competence or his work, but through his loyalty to the president, and so his whole political future depends on a single word from the president. In Egypt you will never find a minister who disputes anything the president says or disagrees with him or even expresses reservations about a single word he says. They all glorify the president and praise his genius and his great achievements, which we Egyptians cannot see or feel (simply because they don’t exist). Some years ago I saw a prominent state official and economist assert on television that although President Mubarak did not study economics he was gifted with an “economic inspiration,” which enabled him to have brilliant and powerful economic ideas that eluded academic economists themselves. The way officials are appointed in Egypt automatically rules out qualified people, natural leaders, those who have self-respect, and those who care about their dignity, while official positions are usually given to losers, partisans, sycophants, and those who cooperate with the security agencies. This has brought conditions in Egypt to rock bottom in most fields. The moment when Aisha Abdel Hady bent down to kiss the hand of Suzanne Mubarak symbolizes how Egyptians have lost their rights at home and abroad. When there is real democratic reform, elections will bring to power competent and respectable officials who do not kiss hands and do not flatter the president and his family. Only then will Egypt prosper.
Democracy is the solution.
December 2, 2009
The Chameleons Attack ElBaradei
The story began in an ordinary way. A dog in the street attacked a passerby and bit his finger. The man shouted out in pain and people gathered around him. A policeman happened to be passing, looked into the incident, and decided he should arrest the owner of the dog and charge him with leaving his dog loose without a muzzle and putting people’s lives at risk. The policeman asked whose dog it was and one of the bystanders said it belonged to the general, the governor of the city. The policeman looked embarrassed and quickly his attitude diametrically changed. Instead of talking about arresting the dog’s owner, the policeman turned to the injured victim and started to tell him off. “Listen,” he said. “It’s a gentle creature, very docile and well-behaved. It’s you who provoked it. It’s you who blew smoke in its friendly face, which forced the poor dog to bite your finger in self-defense. I’m going to arrest you on a charge of provoking the dog.” That’s the gist of a wonderful story called A Chameleon by the great Russian writer, Anton Chekhov (1860–1904), and the message of the story is that some people, for the sake of their narrow little interests, change their color like chameleons and without embarrassment switch their position from one extreme to the other. I remembered this story while following the savage campaign the regime’s scribes have been waging in recent days against Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei. For years this man has been the object of official honors, so much so that the Egyptian state awarded him the Nile Medal, the highest decoration in the country. At that time the regime’s scribes vied to recount his virtues and accomplishments (all of them real), but as soon as Egyptians spoke out and called on ElBaradei to stand for the presidency, the scribes, like the policeman in Chekhov’s story, switched to the opposite extreme. They heaped curses on ElBaradei’s head, and tried to minimize his importance and tarnish his reputation. Leaving aside their professional and moral degradation, there are several reasons why the regime’s scribes are so terrified of Mohamed ElBaradei.
First, it’s now hard for Egyptians to find a better presidential candidate than Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, who is highly educated (a doctorate in international law from New York University) and has more international and political experience than President Hosni Mubarak had when he became president. He has widespread international connections and enjoys respect throughout the world. He has won several major international prizes besides the Nobel Peace Prize. More important than all that is the fact that in his great success ElBaradei has not depended on connections or relatives. He has proved himself by his hard work, his talent, and his dedication. That makes him a real model for millions of young people in Egypt.
Second, in all situations ElBaradei has shown that he says what he believes and does what he says. He stood alone against tremendous pressure from the United States and in 2003 issued a report in which he told the United Nations Security Council that the International Atomic Energy Agency, which he headed, had found no trace of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, thereby removing the cover of legitimacy from the U.S. attack on Iraq. He exposed another outrage by the United States when he asked what had become of 377 tons of explosives that disappeared from Iraq after the U.S. occupation. After that he took the same honest and courageous position against war on Iran. All this made the United States strongly oppose renominating him for his post in 2005. As for Israel, it accuses him of loyalty to Arab and Islamic states.
Third, after ElBaradei reached the pinnacle of professional achievement, he could have gone into comfortable retirement and lived with honor and esteem in Egypt or abroad. He could have flattered President Mubarak with a few words, as many others do. The regime would then adore him, embrace him, and maybe give him a senior position in government. But ElBaradei showed that his love for his country and his commitment to his principles are greater than any personal considerations or interests. I have heard from witnesses how ElBaradei met senior officials of the Egyptian regime and did not hesitate to tell them what he thought of their wretched performance and how he resented the depths to which the country has sunk. Because of his attitude he was excluded after that from meeting senior officials. This moral integrity puts ElBaradei above many men in Egypt who would never dare to oppose President Mubarak or anyone from his family (even in matters of football). The fact that ElBaradei has not held any official position in Egypt for twenty years adds greatly to his credit, because he has not taken part in corruption, his hands are not soiled with dirty money, and he has not helped deceive Egyptians, rig elections, or oppress citizens. He has not been hypocritical or refrained from speaking the truth. Despite living outside Egypt he has never lost touch with the country. He follows what is happening to Egyptians and feels their suffering and problems. Suffice it to say that he donated his share of the Nobel Peace Prize, an amount of more than five million Egyptian pounds, toward the welfare of orphans in Egypt.
