B.RAMAN
Some have termed the departure of President Hosni Mubarak from office on February 11,2011, as a resignation. Some others have called it waiving the office or powers of the President. The Egyptian Constitution provides for both contingencies. When a President resigns, the Constitution requires that he should address his letter of resignation to the President (Speaker) of the Parliament. When he stops exercising the powers of the President, he addresses his letter to the Vice-President. Article 82 provides for this interesting contingency of the President leaving office without formally resigning. It says: “If on account of any temporary obstacle the President of the Republic is unable to carry out his functions, he shall delegate his powers to a vice-president.”
2.Mubarak, while leaving office much to the jubilation of the protesters, did not inform the President of the Parliament and submit a formal letter of resignation as required under the Constitution. Nor did he ask the Vice-President Omar Suleiman to take over. Instead, he asked the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to take over. It is a coup without seeming to be a coup.
3. One can go on analyzing the circumstances of Mubarak’s departure. Whatever be the circumstances, Mubarak is gone from office for ever. It is time to discuss what next. Egypt is now in a state of transition under the leadership of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which consists of the following:
* Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, who has been the Minister of Defense and commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces since 1991. He has been a Field Marshal since 1989. After the protests broke out on January 25, Mubarak promoted him as Deputy Prime Minister and asked him to continue to hold the defence portfolio. He visited the Tahrir Square on February 4 and met the troops deployed there as well as the protesters. He is the Chairman of the Supreme Council.
* Air Marshal Reda Mahmoud Hafez Mohamed, the chief of the Air Force since March 20,2008.
* Lieutenant General Sami Hafez Anan, Chief of Staff of the Army.
* Lt. Gen. Abd El Aziz Seif-Eldeen, Commander of Air Defense.
* Vice Admiral Mohab Mamish, chief of navy.
4. Is Lt.Gen. Omar Suleiman, the Vice-President, who made the televised announcement regarding Mubarak leaving office after handing over his powers, a member of the Supreme Council? The position is not clear. Al Jazeera says he is. Others do not say so. However, since he is only a Lt-Gen and since the Supreme Council is headed by a Field Marshal, it stands to reason that Suleiman may have to work under the orders of the Supreme Council and not vice versa.
5. What next? The present Constitution has become untenable since the post-Mubarak transitional arrangements are not in accordance with the Constitution. This gives rise to the possibility that the Supreme Council may suspend the Constitution and dissolve the Parliament. Mohamed El Baradei has said that Egypt will now have a provisional Constitution.
6. What will be the duration of the transitional arrangements? Till September when the election of a new President is due or for a longer period? The political elements, who participated in the protest movement, are already saying that it may not be possible for the Supreme Council to restore political and economic normalcy before September and, hence, according to them, it should be for a longer period. El Baradei has been quoted by the BBC as stating as follows: “ "What I have been proposing is a transitional period of one year. We will have a provisional constitution. We'll have a transitional government, hopefully a presidential council, including a person from the army and a couple of civilians. The main idea is that the army and the Egyptian people will work together in a systematic way for a year to reach the point where we can hold a genuine free and fair election, a parliamentary election and a presidential election. I think the people of Egypt, who have been suppressed for at least 30 years, are ready to wait for a year as they see things are going in the right direction."
7. The younger non-political elements, who played a leading role in the revolution, have not clearly indicated their view on this subject apart from expressing their trust in the Army. Wael Ghonim, the Egyptian Google executive, who is credited with rallying many young people behind El Baradei, has tweeted to his followers as follows: “The military statement is great. I trust our Egyptian Army”.
8. The Armed Forces’ statement to which he had referred said the Supreme Council would lift the country's emergency law but only "as soon as current circumstances end". It also said that the "Armed Forces make a commitment to caring for the people's legitimate demands, and to seeking to follow their implementation within the time frames with full precision and resolution, until the complete transfer of power, and the achievement of the democratic free society which the people aspire to". It pledged not to prosecute "the honest men who called for an end to corruption and for reform". While it spoke of time-frames for the transition, it refrained from specifying those time-frames. If Ghonim comes out ultimately in support of El Baradei’s call for a longer transition, will other youth leaders support him?
9. Who will be in any transitional Government or council that may be constituted? Everybody wants that it should be a civilian council possibly headed by El Baradei and including a representative of the Armed Forces. It is not yet clear whether the Supreme Council would accept a transitional council of which the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a member. The MB has been supportive of El Baradei till now. He has been advocating a role for the MB in the transitional set-up, but the MB has said it does not want any role. The youth leaders are not opposed to it. The Supreme Council has not yet spelt out its views.
10. What now of Mubarak? Will he be allowed to lead a quiet life in Sharam-el- Sheikh, where he has reportedly taken up residence or will he face further humilitation. The youth elements want him to be held accountable for his alleged misdeeds and enquiries ordered against him. This is clear from the following Tweets of Ghonim to his followers: “Soon the ugly face of the regime will be supported by documents and evidence “ and “the money Mubarak and his family stole out of the Egyptian people should go to families of martyrs and to reconstruct Egypt.” The Supreme Council and El Baradei have kept quiet on any further action against Mubarak,but the youth leaders are now saying that now that Mubarak is gone, they should focus on action against his dictatorship. It is evident they want action against all those closely identified with Mubarak. Omar Suleiman was very close to Mubarak for 20 years. He was part of the Mubarak dictatorship. Will they demand action against him?
11. Ghonim emerged as a legendary leader of the youth component of the revolution. But he was also a senior executive of a US multinational (Google). Some of his statements could now be interpreted as business and corporate houses friendly. One of his Tweets says: “ Lets work on raising 100 Billion EGP from Egyptians to rebuild Egypt. Talked to one business man and he is ready to put the first 1 B”. Will other young leaders, who come from middle and lower middle class families, feel comfortable with his policies towards the business world? All the business families, which minted billions, were with Mubarak.
12. What are the chances of the prairie fire of revolution spreading to other Arab countries? The immediate danger is to Yemen, Algeria and Libya. Ghonim has already tweeted as follows to anti-Govt protesters in Algeria: “My heart and prayers to the Algerian brothers and sisters. “ Yemen has been in turmoil for nearly three weeks now. There have been sporadic protests in Algeria and Libya. Developments in these countries can move fast now. ( 12-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Friday, February 11, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
WRITING A NEW PAGE IN EGYPT'S HISTORY
B.RAMAN
My heart bled last night as I watched with millions of Indians the disappointment and anger on the face of the Egyptian people, particularly the youth, as they heard with disbelief the defiant broadcast of discredited President Hosni Mubarak in which he dashed their expectation that he was about to quit in the face of the revolution inspired and led by young people, which has gathered momentum beyond expectation.
2. All sorts of speculative stories were flying across the electronic world. "Mubarak has resigned", "Mubarak has fled the country with US $ 2 billion", "he had pre-recorded his speech before he fled the country"etc. I was reminded of what Indian Air Force (IAF) officers of my vintage, who had served in Egypt and had known Mubarak as an instructor in the Egyptian Air Force Academy, had told me: "Mubarak is a man of great pride. He will die in the country and never flee from it."
3.Mubarak is not the discredited Tunisian President Ben Ali who fled to Saudi Arabia at the height of the recent protest movement against him. He sincerely believes that he played a role in giving pride back to the country after its humiliating defeat by Israel in 1967 and that the Egyptian nation owes him a debt of gratitude for that. Mubarak is a hated despot. He is alleged to be corrupt. He suppressed the will of the people without remorse. But he is not a coward. He will not flee the country and die in foreign soil. That is the impression I had of him.
4. This impression was strengthened by the following Tweet from an unknown Egyptian disseminated by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the moments before Mubarak's televised speech: "Mubarak is too proud to step down.. to say it himself.. NO WAY.. honestly I would be surprised if…"
5. As I was awaiting his telecast, I was frequently visiting the Twitter site of Wael Ghonim, the young Egyptian Google executive, who has become a hero of the Egyptian people for leading the uprising with other young Egyptians, to see what were his feelings in those electrifying moments when the Egyptian people and the world with them had convinced themselves that Mubarak is gone or about to go. The following Tweets from Ghonim to his followers caught my attention:
* "Failure is not an option."
* "Guys, don't do much speculation for now, just wait and see. Long live Egypt!"
* "We are hoping that the "Friday of Martyrs" will be the world's largest funeral to bid farewell to 300 Egyptians"
* "Friday of martyrs is still on whatever happens today."
* "Started to rain in Cairo, and I am optimistic. Hoping that sky is crying from happiness"
6. Somehow, I had a gnawing feeling that he was not yet convinced that the exit of Mubarak was in sight. As I kept awake watching the glorious moments in Egypt on the TV and exchanging Tweets with my friends on the evolving situation in Egypt, I sent the following Tweet to my friends in my Twitter group (Ramanthink) : "Under Constitution, if Mub quits Speaker takes over. If he reports sick, Suleiman takes over.If he runs away, it is constitutional crisis."
