IN the final days of the Libyan conflict, as NATO conducted a nonstop bombing campaign, an Aljazeera Arabic television correspondent’s actions raised more than eyebrows. They also raised serious questions regarding the journalistic responsibility of Arab media – or in fact any media - during times of conflict.

Using a handheld transceiver, the journalist aired live communication between a Libyan commander and his troops in a Tripoli neighborhood targeted by a massive air assault. Millions of people listened, as surely did NATO military intelligence, to sensitive information disclosed by an overpowered, largely defeated army. The Doha-based news anchor sought further elaboration, and the reporter readily provided all the details he knew.

Did Abdel-Azim Mohammed, a journalist reputed for his gutsy reports from Iraq’s Fallujah, violate the rules of journalism by transmitting information that could aid one party against another, and worse, cost human lives?

While there are few doubts about the impressive legacy of Aljazeera – and the valuable individual contributions of many of its reporters – urgent questions need to be asked regarding its current coverage of the so-called Arab Spring that began in December 2010.

Some of us have warned against the temptation of a one-narrative-fits-all style of reporting. A non-violent popular uprising is fundamentally different from an armed rebellion, and a home-grown peaceful Tahrir Square revolution is different from NATO-Arab military and political campaigns aimed at settling old scores and fomenting sectarian conflict (as in Libya and now Syria).

Aljazeera coverage of the Egyptian revolution was, for the most part, impeccable. It was the type of coverage that reflected the revolutionary fervor felt throughout the country. Even when the former regime of Hosni Mubarak pulled the plug on Aljazeera coverage, it somehow found a way to transmit the country’s mood with impressive clarity.

Yet, despite the fact that some Arab uprisings are inherently more complex than others (because some societies embody a more involved sectarian makeup, for example), Aljazeera news anchors continue to jump from one country to the other, as if addressing different points of the exact same topic. In the channel’s coverage of Libya, NATO’s unwarranted bombing campaign received little reporting. The targeting of black Africans (covered by some Western and African media) earned little airtime at Aljazeera Arabic. Ever-available guests were often immediately dispatched to dismiss any reports of maltreatment of captured soldiers accused of being ‘loyal to Muammar al-Qaddafi’. Aljazeera had indeed striven to present a perfect scenario of a perfect revolution. Now that the sentimentalization of the revolution is fading out, a harsh new reality is setting in, one that encompasses numerous arms groups, infighting and Western countries ready to share the spoils.

Aljazeera’s priority has now shifted from Libya to Syria, a country that has been on Washington’s radar for many years and long irked Israel for its support of Lebanese and Palestinian resistance factions.

From a political and humanitarian viewpoint, there is no denial that Syria is in need of fundamental political reforms. More, the blatant violence employed against the uprising was simply indefensible. However, unlike what Aljazeera Arabic and other media may claim on an hourly basis, there is more to Syria than a brutal ‘Alawite regime’ and a rebelling nation that never ceases to demand ‘international intervention’. There is also the reality of ill-intentioned parties seeking their own objectives, such as further isolating Iran, strengthening allies in Lebanon, weakening Damascus-based Palestinian factions, and aiding US allies in rearranging the entire power-paradigm in the region.

One would argue that whatever ambitions some small Arab country may have, these should not be pursued at the expense of the Syrian people, who are seeking real democracy in a sovereign country free from meddling, armed militias and unexplained car bombs. The fact is, insecurity and political uncertainty will be the future of Syria if a political settlement is not achieved between the government – which must end its violent crackdowns on pro-democracy protests – and a truly patriotic opposition that doesn’t call for foreign intervention or ‘no-fly-zones’. The Iraq no-fly-zone in 1991 and the Libya no-fly-zone in 2011 were mere prologues to military actions that devastated both countries.  There is little justification in repeating this scenario; the Syrian people did not rise merely to see their country being destroyed.

In January 5, a massive blast killed 26 people in Damascus, exactly two weeks after twin bombings killed 44. Between the two bombings, hundreds of Syrians were reportedly killed and wounded in the armed conflict involving the Free Syrian Army. Considering the large and porous border areas between Syria and Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and the contentious border area with the occupied Golan Heights (illegally annexed by Israel), one cannot dismiss the possibility that Syria has been infiltrated on many fronts. But this also goes unreported.

While one lacks sympathy for any regime that brutally murders innocent people, journalists are also accountable to both balance and humanitarian standards. They cannot completely dismiss one party and embrace another. Aljazeera Arabic channel has done just that. It has failed to maintain its independence, and is growingly covering the upheaval in the Arab world from the narrow political prism of its host country.

In Aljazeera’s early days in the mid and late 1990s, the channel took on taboo subjects and proudly challenged the status quo. This continued with Aljazeera’s coverage of Afghanistan and the Iraq war, when mainstream western media were disowning their own proclaimed standards of objectivity and treating Iraqis like dispensable beings underserving of even a body count.

In recent months, however, Aljazeera has begun to change course. It has deviated from its journalistic responsibilities in Libya, and is now completely losing the plot with Syria.

The channel is in urgent need to revisit its own code of ethics, and to fulfill its promise of treating its audience “with due respect and address every issue or story with due attention to present a clear, factual and accurate picture.” Yes, perhaps the Syrian regime should be changed, and perhaps an armed rebellion in Syria will eventually overtake the non-violent uprising. But the outcome is not for me, Aljazeera, The New York Times or any other journalist or publication to decide. The revolution belongs to the Syrian people alone, and only they can determine where it leads.

What truly worries Israel is not the radicalization of Muslim societies, but the rise of Islamic politics to represent a rational, mainstream political discourse. It threatens Israel because it could rally many Arabs around one cohesive political agenda, and repositions Palestine, once more, as central to what many Muslim intellectuals refer to as the “Islamic Awakening”.

Senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (R) kisses the head of Egyptian Muslim brotherhood leader Mohammed Badie before their meeting at the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Cairo December 26, 2011.

THERE was an unmistakable hint of triumph in the comments made by Ismail Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the elected Hamas government in Gaza when he was hosted by Mohammed Badie, Supreme Guide of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Both leaders said what would be expected of them under these circumstances. Haniyeh asserted that his movement’s “presence with the Brotherhood threatens the Israeli entity,” and Badie reaffirmed the Brotherhood’s commitment to “issues of liberation, foremost the Palestinian issue” (MENA and AP, December 26).

It is very telling that Haniyeh’s first official visit outside Gaza as prime minister was to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in Cairo's Moqattam district. He shared his message - of resistance against Israeli occupation, national unity with rival Fatah and reaching out to Muslim countries – and then resumed his regional tour.