Fourth, something in the character of Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei makes him acceptable to Egyptians—a mixture of humility, composure, logical thinking, self-confidence, and dignity. In the minds of Egyptians ElBaradei makes a paternal impression of the kind that made them like their great leaders, men such as Saad Zaghloul, Mustafa al-Nahhas, and Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Fifth, the appearance of ElBaradei on the political scene drives the final nail into the coffin of the plan for President Mubarak to bequeath power to his son, Gamal. The ‘inheritance project’ depended on two ideas that have been promulgated incessantly for some years. The first is that there is no alternative to Gamal Mubarak as president of Egypt, and then suddenly ElBaradei proves that there are much better alternatives (in fact it is quite inconceivable to compare Gamal Mubarak with Mohamed ElBaradei with respect to experience and competence). The second idea, which the regime has habitually presented to western countries, is that there are only two choices in Egypt, the Mubarak regime or the Muslim Brotherhood. ElBaradei has also proved this idea to be fallacious, as a man who has won the affection and admiration of Egyptians while staying as distant as possible from both the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Sixth, Mohamed ElBaradei will not easily fall prey to the Egyptian regime’s usual conspiracies. The regime will not be able to frame him w
ith a fraud charge or a sex scandal, and will not be able to throw him in jail on a charge of damaging Egypt’s reputation or inciting chaos. The Egyptian regime has often used all these depraved methods to get rid of its opponents, but they will not work with ElBaradei, who already has a spotless reputation and is protected by the widespread international admiration he enjoys.
Last, just as a proficient doctor diagnoses the most serious diseases with few words, Dr. ElBaradei has managed to put his finger on the defects in the despotic regime that oppresses us. The conditions ElBaradei has set for fair presidential elections worthy of respect are exactly the steps our country has to take for the sake of a healthy democracy. ElBaradei has made it clear that he will not agree to play the role of an extra in a drama of rigged elections and has announced that he will join Egyptians in their struggle for justice and freedom. The appearance of ElBaradei is a major opportunity for all Egyptian nationalists and must not go to waste. We must join Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei in defending the usurped rights of Egyptians. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei is expected to arrive in Egypt on January 15 and we all have a duty to welcome this great man with all the honor and esteem he deserves. We want to show him that his inspiring message has reached us, that we love and respect him, and that with him we will do our utmost to bring about a renaissance in Egypt and give the country the status it deserves.
Democracy is the solution.
December 13, 2009
Should Gaza Pay the Price for Hereditary Succession in Egypt?
Since the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published the news and the United States administration confirmed it, the Egyptian government has finally admitted it is building a steel wall underground along the border with Gaza to close down the tunnels Palestinians use to smuggle in food and medicine. The smuggling is in response to the crippling blockade Israel has imposed on the Gaza Strip for more than two years, to which Egypt has contributed by closing the Rafah border crossing to Palestinians. We have several observations to make:
First, the aim of the blockade, as announced by Israel, is to wipe out the Palestinian resistance and starve the people of Gaza until they submit to Israel and accept Israel’s conditions for a final peace settlement in which the Palestinians would lose their rights forever. But the legendary resistance of the Palestinians drove Israel to commit a brutal massacre in which it used weapons prohibited internationally and in which more than 1,400 people lost their lives, at least half of them women and children. In spite of the massacre and the blockade the Palestinians have not capitulated but have continued to resist valiantly, driving Israel to think of a way to strangle them once and for all. It is certain that the underground steel wall is basically an Israeli idea that the Egyptian government was reluctant to implement. But Egypt then agreed and began to build the wall, which is being constructed with American financing and under American supervision. The purpose of the wall is to kill the Palestinians literally, because it will eliminate their last chance for obtaining food.
Second, by closing the Rafah border crossing, thereby preventing Arab and international relief convoys from reaching Gaza, and then by building the steel wall to starve the Palestinians, the Egyptian government is regrettably committing heinous crimes against our brothers as Arabs and as fellow humans. Arab solidarity and Egypt’s duty toward the Muslims and Christians in Palestine are no longer considerations that count for anything for Egyptian officials, who openly ridicule them. But the Egyptian regime, in its enthusiasm to please Israel, has not taken into account that it is tarnishing its own reputation throughout the world. The Gaza massacre a year ago has already destroyed what remains of Israel’s international reputation and the voices of condemnation have grown louder in western countries to an unprecedented extent. In October, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went to make a speech at the University of Chicago and found himself surrounded by students shouting in his face, “Butcher of Gaza … child-killer.” Several western judges have issued warrants against Israeli leaders to answer charges of committing war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon. This has happened in Belgium, Norway, Spain, and recently Britain, where the British police were about to arrest former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who escaped at the last minute. It is true that most of these warrants were withdrawn because of massive Zionist pressure on western governments, but they clearly demonstrate an international mood of condemnation toward Israel that never existed in the past. The Egyptian regime, by building the wall, is not only risking its popularity in Egypt and the Arab world, which is already at rock bottom, but also staining its reputation worldwide.