7. I spent hours last week studying the Egyptian Constitution to see whether there is a constitutional way of bringing about the end of the Mubarak regime. I wrote as follows in my article of February 6 titled "The Egyptian Stand-off" available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers44%5Cpaper4318.html : "The problem is while the status quo can be easily changed in the ruling party and the unpopular leaders removed from positions of influence, it is difficult to change it in the Governmental set-up under the present Constitution, which clearly provides that if the President quits, the Speaker of the Parliament would be sworn in as the officiating President till fresh elections are held. Neither Lt.Gen.Omar Suleiman, the former intelligence chief who was recently nominated as the Vice-President by Mubarak, nor El Baradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, whom the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the secular opposition parties are prepared to support as the interim head till the elections are held, can officiate as the President because neither of them is an elected member of the Parliament and because of the specific provision in the Constitution that the Speaker would officiate. However, there is a provision in the Constitution under which Mubarak, while continuing to be the de jure President, can delegate the powers of the President to his Vice-President who will thus become the de facto President and could co-ordinate the arrangements for the elections without Mubarak playing any role in it. It is doubtful whether the protesters would agree to such an arrangement because of the close association of Suleiman with Mubarak for nearly two decades and his equally close association with the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).....Thus, the position is: Suleiman is acceptable to Mubarak and his followers and the US as interim head of a transitional Government, but he may not be acceptable to the protesters. El Baradei may be acceptable to the protesters, but he cannot head the tranitional set-up under the present Constitution."
8. In his televised speech, Mubarak has chosen the constitutional way of easing himself out of the controversy, which has pitted him against his people. While expressing his determination to continue as the President till his term ends in September, he has said that he is transfering some of his powers as the President to the Vice-President without specifying which powers. He said: "I saw fit to delegate presidential jurisdictions to the Vice-President as defined by the constitution. I am certain that Egypt will overcome its crisis." The Egyptian Ambassador to the US, Sameh Shoukry, has been quoted by the BBC as saying Vice President Suleiman is now the "de facto head of state" following Mubarak's speech, but this has not been confirmed.
9. It is doubtful whether there can be a constitutional end to the present crisis. The only way of ending the crisis is for the Army to take over power, suspend the constitution and appoint a transitional Government headed by someone enjoying the confidence of the protesters to pave the way for the election of a new President. From the comments of the protesters and their leaders, it appears they may not be averse to the Army playing a role to bring about the end of Mubarak's regime here and now. But will the Army play the game fairly after the protesters go back to their studies or work and return to the barracks and co-operate with the transitional Govt? That is a question to which it will be difficult to give an answer.
10. Today, there are going to be millions and millions of angry and disappointed Egyptians out in the streets to observe the "Martyrs Day". Will they try to force the exit of Mubarak by marching to his palace? If they try to do so, can there be bloodshed?
11. Egyptians are living through glorious moments. They are living through ennobling moments. They are also living through unchartered moments----moments the like of which their country had not seen before. As Ghonim remarked in one of his Tweets : "I feel that their last line is being written, and soon we're taking the pen to start drawing our own future"
12. Let us wish the Egyptian people all the luck in the world as they try to write a new page in their history. They deserve to prevail. (11-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
My heart bled last night as I watched with millions of Indians the disappointment and anger on the face of the Egyptian people, particularly the youth, as they heard with disbelief the defiant broadcast of discredited President Hosni Mubarak in which he dashed their expectation that he was about to quit in the face of the revolution inspired and led by young people, which has gathered momentum beyond expectation.
2. All sorts of speculative stories were flying across the electronic world. "Mubarak has resigned", "Mubarak has fled the country with US $ 2 billion", "he had pre-recorded his speech before he fled the country"etc. I was reminded of what Indian Air Force (IAF) officers of my vintage, who had served in Egypt and had known Mubarak as an instructor in the Egyptian Air Force Academy, had told me: "Mubarak is a man of great pride. He will die in the country and never flee from it."
3.Mubarak is not the discredited Tunisian President Ben Ali who fled to Saudi Arabia at the height of the recent protest movement against him. He sincerely believes that he played a role in giving pride back to the country after its humiliating defeat by Israel in 1967 and that the Egyptian nation owes him a debt of gratitude for that. Mubarak is a hated despot. He is alleged to be corrupt. He suppressed the will of the people without remorse. But he is not a coward. He will not flee the country and die in foreign soil. That is the impression I had of him.
4. This impression was strengthened by the following Tweet from an unknown Egyptian disseminated by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the moments before Mubarak's televised speech: "Mubarak is too proud to step down.. to say it himself.. NO WAY.. honestly I would be surprised if…"
5. As I was awaiting his telecast, I was frequently visiting the Twitter site of Wael Ghonim, the young Egyptian Google executive, who has become a hero of the Egyptian people for leading the uprising with other young Egyptians, to see what were his feelings in those electrifying moments when the Egyptian people and the world with them had convinced themselves that Mubarak is gone or about to go. The following Tweets from Ghonim to his followers caught my attention:
* "Failure is not an option."
* "Guys, don't do much speculation for now, just wait and see. Long live Egypt!"
* "We are hoping that the "Friday of Martyrs" will be the world's largest funeral to bid farewell to 300 Egyptians"
* "Friday of martyrs is still on whatever happens today."
* "Started to rain in Cairo, and I am optimistic. Hoping that sky is crying from happiness"
6. Somehow, I had a gnawing feeling that he was not yet convinced that the exit of Mubarak was in sight. As I kept awake watching the glorious moments in Egypt on the TV and exchanging Tweets with my friends on the evolving situation in Egypt, I sent the following Tweet to my friends in my Twitter group (Ramanthink) : "Under Constitution, if Mub quits Speaker takes over. If he reports sick, Suleiman takes over.If he runs away, it is constitutional crisis."
7. I spent hours last week studying the Egyptian Constitution to see whether there is a constitutional way of bringing about the end of the Mubarak regime. I wrote as follows in my article of February 6 titled "The Egyptian Stand-off" available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers44%5Cpaper4318.html : "The problem is while the status quo can be easily changed in the ruling party and the unpopular leaders removed from positions of influence, it is difficult to change it in the Governmental set-up under the present Constitution, which clearly provides that if the President quits, the Speaker of the Parliament would be sworn in as the officiating President till fresh elections are held. Neither Lt.Gen.Omar Suleiman, the former intelligence chief who was recently nominated as the Vice-President by Mubarak, nor El Baradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, whom the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the secular opposition parties are prepared to support as the interim head till the elections are held, can officiate as the President because neither of them is an elected member of the Parliament and because of the specific provision in the Constitution that the Speaker would officiate. However, there is a provision in the Constitution under which Mubarak, while continuing to be the de jure President, can delegate the powers of the President to his Vice-President who will thus become the de facto President and could co-ordinate the arrangements for the elections without Mubarak playing any role in it. It is doubtful whether the protesters would agree to such an arrangement because of the close association of Suleiman with Mubarak for nearly two decades and his equally close association with the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).....Thus, the position is: Suleiman is acceptable to Mubarak and his followers and the US as interim head of a transitional Government, but he may not be acceptable to the protesters. El Baradei may be acceptable to the protesters, but he cannot head the tranitional set-up under the present Constitution."
8. In his televised speech, Mubarak has chosen the constitutional way of easing himself out of the controversy, which has pitted him against his people. While expressing his determination to continue as the President till his term ends in September, he has said that he is transfering some of his powers as the President to the Vice-President without specifying which powers. He said: "I saw fit to delegate presidential jurisdictions to the Vice-President as defined by the constitution. I am certain that Egypt will overcome its crisis." The Egyptian Ambassador to the US, Sameh Shoukry, has been quoted by the BBC as saying Vice President Suleiman is now the "de facto head of state" following Mubarak's speech, but this has not been confirmed.
9. It is doubtful whether there can be a constitutional end to the present crisis. The only way of ending the crisis is for the Army to take over power, suspend the constitution and appoint a transitional Government headed by someone enjoying the confidence of the protesters to pave the way for the election of a new President. From the comments of the protesters and their leaders, it appears they may not be averse to the Army playing a role to bring about the end of Mubarak's regime here and now. But will the Army play the game fairly after the protesters go back to their studies or work and return to the barracks and co-operate with the transitional Govt? That is a question to which it will be difficult to give an answer.
10. Today, there are going to be millions and millions of angry and disappointed Egyptians out in the streets to observe the "Martyrs Day". Will they try to force the exit of Mubarak by marching to his palace? If they try to do so, can there be bloodshed?
11. Egyptians are living through glorious moments. They are living through ennobling moments. They are also living through unchartered moments----moments the like of which their country had not seen before. As Ghonim remarked in one of his Tweets : "I feel that their last line is being written, and soon we're taking the pen to start drawing our own future"
12. Let us wish the Egyptian people all the luck in the world as they try to write a new page in their history. They deserve to prevail. (11-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
EGYPT: A PRAYER
Mind Without Fear
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up
into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason
has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action---
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let Egypt awake.
( Adapted From Rabindranath Tagore's poem )
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up
into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason
has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action---
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let Egypt awake.