Since 2006, Hamas has attempted, but largely failed to win the approval of governments in Muslim-majority countries. Muslim solidarity was the thrust of Hamas’ foreign policy, aimed at lessening Palestinian political and financial dependence on the US and other Western governments. It failed because, as it turned out, US financial and political leverage is too overpowering and far-reaching for a relatively small movement like Hamas to singlehandedly challenge. But, as Haniyeh himself reiterated, times are changing

In the first and second rounds of Egyptian elections, the Brotherhood’s newly created Freedom and Justice party won more than 35 percent of the vote. The electoral success was hardly an anomaly. The Islamic Nahda party, which formed the first post-revolutionary government in Tunisia, won more than 40 percent of the vote last October. Morocco’s Justice and Development party won the November elections and the Islamic leaning of Libya’s new political set up is all too palpable. There have been marks of Islamic political influence in other countries across the region.

The reformation of the political landscape in the Arab region has tempted many to infer polarizing, if not frightening conclusions. Israeli army Home Front Command Chief Major General Eyal Eisenberg was one of the first in Israel to refer to these developments as an Arab Spring turning into a “radical Islamic winter”. He said, “This leads us to the conclusion that through a long-term process, the likelihood of an all-out war is increasingly growing” (Arutz Sheva, September 5).

However, what truly worries Israel is not the radicalization of Muslim societies, but the rise of Islamic politics to represent a rational, mainstream political discourse. It threatens Israel because it could rally many Arabs around one cohesive political agenda, and repositions Palestine, once more, as central to what many Muslim intellectuals refer to as the “Islamic Awakening”.

Israeli fear mongering aside, the US – Israel’s main benefactor - must find ways to co-exist with the new political arrangement. Other Western governments too “will have to adapt to a power shift they have long sought to prevent,” wrote Roula Khalaf and Heba Saleh in the Financial Times (December 28).

For Israel, however, the transformation in regional politics will prove unbearable. It is not Tunisia’s Nahda party that Israel is most concerned about, of course; it is Hamas. This is partly what compelled Haniyeh to venture out of Gaza. As the US is hoping to control, if not manage, the rise of Islamic parties, Hamas aims at ensuring a primary position for Palestine - as seen through the prism of the Islamic movement – in the region’s new political landscape.

There is little doubt that Hamas’ rise to political prominence in 2006, and the numerous subsequent attempts at isolating and destroying it will influence new Islamic parties in various Arab countries. Hamas’ ability to survive has certainly registered among new Muslim politicians in Egypt and elsewhere. Now, with the early fruits of the Egyptian revolution being plucked by Islamic parties, Hamas is guardedly making its move. Hamas is a “jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face,” said Haniyeh in Cairo.

A quick look at the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine shows that Haniyeh was hardly exaggerating. Since the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Ismailiyya, Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna and a few others, it quickly found in Palestine a rally cry to unite Muslims through the entire region. The first link between the movement and Palestine was formed in 1935, when Abd al-Rahman al-Banna (the founder’s brother) visited Palestine and met with the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.

The Brotherhood became visible during the revolt of 1936, as they communicated the Palestinian message with an Islamic tone to the rest of the Arab world. The cause of Palestine promptly became the central mission and calling of the Brotherhood, as Hasan al-Banna himself headed the newly founded General Central Committee to Aid Palestine.

More, in April 1948, when most Arab governments delayed in partaking in the defense of Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood deployed three battalions of volunteers. Estimates of the number of Brotherhood volunteers in Palestine during the war and the subsequent Nakba vary, but Hasan al-Banna himself noted, in March 1948, that the movement had approximately 1,500 volunteers in Palestine.

The relationship between the Brotherhood and Palestine had it ebbs and flows, but the rapport was never completely severed. Even before Hamas was officially established 1987, the movement functioned under various classifications, all directly affiliated with Egypt’s Brotherhood.

The recent Cairo meeting between Haniyeh and Badie could be understood within that historical context, representing a triumphant reunion and possibly open coordination. This would once again rejuvenate the Brotherhood’s Palestine connection, and grant Hamas greater political leverage - after years of isolation, and despite the current political turmoil in the region.

Of course, Hamas’ challenges are many and growing. Leading among them is Israel’s violent escalation in Gaza, and the unremitting US pressure. Still, it is expected that Hamas’ political message and outlook will continue to find balance between Palestinian exceptionality and the more inclusive Arab and Islamic framework.

By venturing out of Gaza, Haniyeh is hoping to expand the diameters of the Palestinian Islamic movement into Egypt and beyond – thus reclaiming what Hamas once considered ‘the strategic depth’ of the Palestinian cause. While such a push failed to attain its objectives in 2006, 2012 is a brand new year.

REMEMBER Mohamed Osman Mohamud? Of course not, no one does, and I haven’t thought about him myself until yesterday, when Iran’s Press TV solicited my (last) two cents about Somalia.

Somalia, but who’s thinking about Somalia? Yesterday, Americans were burdened with football and a hangover, and in Philadelphia, there was the Mummers Parade, a glorious display of blue collar creativity where plumbers and roofers cross-dressed, played saxophones or banjos, and strutted down Broad Street towards City Hall, the site of Occupy Philly until not that long ago.

Truth be told, the Mummers Parade has gone downhill for a while, ever since its finale was moved into the Convention Center. What was a street carnival became a perfunctory parade, then an indoors performance for a ticketed audience and designed for television. Yesterday’s version was particularly listless, with the crowd thin, mirthless, and many floats recycled from years past. Everyone’s budget’s tight. In October, a Mummers Brigade was even busted for renting its clubhouse to a pimp. During the sting operation, undercover cops found nude women walking around, and sex acts performed in the open. Hey, when you’re broke and no longer making stuff, you have to make money with what’s intrinsic… to your person.

Back to Mohamed Osman Mohamud. Just over a year ago, he was lured and entrapped by the FBI, then accused of plotting to bomb a downtown Christmas celebration in Portland. His FBI handler had recorded their conversations, but during the supposedly incriminating one, where he actually stated his desire to bomb and kill fellow Americans, the recording device conveniently malfunctioned. Remember that during the Bin Laden raid, the helmet-mounted video camera also malfunctioned, which explains, supposedly, why there is not even a single image of that most wanted man during the exciting operation, although a much ballyhooed photo, an “instant classic” according to Rolling Stone and the Village Voice, was produced of Obama, Clinton and other big shots sitting in the White House Situation Room to watch the assassination in real time. I know it doesn’t add up. It never does. The next time an audio or visual recorder goes AWOL, perhaps the CIA or FBI can blame it on the Chinese, since it’s a given that everything is made in China these days, even if, like Apple or Dell, it carries an American label. Here’s a ready to use, cut and paste headline, “Commies Sabotage Evidence Incriminating Muslim Terrorist.”

The key photo or evidence is never available, but the staged, massaged, doctored or clumsily-spun proofs overflow, not that Americans are paying close attention to anything beside Tim Tebow’s statistics and throwing motion. Seeing our government going through so much trouble to frame a young Somali-American fool, I had to conclude that it was part of the buildup to invade Somalia, and so it is happening, with American drones zapping Somalis from above, and Kenyan, Ethiopian, Ugandan and Burundian troops killing Somalis on the ground.