Third, all the excuses the regime presents to justify building the wall would not convince a small child. It says that Egypt is free to build the wall as long as it is inside Egyptian territory, overlooking the fact that the freedom of any state, by custom, logic, and international law, is not absolute but restricted by the rights of others, and that Egypt cannot be instrumental in starving one and a half million human beings who live next door and then claim it is free to do as it likes. The regime says the tunnels are used for smuggling weapons to terrorists in Egypt. We say that weapons have been smuggled in from Libya and Sudan, so does the Egyptian government intend to build steel walls along its borders with all neighboring countries? If the Ministry of Interior, with its massive security apparatus, is unable to protect the borders, then what is it doing with the eight billion Egyptian pounds a year in budget money it receives from the Egyptian people?
The regime is now using the slogan, “Egyptian national security is a red line.” We believe in this slogan and do not contest it, but national security in our opinion starts by defining who is Egypt’s enemy. Is it Israel or the people of Gaza? If Israel is our enemy—and that is the truth—would it not be in Egypt’s national interest to support the Palestinian resistance? Didn’t anyone wonder why the Palestinians are compelled to dig tunnels underground? It has been the only way for them to survive. Would the Palestinians be digging tunnels if Egypt opened the Rafah crossing and allowed food and medicine to reach them? When Egypt builds this wall to starve Palestinians to death, should we blame Palestinians if they use force to stop its construction or try to destroy it? Or isn’t that legitimate self-defense? The officials speak much about the Egyptian officer who was shot and killed with a bullet fired from Gaza, and we, too, greatly regret the death of that martyr, but we also remember that there is not one piece of evidence that the bullet came from the Hamas movement and we remember that Israel by its own admission has killed several Egyptian officers and troops on the border. Why wasn’t our government angry for the sake of national security then? And where was this national security when the Israelis admitted to killing hundreds of Egyptians and burying them in mass graves during war, and officials in Egypt did not take a single measure against the Israeli war criminals? Officials in Egypt say they have closed the Rafah border crossing for fear of a mass influx of Palestinians into Egypt, but this is a foolish argument because what drove the Palestinians to break through the crossing was their pressing need for food. They bought with their own money what they needed from Egyptian traders and then went back where they came from. So what do we expect from the Palestinians after we shut off, with the steel wall, their last chance to live? Would anyone blame them if they poured across by the thousands, breaking through the Rafah crossing by force to escape death by starvation? This wall, besides being a heinous act and an indelible mark of shame on the brow of the Egyptian government, constitutes a real threat to Egyptian national security.
Fourth, what is driving the Egyptian regime to all this submission to Israeli policy? One factor is that the regime believes any victory for Hamas would help the Muslim Brotherhood and that this would threaten the Egyptian government. This is a big mistake, because victory for the resistance would greatly help Egypt and would not at all pose a threat to it. Besides, the Muslim Brotherhood, with its size and influence, is not a real threat to the Egyptian regime, which always promulgates that theory in order to justify
despotism. The second factor is that the Egyptian regime knows that fulfilling Israel’s desires is the sure path to American approval. In the last few years Israel has obtained from Egypt more than it obtained after the Camp David agreements were signed: the release of the spy Azam Azam, agreements to sell gas and cement, the blockade of the Palestinians, and finally this disgraceful wall. That explains America’s satisfaction with the Mubarak regime. A few days ago the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Margaret Scobey, said she thought that democracy in Egypt was going well. This bizarre statement shows us the extent to which the Zionist lobby controls U.S. policy. The United States will remain satisfied with the despotic regime in Egypt as long as Israel is satisfied with it. After that, can Ms. Scobey wonder why Egyptians hate U.S. policy and accuse the United States of hypocrisy and double standards?
Finally, the crime of building the wall to starve the Palestinians is not unconnected with the question of democratic reform in Egypt, since the regime agreed to build the wall because it needs U.S. support for its plan to have President Mubarak pass on the presidency to his son, Gamal. Here we see a dangerous example of the consequences of despotic rule. The interests of the regime in Egypt have truly become contrary to the interests of the Egyptian people. If the Mubarak regime were democratic it would never dare to take part in the blockade and starvation of the Palestinians. Democratic systems alone are the ones whose interests are at one with those of the people and the nation.