( Adapted From Rabindranath Tagore's poem )
US NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY--2011 :CONTINUED FOCUS ON TERRORISM & ENHANCED FOCUS ON CHINA
B.RAMAN
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, released on February 8,2011, the USA's new National Military Strategy in replacement of the earlier strategy released in 2004 when Mr.George Bush was the President. The text of the new strategy is available at
http://www.jcs.mil//content/files/2011-02/020811084800_2011_NMS_-_08_FEB_2011.pdf
2. The fight against terrorism and extremism emanating from the Af-Pak and other regions contInues to receive priority in the new strategy too, but the new strategy envisages an enhanced focus on China. It says "The Nation’s strategic priorities and interests will increasingly emanate from the Asia-Pacific region. The region's share of global wealth is growing, enabling increased military capabilities. This is causing the region’s security architecture to change rapidly, creating new challenges and opportunities for our national security and leadership. Though still underpinned by the U.S. bilateral alliance system, Asia's security architecture is becoming a more complex mix of formal and informal multilateral relationships and expanded bilateral security ties among states."
3. It also says: "The United States will remain the foremost economic and military power for the foreseeable future, though national debt poses a significant national security risk. Asia will increase its regional share of global wealth. Though it faces a number of domestic challenges, continuation of China’s decades-long economic growth is expected to facilitate its continued military modernization and expansion of its interests within and beyond the region. Other states in Asia, too, are becoming more militarily capable as they grow more prosperous. "
4. It further says of China as follows: "Our Nation seeks a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China that welcomes it to take on a responsible leadership role. To support this, the Joint Force seeks a deeper military-to-military relationship with China to expand areas of mutual interest and benefit, improve understanding, reduce misperception, and prevent miscalculation. We will promote common interests through China’s cooperation in countering piracy and proliferation of WMD, and using its influence with North Korea to preserve stability on the Korean peninsula. We will continue to monitor carefully China’s military developments and the implications those developments have on the military balance in the Taiwan Strait. "
5. In a veiled caution to China, the 2011 Strategy says: "We remain concerned about the extent and strategic intent of China’s military modernization, and its assertiveness in space, cyberspace, in the Yellow Sea, East China Sea, and South China Sea. To safeguard U.S. and
partner nation interests, we will be prepared to demonstrate the will and commit the resources needed to oppose any nation’s actions that jeopardize access to and use of the global commons and cyberspace, or that threaten the security of our allies. "
6. The Strategy has a single sentence reference to India. It says: " We seek expanded military cooperation with India on nonproliferation, safeguarding the global commons, countering terrorism, and elsewhere."
7. It stresses the continued importance of the USA's relations with Japan and South Korea for its Asia-Pacific strategy. It says: "We expect to maintain a strong military presence in Northeast Asia for decades. We will work with the Japan Self-Defense Forces to improve their out-of-area operational capabilities as the nation adjusts its defense posture. The Republic of Korea has proven a steadfast ally supporting U.S. security efforts around the world; our commitment to the Republic of Korea is unwavering as North Korea remains a provocative threat to regional stability. We will retain operational control over combined forces on the Korean peninsula through 2015 and provide assistance to South Korea as it expands its security responsibilities. We will continue to work with Japan and South Korea to help improve security
ties between them, enhance military cooperation, and preserve regional stability. "
8.It explains the continued importance of the fight against terrorism as follows: "There are no more vital interests than the security of the American people, our territory, and our way of life. This is why we are at war in South Central Asia, the epicenter of violent extremism. Afghanistan is where al Qaida, given sanctuary by the Taliban, planned the attacks that murdered more than 3,000 innocent people on 11 September 2001. Al Qaida senior leadership remains in Pakistan and intends to continue to attack the United States, allies, and our
partners. The Nation’s strategic objective in this campaign is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaida and its affiliates in Afghanistan and Pakistan and prevent their return to either country. Success requires the Joint Force to closely work with NATO, our coalition partners, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We will continue to erode Taliban influence, work with the Afghan government to facilitate reintegration and reconciliation of former insurgents, continue to strengthen the capacity of Afghan security forces, and enable Pakistan to ultimately defeat al Qaida and its extremist allies. "
9. It says further: "The threat of violent extremism is not limited to South Central Asia. Groups such as Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, al-Shabaab, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and others emanate from Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere around the globe. Terrorists’ abilities to remotely plan and coordinate attacks is growing, sometimes facilitated by global illicit trafficking routes, extending their operational reach while rendering targeting of their sanctuaries more difficult. Undeterred by the complexity of terrorist networks
and in concert with our Allies and partners, we will be prepared to find, capture, or kill violent extremists wherever they reside when they threaten interests and citizens of America and our allies. " (10-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, released on February 8,2011, the USA's new National Military Strategy in replacement of the earlier strategy released in 2004 when Mr.George Bush was the President. The text of the new strategy is available at
http://www.jcs.mil//content/files/2011-02/020811084800_2011_NMS_-_08_FEB_2011.pdf
2. The fight against terrorism and extremism emanating from the Af-Pak and other regions contInues to receive priority in the new strategy too, but the new strategy envisages an enhanced focus on China. It says "The Nation’s strategic priorities and interests will increasingly emanate from the Asia-Pacific region. The region's share of global wealth is growing, enabling increased military capabilities. This is causing the region’s security architecture to change rapidly, creating new challenges and opportunities for our national security and leadership. Though still underpinned by the U.S. bilateral alliance system, Asia's security architecture is becoming a more complex mix of formal and informal multilateral relationships and expanded bilateral security ties among states."
3. It also says: "The United States will remain the foremost economic and military power for the foreseeable future, though national debt poses a significant national security risk. Asia will increase its regional share of global wealth. Though it faces a number of domestic challenges, continuation of China’s decades-long economic growth is expected to facilitate its continued military modernization and expansion of its interests within and beyond the region. Other states in Asia, too, are becoming more militarily capable as they grow more prosperous. "
4. It further says of China as follows: "Our Nation seeks a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China that welcomes it to take on a responsible leadership role. To support this, the Joint Force seeks a deeper military-to-military relationship with China to expand areas of mutual interest and benefit, improve understanding, reduce misperception, and prevent miscalculation. We will promote common interests through China’s cooperation in countering piracy and proliferation of WMD, and using its influence with North Korea to preserve stability on the Korean peninsula. We will continue to monitor carefully China’s military developments and the implications those developments have on the military balance in the Taiwan Strait. "
5. In a veiled caution to China, the 2011 Strategy says: "We remain concerned about the extent and strategic intent of China’s military modernization, and its assertiveness in space, cyberspace, in the Yellow Sea, East China Sea, and South China Sea. To safeguard U.S. and
partner nation interests, we will be prepared to demonstrate the will and commit the resources needed to oppose any nation’s actions that jeopardize access to and use of the global commons and cyberspace, or that threaten the security of our allies. "
6. The Strategy has a single sentence reference to India. It says: " We seek expanded military cooperation with India on nonproliferation, safeguarding the global commons, countering terrorism, and elsewhere."
7. It stresses the continued importance of the USA's relations with Japan and South Korea for its Asia-Pacific strategy. It says: "We expect to maintain a strong military presence in Northeast Asia for decades. We will work with the Japan Self-Defense Forces to improve their out-of-area operational capabilities as the nation adjusts its defense posture. The Republic of Korea has proven a steadfast ally supporting U.S. security efforts around the world; our commitment to the Republic of Korea is unwavering as North Korea remains a provocative threat to regional stability. We will retain operational control over combined forces on the Korean peninsula through 2015 and provide assistance to South Korea as it expands its security responsibilities. We will continue to work with Japan and South Korea to help improve security
ties between them, enhance military cooperation, and preserve regional stability. "
8.It explains the continued importance of the fight against terrorism as follows: "There are no more vital interests than the security of the American people, our territory, and our way of life. This is why we are at war in South Central Asia, the epicenter of violent extremism. Afghanistan is where al Qaida, given sanctuary by the Taliban, planned the attacks that murdered more than 3,000 innocent people on 11 September 2001. Al Qaida senior leadership remains in Pakistan and intends to continue to attack the United States, allies, and our
partners. The Nation’s strategic objective in this campaign is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaida and its affiliates in Afghanistan and Pakistan and prevent their return to either country. Success requires the Joint Force to closely work with NATO, our coalition partners, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We will continue to erode Taliban influence, work with the Afghan government to facilitate reintegration and reconciliation of former insurgents, continue to strengthen the capacity of Afghan security forces, and enable Pakistan to ultimately defeat al Qaida and its extremist allies. "
9. It says further: "The threat of violent extremism is not limited to South Central Asia. Groups such as Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, al-Shabaab, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and others emanate from Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere around the globe. Terrorists’ abilities to remotely plan and coordinate attacks is growing, sometimes facilitated by global illicit trafficking routes, extending their operational reach while rendering targeting of their sanctuaries more difficult. Undeterred by the complexity of terrorist networks
and in concert with our Allies and partners, we will be prepared to find, capture, or kill violent extremists wherever they reside when they threaten interests and citizens of America and our allies. " (10-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
THE RAYMOND DAVIS CASE: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
B.RAMAN
On January 27, 2011, Raymond Davis, a member of the staff of the US Consulate-General in Lahore, allegedly shot and killed two Pakistani motorcyclists at a traffic stop in Lahore. He claimed they were armed and about to rob him. A third Pakistani was killed when a U.S. consular car dispatched to help Davis allegedly crushed to death another motorcyclist while speeding along the wrong side of the road. Davis has been detained by the Lahore Police despite his diplomatic immunity and there has been growing public demand in Pakistan---partly spontaneous and partly instigated by anti-US religious elements--- that he should be prosecuted in a Pakistani court and not handed over for trial in the US as would be normally done in such cases. The public anger has been aggravated by the alleged suicide of the wife of one of the Pakistanis killed and by the over-focus of the US State Department on the diplomatic immunity aspect of the case overlooking the human aspect of the case arising from the deaths of three Pakistanis due to the rash and negligent actions of two members of the Consular staff. I have been in receipt of some questions from readers on this subject. I answer them below:
Q. Was Raymond Davis an officer of the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)?
A. It is difficult to say, but my own assessment repeat assessment is that he is probably from the section of the US State Department, which is responsible for the physical security of US diplomatic and consular missions abroad and their personnel. This section does take serving and retired officers on deputation from the CIA and other security agencies. It has often been alleged that it also outsources some of its tasks to private security agencies and gives their staff diplomatic cover (protection ). I tend to believe that the reflexes of Davis and the other officer who rushed to his help were not those of a professional CIA officer. Professional CIA officers are well-trained to maintain their cool under critical circumstances and avoid over-reaction.
Q. Was the US correct in giving diplomatic status to someone who is not performing well-recognised diplomatic functions?
A. Over the years, there have been complaints from many countries that some Governments are in the habit of indiscriminately giving diplomatic status to their officers posted in their foreign missions irrespective of whether they perform well-recognised diplomatic functions or not. Despite this, this practice continues. In the ultimate analysis, it is up to the State Department to decide who among its officers posted in Pakistan will have diplomatic status. In the intitial stages, before the officer leaves for Pakistan, the Government of Pakistan has the right to disagree with the decision of the State Department and refuse to give him a visa on his diplomatic passport to enable him to take up the job. But once the Pakistani Foreign Office gave a diplomatic visa to Raymond Davis and allowed him to join his post in Pakistan, it is bound to respect his diplomatic immunity and cannot wriggle out of this .
Q. It has been alleged that the two Pakistanis killed by Davis belonged to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Can it be correct?
A. It is difficult to say. From the way they were following Davis, I tend to assess that they were police officers of Pakistan’s Intelligence Bureau (IB), which comes under the Ministry of the Interior, trained in surveillance duties who were probably keeping a mobile surveillance on Davis. They could also be police officers on deputation with the ISI for performing surveillance duties.
Q.What offences has Davis committed under Pakistani laws?
A.He has committed two offences. The first offence is carrying a weapon outside the Consulate premises. It has been reported by the “Express Tribune” of Pakistan that some months ago Rehman Mallik, the Interior Minister, had withdrawn the provision under which foreign diplomats posted in Pakistan were allowed to carry weapons outside their places of work for their personal protection after obtaining a licence from an authorized magistrate. Now, while foreign missions are allowed to keep weapons inside their premises for the protection of the premises, their staff are not allowed to carry weapons outside the premises for their personal protection. They have to seek police assistance if they apprehend any threat to their personal security while moving about outside their places of work. By carrying a weapon even after the withdrawal of the provision, Davis violated Pakistani laws. In my view, a professional CIA officer might not have done this. The second offence committed by Davis was to open fire on the persons following him thereby allegedly killing them.
Q: It has been claimed by the US that he opened fire in exercise of his right of self-defence?
A.It is for the court to decide whether the circumstances of the case justified his opening fire in self-defence.
Q. Whose responsibility it is to investigate and prosecute the case?
A. The responsibility for the initial investigation is that of the Pakistani Police. They are required to investigate irrespective of whether he enjoyed diplomatic status or not. However, they do not have the right to prosecute him before a Pakistani court in view of his diplomatic status.
Q. Can the police subject him to custodial interrogation during the investigation?
A. If diplomatic practices are correctly followed, Davis cannot be kept in police or judicial custody in Pakistan. The normal course would have been to hand him over to the US Consulate with a request that he should remain in Pakistan to assist the investigating authorities and that he should be allowed to leave for the US only after the investigating authorities certify that his presence in Pakistan is no longer required. Under the normal procedure, he would have been interrogated either in the Consulate or in a police station without taking him into police custody. The Pakistani authorities have violated this procedure by detaining him in their custody and by producing him before a court---apparently for seeking his police remand--- without allegedly keeping the US Embassy in the picture.
Q. How has the US State Department handled the case?
A. Badly. The moment the incidents happened the US should have announced a preliminary compensation to the families of the three Pakistanis killed with the promise to consider more after the facts are established. I do not get the impression that this was done. There has been some panic in the US reflexes possibly due to fears that something could happen to Davis in Pakistani custody. This has led to a series of over-reactions such as delaying an already announced visit of President Asif Ali Zardari to the US, the reported cancellation of a meeting between Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and the Pakistani Foreign Minister in the margins of the Munich Security Conference etc. Due to the surge in the US Drone strikes in the tribal belt, there is already some criticism in Pakistan that the US does not respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and that the Zardari regime is not standing up to the US to protect Pakistan’s sovereignty. Such criticism will intensify now. In recent months, there were indications that the post-Lal Masjid raid anger which led to an escalation of jihadi terrorism may be subsiding. These incidents in Lahore and the US mishandling of the sequel could provide fresh oxygen to the anger resulting in a fresh spurt in acts of jihadi terrorism.
Q. What will be the ultimate denouement in the case?
A. The US will stick to its stand that it cannot withdraw the diplomatic immunity of Davis and that he will be prosecuted before a US and not a Pakistani court. The Government of Pakistan knows that in view of its dependence on the US, it has no other option but to accede to the US request to let him go to the US to face a trial. But this has been made difficult by the mishandling by the US State Department and by its over-reactions. In such sensitive cases involving a country where anti-US anger is already high and anti- Zardari suspicion is already strong, undue pressure could prove counter-productive. A complicating factor is the assertive judiciary headed by Chief Justic Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury of the Pakistan Supreme Court. His enquiries into cases of missing persons---many of them informally handed over to the US by the Musharraf regime for the investigation of their suspected links with Al Qaeda---- have already badly affected mutual legal assistance between the US and Pakistan. Before he took over as the Chief Justice, there were over 200 cases of such informal arrests and hand-over to the US. Sine he took over, there has not been a single case. From his observations and rulings in the court in petitions by relatives of missing persons, it is evident that he feels that Pakistani Governments have been unduly deferential to the US in cases involving the rights of Pakistani citizens. If he or the judges under him insist that by carrying a weapon, Davis has violated the conditions of his diplomatic immunity and hence could be prosecuted in Pakistan, the US and Pakistan will face a serious dilemma in sorting out this case.
Q. It has been alleged that the hitherto strong stand of Islamabad has been motivated by the ISI’s anger over a private complaint filed against Lt.Gen.Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the DG of the ISI, in a New York court demanding his prosecution for his alleged involvement in the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai? Some have been claiming that Islamabad has been wantonly taking a seemingly strong stand to get more assistance from the US?
A. Present evidence does not support such allegations or claims. ( 9-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
On January 27, 2011, Raymond Davis, a member of the staff of the US Consulate-General in Lahore, allegedly shot and killed two Pakistani motorcyclists at a traffic stop in Lahore. He claimed they were armed and about to rob him. A third Pakistani was killed when a U.S. consular car dispatched to help Davis allegedly crushed to death another motorcyclist while speeding along the wrong side of the road. Davis has been detained by the Lahore Police despite his diplomatic immunity and there has been growing public demand in Pakistan---partly spontaneous and partly instigated by anti-US religious elements--- that he should be prosecuted in a Pakistani court and not handed over for trial in the US as would be normally done in such cases. The public anger has been aggravated by the alleged suicide of the wife of one of the Pakistanis killed and by the over-focus of the US State Department on the diplomatic immunity aspect of the case overlooking the human aspect of the case arising from the deaths of three Pakistanis due to the rash and negligent actions of two members of the Consular staff. I have been in receipt of some questions from readers on this subject. I answer them below:
Q. Was Raymond Davis an officer of the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)?
A. It is difficult to say, but my own assessment repeat assessment is that he is probably from the section of the US State Department, which is responsible for the physical security of US diplomatic and consular missions abroad and their personnel. This section does take serving and retired officers on deputation from the CIA and other security agencies. It has often been alleged that it also outsources some of its tasks to private security agencies and gives their staff diplomatic cover (protection ). I tend to believe that the reflexes of Davis and the other officer who rushed to his help were not those of a professional CIA officer. Professional CIA officers are well-trained to maintain their cool under critical circumstances and avoid over-reaction.
