View Full Version : Mubarak Apparently to turn over reigns of power in Egypt to Military and V.P. Tonight

Peter Lemkin
02-10-2011, 04:23 PM
Mubarak has just flown from Cairo to Sharem el Sheik [his luxury home], apparently to make a stand-down speech shorty, sometime tonight. Exactly what will follow is NOT known...many rumors. The latest is that his speech is recorded and will be played on Egyptian TV soon, but he is one his way....somewhere and doesn't want to be in Cairo tonight :D For live coverage (http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/)

David Guyatt
02-10-2011, 05:22 PM
Ergo, the US get what they wanted anyway.

Peter Lemkin
02-10-2011, 06:24 PM
Ergo, the US get what they wanted anyway.

Oh, the US is controlling this from behind the curtains, for sure....which makes one wonder how much of what the People want will they get...we will see...but.....stay tuned!....it now seems [still speculation] that the intermediate government will be the military.....and then an 'election' in September....I hope a more real one then we have in the USA!....
....Obama to speak in a few minutes about Egypt....interesting he knows what is or did happen and gets to say so first!...Mubarak not to talk for a few hours yet!....:joystick:

Peter Lemkin
02-10-2011, 09:24 PM
I guess they do 'April Fool's Day' in February in Egypt!......I think there will be quite an angry revolutionary spirit in the streets tomorrow. What a horrible non-speech...and all the prep false info..... :joystick::popworm::hitler:

Magda Hassan
02-10-2011, 10:29 PM
Aaaarrgh! What was all that about???!!!! Why say anything if all you are going to say is the same old thing? I wonder what all that was supposed to achieve?:banghead:

Keith Millea
02-11-2011, 02:37 AM
From festive to bewildered:

A call for 20 million on the streets tomorrow:

Pray for Peace.......


Peter Lemkin
02-11-2011, 06:27 AM
Some interesting parts of the two 'speeches':
- Mubarak referred to himself as the father and the People of Egypt as his 'children'....the oldest kind of mind control.
- They both stated that the 'troublemakers' were instigated from foreigners - foreign enemies intent on misleading and infiltrating good Egyptians....sound familiar....direct from the Egyptian 'Patriot Act'....and don't watch 'cable TV'! [only our State Controlled TV].
- Suleiman says to the protesters "Go Home!" :moon:
- The Dictator is going to change the Constitution....don't worry! :hitler:

Today, Friday, is going to be IMO a pivotal day....millions in the streets surrounding all the major buildings of power of the dictatorship - propped-up by the USA and in the background UK, Israel and S.A. [few others middle east dictators]. How the Army reacts today will be pivotal....although a military coup - even if only temporary is hardly a good thing...more so when that military on the top levels are ALL trained in the USA; paid by the USA; loyal to the USA and trained in special ops by the USA and its Mil Intel/CIA/etc. A horrible mess. A popular People's request for democracy and their fair share of the economic 'pie' about to become a real deadly revolution....and you can bet the forces behind Mubarak [he's finished...but..] will steer things to their advantage [calling it 'stabiltity']...NOT to that of the People....they don't even do that at home.:nosmilie:

Jack White
02-11-2011, 06:53 AM
Any thoughts on the Pale Green Horse?


and many others.


Peter Lemkin
02-11-2011, 03:18 PM
Mubarak just left for his vacation palace with his family...thumbing his nose at the millions on the streets in Cairo.....

interesting article....on the 'general phenomenon in the general area'.

America’s Strategic Repression of the ‘Arab Awakening’
North Africa and the Global Political Awakening, Part 2

by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Global Research, February 9, 2011

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

digg 214


In Part 1 of this series, I analyzed the changing nature of the Arab world, in experiencing an uprising as a result of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’ Ultimately, I assessed that these could potentially be the birth pangs of a global revolution; however, the situation is more complicated than it appears on the surface.

While the uprisings spreading across the Arab world have surprised many observers, the same could not be said for the American foreign policy and strategic establishment. A popular backlash against American-supported dictatorships and repressive regimes has been anticipated for a number of years, with arch-hawk geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski articulating a broad conception of a ‘Global Political Awakening’ taking place, in which the masses of the world (predominantly the educated, exploited and impoverished youth of the ‘Third World’) have become acutely aware of their subjugation, inequality, exploitation and oppression. This ‘Awakening’ is largely driven by the revolution in information, technology and communication, including radio, television, but most especially the Internet and social media. Brzezinski had accurately identified this ‘Awakening’ as the greatest threat to elite interests regionally, but also internationally, with America sitting on top of the global hierarchy.

This spurred on the development of an American strategy in the Arab world, modeled on similar strategies pursued in recent decades in other parts of the world, in promoting “democratization,” by developing close contacts with ‘civil society’ organizations, opposition leaders, media sources, and student organizations. The aim is not to promote an organic Arab democracy ‘of the people, and for the people,’ but rather to promote an evolutionary “democratization” in which the old despots of American strategic support are removed in favour of a neoliberal democratic system, in which the outward visible institutions of democracy are present (multi-party elections, private media, parliaments, constitutions, active civil society, etc); yet, the power-holders within that domestic political system remain subservient to U.S. economic and strategic interests, continuing to follow the dictates of the IMF and World Bank, supporting America’s military hegemony in the region, and “opening up” the Arab economies to be “integrated” into the world economy. Thus, “democratization” becomes an incredibly valuable strategy for maintaining hegemony; a modern re-hash of “Let them eat cake!” Give the people the ‘image’ of democracy and establish and maintain a co-dependent relationship with the new elite. Thus, democracy for the people becomes an exercise in futility, where people’s ‘participation’ becomes about voting between rival factions of elites, who all ultimately follow the orders of Washington.

This strategy also has its benefit for the maintenance of American power in the region. While dictators have their uses in geopolitical strategy, they can often become too independent of the imperial power and seek to determine the course of their country separate from U.S. interests, and are subsequently much more challenging to remove from power (i.e., Saddam Hussein). With a “democratized” system, changing ruling parties and leaders becomes much easier, by simply calling elections and supporting opposition parties. Bringing down a dictator is always a more precarious situation than “changing the guard” in a liberal democratic system.

However, again, the situation in the Arab world is still more complicated than this brief overview, and American strategic concerns must take other potentialities into consideration. While American strategists were well aware of the growing threat to stability in the region, and the rising discontent among the majority of the population, the strategists tended to identify the aim as “democratization” through evolution, not revolution. In this sense, the uprisings across the Arab world pose a major strategic challenge for America. While ties have been made with civil society and other organizations, they haven’t all necessarily had the ability to be firmly entrenched, organized and mobilized. In short, it would appear that America was perhaps unprepared for uprisings to take place this soon. The sheer scale and rapid growth of the protests and uprisings makes the situation all the more complicated, since they are not dealing with one nation alone, but rather an entire region (arguably one of, if not the most strategically important region in the world), and yet they must assess and engage the situation on a country-by-country basis.

One danger arises in a repeat in the Arab world of the trends advanced in Latin America over the past decade: namely, the growth of populist democracy. The protests have brought together a wide array of society – civil society, students, the poor, Islamists, opposition leaders, etc. – and so America, with ties to many of these sectors (overtly and covertly), must now make many choices in regards of who to support.

Another incredibly important factor to take into consideration is military intervention. America has firmly established ties with the militaries in this region, and it appears evident that America is influencing military actions in Tunisia. Often, the reflex position of imperial power is to support the military, facilitate a coup, or employ repression. Again, this strategy would be determined on a country-by-country basis. With a popular uprising, military oppression will have the likely effect of exacerbating popular discontent and resistance, so strategic use of military influence is required.

This also leaves us with the potential for the ‘Yemen option’: war and destabilization. While presenting its own potential for negative repercussions (namely, in instigating a much larger and more radical uprising), engaging in overt or covert warfare, destabilizing countries or regions, is not taboo in American strategic circles. In fact, this is the strategy that has been deployed in Yemen since the emergence of the Southern Movement in 2007, a liberation movement seeking secession from the U.S.-supported dictatorship. Shortly after the emergence of the Southern Movement, al-Qaeda appeared in Yemen, prompting U.S. military intervention. The Yemeni military, armed, trained and funded by the United States, has been using its military might to attempt to crush the Southern Movement as well as a rebel movement in the North.

In short, the ‘Arab Awakening’ presents possibly the greatest strategic challenge to American hegemony in decades. The likely result will be a congruence of multiple simultaneously employed strategies including: “democratization,” oppression, military intervention and destabilization. Again, it could be a mistake to assume one strategy for the whole region, but rather to assess it on a country-by-country basis, based upon continuing developments and progress in the ‘Awakening’.

Interview with Andrew Gavin Marshall and Adrienne Pine, Russia Today

The Council on Foreign Relations Strategy to “Democratize” the Arab World

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the premier U.S. foreign policy think tank in the United States, and is one of the central institutions for socializing American elites from all major sectors of society (media, banking, academia, military, intelligence, diplomacy, corporations, NGOs, civil society, etc.), where they work together to construct a consensus on major issues related to American imperial interests around the world. As such, the CFR often sets the strategy for American policy, and wields enormous influence within policy circles, where key players often and almost always come from the rank and file of the CFR itself.

In 2005, the CFR published a Task Force Report on a new American strategy for the Arab world entitled, “In Support of Arab Democracy: Why and How.” The Task Force was co-chaired by Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber. Albright was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for the first term of President Bill Clinton’s administration, and was U.S. Secretary of State for his second term. As such, she played crucial roles in the lead up and responses to the dismantling of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide and subsequent civil war and genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and she also oversaw the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq. In a 1996 interview with 60 Minutes, when asked about the sanctions resulting in the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five, Albright replied, “we think the price is worth it.”[1]

Albright got her start at Columbia University, where she studied under Zbigniew Brzezinski, her professor who supervised her dissertation. Brzezinski, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. co-founded the Trilateral Commission with banker David Rockefeller in 1973. When Jimmy Carter became President in 1977, he brought with him over two dozen members of the Trilateral Commission into his administration, including himself, but also Brzezinski as his National Security Adviser. Brzezinski then offered Madeline Albright a job on his National Security Council staff.[2] Brzezinski also had several other key officials on his Council staff, including Samuel Huntington and Robert Gates, who later became Deputy National Security Adviser, CIA Director, and today is the Secretary of Defense in the Obama administration. As David Rothkopf, former National Security Council staff member wrote in his book on the history of the NSC, “Brzezinski’s NSC staffers are, to this day, very loyal to their former boss.”[3] Today, Albright serves on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Board of Trustees for the Aspen Institute, as well as chairing the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, an organization dedicated to promoting and funding US-supported “democracy” around the world. Recently, she chaired a NATO committee which developed NATO’s new “strategic concept” over the next decade.

The other co-chair of the CFR Task Force report on Arab democracy is Vin Weber, former U.S. Congressman, who has served on the board of the CFR, and is also a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the premier U.S. organization dedicated to “democratic regime change” around the world in advancing U.S. strategic interests. Other members of the Task Force Report include individuals with past or present affiliations to Human Rights Watch, First National Bank of Chicago, Occidental Petroleum, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the World Bank, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the Brookings Institution, the Hoover Institution, the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. State Department, National Security Council, National Intelligence Council, Goldman Sachs Group, the American Enterprise Institute, AOL Time Warner, and the IMF.[4]

It is very clear that this is a highly influential and active group of individuals and interests which is proposing a new strategy for America in the Arab world, which makes their recommendations not simply ‘advisory’ to policy, but integral to policy formulation and implementation. So what did the CFR report have to say about democracy in the Arab world?