With Libya out of the way and Iraq temporarily pacified, our military-banking complex is turning its attention to Somalia, but why? As usual, it is spun as a fight against terrorists, as if Somalis are eager to butt heads with a ruthless empire. Attacked, they will fight back, of course, as happened in 1992 during “Operation Restore Hope,” now immortalized and cheesified in the film, Black Hawk Down. But what about missionaries, don’t Somalis also kill missionaries just for the hell of it?

Let’s scrutinize one incident. Last February, it was reported that Somali “pirates” hijacked an American yacht and killed four American missionaries, but even US AFRICA ONLINE, “THE AUTHORITATIVE LINK,” admitted that there was a US Navy war ship “shadowing” this yacht as it headed into Somali waters. This war ship was close enough to hear gunshots coming from Quest, the Christian boat, so it promptly killed 14 of these “pirates.” So, yes, Somali Muslims are so crazy, they will shoot at Americans approaching on a warship, even with four Christians stuck to the prow as figureheads. I don’t know about you but, personally, I prefer mermaids.

Washington can brand anyone a terrorist now, as it regularly does with Muslims it wants to attack. Targeting Somalia, the US is again evoking al-Qaeda, terrorism and even a desire to help ordinary Somalis, but the reason, as always, is money, which these days usually means access to oil and natural gas. Did you think it was anything else?

Before the overthrow of Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991, he signed over nearly two thirds of Somalia to four US oil companies, Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips, so the world’s biggest and baddest pirate, America, has been trying to reclaim this bounty ever since.

Linh Dinh is the author of two books of stories, five of poems, and a just released novel, Love Like Hate. He's tracking our deteriorating socialscape through his frequently updated photo blog, State of the Union.

Dissident Voice

Bishop Yuhanna Qultah

BISHOP Yuhanna Qultah, Deputy Patriarch of Coptic Catholics in Egypt, welcomed the arrival of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) members to the first post-revolution parliament, pointing out that they are the men of clear vision, moderate mainstream views, who seek a balanced consensus parliament, and whose main concern is uphold the national interests and dignity of the country.
In an interview, in the program “Ahl Albalad” on the satellite channel "Misr 25", Thursday afternoon, Dr. Qultah expressed his sincere appreciation to Dr. Mohamed Morsi, FJP Chairman, for his re-iteration in repeated responses to repeated questions and suggestions  that he should send ‘reassurance’ messages to the Copts after the victory of FJP candidates in parliamentary elections, as he (Morsi) always says: “How do I send messages to reassure them when they are partners in this one homeland?!”
Bishop Yuhanna Qultah pointed out that the MB’s comprehensive, all-inclusive, understanding is just what is required to achieve balance and advancement for the whole nation which needs cooperation and synergy for a total renaissance.
He added that: “If Christians suffer injustice as Islamists rule the country, they (Copts) will find support in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law) with its established principles of tolerance, and in Al-Azhar. The texts of the Quran safeguard the freedom of belief for all.” He then quoted the words of God in Quran: "There is no compulsion in religion" (Al-Baqarah: verse 256).

He pointed out that the Islamic civilization and the Islamic conquest of Egypt did not confiscate the freedom of belief, and that for more than 1400 years, Muslims never boycotted their Christian fellow citizens because of religion, and they have lived as brothers side by side all along that history.

The Bishop Qultah stressed that those seeking support from abroad, the West or the USA, are wrong and inane, calling them absurd, and arguing that they do not seek but their own interests, citing the U.S. invasion of Iraq where Christians were killed next to their Muslim brothers.

He also stressed the need for Arab to unite and integrate as one  nation, to reject division and fragmentation, and benefit from the Arab spring to achieve this cooperation and integration, with Arab peoples having emphasized that there is no turning back to the ages of tyranny, injustice, authoritarianism, and the deification of the president or the ruling family.

He denied reports that the Copts are concern about the ascent of Islamists, stressing that Islamic presence in Egypt was not a sudden or short-lived phenomenon that surfaced overnight, and that in modern times it was represented in the calls of Jamal Aldeen Al-Afghani and Sheikh Mohamed Abdu, and that the presence of Islamists now is quite natural after they have been subjected to repression, injustice and oppression for such a long period of time, adding that the challenge for Islamists is the practical application of the enlightened principles of Islamic Sharia.

Dr. Qultah noted that the migration of Egyptians to Western countries and the USA is not confined to Christians, and that it is not - as some say - a ‘religious’ migration, and that it comes out of fear for the future, for freedoms and financial stability.

He said that no country in the world boasts such strong solidarity between Muslims and Christians, in general goals, as in Egypt, and that discord which had sown division among partners of the same homeland in Egypt is on its way to extinction.

Bishop Qultah called on the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to endeavour to maintain the armed forces’ honorable  track record and its place in the hearts of the Egyptian people and the love they feel for doing their duty, protecting the revolution and promising to safeguard and achieve their demands, and to hand over power to civilians after the current parliamentary elections, which Dr. Qultah considers the start of the construction of the modern Egyptian state.

Ikhwan Web

In Afghanistan, it is well known that the government’s writ has no authority outside of Kabul, if there. But then, that is the point. The role of the governments imposed on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, like the one they are trying to impose on Syria, is not to govern or provide for the population at all – even that most basic of functions, security. It is simply to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the occupation of the country and to award business contracts to the colonial powers. They literally have no other function, as far as their sponsors are concerned.

THE economic collapse that began in 2008, that was duly declared unpredictable and thoroughly unforeseen across the entire Western media, was, in fact, anything but. Indeed, the capitalist cycle of expansion and collapse has repeated itself so often, over hundreds of years, that its existence is openly accepted across the whole spectrum of economic thought, including in the mainstream – which refers to it, in deliberately understated terms, as the “business cycle”. Only those who profit from our ignorance of this dynamic – the billionaire profiteers and their paid stooges in media and government – try to deny it.

A slump occurs when “capacity outstrips demand” – that is to say, when people can no longer afford to buy all that is being produced. This is inevitable in a capitalist system, where productive capacity is privately owned, because the global working class as a whole are never paid enough to purchase all that they collectively produce. As a result, unsold goods begin to pile up, and production facilities – factories and the like – are closed down. People are thrown out of work as a result, their incomes decline, and the problem gets worse. This is exactly what we are seeing happen today.

In these circumstances, avenues for profitable investment dry up – the holders of capital can find nowhere safe to invest their money. For them, this is the crisis – not the unemployment, the famine, the poverty etc (which, after all, remain an endemic feature of the global capitalist economy even during the ‘boom times’, albeit on a somewhat reduced scale). The governments under their control – through ownership of the media, currency manipulation and control of the economy – must then set to work creating new profitable investment opportunities.

One way they do this is by killing off public services, and thus creating opportunities for investment in the private companies that replace them. In 1980s Britain, Margaret Thatcher privatised steel, coal, gas, electricity, water, and much else besides. In the short term, this plunged millions into unemployment, as factories and mines were closed down, and in the long term it resulted in massive price rises for basic services. But it had its intended effect – it provided valuable investment opportunities (for those with capital to spare) at a time when such opportunities were scarce, and created a long term source of fabulous profits. This summer, for example, saw the formerly publicly owned gas company Centrica hiking its prices by another 18% to bring in a £1.3billion profit. The raised prices will see many thousands more pensioners than usual die from the cold this winter as a result, but gas – like all commodities in capitalist society – is not there to provide heat, but to increase capital.