Q. Was the US correct in giving diplomatic status to someone who is not performing well-recognised diplomatic functions?
A. Over the years, there have been complaints from many countries that some Governments are in the habit of indiscriminately giving diplomatic status to their officers posted in their foreign missions irrespective of whether they perform well-recognised diplomatic functions or not. Despite this, this practice continues. In the ultimate analysis, it is up to the State Department to decide who among its officers posted in Pakistan will have diplomatic status. In the intitial stages, before the officer leaves for Pakistan, the Government of Pakistan has the right to disagree with the decision of the State Department and refuse to give him a visa on his diplomatic passport to enable him to take up the job. But once the Pakistani Foreign Office gave a diplomatic visa to Raymond Davis and allowed him to join his post in Pakistan, it is bound to respect his diplomatic immunity and cannot wriggle out of this .
Q. It has been alleged that the two Pakistanis killed by Davis belonged to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Can it be correct?
A. It is difficult to say. From the way they were following Davis, I tend to assess that they were police officers of Pakistan’s Intelligence Bureau (IB), which comes under the Ministry of the Interior, trained in surveillance duties who were probably keeping a mobile surveillance on Davis. They could also be police officers on deputation with the ISI for performing surveillance duties.
Q.What offences has Davis committed under Pakistani laws?
A.He has committed two offences. The first offence is carrying a weapon outside the Consulate premises. It has been reported by the “Express Tribune” of Pakistan that some months ago Rehman Mallik, the Interior Minister, had withdrawn the provision under which foreign diplomats posted in Pakistan were allowed to carry weapons outside their places of work for their personal protection after obtaining a licence from an authorized magistrate. Now, while foreign missions are allowed to keep weapons inside their premises for the protection of the premises, their staff are not allowed to carry weapons outside the premises for their personal protection. They have to seek police assistance if they apprehend any threat to their personal security while moving about outside their places of work. By carrying a weapon even after the withdrawal of the provision, Davis violated Pakistani laws. In my view, a professional CIA officer might not have done this. The second offence committed by Davis was to open fire on the persons following him thereby allegedly killing them.
Q: It has been claimed by the US that he opened fire in exercise of his right of self-defence?
A.It is for the court to decide whether the circumstances of the case justified his opening fire in self-defence.
Q. Whose responsibility it is to investigate and prosecute the case?
A. The responsibility for the initial investigation is that of the Pakistani Police. They are required to investigate irrespective of whether he enjoyed diplomatic status or not. However, they do not have the right to prosecute him before a Pakistani court in view of his diplomatic status.
Q. Can the police subject him to custodial interrogation during the investigation?
A. If diplomatic practices are correctly followed, Davis cannot be kept in police or judicial custody in Pakistan. The normal course would have been to hand him over to the US Consulate with a request that he should remain in Pakistan to assist the investigating authorities and that he should be allowed to leave for the US only after the investigating authorities certify that his presence in Pakistan is no longer required. Under the normal procedure, he would have been interrogated either in the Consulate or in a police station without taking him into police custody. The Pakistani authorities have violated this procedure by detaining him in their custody and by producing him before a court---apparently for seeking his police remand--- without allegedly keeping the US Embassy in the picture.
Q. How has the US State Department handled the case?
A. Badly. The moment the incidents happened the US should have announced a preliminary compensation to the families of the three Pakistanis killed with the promise to consider more after the facts are established. I do not get the impression that this was done. There has been some panic in the US reflexes possibly due to fears that something could happen to Davis in Pakistani custody. This has led to a series of over-reactions such as delaying an already announced visit of President Asif Ali Zardari to the US, the reported cancellation of a meeting between Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and the Pakistani Foreign Minister in the margins of the Munich Security Conference etc. Due to the surge in the US Drone strikes in the tribal belt, there is already some criticism in Pakistan that the US does not respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and that the Zardari regime is not standing up to the US to protect Pakistan’s sovereignty. Such criticism will intensify now. In recent months, there were indications that the post-Lal Masjid raid anger which led to an escalation of jihadi terrorism may be subsiding. These incidents in Lahore and the US mishandling of the sequel could provide fresh oxygen to the anger resulting in a fresh spurt in acts of jihadi terrorism.
Q. What will be the ultimate denouement in the case?
A. The US will stick to its stand that it cannot withdraw the diplomatic immunity of Davis and that he will be prosecuted before a US and not a Pakistani court. The Government of Pakistan knows that in view of its dependence on the US, it has no other option but to accede to the US request to let him go to the US to face a trial. But this has been made difficult by the mishandling by the US State Department and by its over-reactions. In such sensitive cases involving a country where anti-US anger is already high and anti- Zardari suspicion is already strong, undue pressure could prove counter-productive. A complicating factor is the assertive judiciary headed by Chief Justic Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury of the Pakistan Supreme Court. His enquiries into cases of missing persons---many of them informally handed over to the US by the Musharraf regime for the investigation of their suspected links with Al Qaeda---- have already badly affected mutual legal assistance between the US and Pakistan. Before he took over as the Chief Justice, there were over 200 cases of such informal arrests and hand-over to the US. Sine he took over, there has not been a single case. From his observations and rulings in the court in petitions by relatives of missing persons, it is evident that he feels that Pakistani Governments have been unduly deferential to the US in cases involving the rights of Pakistani citizens. If he or the judges under him insist that by carrying a weapon, Davis has violated the conditions of his diplomatic immunity and hence could be prosecuted in Pakistan, the US and Pakistan will face a serious dilemma in sorting out this case.
Q. It has been alleged that the hitherto strong stand of Islamabad has been motivated by the ISI’s anger over a private complaint filed against Lt.Gen.Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the DG of the ISI, in a New York court demanding his prosecution for his alleged involvement in the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai? Some have been claiming that Islamabad has been wantonly taking a seemingly strong stand to get more assistance from the US?
A. Present evidence does not support such allegations or claims. ( 9-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Sunday, February 6, 2011
EGYPTIANS WANT RULE OF LAW IN AN ISLAMIC DEMOCRACY, NOT RULE BY CLERICS IN A THEOCRACY : MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
B.RAMAN
The following extracts from two statements issued by Dr.Mohamed Badie, Chairman of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB), on the protest demonstrations since January 25,2011 and from some commentaries on the developments carried by the web site of the MB give an indication of how it views the mass protests and what would be its role in a post-Hosni Mubarak era. The MB projects the mass uprising as a people’s revolution and not an Islamic revolution. It describes the objective of the people’s revolution as a rule of law in an Islamic democracy and not a rule by clerics in a theocracy. It seeks to assure the American people that they have nothing to fear from the success of the revolution. While expressing its readiness to participate in talks to bring about the end of the Mubarak regime, it says it has no desire for political power for itself. It does not want to contest in the elections for a new President. Nor is it interested in joining any interim political set-up. The only demand of a religious nature it makes is that the clerics should have a role in vetting all laws to be passed by the Parliament. It says that what Egypt needs is democracy moulded by historic and sacred values. It points out that the religious faith of the people always plays a role in popular movements even in the US and says one should not worry about any role of the religious faith of the people in the Egyptian revolution.
EXTRACTS
Mubarak should resign immediately if there is to be any constructive dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood. The state of emergency should be abolished and the Shura council and the parliament should be dissolved. They are both illegitimate institutions. The people no longer trust the regime or the ruling party and have had enough of hollow promises and lame speeches. Despite promises that there would be freedom of speech, thugs have taken to the streets attacking peaceful protestors and raiding press and media headquarters in an effort to intimidate the press to prevent coverage. The regime imposes only violence and does not understand the concept of mature and civilised dialogue. Its only solution to the people’s uprising is violence. The MB welcomes dialogue with all political opposition. In fact all groups have agreed on uniting in a call for peaceful political reform that would serve the Egyptians as a whole. The current uprising is not an Islamic Revolution but an Egyptian People’s revolution that included all Egyptians from all sects, religions and political trends. The MB does not seek power and has no intention of nominating any of its members for the presidency or for being part of any interim government.
------- From a statement issued on February 4,2011, by Dr.Mohamed Badie, Chairman of the MB.
2. The January 25 Day of Rage protests have instilled an incredible sense of pride among Egyptians as the world witnesses Egyptians rise from their apathy and fearlessly voice their dissent against a 30-year dictatorial regime. The turnout of over seven million people nationwide on Friday’s Day of Departure will be recorded in history. People continued their call for their most basic rights of living in freedom and dignity, The people have the right to call for the ousting of Mubarak and his corrupt regime. The MB does not seek power and authority nor does it intend to field any of its members for presidency. It welcomes constructive and equal dialogue with all Egypt’s political opposition and respects all sects, demanding that all be treated equally and that the people’s will be unconditionally respected and their demands met. Since the group’s establishment, the MB has worked to achieve comprehensive reform in all fields of political, economic and social development and seeks to restore the people's sovereignty and rights through peaceful strategies. Hence, it is on this note that the MB welcomes open dialogue on the condition that it is genuinely in the best interests of the country and is in accordance with the will of the masses. There should be an outlined agenda and it should be implemented. The people’s and nation’s interests must remain the first and foremost priority. The people are the legitimate decision-makers of their future.