The report stated that, “Washington has a chance to help shape a more democratic Middle East. Whereas emphasis on stability was once the hallmark of U.S. Middle East policy, democracy and freedom have become a priority.” The report posed two central questions which it explored:

First, does a policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East serve U.S. interests and foreign policy goals? Second, if so, how should the United States implement such a policy, taking into account the full range of its interests?[5]

The answer to the first question was inevitably, “yes,” promoting democracy serves U.S. interests and foreign policy goals in the Middle East. The report elaborated, “Although democracy entails certain inherent risks, the denial of freedom carries much more significant long-term dangers. If Arab citizens are able to express grievances freely and peacefully, they will be less likely to turn to more extreme measures.”[6] However, the CFR report was very cautious about the process of democratic change, and recognized the potential instability and problems it could pose for American interests:

[T]he United States should promote the development of democratic institutions and practices over the long term, mindful that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside and that sudden, traumatic change is neither necessary nor desirable. America’s goal in the Middle East should be to encourage democratic evolution, not revolution.[7] [Emphasis added]

Further, they acknowledged that democracy promotion in the Middle East “requires a country-by-country strategy,”[8] meaning that it cannot be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, ultimately making the process all the more complicated and potentially unstable. The process is a delicate balancing act, where the report identified that if America’s democracy promotion is too “superficial,” it could “further damage relations between the United States and Arab populations,” or, if the United States pushes reform too hard and too fast, “this could create instability and undermine U.S. interests.” Thus, explained the report, they favour “a view toward evolutionary, not revolutionary, change. The dangers that accompany rapid change will still be present, but so will the opportunity to create a new and more balanced foundation for Arab stability, and a deeper and stronger basis for friendship between Americans and Arabs.”[9] In American diplomatic language, “friendship” should be read as “dependence,” thus we understand this strategy as aiming at promoting a more reliable dependency between Americans and Arabs.

The report, however, acknowledged the deep divisions within U.S. policy circles on the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, with several viewing it as potentially too risky, fearing it “may place U.S. interests in jeopardy,” or that it “could lead to ethnic conflict or the emergence of Islamist governments opposed to the United States and the West in general.” Further, “if Washington pushes Arab leaders too hard on reform, contributing to the collapse of friendly Arab governments, this would likely have a deleterious effect on regional stability, peace, and counterterrorism operations.” There is also the risk that with America actively promoting democratic change among Arab civil society and opposition groups, this could potentially damage “the credibility of indigenous groups promoting democratic reform,” or, alternatively, “Arab leaders could dig in their heels and actively oppose U.S. policies in the region across the board.”[10] The latter scenario could be referred to as ‘the Saddam option’, referring, of course, to America’s once-close ally and suddenly-new enemy, Saddam Hussein, who was armed and supported by America. But once he started to become too autonomous of American power, America turned on him and cast him as a “new Hitler.” The case of Saddam Hussein also shows that when a dictator “digs in his heels,” it can often take a very long time to be rid of him.

So while clearly there are a number of potentially disastrous consequences for U.S. interests in promoting democracy in the Arab world, the CFR made their position clear:

While transitions to democracy can lead to instability in the short term, the Task Force finds that a policy geared toward maintaining the authoritarian status quo in the Middle East poses greater risks to U.S. interests and foreign policy goals... If Arabs are allowed to participate freely and peacefully in the political process, they are less likely to turn to radical measures. If they understand that the United States supports their exercise of liberty, they are less likely to sustain hostile attitudes toward the United States... The overwhelming empirical evidence clearly indicates that the best kind of stability is democratic stability.[11]

One pivotal area through which the CFR report advocated implementing the “democratization” of the Arab world was through the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), established in 2002 by the Bush administration “with the express purpose of coordinating and managing the U.S. government’s reform agenda in the area of economics, politics, education, and women’s issues.” Much of this work had previously been done through the United State Agency for International Development (USAID); however, “while USAID’s work has focused to some extent on creating constituencies within Arab governments for change, the rationale for MEPI was to work with independent and indigenous NGOs and civil-society groups, as well as with governments.”[12]

Another avenue was the Broader Middle East Initiative (also known as the Partnership for Progress), which emerged from a 2004 G8 summit, of which a main priority was the “Forum for the Future,” which is “designed to foster communication on reform-related issues.” It held sessions that brought together civil society activists, business leaders, emphasizing economic development and job growth. The Partnership for Progress also established the “Democracy Assistance Dialogue,” which brings together development institutions in the Middle East, foundations, international financial institutions (the World Bank and IMF), “to coordinate the use of resources to support political and economic change.”[13] In other words, it is a process through which America is seeking to ensure that democratic “transition” in the Arab world maintains American and Western political and economic hegemony. In effect, a change of ‘structure’ without a change of ‘substance,’ where the image of the state alters, but the power and purpose remains the same.

However, further problems for the democratization strategy were presented in the unwillingness of European nations to support it or take it seriously. As the Task Force report explained, “European reluctance undermines the potential efficacy of pursuing reform.” The report further explained the importance of having Europe as a partner in the project:

Despite a history of European colonial domination, the perception of Europe in the Arab world is better than that of the United States. Consequently, it may be helpful for the European Union to take the lead in promoting human rights in the Arab world.[14]

The Task Force recommended that it would be best if funding for Arab civil society organizations did not come directly from U.S. government institutions, but rather funneled through U.S. democracy-promotion groups like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), as “many Middle eastern NGOs are reluctant to accept direct transfers from an arm of the U.S. government, fearing that this would taint these organizations in the eyes of their constituencies.”[15] In the conclusion, the report stated that:

Although a policy predicated on political, economic, and social change in the Arab world may present some short-term risks to Washington’s interests, these risks are worth taking. The long-run benefits of a more democratic and economically developed Middle East outweigh the potential challenges Washington might confront in the foreseeable future.[16]

We must acknowledge, however, that this strategy is not aimed at promoting democracy for the sake of democracy and freedom, but rather that it is acknowledging the reality that is the ‘Global Political Awakening,’ and taking efforts to address and manipulate this ‘Awakening’ in such a way that serves U.S. interests. Thus, it amounts to a scenario akin to saying, “Let them eat cake!” If the Arab world screams out for democracy and freedom, give them the American-sponsored brand of democracy and freedom, and therefore America is able to undermine and co-opt the ever-increasing desires and forces for change in the region. As a result – if successful – it would have the effect of pacifying resistance to America’s hegemony in the region, legitimizing the new puppet governments as “democratic” and “representative” of the people, thus creating a more stable and secure environment for American interests. In short, this is a coordinated strategy to confront, manipulate and pacify the emergence of the Global Political Awakening in the Arab world; an assault against the ‘Arab Awakening.’

In my last essay on the subject, I identified these protests as an organic growth, a rallying cry for freedom from the Arab world which must not be simply discarded as a covert U.S. plot to install new regimes. However, the situation requires a much more nuanced and detailed examination, not to frame it in either a black or white context, but rather seek to explain the realities, challenges and opportunities of the ‘Awakening’ and the ‘uprisings’.

Conceptualizing the ‘Arab Awakening’

For years, arch-hawk American imperial geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, an intellectual architect of ‘globalization’, has been warning elites across the Western world, and in particular in America, of the emergence and pressing reality of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’ He explains the ‘Awakening’ as essentially the greatest historical challenge to not only American, but global power structures and interests. He explained that, “For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive.” Further, “the worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening... That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.” As Brzezinski emphasizes, “These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches.” Brzezinski and others (as evidenced by the Council on Foreign Relations report) are intent upon developing strategies for ‘managing’ and ‘pacifying’ this ‘Awakening’ in such a way that maintains and secures American imperial interests and global power structures. Thus, the need to ‘control’ the Awakening is the most prescient problem in American foreign policy. However, as Brzezinski elaborated, it is not a challenge that can be dealt with easily:

[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.[17]

In a 2008 article in the New York Times, Brzezinski emphasized a multi-faceted strategy for dealing with this ‘threat’ to elite structures and interests, explaining that, “the monumental task facing the new president is to regain U.S. global legitimacy by spearheading a collective effort for a more inclusive system of global management.” Thus, Brzezinski’s strategy rests on better securing and institutionally expanding the process of ‘globalization’ into the evolution of ‘global governance,’ or as he termed it, “global management.” Brzezinski unveiled a four-point strategy of response: “unify, enlarge, engage and pacify.”[18]

The response to ‘unify’ refers “to the effort to re-establish a shared sense of purpose between America and Europe,” a point that the CFR report acknowledged. To ‘enlarge’ refers to “a deliberate effort to nurture a wider coalition committed to the principle of interdependence and prepared to play a significant role in promoting more effective global management.”[19] He identified the G8 as having “outlived its function,” and proposed a widening of it, which ultimately manifested itself in 2009 in the form of the G20. The G20 has subsequently become “the prime group for global economic governance at the level of ministers, governors and heads of state or government.”[20] Herman von Rompuy, the President of the European Union, referred to 2009 as “the first year of global governance.”[21] So, these elites are intent upon advancing “global management,” which is the exact strategy Brzezinski also identifies as being the “solution” to managing the ‘Global Political Awakening.’

The next point in Brzezinski’s strategy – ‘engage’ – refers to “the cultivation of top officials through informal talks among key powers, specifically the U.S., the European Triad, China, Japan, Russia and possibly India,” in particular between the United States and China, as “without China, many of the problems we face collectively cannot be laid to rest.” In the final point – ‘pacify’ – Brzezinski referred to the requirements of “a deliberate U.S. effort to avoid becoming bogged down in the vast area ranging from Suez to India.” In particular, he advised moving forward on the Israel-Palestine issue, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Brzezinski explained that, “in this dynamically changing world, the crisis of American leadership could become the crisis of global stability.” Thus, from Brzezinski’s point of view, “The only alternative to a constructive American role is global chaos.”[22]

So, “control” is key to this strategy, with “global management” being the ultimate solution. However, as Brzezinski himself identified, which is important to keep in mind when assessing the nature, spread and mobilization of the ‘Awakening’: “To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.”[23] Thus, while attempting to engineer, co-opt and ‘control’ the ‘Awakening,’ it is important to acknowledge that the United States is playing with fire, and while attempting to light a controlled fire to manipulate as it so chooses, the fire can spread and get out of hand. In such a situation, the “lethality” of America’s “military might” could potentially be employed. He said it himself, “the only alternative to a constructive American role is global chaos.”[24] The age-old imperial tactic of divide and conquer is never off the table of options. If it cannot be “managed transition” then it often becomes “managed chaos.” Where ‘diplomacy’ fails to overcome barriers, war destroys them (and everything else in the process).

Now turning our attention to the ‘Arab Awakening’ and uprisings, we must examine the range of strategies that are and could be employed. The preferred route for American power is “democratization,” but the scope, velocity and rapidity of recent developments in the Arab world present an incredibly unstable situation for American strategy. While ties with civil society and opposition groups have been or are in the process of being well established (varying on a country-by-country basis), the rapidity and confluence of these uprisings taking place has American power stretched thin.

Engineering, co-opting and controlling revolutionary movements or “democratic regime change” is not a new tactic in the American strategic circles; however, it has in the past been largely relegated to specific pockets and nations, often with significant time in between in order to allow for a more delicate, coordinated and controlled undertaking. This was the case with the U.S.-sponsored ‘colour revolutions’ throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia, starting with Serbia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and Kyrgyzstan in 2005, where America’s premier democracy promotion organizations (the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, USAID, Freedom House, the Albert Einstein Institute, as well as major American philanthropic foundations) were able to more securely establish themselves and their strategies for “democratic regime change.” Further, all the incidents of democratic “regime change” listed above took place in the context of a contested election within the country, giving the organizations and foundations involved a precise timeline for managing the process of organization and mobilization. This required a focused and nuanced approach which remains absent from the current context in the Middle East and North Africa.