In the global South, privatisation was harsher still. Bodies like the IMF and the World Bank used the leverage provided by the debt-extortion mechanism (whereby interest rates were hiked on unpayable loans that had rarely benefited the population, often taken out by corrupt rulers imposed by Western governments in the first place) to force governments across Asia, Africa and Latin America to cut public spending on even basics such as health and education, along with agricultural subsidies. This contributed massively to the staggering rates of infant mortality and deaths from preventable disease, as well as to the AIDS epidemic now raging across Africa. But again the desired end for those imposing the policies was achieved, as new markets were created and holders of giant capital reserves could now invest in private companies to provide the services no longer available from the state. The profit system was given a new lease of life, its collapse staved off once again.

The World Bank’s closure of the Indian government’s grain rationing and distribution service, for example, meant that a scheme providing affordable grain to all Indian citizens was closed down, allowing private companies to come in and sell grain at massively increased prices (sometimes up to ten times higher). Whilst this has led to huge numbers of Indians being priced out of the market, and a resulting 200 million people now facing starvation in India, it has also led to record profits for the giant private companies now holding the world’s grain stocks – which is the whole point.

This round of global privatisation from the 1980s onwards, however, was so thorough that when the 2008 crisis hit, there were few state functions left to privatise. Creating investment opportunities now is much trickier than it was thirty years ago, because so much of what is potentially profitable is already being thoroughly exploited as it is.

In Europe, what is left of public services is hastily being dismantled, as right wing political leaders happily privatise what is left of the public sector, and currency speculators use their firepower to pick off any country that attempts to resist. David Cameron, following the path forced on the global South over recent decades, for example, is busy opening up Britain’s National Health Service to private companies, and massively cutting back on public service provision for vulnerable groups such as the elderly and the jobless.

In the global South, however, there is little left for the West to privatise, as successive IMF policies have long ago forced those countries in their grip to strip their public services to the bone (and beyond) already.

But there is one state function which, if fully privatised across the world, would make the profits made even from essentials such as health care and education look like peanuts. That is the most basic and essential state function of all, indeed the whole raison d’etre for the state: security.

Private security companies are one of the few growth areas during times of global recession, as growing unemployment and poverty leads to increased social unrest and chaos, and those with wealth become more nervous about protecting both themselves, and their assets. Furthermore, as the Chinese economy advances at a rate of knots, military superiority is fast becoming the West’s only “competitive advantage” – the one area in which it’s expertise remains significantly ahead of its rivals. Turning this advantage, therefore, into an opportunity for investment and profit on a large-scale is now one of the chief tasks facing the rulers of Western economies.

A recent article in the Guardian noted that British private security firm Group 4 is now “Europe’s largest private sector employer”, employing 600,000 people – 50% more than make up the total armed forces of Britain and France combined. With growth last year of 9% in their “new markets” division, the company have “already benefited from the unrest in north Africa and the Middle East.” Group 4 are set to make a killing in Libya, following the total breakdown of security, likely to last for decades, resulting from NATO’s incineration of the country’s armed forces and wholesale destruction of its state apparatus. With the rule of law replaced by warfare between rival gangs of rebels, and no realistic prospect of a functioning police force for the foreseeable future, those Libyans able to manoeuvre themselves into positions of wealth and power will likely have to rely on private security for many years to come.

When Philip Hammond, Britain’s new Defence Secretary and a multi-millionaire businessman himself, suggested that British companies “pack their suitcases and head to Libya”, it was not only oil and construction companies he had in mind, but private security companies.

Private military companies are also becoming huge business – most famously, the US company Blackwater, renamed Xe Services after its original name became synonymous with the massacres committed by its forces in Iraq. In the USA, Blackwater has already taken over many of the security functions of the state – charging the Department of Homeland Security $1000 per day per head in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, for example. “When you ship overnight, do you use the postal service or do you use FedEx?” asked Erik Prince, founder and chairman of Blackwater. “Our corporate goal is to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did to the postal service”. Another Blackwater official commented that “None of us loves the idea that devastation became a business opportunity. It’s a distasteful fact. But that’s what it is. Doctors, lawyers, funeral directors, even newspapers – they all make a living off of bad things happening. So do we, because somebody’s got to handle it.”

The danger comes when the economic climate is such that the world’s most powerful governments feel they must do all they can to create such business opportunities. During the Cold War, the US military acted (as indeed it still does) to keep the global South in a state of poverty by attacking any government that seriously sought to challenge this poverty, and imposing governments that would crush trade unions and keep the population cowed. This created investment opportunities because it kept the majority of the world’s labour force in conditions so desperate they were willing to work for peanuts. But now this is not enough. In slump conditions, it doesn’t matter how cheap your workforce is if nobody is buying your products. To create the requisite business opportunities today – a large global market for its military expertise – Western governments must impose not only poverty, but also devastation. Devastation is the quickest route to converting the West’s military prowess into a genuine business opportunity that can create a huge new avenue for investment when all others are drying up. And this is precisely what is happening.  David Cameron is, for once, telling the truth, when he says “Whatever it takes to help our businesses take on the world – we’ll do it.”

As The Times put it recently, “In Iraq, the postwar business boom is not oil. It is security.” In both Iraq and Afghanistan, a situation of chronic and enduring instability and civil war has been created by a very precise method. Firstly, the existing state power is totally destroyed. Next, the possibility of utilising the country’s domestic expertise to rebuild state capacity is undermined against by barring former officials from working for the new government (a process known in Iraq as “de-Ba’athification”). Linked to this, the former ruling party is banned from playing any part in the political process, effectively ensuring that the largest and most organised political formation in each country has no option but to resort to armed struggle to gain influence, and thereby condemning the country to civil war. Next, vicious sectarianism is encouraged along whatever religious, ethnic and tribal divisions are available, often goaded by the covert actions of Western intelligence services. Finally, the wholesale privatisation of resources ensures chronically destabilising levels of unemployment and inequality.  The whole process is self-perpetuating, as the skilled and professional sections of the workforce – those with the means and connections – emigrate, leaving behind a dire skills shortage and even less chance of a functioning society emerging from the chaos.

This instability is not confined to the borders of the state which has been destroyed. In a masterfully cynical domino effect, for example, the aggression against Iraq has also helped to destabilise Syria. Three quarters of the 2 million Iraqi refugees fleeing the war in their own country have ended up in Syria, thus contributing to the pressure on the Syrian economy which is a major factor in the current unrest there.