--- Statement of the MB President after the massive demonstrations of February 4.
3.Western analysts and media outlets are deciding whether Egypt 's uprising is a secular demand for democracy, which they would support, or a religious revolution that they believe should be feared and stopped. However, the uprising is complex and if the US is to support the Egyptian people, as it promised, policymakers must first increase their understanding of Egyptian aspirations. The protests are fueled by the Egyptians’ greater sense of self worth and it is based on the people's belief that they should no longer have to endure the daily humiliation of economic and political stagnation. The protesters come from a wide cross section of Egyptian society and they are all demanding justice, calling for Muslim-Christian solidarity. Religiosity is also playing a role in the development and continuance of the demonstrations, just as other uprisings throughout history. Egyptians say that moving toward greater democracy would help Muslims progress, and that attachment to spiritual and moral values would similarly lead to a brighter future. Surveys show that Egyptians prefer democracy over all other forms of government. They also say that religion plays a positive role in politics. The majority of Egyptians wants democracy and sees no contradiction between the change they seek and the timeless values to which they adhere. More than 90 percent of Egyptians say they would guarantee freedom of the press if it were up to them to write a constitution for a new country. Moreover, most Egyptians say they favor nothing more than an advisory role for religious leaders in the crafting of legislation. Egyptians choose democracy informed by sacred values, not theocracy with a democratic veneer. Similarly, from abolitionists to the civil rights movement, American leaders have been inspired by their faith as they pursue justice. Nowadays in the US, many of those who are calling for environmental preservation, an end to torture and eradicating global poverty, are faith leaders as they draw on their ethical traditions and beliefs for the common good. The US is a natural partner to the Egyptian people in their struggle to attain a brighter future because of America 's unique history and struggle for social justice. Surveys have revealed that the majority of Americans and Egyptians believe it is a benefit, not a threat, for Muslims and the West to interact. Although they seek the rule of law, most Egyptians do not support the rule of clerics. US policy makers should not make the mistake of alienating the Egyptian movement by failing to understand its complexities.
---From the MB web site
4.The MB does not and will not accept any efforts at intimidation against any Egyptians. The MB will continue to call for the constitutional rights of men, women, Muslims and Christians alike and for a civil state based on Islamic democracy which respects the freedom of the judiciary, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the media.
—From the MB’s web site
5.A cable of 2007 from the US Embassy in Cairo to the State Department in Washington DC leaked by WikiLeaks said: The US could expect a difficult transition after Mubarak. "Whoever Egypt's next president is, he will inevitably be politically weaker than Mubarak. Among his first priorities will be to cement his position and build popular support. We can thus anticipate that the new President may sound an initial anti-American tone in his public rhetoric in an effort to prove his nationalist bona fides to the Egyptian street." The cable said that any new President will have to bolster his support by reconciling with the banned MB. This is true now that the Egyptians have demanded a say in the matter. The protest is not being fueled by anti-Americanism or radical Islamist sentiments; it's a protest driven by the economic and political needs of Egyptians. Protestors have only showed hostility toward the US because of its longtime support for a tyrannical regime.
Egypt's democracy movement doesn't see the MB as a radical party. "The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places," El Baradei said over the weekend. He called the Brotherhood a conservative group that favors secular democracy and human rights and said that as an integral part of Egyptian society, it would have a place in any inclusive political process. Israel remains a living example of how a people live in fear when they take what is not theirs and it is looking on aghast as its most important friend in the region tumbles while the US does little to save him. Israel cannot count on Egypt's continued cooperation in imposing an economic siege on Gaza, aiming at unseating the territory's Hamas rulers.
The demonstrations show an Arab public looking to take charge of its own affairs, rather than have them determined by international power struggles. Even that, however, suggests turbulent times ahead for American Middle East policies that have little support on Egypt's streets.
----From the MB’s Web site.
6.For the past ten days Egypt has experienced fear of autocracy, euphoria and fear of chaos. Starting off relatively small, the protests started with a few thousand people on January 25, then escalated to a thrilling climax on February 1, when millions of people assembled in Tahrir Square demanding the removal of Hosni Mubarak. After this the demonstrations deteriorated into violence as pro-Mubarak supporters attacked demonstrators. Despite the violent scenes during the week, the developments in Egypt are welcome. A nation that has been downtrodden for too long is now tasting freedom. The Arab world is buzzing with expectation, as ageing autocrats are suddenly looking shaky. The West is juggling stability and democracy and as they struggle to attain balance, the Arab pro-democratic movement appears disturbing. Fearing a vacuum due to a deterioration of Mubarak's regime, the West fears the Muslim Brothers, the anti-Western, anti-Israeli opposition. The US feels it must redouble its efforts to secure a prolonged managed transition by retaining Mubarak or getting someone else like him at the helm. Despite the fears of the US and Israel, the popular call for Mubarak to step down offers the Middle East the best chance for reform in decades. The West has been calling for democracy for years and if they fail to support Egyptians in their quest for democratic rule, the arguments of the US for democracy and human rights elsewhere in the world will fall on deaf ears. Egypt is also juggling; it is choosing between risk and stagnation. The Egyptian protests are not an 'Islamic' uprising, but a mass protest of Muslims against an unjust, autocratic regime. The only 'Islam' shown throughout the scenes of demonstrators was the peaceful behavior, prayer, determination and resolution of a nation. The result of these protests will certainly not be a perfectly formed democracy as it is likely that there will be disorder for some time. But on the plus side, Egypt, though poor, has a sophisticated elite, a well-educated middle class and a strong sense of national pride and these are indicators that Egyptians can pull order out of this chaos. Fear of the Muslim Brotherhood is grossly overdone as they are respected for their piety, discipline and resilience. The Brotherhood grows with history and is constantly evolving. The movement at the present time cannot be equated with its past. Calling for democracy, the voice of the people, free and fair elections, while not nominating any candidate, and having no desire for leadership or even a place in the interim government, the Brotherhood is the level-headed voice in Egypt. The past few weeks have proved that the Brotherhood is an integral part of Egyptian society and if democracy is to flourish in Egypt, the Brotherhood must be given a voice. The alternative to democracy is a dead end. Egypt under Mubarak has been becoming increasingly repressive, leaving 85m people to live under dictatorship, burdened by a corrupt and brutal police force, the suppression of the opposition, and the torture of political prisoners. This was sufficient fuse to light the uprising. Despite the obvious difficulties, even a disorderly democracy could eventually be a rich prize—and not just for Egyptians. If Egypt becomes democratic it could once again be a beacon to the region, answering the conundrum of how to incorporate Islam in Arab democracies. An Egyptian government that speaks for its people might contribute to a settlement with the Palestinians more than authoritarianism ever could. The US has lost much of its credibility in pursuing stability above democracy and it could turn this negative image around by making amends now. As America still has influence with Egypt’s political, business and military elite, it could help speed the transition from autocracy through chaos to a new order and improve its standing in the region.
----From the MB’s web site. (6-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The following extracts from two statements issued by Dr.Mohamed Badie, Chairman of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB), on the protest demonstrations since January 25,2011 and from some commentaries on the developments carried by the web site of the MB give an indication of how it views the mass protests and what would be its role in a post-Hosni Mubarak era. The MB projects the mass uprising as a people’s revolution and not an Islamic revolution. It describes the objective of the people’s revolution as a rule of law in an Islamic democracy and not a rule by clerics in a theocracy. It seeks to assure the American people that they have nothing to fear from the success of the revolution. While expressing its readiness to participate in talks to bring about the end of the Mubarak regime, it says it has no desire for political power for itself. It does not want to contest in the elections for a new President. Nor is it interested in joining any interim political set-up. The only demand of a religious nature it makes is that the clerics should have a role in vetting all laws to be passed by the Parliament. It says that what Egypt needs is democracy moulded by historic and sacred values. It points out that the religious faith of the people always plays a role in popular movements even in the US and says one should not worry about any role of the religious faith of the people in the Egyptian revolution.
EXTRACTS
Mubarak should resign immediately if there is to be any constructive dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood. The state of emergency should be abolished and the Shura council and the parliament should be dissolved. They are both illegitimate institutions. The people no longer trust the regime or the ruling party and have had enough of hollow promises and lame speeches. Despite promises that there would be freedom of speech, thugs have taken to the streets attacking peaceful protestors and raiding press and media headquarters in an effort to intimidate the press to prevent coverage. The regime imposes only violence and does not understand the concept of mature and civilised dialogue. Its only solution to the people’s uprising is violence. The MB welcomes dialogue with all political opposition. In fact all groups have agreed on uniting in a call for peaceful political reform that would serve the Egyptians as a whole. The current uprising is not an Islamic Revolution but an Egyptian People’s revolution that included all Egyptians from all sects, religions and political trends. The MB does not seek power and has no intention of nominating any of its members for the presidency or for being part of any interim government.