[See: Andrew Gavin Marshall, Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III, Global Research, 3 November 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15767]

Further, a similar strategy was undertaken in Iran for the summer of 2009, in which the ‘Green Movement’ arose in response to the contested Presidential elections. This was, in fact, an attempt at a highly coordinated and organized effort on the part of a covert American strategy of “democratization” to install a U.S.-friendly (i.e., ‘client’) regime in Iran. The strategy was developed in 2006, largely organized covertly by the CIA, at a cost of approximately $400 million, and involved the State Department coordinating efforts with social media such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. However, as posterity shows, the strategy did not ultimately succeed in imposing “regime change.” At the time, Zbigniew Brzezinski explained that the strategy would require “patience, intelligent manipulation, moral support, but no political interference.”

[See: Andrew Gavin Marshall, A New World War for a New World Order, Global Research, 17 December 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16535]

So we can see that even with $400 million and a highly coordinated attempt at “intelligent manipulation,” the strategy did not succeed. However, it must be acknowledged that the U.S. could not overtly fund opposition and civil society organizations in Iran as it could in Eastern Europe. In the Arab world, while America has and continues to engage with opposition groups and civil society organizations, these efforts have been consistently thwarted and hampered by the domestic Arab regimes, which are well aware of the threat to their own power this could pose. Managing such a strategy in countries run by authoritarian regimes that are very suspicious of civil society and opposition groups presents an incredibly challenging scenario for American strategy. Further, authoritarian regimes generally do not hold elections, unless it is simply a sham election in which the leader wins by a margin of 97%, presenting a difficult scenario in which to mobilize opposition forces. Moreover, the ‘colour revolutions’ throughout Eastern Europe were largely organized through a strategy of bringing together all the opposition groups to stand behind one leader, to make the effort much more coordinated and cohesive. No such strategy seems to have emerged in the Arab world, and has appeared as a patched-up effort of attempting to promote particular opposition figures, but nothing that is evidently well-organized and pre-planned. While many opposition groups are working closely together to oppose the regimes, they are not necessarily being mobilized around any clear and absolute leaders, thus presenting the potential for a power vacuum to open up, making the situation all the more dangerous for American interests.

Another major problem inherent in this strategy in the Arab world is the role being played by the domestic militaries. The militaries within the authoritarian Arab regimes are largely supported, funded, trained and armed by America, and have become powerful political, social and economic actors in their own right (more so in Egypt than Tunisia). Thus, America must balance the process of supporting civil society and opposition groups with that of continuing to support and secure the military structures. If the militaries feel that their position is insecure or threatened, they may simply overtake the entire process and engineer a coup, which is ultimately counter-productive to the American strategy in the region, especially since it is widely known that America is the principle sponsor of these military structures. This implies that America must undertake a delicate balancing act between the military, civil society and opposition groups in coordinating the removal of the entrenched despots. This strategy seems to be materializing itself in the form of constructing “transitional governments,” which the militaries in both Tunisia and Egypt are supporting.

The situation is intensely complicated and conflicting, presenting America with one of its greatest challenges in recent history. While the obvious intent and even the means of organizing “democratic regime change” in the Arab world are present, I believe the rapidity in which the protest movements and uprisings have emerged could have taken America somewhat off-guard. No doubt, from the beginnings of the Tunisian protests in December of 2010, America was paying detailed attention to the situation, attempting to influence the outcome. However, Western media coverage of the first four weeks of protests was minimal, if not altogether absent. This is an important point to address.

For all the other organized efforts at “democratic regime change” and “colour revolutions,” Western media played a critical role. From the moments protests began in these countries, Western media outlets were covering the events extensively, espousing the righteousness of the aims of “democratization” and “freedom,” in full and active support of the demonstrators. This was absent in Tunisia, until of course, the President fled to Saudi Arabia, when suddenly Western media cynically proclaimed a monumental achievement for democracy, and started warning the rest of the Arab world of the potential for this to spread to their countries (thus, applying public pressure to promote “reforms” in line with their strategy of “evolution, not revolution.”). This could imply that America was trying to quietly manage the protests in Tunisia, which did not arise in a pre-coordinated and previously established timeline, but rather sprung up as a rapid response to a suicide of a young man in a personal protest against the government. The spark was lit, and America advanced on Tunisia in an attempt to control its growth and direction. Meanwhile, however, sparks ignited across many nations in the Arab world, including Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Yemen.

Subsequently, America took advantage of these sparks to ignite the process in a direction it would seek to control. For the first few days and even weeks of protests in many of the other nations, appearing by and large to be organic reactions to events in Tunisia and within their own countries, a more coordinated response was undertaken, with the massive organized protests emerging suddenly. Yet, America is potentially stretching itself very thin, possibly risking as much or more than it has to gain. Like a cornered animal, America is simultaneously incredibly vulnerable and incredibly dangerous. Remembering Brzezinski’s words regarding the problem of ‘control’ is an important factor to take into consideration: “in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.”[25] This could potentially be referred to as the ‘Yemen Option,’ in which the strategy entails an effort to promote destabilization, military intervention, covert and overt warfare. In such a scenario, it is essential for America to maintain and, in fact, strengthen its contacts and relationships with domestic military structures.

So, clearly the situation is not and should not be addressed in a black-and-white analysis. It is intensely complicated, multi-faceted and potentially disastrous. No outcome is preordained or absolute: thus, while acknowledging and examining the evidence for America’s deep involvement in the evolution and direction of the protests and opposition, we must keep this analysis within the context of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’ I argued in Part 1 of this essay that it does, in fact, seem as if we are seeing the emergence of a global revolution; yet, this is likely a process that will stretch out certainly over the next one, if not several, decades. We cannot simply dismiss these protests as American machinations and covert operations, but rather as an effort for America to control the ‘Awakening’. As the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report emphasized, “America’s goal in the Middle East should be to encourage democratic evolution, not revolution.”[26] It seems as if this strategy either changed in the intermittent years, or America has been thrown out of its incremental strategy of “evolution” and into the strategy of being forced to respond to and seek to direct “revolution.” This makes the situation all the more dangerous for American interests. Thus, we cannot dismiss the uprisings as entirely “orchestrated,” but instead understand them in the context of the ‘Global Awakening.’

Taking the position that everything is organized from on high in the corridors of power is a flawed analysis. Alternatively, taking the position that America was caught entirely unaware of this situation is naïve and the evidence does not support this assessment. However, we must not see this as an either-or development, but rather a congruence of over-lapping and inter-twining developments. Society, after all, while being directed from above, must react to the responses and developments from below; and thus, society itself and the direction it takes is a highly complex interaction of different, opposing, and conflicting social processes. The claim that the uprisings are the lone result of American strategy neglects the reasons behind the development of this strategy in the first place. The “democratization” strategy did not emerge due to any humanitarian qualms on the part of the U.S. elite for the people living under authoritarian regimes, but rather that the strategy was developed in response to the emergence and growth of the ‘Arab Awakening’ itself. Indeed, in this context, this does mark the beginnings of a global revolution (which has been a long time coming); however, it also marks the active American strategy to control the process and development of the ‘revolution.’

Historically, revolutions are never the product of a one-sided development. That is, revolutions predominantly do not come about through the actions of one segment of society, often polarized as either an elite-driven or people-driven revolution, but rather they come about through a complex interaction and balancing of various social groups. The context and conditions for a revolution often do not emerge without the awareness of the upper classes, therefore, the upper social strata always or often seek to mitigate, control, repress, influence or co-opt and control the process of revolution. In this context, we cannot dismiss revolutions simply as a top-down or bottom-up process, but rather a mitigation and interaction between the two approaches.

American strategic objectives are aimed at ultimately repressing and co-opting the organic revolutionary uprisings in the Arab world. For the past six years or so, America has been developing and starting to implement a strategy to manage to ‘Arab Awakening’ by promoting “democratization” in a process of “evolution, not revolution.” However, the evolution was evidently not fast enough for the people living under the Arab regimes, and revolution is in the air. America, naturally, is desperately attempting to manage the situation and repress a true revolution from spreading across the region, instead promoting an “orderly transition” as Hillary Clinton and President Obama have stressed. Thus, America has been extensively involved in the processes of organizing and establishing “transitional governments” or “unity governments.” If the revolution took its own course, and sought true change, populist democracy and ultimate freedom, it would ultimately be forced to challenge the role and influence of America and the West in the region. As such, military “aid” would need to end (a prospect the domestic militaries are not willing to accept), American influence over and contact with civil society and opposition groups would need to be openly challenged and discussed, the IMF and World Bank would need to be kicked out, international debts would need to be declared “odious” and cancelled, and the people would have to control their own country and become active, engaged and informed citizens. The true revolution will have to be not simply political, but economic, social, cultural, psychological, intellectual and ultimately, global.

The protesters must challenge not simply their despotic governments, but must ultimately remove American and Western control over their nations. They must also be very cautious of opposition groups and proposed leaders who are thrust to the front lines and into the government, as they are likely co-opted. The true new leaders should come from the people, and should earn their leadership, not simply be crowned as ‘leaders.’ The best possible short-to-medium-term scenario would be to see the emergence of Arab populist democracies, reflecting the trend seen across Latin America (although, not necessarily imposing the same ideologies). The trouble with this scenario is that it is also the most unlikely. If there is one thing that American power despises, it is populist democracy. Since the beginnings of the Cold War until present day, America has actively overthrown, orchestrated coups, imposed dictatorships, crushed, invaded and occupied, bombed and destabilized or implemented “democratic regime change” in populist democracies. Democratic governments that are accountable to the people and seek to help the poor and oppressed make themselves quick enemies of American power. Over the past 60 years, America has repressed or supported the repression of democracies, liberation struggles and attempts at autonomy all over the world: Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Haiti in 1959, the Congo in 1960, Ecuador in 1961, Algeria, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Afghanistan, Indonesia, South Africa, Palestine, Iraq, Venezuela, Lebanon, Yemen and on and on and on.

The situation is a dangerous and difficult one for the protesters, just as the struggle for freedom and democracy is and has always been. There is a large constituency which have an interest in preventing the emergence of a populist democracy, including many of the pro-democracy organizations and opposition leaders themselves, the great nations of the world – East and West, the World Bank and IMF, international corporations and banks, neighbouring Arab regimes, Israel, and of course, America. It is a monumental challenge, but it would be a great disservice to cast aside the protests as controlled and totally co-opted. If that were the case, they would have ceased with the formation of transition and unity governments, which of course they have not. While the outcome is ultimately unknown, what is clear is that a spark has been lit in the Arab world as the ‘Global Political Awakening’ marches on, and this will be a very difficult flame to control.

In the next part of this series, I will examine in more detail the specific revolutions and uprisings taking place in Tunisia and Egypt within the strategic context explained in this part.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at Globalresearch.ca. He is currently working on a forthcoming book on 'Global Government'.


[1] Rahul Mahakan, “We Think the Price is Worth It,” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, November/December 2001: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

[2] David Rothkopf, Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power (PublicAffairs, 2006), page 17

[3] Ibid, pages 174-175

[4] Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber, In Support of Arab Democracy: Why and How. (Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report, 2005), pages 49-54

[5] Ibid, page 3.

[6] Ibid, pages 3-4.

[7] Ibid, page 4.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid, pages 11-12.

[10] Ibid, page 12.

[11] Ibid, page 13.