The destruction of Libya will also have far reaching destabilising consequences across the region. As the recent United Nations Support Mission in Libya stated, “Libya had accumulated the largest known stockpile of Manpads [surface-to-air missiles] of any non-Manpad-producing country. Although thousands were destroyed during the seven-month Nato operations, there are increasing concerns over the looting and likely proliferation of these portable defence systems, as well as munitions and mines, highlighting the potential risk to local and regional stability.” Furthermore, a large number of volatile African countries are currently experiencing a fragile peace secured by peacekeeping forces in which Libyan troops had been playing a vital role. The withdrawal of these troops may well be damaging to the maintenance of the peace. Similarly, Libya, under Gaddafi’s rule, had contributed generously to African development projects; a policy which will certainly be ended under the NTC – again, with potentially destabilising consequences.

Clearly, a policy of devastation and destabilisation fuels not only the market for private security, but also for arms sales – where, again, the US, Britain and France remain market leaders. And a policy of devastation through blitzkrieg fits in clearly with the big three current long term strategic objectives of Western policy planners:

1. To corner as large a share as possible of the world’s diminishing resources, most importantly oil, gas and water. A government of a devastated country is at the mercy of the occupying country when it comes to contracts. Gaddafi’s Libya, for example, drove a notoriously hard bargain with the Western powers over oil contracts – acting as a key force in the 1973 oil price spike, and still in 2009 being accused by the Financial Times of “resource nationalism”. But the new NTC government in Libya have been hand picked for their subservience to foreign interests – and know that their continued positions depend on their willingness to continue in this role.
2. To prevent the rise of the global South, primarily through the destruction of any independent regional powers (such as Iran, Libya, Syria etc) and the destabilisation, isolation and encirclement of the rising global powers (in particular China and Russia).
3. To overcome or limit the impact of economic collapse by using superior military force to create and conquer new markets through the destruction and rebuilding of infrastructure and the elimination of competition.

This policy of total devastation represents a departure from the Cold War policies of the Western powers. During the Cold War, whilst the major strategic aims remained the same, the methods were different. Independent regional powers in the global South were still destabilised and invaded – and regularly – but generally with the aim of installing ‘compliant dictatorships’. Thus, Lumumba was overthrown and replaced with Mobutu; Sukarno with Suharto; Allende with Pinochet; etc, etc. But the danger with this ‘imposed strongmen’ policy was that strongmen can become defiant. Saddam Hussein illustrated this perfectly. After having been backed for over a decade by the West, he turned on their stooge monarchy in Kuwait. Governments that are in control can easily get out of control. However, for as long as these strongmen were needed for the services provided by their armies (protecting investments, repressing workers struggles, etc), they were supported. The crisis now underway in the economies of the West, however, calls for more drastic measures. And the development of private security and private mercenary companies mean that the armies provided by these strongmen are starting to be deemed no longer necessary.

Congo is a case in point. For three decades, the Western powers had supported Mobutu Sese-Seko’s iron rule of the Congo. But then, in the mid-90s, they allowed him to be overthrown. However, rather than allowing the Congolese resistance forces to take power and establish an effective government, they then sponsored an invasion of the country by Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. Although these countries have now largely withdrawn their militias, they continue to sponsor proxy militias which have prevented the country seeing a moment’s peace for nearly fifteen years, resulting in the biggest slaughter since the end of the Second World War, with over 5 million killed. One result of this total breakdown of functioning government has been that the Western companies that loot Congo’s resources have been able to do so virtually for free. Despite being the world’s largest supplier of both coltan and copper, amongst many other precious minerals, the total tax revenue on these products in 2006-7 amounted to a puny £32 million. This is surely far less than what even the most useless neo-colonial puppet would have demanded.

This completely changes the meaning of the word ‘government’. In the Congo, the government’s best efforts to stabilise and develop the country have so far proved no match for the destabilisation strategies of the West and its stooges. In Afghanistan, it is well known that the government’s writ has no authority outside of Kabul, if there. But then, that is the point. The role of the governments imposed on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, like the one they are trying to impose on Syria, is not to govern or provide for the population at all – even that most basic of functions, security. It is simply to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the occupation of the country and to award business contracts to the colonial powers. They literally have no other function, as far as their sponsors are concerned.

It goes without saying that this policy of devastation is turning the victimised countries into a living hell. After now more than thirty years of Western destabilisation, and ten years of outright occupation, Afghanistan is at or very hear the bottom of nearly every human development indicator available, with life expectancy at 44 years and an under-five mortality rate of over one in four. Mathew White, a history professor who has recently completed a detailed survey of the humanity’s worst atrocities throughout history, concluded that, without doubt, “chaos is far deadlier than tyranny”. It is a truth to which many Iraqis can testify.

Dan Glazebrook writes for the Morning Star newspaper and is a member of the editorial board of OURAIM publications.

DISSIDENT VOICE

TODAY, Monday 5/Dec/2011, runoff voting for the first phase of the People’s Assembly elections 2011 started. Engaged in this round are 47 candidates from the Freedom and Justice party (FJP).

The following is a report on the latest developments on the first day of the runoff:

First, The Electoral Process:

On this first day of the runoff, and up to this moment, the electoral process has not seen the same levels of record turnout witnessed in the first round, which is understandable; but we trust that the Egyptian street will positively participate in the run-off to confirm the people’s ability to shape their own future through the first step to towards democracy, the election.

Second, Polling Stations:

Opening of 25 Red Sea Governorate polling stations was postponed to nine o’clock for the absence of representatives of those competing with FJP candidates.

Third, The Security Situation:

Our representatives have reported a large number of thugs loitering in front of the Coptic School and the Hurreyah Experimental School in Azbakeya, in Qasr Al-Neil constituency.

Fourth, Media Performance:

Certain media miscreants owned by a number of businessmen are still playing a treacherous role to thwart the electoral process and mislead voters and public opinion through the dissemination of false information about stopping elections in the Coast constituency in Shubra (Cairo) and Muharram Beck constituency in (Alexandria), although the High Judicial Elections Commission (HJEC) confirmed that the news were false and that the election continues on schedule in all constituencies where runoff voting is required. The HJEC noted that the Administrative Court decisions are not binding on them, after the results, and that the Court of Cassation is the authority entrusted with reviewing HJEC after the announcement of the results. The HJEC also confirmed that, in any case, it never received any decisions from the Administrative Court to stop any elections.

We urge the media to exercise their important role with transparency and objectivity, and not to circulate hoaxes to cheat the Egyptian people for the petty personal interests and goals of a few businessmen or so-called politicians with views and ideologies different from those of the FJP.

Fifth, Representatives:

An armed forces officer refused all representatives entry to polling stations at the headquarters of the Directorate of Health Affairs in Ataba Square, in the sixth constituency (Qasr Al-Neil), claiming that the armed forces have not approved the authorisations, which is contrary to the decisions of the HJEC and a breach of the Political Rights Law.

On this first day of the run-off for the first stage of the Egyptian People's Assembly elections 2011/2012, and until this moment, many abuses and provocations were committed by some of those competing with FJP candidates. Those abuses and provocations mostly violate the rules of fair competition we must commit to during the current phase.

The following is a summary of the main abuses and outrages witnessed during the first day of runoff, up to this moment:
1 - A number of candidates hired unknown bandits to pose as if campaigning, outside polling stations, in the name of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), filming them ‘red-handed’ with party propaganda that had been collected from the streets, methods often used by the defunct former regime.