------- From a statement issued on February 4,2011, by Dr.Mohamed Badie, Chairman of the MB.
2. The January 25 Day of Rage protests have instilled an incredible sense of pride among Egyptians as the world witnesses Egyptians rise from their apathy and fearlessly voice their dissent against a 30-year dictatorial regime. The turnout of over seven million people nationwide on Friday’s Day of Departure will be recorded in history. People continued their call for their most basic rights of living in freedom and dignity, The people have the right to call for the ousting of Mubarak and his corrupt regime. The MB does not seek power and authority nor does it intend to field any of its members for presidency. It welcomes constructive and equal dialogue with all Egypt’s political opposition and respects all sects, demanding that all be treated equally and that the people’s will be unconditionally respected and their demands met. Since the group’s establishment, the MB has worked to achieve comprehensive reform in all fields of political, economic and social development and seeks to restore the people's sovereignty and rights through peaceful strategies. Hence, it is on this note that the MB welcomes open dialogue on the condition that it is genuinely in the best interests of the country and is in accordance with the will of the masses. There should be an outlined agenda and it should be implemented. The people’s and nation’s interests must remain the first and foremost priority. The people are the legitimate decision-makers of their future.
--- Statement of the MB President after the massive demonstrations of February 4.
3.Western analysts and media outlets are deciding whether Egypt 's uprising is a secular demand for democracy, which they would support, or a religious revolution that they believe should be feared and stopped. However, the uprising is complex and if the US is to support the Egyptian people, as it promised, policymakers must first increase their understanding of Egyptian aspirations. The protests are fueled by the Egyptians’ greater sense of self worth and it is based on the people's belief that they should no longer have to endure the daily humiliation of economic and political stagnation. The protesters come from a wide cross section of Egyptian society and they are all demanding justice, calling for Muslim-Christian solidarity. Religiosity is also playing a role in the development and continuance of the demonstrations, just as other uprisings throughout history. Egyptians say that moving toward greater democracy would help Muslims progress, and that attachment to spiritual and moral values would similarly lead to a brighter future. Surveys show that Egyptians prefer democracy over all other forms of government. They also say that religion plays a positive role in politics. The majority of Egyptians wants democracy and sees no contradiction between the change they seek and the timeless values to which they adhere. More than 90 percent of Egyptians say they would guarantee freedom of the press if it were up to them to write a constitution for a new country. Moreover, most Egyptians say they favor nothing more than an advisory role for religious leaders in the crafting of legislation. Egyptians choose democracy informed by sacred values, not theocracy with a democratic veneer. Similarly, from abolitionists to the civil rights movement, American leaders have been inspired by their faith as they pursue justice. Nowadays in the US, many of those who are calling for environmental preservation, an end to torture and eradicating global poverty, are faith leaders as they draw on their ethical traditions and beliefs for the common good. The US is a natural partner to the Egyptian people in their struggle to attain a brighter future because of America 's unique history and struggle for social justice. Surveys have revealed that the majority of Americans and Egyptians believe it is a benefit, not a threat, for Muslims and the West to interact. Although they seek the rule of law, most Egyptians do not support the rule of clerics. US policy makers should not make the mistake of alienating the Egyptian movement by failing to understand its complexities.
---From the MB web site
4.The MB does not and will not accept any efforts at intimidation against any Egyptians. The MB will continue to call for the constitutional rights of men, women, Muslims and Christians alike and for a civil state based on Islamic democracy which respects the freedom of the judiciary, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the media.
—From the MB’s web site
5.A cable of 2007 from the US Embassy in Cairo to the State Department in Washington DC leaked by WikiLeaks said: The US could expect a difficult transition after Mubarak. "Whoever Egypt's next president is, he will inevitably be politically weaker than Mubarak. Among his first priorities will be to cement his position and build popular support. We can thus anticipate that the new President may sound an initial anti-American tone in his public rhetoric in an effort to prove his nationalist bona fides to the Egyptian street." The cable said that any new President will have to bolster his support by reconciling with the banned MB. This is true now that the Egyptians have demanded a say in the matter. The protest is not being fueled by anti-Americanism or radical Islamist sentiments; it's a protest driven by the economic and political needs of Egyptians. Protestors have only showed hostility toward the US because of its longtime support for a tyrannical regime.
Egypt's democracy movement doesn't see the MB as a radical party. "The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places," El Baradei said over the weekend. He called the Brotherhood a conservative group that favors secular democracy and human rights and said that as an integral part of Egyptian society, it would have a place in any inclusive political process. Israel remains a living example of how a people live in fear when they take what is not theirs and it is looking on aghast as its most important friend in the region tumbles while the US does little to save him. Israel cannot count on Egypt's continued cooperation in imposing an economic siege on Gaza, aiming at unseating the territory's Hamas rulers.
The demonstrations show an Arab public looking to take charge of its own affairs, rather than have them determined by international power struggles. Even that, however, suggests turbulent times ahead for American Middle East policies that have little support on Egypt's streets.
----From the MB’s Web site.
6.For the past ten days Egypt has experienced fear of autocracy, euphoria and fear of chaos. Starting off relatively small, the protests started with a few thousand people on January 25, then escalated to a thrilling climax on February 1, when millions of people assembled in Tahrir Square demanding the removal of Hosni Mubarak. After this the demonstrations deteriorated into violence as pro-Mubarak supporters attacked demonstrators. Despite the violent scenes during the week, the developments in Egypt are welcome. A nation that has been downtrodden for too long is now tasting freedom. The Arab world is buzzing with expectation, as ageing autocrats are suddenly looking shaky. The West is juggling stability and democracy and as they struggle to attain balance, the Arab pro-democratic movement appears disturbing. Fearing a vacuum due to a deterioration of Mubarak's regime, the West fears the Muslim Brothers, the anti-Western, anti-Israeli opposition. The US feels it must redouble its efforts to secure a prolonged managed transition by retaining Mubarak or getting someone else like him at the helm. Despite the fears of the US and Israel, the popular call for Mubarak to step down offers the Middle East the best chance for reform in decades. The West has been calling for democracy for years and if they fail to support Egyptians in their quest for democratic rule, the arguments of the US for democracy and human rights elsewhere in the world will fall on deaf ears. Egypt is also juggling; it is choosing between risk and stagnation. The Egyptian protests are not an 'Islamic' uprising, but a mass protest of Muslims against an unjust, autocratic regime. The only 'Islam' shown throughout the scenes of demonstrators was the peaceful behavior, prayer, determination and resolution of a nation. The result of these protests will certainly not be a perfectly formed democracy as it is likely that there will be disorder for some time. But on the plus side, Egypt, though poor, has a sophisticated elite, a well-educated middle class and a strong sense of national pride and these are indicators that Egyptians can pull order out of this chaos. Fear of the Muslim Brotherhood is grossly overdone as they are respected for their piety, discipline and resilience. The Brotherhood grows with history and is constantly evolving. The movement at the present time cannot be equated with its past. Calling for democracy, the voice of the people, free and fair elections, while not nominating any candidate, and having no desire for leadership or even a place in the interim government, the Brotherhood is the level-headed voice in Egypt. The past few weeks have proved that the Brotherhood is an integral part of Egyptian society and if democracy is to flourish in Egypt, the Brotherhood must be given a voice. The alternative to democracy is a dead end. Egypt under Mubarak has been becoming increasingly repressive, leaving 85m people to live under dictatorship, burdened by a corrupt and brutal police force, the suppression of the opposition, and the torture of political prisoners. This was sufficient fuse to light the uprising. Despite the obvious difficulties, even a disorderly democracy could eventually be a rich prize—and not just for Egyptians. If Egypt becomes democratic it could once again be a beacon to the region, answering the conundrum of how to incorporate Islam in Arab democracies. An Egyptian government that speaks for its people might contribute to a settlement with the Palestinians more than authoritarianism ever could. The US has lost much of its credibility in pursuing stability above democracy and it could turn this negative image around by making amends now. As America still has influence with Egypt’s political, business and military elite, it could help speed the transition from autocracy through chaos to a new order and improve its standing in the region.
----From the MB’s web site. (6-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Saturday, February 5, 2011
THE EGYPTIAN STAND-OFF
B.RAMAN
During a CNN debate on February 5,2011, an Egyptian affairs expert described the present situation in Egypt as a stand-off. It is.
2. President Hosni Mubarak has remained defiant and has refused to quit now. He has told his people that he would quit only in September when his current term ends and a new President would have been elected. He has also totally revamped his National Democratic Party (NDP) executive.Hossam Badrawi, a reformer and top physician, who enjoys the confidence of Mubarak, has been appointed the head of the policies committee, a post held by his son Gamal Mubarak till now, and also the party secretary-general. This revamping, coming on the heels of the earlier reshuffle of the Cabinet, is meant to re-assure the protesters that people associated with the hated policies of his Government and accused of corruption would not stay in office in the run-up to the elections.