[12] Ibid, pages 36-37.

[13] Ibid, pages 38-39.

[14] Ibid, page 39/

[15] Ibid, page 40.

[16] Ibid, page 43.

[17] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html; “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President,” International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009); The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign. The American Interest Magazine, Autumn 2005: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=56; The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Speech at the Carnegie Council: March 25, 2004: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4424.html; America’s Geopolitical Dilemmas. Speech at the Canadian International Council and Montreal Council on Foreign Relations: April 23, 2010: http://www.onlinecic.org/resourcece/multimedia/americasgeopoliticaldilemmas

[18] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html

[19] Ibid.

[20] Jean-Claude Trichet, Global Governance Today, Keynote address by Mr Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 26 April 2010: http://www.bis.org/review/r100428b.pdf

[21] Herman Von Rompuy, Speech Upon Accepting the EU Presidency, BBC News, 22 November 2009:


[22] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html

[23] Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President,” International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009), page 54

[24] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html

[25] Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President,” International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009), page 54

[26] Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber, In Support of Arab Democracy: Why and How. (Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report, 2005), page 4

Keith Millea
02-11-2011, 04:08 PM
Mubarak steps down!Jubilation in Egypt NOW.


David Guyatt
02-11-2011, 05:15 PM
It's a military coup.

VP seems unsettled, tells Egyptians "May God help us" (or very similar words).

All news channels, including Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, were stunned it seems to me, with nothing ready to go, no experts standing by to soothe nerves for the transition.

Maybe I'm reading something into all this.

Peter Lemkin
02-11-2011, 05:41 PM
Switzerland:dancingman: just announced all Mubarak's bank accounts frozen!......

I have been to Egypt and traveled down the entire length of the Nile there - and I share in their great victory...it even gives me some hope that some day Democracy may even also come to my country!:peace::plane:

I just hope this [like so many] revolution is not co-opted by the Dark Forces :spy::darthvader::hitler:

David Guyatt
02-11-2011, 05:43 PM
David Cameron just gave a very brief and curt press conference outside 10 Downing Street. Looking drawn and unhappy, he said that a move to civilian and and democratic was needed.

Meanwhile Iran and Hezbollah have hailed the Egyptians decision as historic. Fuck!

Obama due to give press call at 16:30 UK time.

Jan Klimkowski
02-11-2011, 06:17 PM
Tim Marshall, Sky News' Foreign Affairs Editor, explicitly stated on air that, after Mubarak's rambling and incoherent "I'm staying" last night, the American government ordered the Egyptian military to get Mubarak to stand down. Putting the military in charge of the country.

Also, whilst I welcome Peter Lemkin's post above suggesting Mubarak's Swiss bank accounts are frozen, that alleged $70 billion belongs neither to Mubarak nor the bankers: it belongs to the Egyptian people.

I suspect Andrew Gavin Marshall in the piece on the previous page has called American intentions towards this revolution fairly accurately:

The aim is not to promote an organic Arab democracy ‘of the people, and for the people,’ but rather to promote an evolutionary “democratization” in which the old despots of American strategic support are removed in favour of a neoliberal democratic system, in which the outward visible institutions of democracy are present (multi-party elections, private media, parliaments, constitutions, active civil society, etc); yet, the power-holders within that domestic political system remain subservient to U.S. economic and strategic interests, continuing to follow the dictates of the IMF and World Bank, supporting America’s military hegemony in the region, and “opening up” the Arab economies to be “integrated” into the world economy. Thus, “democratization” becomes an incredibly valuable strategy for maintaining hegemony; a modern re-hash of “Let them eat cake!” Give the people the ‘image’ of democracy and establish and maintain a co-dependent relationship with the new elite. Thus, democracy for the people becomes an exercise in futility, where people’s ‘participation’ becomes about voting between rival factions of elites, who all ultimately follow the orders of Washington.

Ed Jewett
02-11-2011, 06:55 PM
Thanks, Peter, for the article in post #9 by Andrew Gavin Marshall. It is a very important read. As Zee-big said to his CFR cronies in Montreal, 'we have the psychotronics and we can and should use them'. And the part about it being easier to kill a million people than to control them ought to make it clear what their eventual weapon of last resort will be.

Peter Lemkin
02-11-2011, 07:37 PM
Also, whilst I welcome Peter Lemkin's post above suggesting Mubarak's Swiss bank accounts are frozen, that alleged $70 billion belongs neither to Mubarak nor the bankers: it belongs to the Egyptian people.

Sadly, given the fact that the Swiss Bankers still have not returned much of the Nazi looted gold and cash......the Egyptians will have a looooooooooooong haul.....

I suspect Andrew Gavin Marshall in the piece on the previous page has called American intentions towards this revolution fairly accurately:

The aim is not to promote an organic Arab democracy ‘of the people, and for the people,’ but rather to promote an evolutionary “democratization” in which the old despots of American strategic support are removed in favour of a neoliberal democratic system, in which the outward visible institutions of democracy are present (multi-party elections, private media, parliaments, constitutions, active civil society, etc); yet, the power-holders within that domestic political system remain subservient to U.S. economic and strategic interests, continuing to follow the dictates of the IMF and World Bank, supporting America’s military hegemony in the region, and “opening up” the Arab economies to be “integrated” into the world economy. Thus, “democratization” becomes an incredibly valuable strategy for maintaining hegemony; a modern re-hash of “Let them eat cake!” Give the people the ‘image’ of democracy and establish and maintain a co-dependent relationship with the new elite. Thus, democracy for the people becomes an exercise in futility, where people’s ‘participation’ becomes about voting between rival factions of elites, who all ultimately follow the orders of Washington.

Yeah, seems about right, sadly, to me.......lets hope Egypt and the other Arab dictatorships - which I predict will fall within a few weeks can avoid what the USA and the UK Poodle have in store for them....

Peter Lemkin
02-11-2011, 08:26 PM
I just did the calculation....if Mubarak's billions were distributed evenly to all in Egypt, they'd each get just about the yearly average income....and this one fat dictator had it all.....stolen from US Aid and Crony Deals in Egypt and the world of arms and no doubt drugs, loose money, etc. I share Jan's doubt the Egyptians will ever see it again.

Bernice Moore
02-11-2011, 11:36 PM
man's name is wael ghonim..alias ''face book''...http://propakistani.pk/

i certainly hope they receive their money back, it has been reported the mubarick and family and associates ,moneys off shore, have all been secured..but as you say or whomever, we shall see.....thanks b.:pirate:

David Guyatt
02-12-2011, 10:03 AM
Sadly, only a fool would have all bis eggs in one clearly labelled basket.

The bulk of Mubarak's fortune will be distributed across many nations, in a variety of names and entities.

The frozen Swiss accounts will only account for a small amount of it.

Peter Lemkin
02-12-2011, 10:10 AM
Sadly, only a fool would have all bis eggs in one clearly labelled basket.

The bulk of Mubarak's fortune will be distributed across many nations, in a variety of names and entities.

The frozen Swiss accounts will only account for a small amount of it.

And the banks will try desperately to keep it in their vaults for as long as possible while the court cases rage on......their old ploy...they don't loose whoever tries to claim it! On the other point, you are correct. I think a few millions [let alone nearly 80 billion] buys some 'good' money-hiding/asset-hiding advice.....and he was involved with those who do it on an ongoing basis!....

Magda Hassan
02-13-2011, 12:15 AM
ElBaradei: Soros’s Man in Cairo

by Maidhc Ó Cathail

February 12, 2011

In a February 3 Washington Post op-ed piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020205041.html) titled “Why Obama has to get Egypt right,” George Soros wrote that the U.S. president had “much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for dignity and democracy.” Notwithstanding the reasonableness of his advice, past experience (http://www.newstatesman.com/200306020019) suggests that the Hungarian-born hedge fund manager has something to gain himself from regime change in Cairo.
In his public memo to the president he helped elect (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/us/politics/05obama.html?pagewanted=print), Soros noted that it was a “hopeful sign” that the Muslim Brotherhood was cooperating with Mohamed ElBaradei, whom he disinterestedly described as “the Nobel laureate who is seeking to run for president.” He neglected to mention, however, that up to ElBaradei’s January 27 return to crisis-torn Egypt, the former IAEA chief had been a member of the Board of Trustees (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board.aspx) of the International Crisis Group, which Soros, the thirty-fifth richest person (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_George-Soros_L9II.html) in the world, helped create (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/speeches/2003/morton-abramowitz-remarks-on-receiving-the-icg-founders-award.aspx) and finance (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/speeches/2003/george-soros-remarks-on-receiving-the-icg-founders-award.aspx).
The International Crisis Group describes itself as “an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict,” but self-descriptions can often be misleading. “The ICG is a fascinating case study of the way human rights organizations, governments and international corporations work hand in glove these days,” George Szamuely wrote (http://www.antiwar.com/rep/szamuely/szamuely50.html) of the influential (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j081600.html) think tank’s role in the Balkans (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2001/03/19/macedonia-explodes/). “‘Independent’ figures like Soros identify a ‘crisis’ demanding urgent government attention. Governments act on them and then parcel out the lucrative contracts to Soros and his pals.”
One of Soros’s more notorious “pals” is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the jailed former head of Yukos Oil, who by the age of 32 had amassed assets worth more than $30 billion in the rigged (http://criminalstate.com/2008/11/all-too-familiar/) post-Soviet “privatization” of state-owned property. When the Jewish oligarch (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/02/russia.lukeharding1) was arrested (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12082222) for tax evasion, embezzlement and fraud in 2003, Soros denounced (http://themoscowtimes.com/business/article/the-buzz-is-about-yukos-in-boston/234651.html) the charges as “political persecution,” called for the expulsion of Russia from the G-8, and urged the West to intervene. Khodorkovsky’s partner in crime, Leonid Nevzlin, fled to Israel (http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/01/nevzlin-khodorkovsky-yukos-face-cx_vr_0801autofacescan01.html) before he was found guilty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7537444.stm) in absentia of ordering the murders of several politicians and businesspeople that got in the way of Yukos’s expansion plans. Like Soros (http://www.soros.org/) and Khodorkovsky (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Open_Russia_Foundation), Nevzlin has since attempted to rebrand (http://www.forward.com/articles/119191/) himself as a “philanthropist.”
Tel Aviv’s concerns about the loss of a friendly dictator (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/without-egypt-israel-will-be-left-with-no-friends-in-mideast-1.339926) next door, however, should be assuaged somewhat by the fact that ElBaradei could collaborate with the considerable number of Israel partisans at ICG. Former U.S. Congressman Stephen Solarz, who helped start (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/speeches/2003/morton-abramowitz-remarks-on-receiving-the-icg-founders-award.aspx) the group, was once dubbed (http://www.newstatesman.com/200306020019) “the Israel lobby’s chief legislative tactician on Capitol Hill,” and in 1998 led a group of neoconservatives (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/20/iraq.war.presser/) who urged President Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Fellow neocon Kenneth Adelman assured (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Adelman_Kenneth#_edn5) Americans in a 2002 Washington Post op-ed that the Israeli-induced (http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/03/13/whos-to-blame-for-the-iraq-war/) invasion of Iraq would be a “cakewalk.” Even more reassuring for nervous Israelis must be the presence of Nahum Barnea, the prominent Israeli columnist who sharply criticized (http://www.thenation.com/article/not-passing-israels-lynch-test) fellow journalists Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and Akiva Eldar for their “mission” of support for the Palestinians.
And among ICG’s elite international list of senior advisers (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/%7E/link.aspx?_id=AFAAD992BC154C93B71B1E76D6151F3F&_z=z)—defined as “former Board Members (to the extent consistent with any other office they may be holding at the time) who maintain an association with Crisis Group, and whose advice and support are called on from time to time”—we find Shlomo Ben-Ami, former foreign minister of Israel; Stanley Fischer, governor of the Bank of Israel; and Shimon Peres, current president of Israel.
On the face of it, it seems hard to reconcile the substantial pro-Israel presence at ICG with Soros’s claims to be a “non-Zionist.” But things are seldom what they seem (http://www.forward.com/articles/131728/) with Soros. Two years after the founding of J Street, it emerged that he had given substantial donations to the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby. Not everyone is convinced by J Street’s claims to be a genuine alternative to AIPAC either. As one astute commentator put it (http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/10/28/my-problem-with-j-street/), J Street is “little more than a spin-off of the existing Israel Lobby to make it more palatable to the liberal Democrats that make up the Obama Administration.”
Moreover, some of Israel’s most fervent advocates on Capitol Hill have received donations (http://www.forward.com/articles/131728/#ixzz1DSQZ3lqx) from Soros, who has become (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/10/18/041018fa_fact3#ixzz1DU3gwsWM) “one of the largest political-campaign contributors in American history.” In an interview (http://www.nachumsegal.com/readBlognew.cfm?blog=57554) with a conservative Jewish radio talk show, Senator Charles Schumer said he believed (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/americas/2010/04/25/israels-man-us-senate) that HaShem (Orthodox Jewish term for “God”) gave him his name—which means “guardian”—so that he could fulfill his “very important” role in the U.S. Senate as a “guardian of Israel.”
Essentially filling the same role in the House of Representatives until 2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/11/AR2008021100845.html) was the late Congressman Tom Lantos (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/13/7043), whom a former U.S. diplomat referred to (http://www.wrmea.org/backissues/0693/9306013.htm) as “the Hungarian-American guardian of Israel’s interests in Congress.” As co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Lantos knowingly deceived (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html) his co-chairman and the public about the identity of “Nayirah,” whose incubator atrocity story (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y&feature=related) helped justify American intervention in the 1991 Gulf War. Lantos, who is said (http://www.forward.com/articles/131728/) to have “shared a common drive for promoting democracy and human rights” with his close friend Soros, also championed (http://www.forward.com/articles/1782/#ixzz1DTjdW8cC) the fugitive Nevzlin as an innocent victim of anti-Semitism.
“I hope President Obama will expeditiously support the people of Egypt,” Soros wrote in his Post op-ed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020205041.html). “My foundations are prepared to contribute what they can.” If the Egyptian people have as much sense as they have courage and determination, however, they will tell this self-described “committed advocate of democracy and open society” what to do with his “philanthropy”—and his Nobel laureate.