2 – Certain anonymous persons distributed ‘Communiques’ in the name of a number of our candidates, including several ‘messages’ to the effect that we are coordinating with other candidates, or that we declared our support for candidates running for the seats that we do not have candidates for. All such ‘communiques’ have nothing to do with the FJP or its candidates. If we do coordinate with any parties or persons, we will announce that officially.

3 – In Alexandria, certain parties are spreading rumours that we have withdrawn our support for Counsellor Mahmoud al-Khodeiri. That is totally untrue. The FJP gives its full support to Counsellor Mahmoud al-Khodeiri for his proven honourable patriotic track-record.
4 - With regard to the electoral process, we have observed the following:

First: In polling stations number 73 to 78, in the sixth constituency (in Qasr Al-Neil police station) an army police officer refused all FJP representatives entry to said polling stations, claiming that their authorisations were not stamped by the armed forces, which is a contravention of the Political Rights Law and the HJEC instructions.

Second: In polling stations 267 and 268, based at Mahrouqi School in Bulaq Abul-Ela - sixth constituency (Qasr Al-Neil), the Counsellor/Chairman in charge insisted on personally unveiling the faces of fully-veiled female electorates himself, to confirm their identity, although a female employee was there for just that purpose. This angered female voters who gathered in front of the polling stations, for his insistence, despite attempts by some heads of neighbouring polling stations to dissuade him, to no avail.

Third: In polling stations 376 and 377 at the School of Carpenters, Fariskur, Damietta, representatives of the FJP candidate was expelled. Voting continued openly with no cover or kiosk, after the expulsion of the party representatives.

Fourth: In polling stations 63 and 164 in the seventh constituency, in Manshiet Nasser, at Sultan Barkooq School, the lady in charge expelled all representative, without justification. They tried to convince her that this was in contravention of the law; but she insisted on her position.

------------------

The first day of the run-off for the first stage of the Egyptian People's Assembly elections 2011/2012 has ended, with turnout ranging from 20 to 25%, and a noticeable increase during the last hours of the election day.
The position of the FJP on the most important events on the first day of run-off voting:
1 – The party yet again extends its gratitude to the Egyptian people for their fortitude and positive outlook, which make us confident that this enlightened public will participate on the second day of the run-off, strongly and effectively, not just to vote for a candidate in preference to another, but to confirm the people’s determination to contribute in making their own future.
2 – The FJP emphasizes its full respect for the provisions and decisions of the Egyptian judiciary, especially the decision it made to suspend run-off voting in Cairo's 1st District for party lists and individuals. The FJP calls upon the High Judicial Elections Commission (HJEC) to act to avoid the mistakes for which it issued this ruling, and to ensure the safety procedures for the electoral process and democratic transition in Egypt.
3 – The FJP yet again renounces the practices of some parties and candidates who get involved in negative propaganda against the FJP, by either hiring unknown bandits who pose as if in election campaigns, in our name, outside the polling stations or distributing ‘communiques’ in the name of a number of our candidates including ‘statements’ to the effect that we support certain candidates or that we are coordinating with certain others. All such contraventions and misleading ‘communiques’ have nothing to do with the FJP or its candidates.
4 – The FJP calls upon the HJEC to provide the appropriate atmosphere for the sorting of votes, so as to avoid a repeat of the crises that occurred during the first round of elections.

Egyptian protesters demand the ruling military council to step down during a mass demo in Cairo, November 25, 2011

TENS of thousands of Egyptians have held mass rallies across the country to renew their protest against the military junta's rule in post-revolution Egypt.

THE million man march was scheduled to be held on Friday, dubbed "The Friday of the last Chance."

An analyst says that Egypt's resurgent protests against the Military Council could deteriorate into an armed conflict driven by class divisions in Egyptian society.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Abayomi Azikiwe, Editor of the Pan-African News in Detroit, to share his opinion on this issue.

Following is a transcript of the interview.

Press TV: There is political talk in Egypt right now ranging from protesters to analysts that is rife with rumors that there is a foreign hand at play. This regards the upcoming parliamentary elections; that there is a plan to create chaos that is in someone's interest to benefit from the delay of these elections; that someone is benefiting from this chaos. If so, who or what is the foreign hand and who would be benefiting?

Azikiwe: Well maybe it's not clear at this time exactly who would be benefiting in regard of the current resurgent of the upheaval in Egypt. I think that what transpired on Friday will be widespread political reaction to the insufficient proposal, a political dispensation of the future of Egypt illustrates that there is still a lot of divisions-class cleavages within Egyptian society.

I think also the role of the military is something that is really going to be resolved very soon because at this point we've had reports of dozens people being killed; the utilization of all types of riot gears and efforts to quell the demonstrations in Cairo, Suez and Alexandria.

I think it really sends a message to the international community that the country could perhaps be on the verge of, if not a civil war, then at least some type of armed insurrection that could develop inside Egypt itself and I think there should be a resumption of dialogue. And I think a lot of these countries, international communities and even the United Nations should play a constructive role in the process of fostering a dialogue in Egypt.

Press TV: To whose benefit would that be? Given the scenario if it descends into chaos, into civil war - to whose benefit would that be - the protesters or the SCAF who holds all the military equipment and enforcement?

Azikiwe: Well it may appear to be serving the benefit of the Supreme Military Council, but in actuality the situation could develop where it could be a split within the military itself in Egypt. And we've seen a trend towards this even in terms of what happened back in January and February where there was the division of which direction the state should take in dealing with these mass demonstrations.

But I think a lot of these developments that are going on right now in North Africa are clearly related to the economic crisis that is going on around the world and all of these countries are still integrated into the world system and when we have this kind of turmoil in Europe and in North America, it's definitely going to have even a more profound impact in developing countries particularly in North Africa and the Middle East.

Press TV: Along the lines of what our other guest Clovis Maksoud said - Do you agree that what people don't want is what's serving US interests given the support for Palestinians based on Mubarak, the futility of the Israeli Palestinian peace process and the overall hatred toward Israel and the gas deal into a Peace Accord?

Azikiwe: I agree with Ambassador Maksoud, I think that the future of Egypt is definitely going to have a lot to do with its relationship with the United States as well as the state of Israel. This is a key aspect of the underlying anger that people have inside the country at this time.

They don't feel they have an equal relationship with the state of Israel and we've seen recently the sabotage of the natural gas pipeline; and of course there was a military activity associated with that as well. So I think there needs to be dialogue inside of Egypt with all the parties involved in the political situation.

A US Predator drone firing a Hellfire missile (file photo)

AT least 35 people have been killed after US assassination drones launched aerial attacks in southern Somalia near the border with Kenya, Press TV reported.

A Somali military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Press TV that the remote-controlled aerial vehicles struck the outskirts of Kismayo, a strategically important port city on Somalia's Indian Ocean coast located some 500 kilometers (310 miles) south of the Somali capital Mogadishu, on Wednesday morning.