3. Mubarak seems to be hoping that the aggravating economic hardships of the poor and middle class people, including the workers, would make them leave the streets and go back to earning their livelihood and that as a result the protesting crowds will be reduced to the elite, including the students, whom he is confident of handling. His defiance is also encouraged by the ambivalence of the army. The Army is not prepared to let itself be used against the protesters to disperse them forcefully. At the same time, it recognises the past services of Mubarak to the country and his role in strengthening the Armed Forces. It is, therefore, not willing to see him humiliated. There is agreement in the party as well as the Army that the time for Mubarak to quit public life has come and that he should go------honourably and not in humiliation.
4.Attempts are being made to reassure the protesters that Mubarak and his supporters would not take advantage of any de-mobilisation of the protesters to go back on his word and stay on in power after September. The dilemma before the protesters is: The increasing hardships make it difficult to maintain for long the present state of high mobilisation. At the same time, any premature demobilisation before there are definitive and irreversible changes in the political status quo could defeat the purpose of the revolution.
5. The reported US attempts to broker a transitional set-up is meant to reassure the protesters that changes in the status quo have already been initiated under international support and pressure and at the same time make it clear to Mubarak and his supporters that the dismantling of the status quo has to start now and not in September.
6. The problem is while the status quo can be easily changed in the ruling party and the unpopular leaders removed from positions of influence, it is difficult to change it in the Governmental set-up under the present Constitution, which clearly provides that if the President quits, the Speaker of the Parliament would be sworn in as the officiating President till fresh elections are held. Neither Lt.Gen.Omar Suleiman, the former intelligence chief who was recently nominated as the Vice-President by Mubarak, nor El Baradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, whom the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the secular opposition parties are prpared to support as the interim head till the elections are held, can officiate as the President because neither of them is an elected member of the Parliament and because of the specific provision in the Constitution that the Speaker would officiate.
7. However, there is a provision in the Constitution under which Mubarak, while continuing to be the de jure President, can delegate the powers of the President to his Vice-President who will thus become the de facto President and could co-ordinate the arrangements for the elections without Mubarak playing any role in it. It is doubtful whether the protesters would agree to such an arrangement because of the close association of Suleiman with Mubarak for nearly two decades and his equally close association with the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). It was he who allegedly fed the report to the CIA about Saddam Hussein's alleged links with Osama bin Laden, which former President George Bush used as one of the excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The report turned out to be false. He has also been closely associated with the suppression of the MB.
8.Thus, the position is: Suleiman is acceptable to Mubarak and his followers and the US as interim head of a transitional Government, but he may not be acceptable to the protesters. El Baradei may be acceptable to the protesters, but he cannot head the tranitional set-up under the present Constitution.
9. The stand-off continues. For how long?
10.In the meanwhile, the Americans seem to feel that the protests reached their high point on February 4 when there was an impressive mobilisation of people and that they may not be able to mobilise any more, any longer.This should explain the changing narrative regarding Mubarak on Februrary 5. In an interview to the CNN , Christiane Amanpour, the US TV journalist, mentioned about the constitutional difficulties in the way of Mubarak quitting before September. Separately, in a video message to the annual Munich Security Conference now being held, Frank Wisner, former US Ambassador to Egypt,who recently visited Cairo as a special emissary of President Barack Obama and met Mubarak and Suleiman, said: "We need to get a national consensus around the pre-conditions for the next step forward. The President must stay in office to steer those changes.I believe that President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical - it's his chance to write his own legacy. He has given 60 years of his life to the service of his country.This is an ideal moment for him to show the way forward."
11.In Washington, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said: "We have great respect for Frank Wisner and we were deeply appreciative of his willingness to travel to Egypt last week.He has not continued in any official capacity following the trip. The views he expressed today are his own. He did not co-ordinate his comments with the US government." Nobody would take seriously the State Department's dissociating itself from the remarks of Wisner.
12. We ourselves want Mubarak to go now, but there could be constitutional difficulties.Let him continue till September. We guarantee that he won't thereafter--- that seems to be the new message to the protesters from Washington DC via Christiance Amanpour and Wisner.
13. Is the apparent US assessment that the protests cannot go higher and should be manageable hereafter correct or wishful-thinking? (6-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
During a CNN debate on February 5,2011, an Egyptian affairs expert described the present situation in Egypt as a stand-off. It is.
2. President Hosni Mubarak has remained defiant and has refused to quit now. He has told his people that he would quit only in September when his current term ends and a new President would have been elected. He has also totally revamped his National Democratic Party (NDP) executive.Hossam Badrawi, a reformer and top physician, who enjoys the confidence of Mubarak, has been appointed the head of the policies committee, a post held by his son Gamal Mubarak till now, and also the party secretary-general. This revamping, coming on the heels of the earlier reshuffle of the Cabinet, is meant to re-assure the protesters that people associated with the hated policies of his Government and accused of corruption would not stay in office in the run-up to the elections.
3. Mubarak seems to be hoping that the aggravating economic hardships of the poor and middle class people, including the workers, would make them leave the streets and go back to earning their livelihood and that as a result the protesting crowds will be reduced to the elite, including the students, whom he is confident of handling. His defiance is also encouraged by the ambivalence of the army. The Army is not prepared to let itself be used against the protesters to disperse them forcefully. At the same time, it recognises the past services of Mubarak to the country and his role in strengthening the Armed Forces. It is, therefore, not willing to see him humiliated. There is agreement in the party as well as the Army that the time for Mubarak to quit public life has come and that he should go------honourably and not in humiliation.
4.Attempts are being made to reassure the protesters that Mubarak and his supporters would not take advantage of any de-mobilisation of the protesters to go back on his word and stay on in power after September. The dilemma before the protesters is: The increasing hardships make it difficult to maintain for long the present state of high mobilisation. At the same time, any premature demobilisation before there are definitive and irreversible changes in the political status quo could defeat the purpose of the revolution.
5. The reported US attempts to broker a transitional set-up is meant to reassure the protesters that changes in the status quo have already been initiated under international support and pressure and at the same time make it clear to Mubarak and his supporters that the dismantling of the status quo has to start now and not in September.
6. The problem is while the status quo can be easily changed in the ruling party and the unpopular leaders removed from positions of influence, it is difficult to change it in the Governmental set-up under the present Constitution, which clearly provides that if the President quits, the Speaker of the Parliament would be sworn in as the officiating President till fresh elections are held. Neither Lt.Gen.Omar Suleiman, the former intelligence chief who was recently nominated as the Vice-President by Mubarak, nor El Baradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, whom the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the secular opposition parties are prpared to support as the interim head till the elections are held, can officiate as the President because neither of them is an elected member of the Parliament and because of the specific provision in the Constitution that the Speaker would officiate.
7. However, there is a provision in the Constitution under which Mubarak, while continuing to be the de jure President, can delegate the powers of the President to his Vice-President who will thus become the de facto President and could co-ordinate the arrangements for the elections without Mubarak playing any role in it. It is doubtful whether the protesters would agree to such an arrangement because of the close association of Suleiman with Mubarak for nearly two decades and his equally close association with the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). It was he who allegedly fed the report to the CIA about Saddam Hussein's alleged links with Osama bin Laden, which former President George Bush used as one of the excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The report turned out to be false. He has also been closely associated with the suppression of the MB.
8.Thus, the position is: Suleiman is acceptable to Mubarak and his followers and the US as interim head of a transitional Government, but he may not be acceptable to the protesters. El Baradei may be acceptable to the protesters, but he cannot head the tranitional set-up under the present Constitution.
9. The stand-off continues. For how long?
10.In the meanwhile, the Americans seem to feel that the protests reached their high point on February 4 when there was an impressive mobilisation of people and that they may not be able to mobilise any more, any longer.This should explain the changing narrative regarding Mubarak on Februrary 5. In an interview to the CNN , Christiane Amanpour, the US TV journalist, mentioned about the constitutional difficulties in the way of Mubarak quitting before September. Separately, in a video message to the annual Munich Security Conference now being held, Frank Wisner, former US Ambassador to Egypt,who recently visited Cairo as a special emissary of President Barack Obama and met Mubarak and Suleiman, said: "We need to get a national consensus around the pre-conditions for the next step forward. The President must stay in office to steer those changes.I believe that President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical - it's his chance to write his own legacy. He has given 60 years of his life to the service of his country.This is an ideal moment for him to show the way forward."
11.In Washington, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said: "We have great respect for Frank Wisner and we were deeply appreciative of his willingness to travel to Egypt last week.He has not continued in any official capacity following the trip. The views he expressed today are his own. He did not co-ordinate his comments with the US government." Nobody would take seriously the State Department's dissociating itself from the remarks of Wisner.
12. We ourselves want Mubarak to go now, but there could be constitutional difficulties.Let him continue till September. We guarantee that he won't thereafter--- that seems to be the new message to the protesters from Washington DC via Christiance Amanpour and Wisner.
13. Is the apparent US assessment that the protests cannot go higher and should be manageable hereafter correct or wishful-thinking? (6-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)