Magda Hassan
02-13-2011, 12:18 AM
P U L S E (http://pulsemedia.org/)

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

Egyptian People Power Versus the Oligarchy

leave a comment » (http://pulsemedia.org/2011/02/12/egyptian-people-power-versus-the-oligarchy/#comments)
By Michael Barker
http://mondoweiss.net/images/2011/02/hate.jpgThe ongoing insurrection in Egypt is fantastic, but the barriers standing between the people and any substantive form of democracy are formidable and will need to be overcome in the near future. As one might expect there are plenty of ‘reformers’ waiting amongst the counter-revolutionaries to undermine any forthcoming revolution, ready and willing to proudly take on the mantle of power in the name of the democracy. Leading neoconservative ideologue, Paul Wolfowitz, suggests (http://blog.american.com/?p=26691) that Hossam Badrawi, the “recently appointed head of Egypt’s government party may be emerging as an interesting and reasonable transition figure.” Acknowledging that there are many such leaders who stand between the Egyptian people and a successful revolution, this article will focus on the elites in Badrawi’s higher circles in an attempt to draw attention to just a few of the many of the powerful groups and individuals ready and willing to smash/co-opt the peoples movement under the iron heel/velvet slipper of the Oligarchy.[1]
Until recently Hossam Badrawi served on the board of governors of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP), but with the en masse resignations of many of the members of the NDP’s top executive committee, Badrawi a founding member of Arab Parliamentarians Against Corruption, became their new Secretary General. To gain an idea of Badrawi’s reformist ambitions for Egypt one might turn to look at some of his colleagues at Egypt’s International Economic Forum, a group whose “ultimate objective” is “fully integrating the Egyptian economy into the world economy on favourable terms.”
Notable elites serving alongside Badrawi on Egypt’s International Economic Forum’s executive committee include Taher Helmy, who is the founder and chair of the Egyptian Center for Economic Studies, a think-tank has been supported for the past two decades by the imperialist (http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker06.html) National Endowment for Democracy. In fact, the International Economic Forum’s current chairman, M. Shafik Gabr, also serves as a board member of Helmy’s think tank, and as a member of a World Economic Forum project called the Community of West and Islam Dialogue (C-100). Next up, the treasurer of Egypt’s International Economic Forum, Shahira Magdy Zeid, just so happens to be a board member of the Mubarak Women’s International Peace Movement — which is headed (of course) by the dictators wife, Suzanne. (Likewise, Taher Helmy is a board member of Mubarak’s ‘peace’ movement.)
Egypt’s International Economic Forum boasts of a small but impressive advisory board of just five individuals, the three most significant being: the former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, Robert Pelletreau; World Economic Forum president, Klaus Schwab (a devotee of Orwellian politics who counts himself as a ‘peace’ advocate because of his service on the board of governors at the Shimon Peres Center for Peace); and Frank G. Wisner, Jr. , an important imperial power broker who after serving as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt (1986-91), went on to become the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines, where he supervised the aftermath of their recent transition from U.S.-backed dictatorship to ‘democracy.’ That the Philippines’ immensely powerful people-powered movement could be co-opted by the U.S. governments ‘democracy promotion’ apparatus provides a stark example of what the Oligarchy has in store for Egypt; that is, if they are not thwarted by what may turn out to be a truly revolutionary movement for change.[2]
Last but not least, especially considering their advisors’ special imperial pedigree, it makes sense to briefly examine some of the members of the Egypt’s International Economic Forum’s board of trustees. We might start here with the former information secretary of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, Ali Eldin Helal (who resigned earlier this month). In addition to his central role in dispensing state propaganda, Eldin Helal was the first vice president of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (1985-7) — a group that received annual support from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) between 1994 and 2005. Furthermore it is important to point out that at the same time as he worked for this human rights group he served on the council of the British-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (1983-92).[3]
Other trustees of Egypt’s International Economic Forum include Ahmed Ezz and Rachid Mohamed Rachid, who are both board members of a business orientated nonprofit called Future Generation Foundation that is headed by Mubarak’s son, Gamal; and Mona Makram-Ebeid, who is a founding member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs — an elite think tank that models itself on the imperial brains trust that is the Council on Foreign Relations.
Here it is interesting to point out that a particularly influential member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs is Naguib Sawiris, the eldest son of Orascom-empire patriarch, Onsi Sawiris. Naguib Sawiris presently serves on the international advisory committee to the New York Stock Exchange board of directors, and is a recent board member of the ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ nonprofit, Foundation for the Future. In fact, Sawiris was linked to this group in 2007, during the time at which the romantic partner of Paul Wolfowitz, Shaha Riza (a former NED-scholar herself) managed this highly profitable neoconservative enterprise (for a critique of this group, see “The Foundation for the Future: What FOIA Documents Reveal (http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/FoundationfortheFuture.pdf),” pdf).[4]
Finally, another significant member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs is Mamdouh Salim, who is a member of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (see later), and is the vice president of the Forum of Dialogue and Partnership for Development’s board of trustees. This latter group provides a connection to another important group that has received funding from the NED, the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies; this is because Ayat M. Abul-Futtouh acted as the program manager for the Forum of Dialogue and Partnership for Development from 2001 until 2003, before she moved on to become the managing director of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies. Abul-Futtouh also happens to be a founder and a steering committee member of the Network for Democrats in the Arab World, and in 2006 she was invited to give a talk at Paul Wolfowitz’s current nominal home, the American Enterprise Institute; this talk was later published in 2008 the Institutes’s book Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Empowering Democrats.
The current chairman of the Ibn Khaldun Center’s board of trustees is Nobel Peace Prize nominee and Arab Organization for Human Rights founder, Saad Eddin Ibrahim. Although widely celebrated as a leading Egyptian pro-democracy activist, Ibrahim maintains intimate connections to U.S. neoconservatives and a wide variety of ‘democracy promoting’ organizations connected to the work of the NED (for a critical examination of his background, see “The Violence of Nonviolence (http://www.stateofnature.org/violenceOfNonviolence.html)”). Recently Ibrahim even joined the advisory board of a neoconservative group called Cyberdissidents.org, whose web site says they are “dedicated to supporting human liberty by promoting the voices of online dissidents.” Founded in 2008 this project is headed by their cofounder, David Keyes, who previously served as coordinator for democracy programs under the right-wing Zionist Natan Sharansky while based at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies.
Retaining the theme on ‘democracy’ obsessed neoconservatives, it is significant that Sherif Mansour, the former program manager for the Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development Studies, is a current program officer for Middle East and North Africa at the neoconservative outfit, Freedom House. He is the coeditor with Maria Stephan of the book Civilian Resistance in the Middle East (Routledge, 2009).[5] Based at Freedom House, Mansour runs the New Generation program which advocates for political reform in Egypt and North Africa. Needless to say such ‘peace’ activists do not want the popular insurrection in Egypt to escalate to become a successful revolution that dismantles Egypt’s brutal state apparatus and creates a vibrant people-powered democracy. This helps explain why conservative commentators based in the United States are now asking: “Will Venezuela Be the Next Egypt? (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0209_venezuela_cardenas.aspx)” The answer to that ridiculous question is a definitive no!
- Michael Barker is an independent researcher who currently resides in the UK. His other articles can be accessed here (http://michaeljamesbarker.wordpress.com/).
- Notes -
[1] This is a reference to the Jack London’s 1907 book The Iron Heel. In a forthcoming article titled “The Velvet Slipper and the Military-Peace Nonprofit Complex,”I elaborate on what I refer to as the velvet slipper approach to manipulating social movements — an approach currently in vogue among leading neoconservatives.
[2] For further details, see Kim Scipes, KMU: Building Genuine Trade Unionism in the Philippines, 1980-1994 (New Day Publishers, 1996); and William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge University Press, 1996), Chapter 3.
[3] Incidentally, elite ‘peace’-broker Peter Ackerman joined the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London as a visiting scholar, undertaking research which led him to co-authoring a book with Christopher Kruegler (the president of the controversial (http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker01.html) NED-funded Albert Einstein Institution) called Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century (Praeger, 1994). Ackerman is a current board member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the founding chair and primary funder of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, and former chair of the neoconservative Freedom House.
[4] One might add that Naguib’s brother, Nassef Onsi Sawiris, is a board member of the cement behemoth, Lafarge, where he alongside numerous (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nassef_Onsi_Sawiris) high-rolling members of the ruling class.
[5] It is noteworthy that Maria Stephan worked on this book while based at Peter Ackerman’s ‘democracy promoting’ International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. (See footnote #3)

Ed Jewett
02-13-2011, 12:35 AM
My friend the Coptic Christian from Egypt confirmed for me this morning what I thought was going on. Mubarak was thrown out by a military coup. When I asked my Coptic friend if the Egyptian Army was on the side of the people, he said "Of course... they didn't fire on us", and then we agreed that we all need to be in this together. He said 'Yes, my friend. It is the same in your house or my house, in your wallet or my wallet. What you saw in Egypt is the Muslim linking hand in hand with the Christian, refusing to be divided us against them any longer.'