He added that dozens of people were also injured in the attacks.

Somalia is the sixth country where the United States has used assassination drones to launch deadly missile strikes.

The US military has also used drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, and Yemen.

On October 28, the United States admitted to flying the terror aircraft from a base in Ethiopia.

"The US has unarmed and unmanned aircraft at a facility there (Ethiopia) to be used only for surveillance as part of a broad, sustained integrated campaign to counter terrorism," said Pentagon spokesman Captain John Kirby.

The confirmation appeared a day after The Washington Post revealed in a report that the US flies “armed” drones from an airfield in Ethiopia's southern city of Arba Minch.

Somalia has not had a functioning government since 1991, when warlords overthrew former dictator Mohamed Siad Barre.

Strategically located in the Horn of Africa, Somalia remains one of the countries generating the highest number of refugees and internally displaced persons in the world.

EGYPT'S first post-Mubarak elections are scheduled to begin in less than two weeks. It would be hard to exaggerate how badly the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has prepared for these pivotal transitional elections. The election law is baffling and incoherent. Election preparations seem haphazard. The rules keep changing. People barely know what or who they are voting for. Some activists plan to boycott. Islamists seem poised to win big. The election is shaping up to be far messier and difficult than it needed to be.

And yet despite all of that, holding these elections is still the right move. For Egypt to make a transition to a more democratic, legitimate and accountable political order it has to actually start making that transition. And that means elections. And here, there are some all too rare good signs. There has been no backsliding on the SCAF's commitment to hold these elections despite ample opportunity to postpone them, and there will even be international observers of a sort. On the other side, while some activists have decided to boycott the election they seem to be in the minority. And the Obama administration recognizes the importance of the election and is determined to do what it can to hold the SCAF to its commitments and to assist with the transition. Holding elections now still remains the best choice for Egypt. But everyone needs to prepare for the likely outcome to make sure that the vote actually does begin a real transition to a democratic Egypt rather than digging its early grave.

I remain broadly optimistic that Egypt, like Tunisia, will make its democratic transition despite all the turbulence. This is not because the SCAF has demonstrated any real commitment to democracy or the rule of law. It is because there is a broad and deep public consensus in support of democracy, and enough powerful competing forces to prevent any easy return to Mubarak-style authoritarian rule. It is also because the Obama administration at the highest levels is determined to help get Egypt right, and has been working hard -- often behind the scenes -- to push the SCAF in the correct direction.

It is also because the SCAF has proven to be politically incompetent. Even if they do hope to remain in power and are scheming to abort the revolution, they just aren't very good at it. For all of their deep and justifiable frustrations, Egypt's activists and the ornery, contentious Egyptian media and new political class have succeeded in making life miserable for the SCAF. The military hasn't gotten comfortable in power. Nor has it been able to demonstrate that it holds the key to restoring public order or getting the economy back on track. Its efforts to impose its authority, with its continued resort to military courts and arrests of prominent activists and increasing censorship, have only made things more unstable. The violence against Copts last month, as well as the military clashes with protestors, left many people frightened. And this may be taking a toll. While public opinion surveys have consistently shown strong support for the SCAF, a new survey published last week shows their public approval dropping by twenty-five points in the last five months (from 86 percent to 61 percent).

There has been a lot of criticism of the decision to hold these elections now. But the other alternatives are all worse. The turbulence, chaos, abuses and violence of SCAF's months in power have proven that their remaining in power does not guarantee stability, a steady hand, or economic revival.  If the SCAF had postponed elections further, as some had hoped, everyone would now be rightly complaining that this proved their intention of holding on to power. If the SCAF had opted to first draft the Constitution, everyone would now be complaining about the composition of the drafting committee and the content of leaked drafts while elections remained only on the distant horizon.

And that's why it has always been so important that the elections go forward. That said, the election process in Egypt has been an inexcusable mess. The election law wasn't announced until shortly before the election, and then amended again in the face of political uproar. This left little time for political parties to organize electoral strategies or coalitions. The law itself is nigh-incomprehensible, allocating two-thirds of the seats by lists and one-third to individual winners. Two weeks before the election, it is difficult to get even basic information about the parties, electoral coalitions, or candidates. That's worrying.

What's more, the rules keep changing, creating extreme uncertainty. The election law took forever to be released, and then changed. Right in the middle of the short election campaign, the SCAF dropped a controversial document of constitutional principles, which seemed to enshrine the military's power in the emerging political order. It will probably back down on parts of it in the face of public pressure, including Friday's threatened Islamist protest / campaign rally. But nobody really knows. Same thing for the presidential election, which will probably not really be postponed all the way to 2013, but nobody really knows. And then, of course, without a constitution nobody really knows what the Parliament will do. Ex-NDP candidates may or may not be banned. Egyptians abroad got the right to vote less than a month before the election. It's obviously not good to have this kind of uncertainty about the basic rules in the midst of such a transition.

The other big source of incipient panic is the one thing upon which almost everyone now agrees: that the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party is likely to do well. There's no great secret to the FJP's likely success. After years of electoral participation, and with a large, disciplined organization and significant financial resources, the Muslim Brotherhood has a very effective campaign machine. It has been organizing in the field for many months, at a time when most of its competitors were not. It has been carefully selecting candidates, holding rallies, constructing a Get Out the Vote machine, hanging banners, and doing all the things which political parties which want to win votes are supposed to do. The FJP has many problems, and its efforts could still be short-circuited by a massive turnout which swamps its organizational advantages, but for now it is looking strong compared to its rivals.

It's hard for anyone, even the MB and FJP's leaders, to say exactly how well it will do in the election. When I spoke to a number of them in late September, they said that their goal of winning 30-40 percent of the seats remained unchanged. Tunisia-like numbers would represent something of a best-case scenario, forcing them to form coalitions rather than ruling alone. But their electoral strategy, they told me even then, was complicated by the confusion surrounding the election law, the rapidly shifting electoral coalitions, and the weak preparations by some of their chief rivals. It is all too plausible to see something like the 2006 Palestinian election unfold, where Fatah's disorganization handed victory to Hamas (for example, multiple liberal candidates contesting the same seat handing a safe liberal seat to a unified Islamist vote). It now seems possible that the MB, alone or in coalition with other Islamists, could end up winning a Parliamentary majority. Even that would not be cause for panic, given the limits on Parliament's power, but it would be far more difficult to navigate than an Islamist bloc under 40 percent.

With or without a majority, everyone needs to be prepared for Islamists to do well. It is almost impossible for there to be a free and fair Egyptian election in which Islamists do not win a sizable share of the vote. But even though it is expected, their success will likely prompt a media and political frenzy. This will be made even worse by the fact that Egypt's election will extend over three rounds, rather than being completed in one day. This means that there will be long weeks for rumors of Islamist victories to circulate, for polarization and recriminations, and -- worst of all -- for calls for the army to step in and cancel elections as in Algeria in 1991.