David Guyatt
02-13-2011, 10:02 AM
My friend the Coptic Christian from Egypt confirmed for me this morning what I thought was going on. Mubarak was thrown out by a military coup. When I asked my Coptic friend if the Egyptian Army was on the side of the people, he said "Of course... they didn't fire on us", and then we agreed that we all need to be in this together. He said 'Yes, my friend. It is the same in your house or my house, in your wallet or my wallet. What you saw in Egypt is the Muslim linking hand in hand with the Christian, refusing to be divided us against them any longer.'

Fingers crossed then Ed.

Magda Hassan
02-13-2011, 10:19 AM
I hope so too but all that US military money buys a lot of influence. And there is probably more we don't know about. Lots more in special selected pockets.

Magda Hassan
02-13-2011, 01:56 PM
Egypt's military-industrial complex

With US-made tear gas canisters fired on protesters in Cairo, Washington's role in arming Egypt is under the spotlight


[URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/pratap-chatterjee"]Pratap Chatterjee (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/04/egypt-arms-trade#start-of-comments)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Friday 4 February 2011 19.01 GMT

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/1/28/1296219764167/A-riot-policeman-fires-te-009.jpg A riot policeman fires tear gas at protesters in front of the al-Istiqama Mosque on 28 January, in Cairo, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images In early January 2010, Bob Livingston, a former chairman of the appropriations committee in the US House of Representatives, flew to Cairo accompanied by William Miner, one of his staff. The two men were granted meetings with US Ambassador Margaret Scobey, as well as Major General FC "Pink" Williams, the defence attaché and director of the US Office of Military Cooperation in Egypt (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/omc-e.htm). Livingston and Miner were lobbyists employed by the government of Egypt, helping them to open doors to senior officers in the US government. Records of their meetings (http://data.sunlightlabs.com/Government/Egypt-s-Foreign-Lobbyist-Contacts/hck6-v3t4), required under law, were recently published by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington, DC watchdog group.
Although the names of those who attended the meetings have to be made public, the details of what was discussed are confidential. I called Miner to ask him about their meetings, but he referred me to Karim Haggag, the spokesman for the Egyptian embassy in Washington, who did not respond. Miner did confirm that he was a retired Navy pilot who had worked for clients like the Egyptian government, as well as several military contractors.
The cozy relationship between the lobbyists, members of the US Congress, Pentagon officials and the Egyptian government is easily explained: much is at stake. Egypt has received over $70bn in economic and military aid (http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/01/crs_egypt_tunisia.html) approved by the US Congress in the past 60 years, according to numbers compiled by the Congressional Research Service. Maj Gen Williams is the man in charge of the $1.3bn in annual US military aid (http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=10793) supplied to the country.
Specifically, the aid money pays for US-designed Abrams tanks assembled in suburban Cairo under contract with General Dynamics. Boeing sells Egypt CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters, Lockheed Martin sells F-16s, Sikorsky Aircraft sells Black Hawk helicopters. Lockheed Martin has taken in $3.8bn from Egypt in the last few years; General Dynamics $2.5bn; Boeing $1.7bn; among many others.
In addition, hundreds of Egyptian military officers come for short training courses to the US each year. Two days after Livingston and Miner met with the US officials in Cairo, the embassy sent a cable to Washington with a list of Egyptian officials approved to take a three-week military training course in the US in February 2010. Under the "Leahy law" – a human rights requirement named after Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont that prohibits US military assistance to foreign military units that violate human rights – the embassy must, as a matter of routine, vouch for the prospective trainees.
One of the training courses listed in the cable made public by WikiLeaks was listed as one in how to handle explosives. The WikiLeaks cables show that numerous officials working for "state security", aged between 30 and 50 with ranks from major to lieutenant colonel, were given clean bills of health to take a variety of such specialised military training programmes.
After the US lobbyists returned to their offices in Washington, DC, Miner kept in touch with "Pink" Williams, corresponding via email. A little over three months later, an Egyptian military delegation led by Major General Mohamed Said Elassar, assistant to Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, the Egyptian minister of defence, came to Washington. Livingstone and Miner were on hand once again to take the Egyptian officials to meet with a number of members of Congress, as well to visit the office of the secretary of defence to discuss "US/Egyptian security issues".
So, when protesters in Cairo last week were struck by tear gas canisters fired by Egyptian security officials (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/egypt-protest-police-us-made-tear-gas-demonstrators/story?id=12785598), it was not surprising that pictures taken by ABC TV would show that the canisters were manufactured in the US. Nor does it seem that surprising that a journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald would find 12-gauge shotgun shells with ''MADE IN USA'' (http://www.smh.com.au/world/pleas-for-democracy-met-with-american-bullets-20110131-1ab3z.html) stamped on their brass heads when he visited the wounded in a makeshift casualty ward in a tiny mosque behind Tahrir (Liberation) Square.
The photographs show that the tear gas comes from a company named Combined Systems Inc (CSI), which describes itself as a "tactical weapons company" and is based in Jamestown, Pennsylvania. A similar picture from the protests in Egypt was posted on Twitter of a "Outdoor 52 Series Large Grenade" grenade made by CSI, which is designed to discharge "a high volume of smoke and chemical agent through multiple emission ports". (CSI did not return calls for comment.)
Although CSI markets these products as "less-than-lethal" (http://www.less-lethal.com/), several incidents indicate that they can cause injury and death. Bassem Abu Rahmah, a Palestinian man, was reportedly killed on 17 April 2009, when a CSI 40mm model 4431 powder barricade penetrating tear gas grenade struck him in the chest (http://www.btselem.org/english/firearms/20090422_firing_tear_gaz_canisters_directly_on_peo ple.asp), according to a report by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. Nels Cooper Brannan , a US marine deployed to Fallujah, Iraq, unsuccessfully sued CSI for injuries caused by an allegedly defective MK 141 flashbang grenade that caused serious damage to his left hand when it exploded accidently.
While the Egyptian protesters were facing tear gas grenades fired by security forces in Cairo, another delegation of Egyptian senior military officials (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/world/middleeast/29military-egypt.html) led by Lieutenant General Sami Hafez Enan, the chief of staff of Egypt's armed forces, was back in Washington to meet with Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (No public records have been filed yet, so it is unclear if Miner and Livingstone were escorting them again.)
Within hours of the news of the huge protests, Enan cut short his trip and dashed back to Cairo last Friday, but his boss, Minister Tantawi, has kept in touch with Washington, making daily phone calls to US Defence Secretary Robert Gates (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-02/three-decades-of-missions-weapons-training-for-egypt-keep-u-s-in-loop.html). Both men – together with Egypt's spy chief, Omar Suleiman ( – are among President Hosni Mubarak's closest allies and enjoy close ties with Washington, according to the diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks. And it was these men that Thomas E Donilon, the US national security adviser, was frantically phoning last weekend (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/world/middleeast/02transition.html) to try to gauge how to prevent the collapse of the Mubarak regime.
It could days, maybe even weeks, before the future of the Egyptian government is decided, and with it, the relationship with the US. But one thing is clear: the Egyptian protesters are well aware of the close ties between officials in Cairo and Washington and not happy about the US training and tear gas shells supplied to the Egyptian military. Crowds gathered in Liberation Square last week chanted: "Hosni Mubarak, Omar Suleiman, both of you are agents of the Americans." The protesters believe that the billions in military aid that kept Mubarak in power have helped him keep democracy from flowering in Egypt.
Two years after Obama's famous speech in Cairo (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/NewBeginning/), in which he called for a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims", it might be a little late for his administration to heed the words of Mostafa Amin (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-mustafa-amin-1267291.html), Egypt's most famous columnist and journalist:

Maybe America gains a lot when it exports to us arms and cars or planes, but it loses more when it does not export the best that its civilisation has produced, which is freedom and democracy and human rights. The value of America is that it should defend this product, not only in its country but throughout the world! It may harm some of its interests, but it will make gains that will live hundreds of years, for the friendship of peoples live forever, because the peoples do not die, but governments change like the winter weather.


Ed Jewett
02-13-2011, 09:11 PM
I do not expect to deep forces of evil, greed and power to rule over and play dead. It is, always has been, and always will be an endless struggle.

Magda Hassan
02-14-2011, 12:56 AM
February 13, 2011 --- CAIRO (Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/13/uk-egypt-warning-idUKTRE71C1OG20110213)) - Egypt's new military rulers will issue a warning against anyone who creates "chaos and disorder," an army source said Sunday.

The source said the military statement was now expected to appear Monday, not Sunday as the source had said earlier.

The Higher Military Council will also ban meetings by labour unions or professional syndicates, effectively forbidding strikes, and tell all Egyptians to get back to work after the unrest that toppled Hosni Mubarak.
[Without the right to strike it is slavery. We know where this is headed now]

The army will also say it acknowledges and protects the right of people to protest, the source said.

(Reporting by Marwa Awad, writing by Alistair Lyon)

Magda Hassan
02-14-2011, 06:44 AM
Egyptian army moves to preserve its power (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/02/egyptian-army-moves-to-preserve-its.html) posted by lenin (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/02/egyptian-army-moves-to-preserve-its.html)

The revolutionaries demanded (http://www.juancole.com/2011/02/scenarios-for-egypts-future-how-democratic-will-it-be.html) Mubarak's overthrow, and insisted that Suleiman should not be put in charge. They have won that. They demanded that the NDP-dominated parliament be prorogued in the interim before elections, and the constitution suspended. They have won that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/feb/13/egypt-transition). But they also demanded that between now and elections, there should be a collective, civilian governing council, that the emergency law should be terminated, that unions and parties should have the right to form without the permission of the state. They haven't (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/12/egypt-military-leaders-fall-out-protesters) won that. The army has instead taken control, is attempting to dismantle the democracy village in Tahrir Square, and has been arresting activists today. This does not mean that the army is going to get its way over the future of Egypt, or even that its hesitant, faltering efforts today - and they did falter - represent anything but a tentative foot in the water, an attempt to see if something like order can be restored. In fact, the army's premature provocation resulted in thousands of people pouring back into the square, some rough confrontations, and eventually groups of army and police standing around looking perplexed. Some police (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23891) even came to the square pleading to be accepted as comrades of the revolution. The army will have to concede some form of representative electoral system, with some basic political freedoms. The state will be weakened in its repressive capacity, and the government will be strengthened in its representative capacity. But the precise balance of forces in the new polity has still to be decided, and in particular the army's central role (http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110212-strategy-behind-militarys-fourth-communique) has to be negotiated (and struggled against). Everything the army does, therefore - whether they decide to keep the NDP men in place or throw them aside, for example - has to be read in terms of their determination to remain in charge.

The army's manoeuvering now is presumably aimed at breaking up the remarkably broad coalition that was first assembled in 2006. This has included of course the Muslim Brothers, the Nasserist 'Karama' party, the Labour Party (which is Islamist), the Tagammu Party (leftist), the Revolutionary Socialists (self-explanatory), Kefaya (an alliance which includes many of the above elements), the Ghad Party (a liberal offshoot of the Wafdists which was the first party to be approached by Mubarak for negotiations), and Mohammed El Baradei's National Alliance for Change. It has to be said that the alliance might have been quite difficult to maintain if the left had taken the sectarian attitude of some of the older layers of marxists who basically maintained that the Muslim Brothers were a tool of the capitalist class, simply an ally of neoliberalism and imperialism, and so on. The Revolutionary Socialists played a key role in overcoming that. Samir Najib, working in the Centre for Socialist Studies, argued that it was vital to understand that the Muslim Brothers as in part a movement of the oppressed, involving many rank and file activists who came from poor and working class backgrounds. Some of them had been on the Left, and been alienated from the Left because of their experiences under Nasser and because of the way the poor bore the brunt of the crisis that marked the latter years of the Nasser regime. He argued that socialists should act independently of the Islamists, but not dismissively of them. They should defend them when they were opposed to the state on issues such as the emergency laws, or the independence of the judiciary, and should be prepared to work with them on democratic demands. Such was an important argument in preparing the socialist Left to be directly involved in, rather than secluded from, the mass movements that have precipitated Mubarak's downfall. The subsequent alliance also meant that the Muslim Brothers were more sensitive to criticism, as when they were forced to recant on their 'Islam is the solution' slogan in 2005, which Christians and socialists argued was sectarian.

The army's strategy of forcing a transition managed by the armed forces themselves is partly possible because both Mohammed El Baradei and the Muslim Brothers appear to have supported (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/12/hosni-mubarak-misread-military-men) an army takeover to avert an all-out social explosion. One expects that, though they were the slowest to support the recent revolution, they will be the first to be consulted by the armed forces. Under Mubarak, the Muslim Brothers were effectively coopted, operating as a loyal opposition. There were and remain tensions (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23830) in the organisation between the businessmen and professionals who dominate the leadership and the poorer base, with more radical layers wanting to take a more uncompromising stance, and these started to come to the fore in the context of the Second Intifada. This building pressure contributed to the decision by the Muslim Brothers to form an alliance with left-wing and secular forces to depose Mubarak back in 2006. So, it would be mistaken to assume that the rank and file of the Brothers will necessarily accept whatever carve-up the leadership opts for. Similarly, while many of the leading middle class activists are declaring the revolution to be over, effectively throwing in the towel before they've even secured the minimal political and democratic rights that they are in it for, there is likely to be a mass of middle class radicals who will continue to want to fight. I expect they'll be among the thousands of people who remained in Tahrir Square as of today.

Internationally, the armed forces seem determined to hold on to Egypt's current role. The indications so far are that the Camp David peace treaty with Israel, which underpins the Palestinians' miserable plight and Egypt's participation in the seige of Gaza, is to be maintained (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barak-israel-egypt-ties-not-at-risk-in-wake-of-mubarak-s-departure-1.343176). This is purchased with $1.5bn a year in aid plus training, but it's also part of a global orientation of power predicated on US-led neoliberalism. Again, the army's task is made slightly easier here, because El Baradei supports the peace treaty. The Muslim Brothers do not, but they are highly unlikely to push for its abrogation. Unless an alternative orientation for capital accumulation emerges, the Egyptian ruling class will likely continue to seek a profitable alliance with the US. Only the continuation of the popular movements can force an alternative path.

It seems clear enough that the revolution has further convulsions to go. It seems equally clear that the alliance which led to this revolution is going to be reconfigured. Juan Cole has long argued that this revolution was centrally based on the labour movement, the alliance of blue and white collar workers that first emerged in 2006. This has united textile workers with tax collectors. But the movement has also been characterised by a fairly broad alliance between the most militant sections of the working class and the liberal and radical sections of the middle class, the latter including lawyers, doctors, probably a lot of small businessmen not integrated into the regime, and so on. The focus, in the Anglophone media, on the Twitterati, may have overstated the relevance of the middle class, but they did not fabricate their role. In the current situation, it is often the small businessmen and middle class professionals (like the Google marketing head Wael Ghonim, currently in a meeting with the higher council of the armed forces) who are in a hurry to call an end to hostilities. They want to get back to earning money. The accent is shifting far more clearly to the organised working class. Perhaps more serious than today's arrests, then, is the attempted banning of labour activism (http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFNWEB867320110213). This is where a new front of struggle is going to be opened up.

Magda Hassan
11-24-2012, 01:14 AM
Protests and clashes across Egypt as 'Pharaoh' Morsi seizes new powers (PHOTOS, VIDEO)Get short URL (https://rt.com/news/egypt-protests-morsi-march-420/)
email story to a friend (https://rt.com/emailstory/?doc_id=106420&type_doc=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Frt.com%2Fnews%2Fegypt-protests-morsi-march-420%2F%3F1353717706388) print version (https://rt.com/news/egypt-protests-morsi-march-420/print/)
Published: 23 November, 2012, 16:37
Edited: 24 November, 2012, 03:21

Police fired tear gas at protesters as supporters and opponents of President Mohamed Morsi clashed in Cairo. Demonstrations took place in several cities throughout the country after the leader signed a controversial decree expanding his powers.
Protesters run from tear gas released by riot police during clashes at Tahrir square in Cairo November 23, 2012.(Reuters / Mohamed Abd El Ghany)

“I’ve witnessed very heavy police tactics. Officers used a lot of tear gas and threw rocks down on protesters from buildings. I’ve also seen Molotov cocktails being thrown back and forth,” Cairo-based journalist Bel Trew told RT.
Earlier Friday, demonstrators clashed with police in Alexandria, Egypt, as they protested against President Morsi. Casualties were reported at the protests, and Morsi opponents set fire to Muslim Brotherhood offices in the Suez Canal cities of Suez, Port Said and Ismailia, state TV said.

Thousands of demonstrators threw stones and chunks of marble at each other outside an Alexandria mosque after Friday prayers. Anti-Morsi protesters threw firecrackers at supporters of the Brotherhood, who used prayer rugs to shield themselves.
Protesters both for and against President Morsi also rallied in the streets of Cairo, Egypt. Supporters of Morsi chanted, "The people support the president's decree" in front of the presidential palace, AP reported.
The demonstrations follow a call by the Egyptian opposition to protest what they called a ‘coup’ by Morsi.
"The opposition is very strong right now. This has actually, in a strange way, united the opposition forces who have been quite divided recently," Trew said.
An Egyptian man walks by a burning Egyptian police truck during a demonstration against Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi on November 23, 2012 in Cairo (AFP Photo / Mahmoud Khaled)
Photo from twitter.com user @3araab
Morsi recently issued a declaration (http://rt.com/news/morsi-declaration-constituent-assembly-356/) granting his office wide-ranging powers, effectively neutralizing Egypt’s judicial system and preventing it from challenging his authority. The declaration prompted Morsi's Coptic Christian assistant, Samir Morcos, to resign. Al-Arabiya has reported that Morsi's Aid, Sakina Fouad, has also resigned in protest.
"What we’re seeing here is massive criticism of the president and quite a lot of fear that he’s becoming a new dictator. Because right now, he actually has more powers than Mubarak ever did," Trew said.
Opposition leader Mohammed ElBaradei said that Morsi had become “a new pharaoh” with the powers he had granted himself, significantly violating democratic principles.
“The Egyptian political community is getting more complicated and dangerous…we have two separate camps right now…people have a lot of anger towards the Muslim Brotherhood and the ruling party in general,” human rights activist Shimaa Helmy told RT.
Washington has acknowledged the decree, saying that it has raised concerns for many Egyptians and the international community.
"We call for calm and encourage all parties to work together and call for all Egyptians to resolve their differences over these important issues peacefully and through democratic dialogue," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement.
In a speech in front of his presidential palace in Cairo on Friday, Morsi told Egyptians that his aim was to "achieve political, social, and economic stability.” He said that he would never use legislation for personal reasons, or to settle scores, and that he wants to ensure the independence of the executive, legislative and judicial authorities.

“I will never be biased. I will never be against anyone – any Egyptians – because we are all together and we need to give the momentum to the freedom and democracy and the transfer of power. And in order to be able to take care of everything you like, I like to be honest and take care of everything you care about because I like to support what you want to have: Stability and safety," he said.
Despite the controversy surrounding Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, many said there would be little to no political structure in Egypt if the party didn’t exist.

“The Muslim Brotherhood didn’t act as a leader when the Egyptian revolutions started, but it somehow managed to take a leading position and place itself at head. Now, if we exclude the Muslim Brotherhood, then we wil not find any leader at all,” Middle East expert Leonid Syukiyanen told RT.

Meanwhile, the United Nations said the decree raised serious human rights concerns.
“We are very concerned about the possible huge ramifications of this declaration on human rights and the rule of law in Egypt…we also fear this could lead to a very volatile situation over the next few days, starting today in fact," UN Human Rights spokesperson Rupert Colville said in a statement on Friday.
Morsi said that the move was vital to protecting the revolution that ousted Mubarak two years ago, and to cement a democratic transition for Egypt.

Protesters demonstrating against Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi run from tear gas fired by Egyptian riot police during clashes in Cairo's landmark Tahrir square on November 23, 2012 (AFP Photo / Ahmed Mahmoud)
Egyptian protesters stand near a burnt out car during clashes with riot police following a demonstration against Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi in Cairo's landmark Tahrir square on November 23, 2012 (AFP Photo / Ahmed Mahmoud)
Egyptian anti-riot police clash with protesters demonstrating against Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi in Cairo's landmark Tahrir square on November 23, 2012 (AFP Photo / Ahmed Mahmoud)
Protesters run for cover as they suffer from tear gas inhalation from canisters fired by Egyptian riot police during clashes following a demonstration against Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi in Cairo's landmark Tahrir square on November 23, 2012 (AFP Photo / Ahmed Mahmoud)
Flames burn around a police vehicle after protesters threw a molotov cocktail at it during clashes at Tahrir square in Cairo November 23, 2012.(Reuters / Mohamed Abd El Ghany)
Thousands of Egyptian demonstrators march through the streets of Cairo to protest against Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi's power grab, on November 23, 2012.(AFP Photo / Gianluigi Guercia)
Thousands of Egyptian demonstrators march through the streets of Cairo to protest against Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi's power grab, on November 23, 2012.(AFP Photo / Gianluigi Guercia)
Egyptian supporters and opponents of President Mohamed Morsi clash in the Mediterranean coastal city of Alexandria on November 23, 2012.(AFP Photo / STR)
Egyptian supporters and opponents of President Mohamed Morsi clash in the Mediterranean coastal city of Alexandria on November 23, 2012.(AFP Photo / STR)
Egyptian supporters and opponents of President Mohamed Morsi clash in the Mediterranean coastal city of Alexandria on November 23, 2012.(AFP Photo / STR)
Egyptian supporters and opponents of President Mohamed Morsi clash in the Mediterranean coastal city of Alexandria on November 23, 2012.(AFP Photo / STR)
Egyptian opponents of President Mohamed Morsi break into the office of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, in the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria on November 23, 2012.(AFP Photo / STR)
Egyptians beat a young boy during clashes between supporters and opponents of President Mohamed Morsi, in the northern coastal city of Alexandria on November 23, 2012.(AFP Photo / STR)
Photo from twitter.com user @M2Wakeel

Peter Lemkin
11-24-2012, 06:59 AM
Kind of a weird deja vue - caught most by surprise. Don't know what Morsi is thinking. I thought he was doing OK, given his party's record...and suddenly, out of the blue he assumes all powers. He says it is only for a period of two months.....but even if true, it sets a bad president...and what if it is not for only two months. Mubarak's ghost is back. Sad. Saddest are the riots in the streets again. Who or what is really behind all this? Why did Morsi decide this and why now? I think the fog will clear on these questions soon. Personally, it seemed out of character for him and that there was no need - that he could have managed the two months with the old Mubarak people in power in various places. Now, they have a better excuse to be re-instated by force or election, IMO.