To avoid such a catastrophic failure, everyone will need to avoid over-reaction. The Muslim Brotherhood will need to demonstrate a lot more political maturity  than it has shown in recent months. It will need to emulate Tunisia's Rached al-Ghannouch, who has since al-Nahda's big electoral victory done everything possible to reassure Tunisians and the West that his party will not impose Islamist rule on Tunisia. The Egyptian MB will need to do the same, and back those words with deeds by proving that it will not seek to dominate or to impose its agenda. I have heard a lot over the years from MB leaders about their true democratic convictions, their recognition of the fears they provoke in others and their desire to avoid repeating the Algerian or Palestinian experiences. This is their chance to prove it.

Egyptian secularists, leftists, liberals, and Christians will also need to show restraint, especially with regard to the temptation to call for the elections to be interrupted if they seem to be going badly. That doesn't mean rolling over -- those forces should absolutely continue to challenge and push the MB on their democratic commitments at every opportunity, and call them out when they don't live up to them.

The U.S. and outside observers will also need to resist the tidal wave of recrimination and scare-mongering which is nearly certain to flood the media as the election unfolds. The Obama administration has tried to show that it will respect the outcome of democratic elections, and that it will be willing to work with Islamist parties which demonstrate respect for democratic rules, human rights, and non-violence. There has been a growing recognition that you can't have a representative democracy which excludes a major political trend such as the Islamists, and that including Islamists in the political game is better than forcing them into the shadows. Most now see that lumping together the wide variety of often sharply competing Islamists into one vast Islamic menace is shoddy analytic bunk.

But that balance is going to be far harder to maintain in Egypt than it was after al-Nahda's victory in Tunisia. The stakes are higher, the media glare hotter, and the Egyptian MB less forthcoming than their Tunisian counterparts. But doing so has never been more important. For years there was a bipartisan rhetorical consensus in the United States about supporting Arab democracy. This will be the most important test yet of that commitment to Arab democracy -- for the administration, for Congress, for the media, and for the academic and policy communities.  Did they, and we, really mean it?

The best advice, as in most parts of the universe: don’t panic. The election isn't going to be pretty, but it's necessary.

FOREIGN POLICY

Rafah Crossing

FOR Most Palestinians, leaving Gaza through Egypt is as exasperating a process as entering it. Governed by political and cultural sensitivities, most Palestinian officials and public figures refrain from criticizing the way Palestinians are treated at the Rafah border. However, there is really no diplomatic language to describe the relationship between desperate Palestinians – some literally fighting for their lives - and Egyptian officials at the crossing which separates Gaza from Egypt.

“Gazans are treated like animals at the border,” a friend of mine told me. She was afraid that her fiancé would not be allowed to leave Gaza, despite the fact that his papers were in order. Having crossed the border myself just a few days ago, I could not disagree with her statement.

The New York Times reported on June 8: “After days of acrimony between Hamas and Egypt over limitations on who could pass through the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, Hamas said Egypt had agreed to allow 550 people a day to leave Gaza and to lengthen the operating hours of the crossing.”

And so the saga continues.

A few weeks after an official Egyptian announcement to ‘permanently’ open the border - thus extending a lifeline for trapped Palestinians under siege in Gaza - the Rafah border was opened for two days of conditional operation in late May, and then closed again for four days. Now it has once more ‘reopened’.

All the announcements are proving to be no more than rhetoric. The latest ‘permanent’ reopening has come with its own conditions and limitations, involving such factors as gender, age, purpose of visit, and so on.

“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country,” states Article 13 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This universal principle, however, continues to evade most Palestinians in Gaza.

I was one of the very first Palestinians who stood at Rafah following the announcement of a ‘permanent’ opening. Our bus waited at the gate for a long time. I watched a father repeatedly try to reassure his crying six-year-old child, who displayed obvious signs of a terrible bone disease.

“Get the children out or they will die,” shouted an older passenger as he gasped for air. The heat in the bus, combined with the smell of trapped sweat was unbearable.

Passengers took it upon themselves to leave the bus and stand outside, enduring disapproving looks from the Egyptian officials. Our next task was finding clean water and a shady spot in the arid zone separating the Egypt and Palestinian sides. There were no restrooms.

A tangible feeling of despair and humiliation could be read on the faces of the Gaza passengers.

No one seemed to be in the mood to speak of the Egyptian revolution, a favorite topic of conversation among most Palestinians. This zone is governed by an odd relationship, one that goes back many years – well before Egypt, under Hosni Mubarak, decided to shut down the border in 2006 in order to aid in the political demise of Hamas.

The issue actually has nothing to do with gender, age or logistics. All Palestinians are treated very poorly at the Rafah crossing, and they continue to endure even after the toppling of Mubarak, his family and the dismissal of the corrupt security apparatus. The Egyptian revolution is yet to reach Gaza.

When the bus was finally allowed to enter about five hours later, Palestinians dashed into the gate, desperately hoping to be among the lucky ones allowed to go in. The anxiety of the travellers usually makes them vulnerable to workers at the border who promise them help in exchange for negotiated amounts of money. All of this is actually a con, as the decision is made by a single man, referred to as al-Mukhabarat, the ‘intelligence’.

Some are sent back while others are allowed entry. Everyone is forced to wait for many hours – sometimes even days - with no clear explanation as to what they are waiting for, or why they are being sent back.

The very ill six-year-old held on his dad’s jacket as they walked about, frantically trying to fulfill all the requirements. Both seemed like they were about to collapse.

The Mukhabarat determined that three Gaza students on their way to their universities in Russia were to be sent back. They had jumped through many hoops already to make it so far. Their hearts sank when they heard the verdict. I protested on their behalf, and the decision was as arbitrarily reversed as it was originally made.

Those who are sent back to Gaza are escorted by unsympathetic officers to the same open spot, to wait for the same haggard bus. Some of those who are allowed entry are escorted by security personnel across the Sinai desert, all the way to Cairo International Airport to be ‘deported’ to their final destinations. They are all treated like common criminals.

“I can't watch my son die in front of my eyes,” screamed the father of 11-year-old Mohammed Ali Saleh, according to Mohammed Omer for IPS (June 10). He was addressing Egyptian troops days after the border was supposedly ‘permanently’ reopened - for the second time in less than a week.

Such compelling needs as medical treatment, education and freedom keep bringing Palestinians back. The Israeli siege has chocked Gaza to the point of near complete strangulation. Egypt is Gaza’s only hope.

“I beg you to open the crossing…You brothers of Egypt have humiliated us for so long. Isn't it time we had our dignity back?” said Naziha Al-Sebakhi, 63, one of the many distressed faces at the Rafah border, according to Mohammed Omer.

As they crossed into Egypt, some of the passengers seemed euphoric. The three Russian students and I shared a taxi to Cairo. A tape of Umm Kulthum’s ‘Amal Hyati’ – Hope of my Life – played over and over again. Despite everything, the young men seemed to hold no resentment whatsoever towards Egypt.

“I just love Egypt…I don’t know why,” said Majid pensively, before falling asleep from sheer exhaustion.

I thought of the six-year-old boy and his dad. I wonder if they made it to the hospital on time.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.