Magda Hassan
12-11-2012, 12:12 PM
Egyptian Color Revolution Continues: Efforts to Block New Anti-neoliberal Constitution Failing (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/egyptian-color-revolution-continues-efforts-to-block-new-anti-neoliberal-constitution-failing/)Posted on December 5, 2012 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton

Contrary to popular propaganda, only 16 out of the 100 members of the assembly who wrote the new Egyptian constitution were from the Muslim Brotherhood. 16 out of 100 folks.Egypt’s new constitution (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/translation-of-proposed-egyptian-constitution/) despite what you have been told, was NOT written by all Islamists and fanatical Muslim Brotherhood members hell-bent to enshrine Sharia law in Egypt. That’s just a downright lie.
It was written, in accordance with the 2011 Provisional Constitution of Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Provisional_Constitution_of_Egypt) which itself was written by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Council_of_the_Armed_Forces) of Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) , not “Islamists”, on 30 March, 2011 in order to forge a new Egypt governed by the rule of law in the wake of the removal of our puppet dictator, Mubarak.
When you are told this document “enshrines Sharia law” and was written by the Muslim Brotherhood, that is a direct lie. Pure and simple.
They formed, according to the law, a 100 member assembly in order to write the new constitution. It is called the Constituent Assembly of Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_Egypt) and the main criticism coming from both the MSM as well as various “alternative” news sites is that it is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and thus they wrote the constitution. Again, not true.

“An agreement to form a more balanced assembly was reached on 7 June 2012. 39 seats would be filled by members of parliament, six by judges,nine by law experts, one each by a member of the armed forces, the police and the justice ministry, 13 seats by unions, and 21 by public figures. Five seats would be filled by the Al-Azhar University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University), one of Sunni Islam’s most important institutions, and four by the Coptic Orthodox Church” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church) BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18360403)
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party ended up having only 16 seats in the assembly while opposition parties had 22 seats. There were 61 independents.

Standings in the 2012 Egyptian Constituent Assembly
AffiliationMembers (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_members_of_the_2012_Egypti an_Constituent_Assembly&action=edit&redlink=1)

2012 Election
ResultsAs of
9 June 2012

Freedom and Justice Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_and_Justice_Party_%28Egypt%29)


Al-Nour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nour_Party)


New Wafd Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wafd_Party)


Egyptian Social Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Social_Democratic_Party)


Free Egyptians Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Egyptians_Party)


Building and Development Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_and_Development_Party)


Al-Wasat Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Wasat_Party)


Reform and Development Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_and_Development_Party_%28Egypt%29)


Socialist Popular Alliance Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Popular_Alliance_Party)


Dignity Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity_Party_%28Egypt%29)




Total members


Total seats

As the constitution (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/translation-of-proposed-egyptian-constitution/) started taking shape, some of the members of the assembly dropped out of the process in protest. There’s good reason for that: it’s not that the work is profoundly Sharia in nature, much to the opposite in fact as focuses the on the rule of law of the Constitution as it’s basis and not Sharia.
That’s not really the problem. The problem is, it sets a decidedly anti-neoliberal basis at the foundation of the new Egypt and our influence in that country is pushing hard to keep that from happening.
That could set a very bad precedent in our “New Middle East” much like an independent Cuba set a bad example in Latin America. We simply cannot allow the contagion of independence take root in the area.
Thus, the new Color Revolution which is being pimped by left and right wing prestitutes (including alternative ones in fact (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/judge-napolitano-shows-his-true-colors-shills-on-studio-b-for-regime-change-in-egypt/)) is well underway.
The stakes are VERY high which is why the establishment is cashing in some of their embedded “alternative” media plants like James Corbett of the Corbett Report who just the other day went so far (http://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-radio-264-who-are-the-muslim-brotherhood/) as to claim this new “revolution” is the only legitimate revolution in Egypt in the past couple of years.
This is simply a staged Color Revolution in Egypt much like the fake “Green Revolution” in Iran a year or so ago, the fake “uprising”in Libya last year and the ongoing “civil war” in Syria. A small group of National Endowment for Democracy paid “activists” are running around pretending to be a majority when in fact, they aren’t. Not even close. But, just like back in Iran a while ago, with the right camera angles and propaganda from the likes of James Corbett, they can pass as something they aren’t.
Over at AntiWar, Jason “Hasbara” Ditz himself had to admit that the critics of this constitution never actually talk about what’s in it while he went on to falsely continue the ongoing lie about “onerous power grab” of the “dictator” Morsi.

“Yet after last year’s parliamentary elections ended in an overwhelming victory for the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), it is unsurprising that party got a solid major of the seats in the constitutional committee. Specific complaints about the draft have been few, with most condemning it on the basis of its authors, and in the end it seems that the referendum will likely pass on the back of Islamist supporters, ending the most onerous of Morsi’s own power grab by finally giving him a constitutionally defined role.” Jason “Hasbara” Ditz (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/12/04/egypts-morsi-flees-as-protesters-storm-presidential-palace/)
The likes of Napolitano, Corbett and Ditz continue to rail against the document without ever once offering their readers the opportunity to actually read it like I did several days ago when the English translation became available. My guess is, none of them have read it. As to the basis of it’s authors as the problem with the document, like the graph shows, 16 out of 100 and the majority of the elected representatives who served on the assembly, were from OPPOSITION PARTIES…
In previous articles, I have repeatedly posted direct quotes from the constitution (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/translation-of-proposed-egyptian-constitution/) which will be voted on by the people of Egypt so that people are able to understand what it is that is REALLY at the heart of this administration’s hatred of it. Below I am reposting some of those in the hopes that you will pass this on, repost it, put it up as a comment in other forums, so that people start to understand just what is happening and what is at stake. They want to do another intervention in Egypt to keep this from becoming the law of the land and unfortunately, the “antiwar” alternative press is aiding and abetting their propaganda. There will be a massive demonstration in the next day or so in Egypt to show solidarity with their government and this document. Don’t expect even handed reporting on that and you might even see some false flag activity in order to justify intervention. Help get this word out if you can.
Excerpts from the New Egyptian Constitution (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/translation-of-proposed-egyptian-constitution/):

No political party shall be formed that discriminates on the basis of gender, origin or religion.”
“The State shall ensure safety, security and equal opportunities for all citizens without discrimination.”
“Dignity is the right of every human being, safeguarded by the State.”
“All citizens are equal before the law. They have equal public rights and duties without discrimination.”
“Individual freedom is a natural right, safeguarded and inviolable.”
“Any person arrested, detained or whose freedom is restricted in any way, shall be treated in a manner preserving human dignity. No physical or moral harm shall be inflicted upon that person.”
“The private life of citizens is inviolable. Postal correspondence, wires, electronic correspondence, telephone calls and other means of communication shall have their own sanctity and secrecy and may not be confiscated or monitored except by a causal judicial warrant.”
“Private homes are inviolable. With the exception of cases of immediate danger and distress, they may not be entered, searched or monitored, except in cases defined by law, and by a causal judicial warrant which specifies place, timing and purpose. Those in a home shall be alerted before the home is entered or searched.”
“Freedom of belief is an inviolable right.”
“The State shall guarantee the freedom to practice religious rites and to establish places of worship for the divine religions, as regulated by law.”
“The right to private assembly is guaranteed without the need for prior notice. Security personnel shall not attend or intercept such private meetings.”
Chapter Two: Executive Authority
Section 1: The President
Article 132
The President is the Head of State and chief of the executive authority. He looks after the interests of the people, safeguards the independence and territorial integrity of the motherland, and observes the separation between powers.
He carries out his responsibilities in the manner prescribed in the Constitution.
Article 133
The President of the Republic shall be elected for a period of four calendar years, commencing on the day the term of his predecessor ends. The President may be reelected only once.
The process of the presidential election begins at least 90 days before the end of the presidential term. The result is to be announced at least 10 days before the end of term.
The President of the Republic may not hold any partisan position for the duration of the presidency.
Article 137
Before assuming the presidential position, the President of the Republic shall take the following oath before the House of Representatives and the Shura Council: “I swear by Almighty God to loyally uphold the republican system, to respect the Constitution and the law, to fully look after the interests of the people and to safeguard the independence and territorial integrity of the motherland.”
Chapter Three: The Judicial Authority
Section 1: General Provisions
Article 168
The Judicial Authority shall be independent, vested in the courts of justice, which shall issue their judgments in accordance with the law. It’s powers are defined by law. Interference in the affairs of the judiciary is a crime that is not forfeited by the passing of time.
Article 6
The political system is based on the principles of democracy and shura (counsel), citizenship (under which all citizens are equal in rights and duties), multi-party pluralism, peaceful transfer of power, separation of powers and the balance between them, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and freedoms; all as elaborated in the Constitution.
Article 74
Sovereignty of the law shall be the basis of rule in the State.
The independence and immunity of the judiciary are two basic guarantees to safeguard rights and freedoms.
Article 76
Penalty shall be personalized. There shall be no crime or penalty except in accordance with the law of the Constitution. No penalty shall be inflicted except by a judicial sentence. Penalty shall be inflicted only for acts committed after a law has come into force.
Article 86
Prior to the start of his or her tenure, a Member shall take the following oath before his or her Council: “I swear by Almighty God to loyally uphold the republican system, to respect the Constitution and the law, to fully look after the interests of the people, and to safeguard the independence and territorial integrity of the motherland.”
This document was not written by the Muslim Brotherhood seeking to enshrine Sharia law as the foundation of Egypt.
It was written by a number of scholars, judges, union leaders and politicians from all parties in Egypt. It is not the target of derision by the majority of the people in Egypt, it will pass the referendum vote on Dec 15th, not on the backs of the “Islamists” but rather by a people who were so sick of their neoliberal puppet dictator they risked their lives, and many gave their lives, to drive him out. And now they have the opportunity to set by rule of LAW a foundation which will keep another U.S. friendly dictator from taking his place.
Please read the document for yourselves (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/translation-of-proposed-egyptian-constitution/) and the real history of the people who wrote it and the Mubarak supporting judiciary which is trying to stop it.
As is always the case, there is a reason for these actions, and there is a reason you are being actively lied to by trusted alternative sites. This is a big deal. Be on the right side of it when it matters, not in hindsight.

“Many activists, including opponents of the Brotherhood, criticize the judiciary as packed with judges and prosecutors sympathetic to Mubarak.” AP (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/22/Egypts-Morsi-grants-himself-far-reaching-powers)
“Morsi supporters counter that the edicts were necessary to prevent the courts, which already dissolved the elected lower house of parliament,from further holding up moves to stability by disbanding the assembly writing the new constitution, as judges were considering doing. Like parliament was, the assembly is dominated by Islamists. Morsi accuses Mubarak loyalists in the judiciary of seeking to thwart the revolution’s goals and barred the judiciary from disbanding the constitutional assembly or parliament’s upper house.” NPR (http://m.npr.org/news/front/165821894)
“In a nod to revolutionary sentiment, Morsi also ordered the retrial of Mubarak and top aides on charges of killing protesters during the uprising. He also created a new “protection of the revolution” judicial body to swiftly carry out the prosecutions.” AP
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/egyptian-color-revolution-continues-efforts-to-block-new-anti-neoliberal-constitution-failing/ (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/22/Egypts-Morsi-grants-himself-far-reaching-powers)

Peter Lemkin
12-11-2012, 04:40 PM
While more than willing to believe there is active disinformation going on against the Muslim Brotherhood to set them up as scapegoats, why are so many of the progressives upset with the Constitution [which I've not studied, I admit] - that it will not protect the rights of women, protesters, dissidents et al.? There seems to be a large segment of those who made the Revolution not happy for some reasons with the Constitution as it stands. I assume, however, like most Constitutions it has the possibility of amendment by the elected Parliament as they go along...