If Egyptians want change, then they should have it | Martin Kettle

It is a risk, and could destabilise the country and the region, but who are Mubarak or the west to deny it to them?

I blame the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'm not one of those weirdos who mourns the collapse of communism. It's just that, in retrospect, the problem with the events of 1989 is that they happened so easily. The wall fell in a weekend, then Hungary followed, then Romania, and eventually even the Soviet Union itself. And all, amazingly, without almost anyone, the odious Ceausescus notable exceptions, getting hurt.

In reality it was rather more messy, of course. Yet the speed and totality with which the communist system crumpled in Europe were spectacular. The 1989 collapse has framed a lot of expectations whenever any subsequent despot or military regime is challenged in the streets. We have come to expect revolutions to be quick, successful and peaceful. We seem to have forgotten what most revolutionaries of earlier eras took for granted – that their fate is as likely to be defeat, and even death, as victory.

Most of the time, despots don't fold – they fight back. Sometimes very effectively. See Burma. See Belarus. See Zimbabwe. And, for the past couple of days in Cairo, see Egypt. It's a mistake to assume all dictators are isolated tinpot tyrants who will obligingly decamp to the French Riviera with their ill-gotten gains at the first stirrings of trouble or as soon as John Simpson has positioned himself outside the presidential palace to see history made. As often as not, threatened despots summon the army and the secret police, and manoeuvre and terrorise their challengers into submission.

That is plainly part of what Hosni Mubarak and some of those around him are trying to achieve in Egypt. Mubarak may be a wounded beast, but he is still a big beast, and still – in some diminishing ways – a strong one. For 30 years he has sat atop a pyramid of Egyptian power whose interests are almost as much opposed to radical change as his own are. Whether his allies and battalions have the common purpose to maintain their own power when he finally steps down is difficult to predict. They certainly have an interest in such an outcome. And they are still trying today, making further strategic concessions while attacking protesters in the cities. Anything is possible. But that's the point. This is not a done deal.

Nevertheless, it is clear what ought to happen. Mubarak should go, or should make visible preparations to go as soon as possible – perhaps even, another tense Friday, tomorrow. Then there ought to be a transitional government based not just on the ruling National Democratic party and the army, but on opposition parties too. After that, free elections, independently verified, later this year. Restrictions on freedom of speech and the media should be eased immediately.

Easy to say. Much harder to do. But not impossible. Washington is manifestly now attempting to steer events that way – belatedly doing the right thing in Egypt, though inevitably berated by its usual enemies for it. More important, powerful Egyptians are getting there too. Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq's apology for Wednesday's violence did not go far enough, but it was a strikingly pragmatic intervention. The new vice-president, Omar Suleiman, struck the same tone. Above all, though, these are the demands of the thousands of protesters who have camped out in Tahrir Square for most of the last week. "We need democracy in Egypt. We just want what you have," as a headscarf-wearing woman told the New York Times's Nicholas Kristof this week. Sounds right to me.

Would democracy solve Egypt's problems? On its own, probably not. Most Egyptians are very poor. Forty percent subsist on less than $2 a day. Corruption and waste are massive problems. The size of the army is disproportionate. But true democracy would be a hugely important building-block for the future. Call it false consciousness and a phoney transition if you must. Call it a potentially destabilising change for Egypt and the region too – as both Israel and China do (the latter even bans its people from knowing what is happening in Egypt). But if it's what Egyptians want – and they continue to say very loudly that it is – then who are Mubarak or the outside world to deny it to them?

Is it a risk? Of course. The risk of a civil conflict with immense repercussions elsewhere has to be taken very seriously. But it is always tempting to say that everything is too dangerous to be put at risk. I am currently reading the final volume of Edmund Morris's masterly biography of Theodore Roosevelt, which starts with TR visiting Cairo in 1910 and endorsing British rule in Egypt as the least worst alternative to what he dismissed as hopelessly ineffective Egyptian nationalists and unchanged, bigoted Muslims. Not much change there then. A century on, plenty of foreign nations and some Egyptians still prefer the devil they know than the one that they don't.

That is not a stupid position. But there is both a principled counter-argument to it and a pragmatic one. The principled one is that the right to elect the government of your choice is a human right, whether for British prisoners or for Egyptian adults. If Egyptians want it they should have it.

The pragmatic one is that Egypt can take it. Yes, Egypt is a divided society. What society is not? But it is also a resilient one and in myriad ways, though always under pressure, broadly based and multicultural. This is rooted in its history. Egypt has been open to the outside world not just in the time of Mubarak but since the reign of Muhammad Ali, and even of Cleopatra. It has also long been historically in the van of modernising trends in Islamic thought which, while emphatically anti-imperialist, also find a place for everything from science to parliaments.

There are threats to this stability. And of course the outcome is uncertain. Yet the rising in Cairo has mostly been marked even now by restraint. There has been little hysteria. Anti-western and anti-Israeli paranoia has been conspicuously absent. The much touted threat from the Muslim Brotherhood has yet to emerge. These are all positive signs.

Only a fool would dismiss the possibility that this week's events may unravel in dangerous ways. Revolutions are volatile, not neat and biddable. If a revolutionary mood gathers speed, or even if a prospective revolution is crushed by the regime, the impact will be felt way beyond Egypt itself. The drama on the streets of Cairo is Egypt's to resolve, not ours. After Iraq, there is little that the west can do. But we are affected by what is happening in Egypt. We have a stake in the outcome, whether we acknowledge it or not.

Daily News Trends

Egypt's fate is in the hands of its secretive army | Oliver Miles

The 1952 'revolution' was really a military takeover – and the well-respected army remains key to the country's future

The resolution of the conflict in Egypt between a popular uprising and an entrenched president currently depends on decisions and actions to be taken by the army. What does that mean? It is not a question to which British history and political tradition provide much of an answer, even if the Duke of Wellington was not a bad prime minister.

The political role of the army in the Middle East has deep historical roots. When the Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II set about reforming and rebuilding his empire's power and prestige nearly 200 years ago, one of the main planks of his programme was to build a modern conscript army on the European model, even though he had to slaughter the old model army, the janissaries, before he could begin.

His viceroy in Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha, putting together the pieces after the withdrawal of Napoleon who had largely destroyed the old order, followed the same course. He sent military students to Europe, and invited training missions to Egypt. The rest of his modernisation programme, also based on learning from Europe, was largely subordinate to his goal of building a modern army.

Muhammad Ali became the founder of the modern Egyptian state, and his dynasty remained at least nominally in power in Egypt until King Farouk, by then scarcely more than a puppet of the British, was expelled by the "revolution" of 1952. But that revolution, though popular in the sense that it had the support of the people, was not a true revolution. It was a military takeover. The monarchy had been marginalised and was overthrown. The army had not.

On the contrary, it remained the backbone of the state under the three men who have ruled Egypt for the past 57 years, President Nasser, President Sadat and President Mubarak. All were military men, steeped in military culture and pride. President Nasser's prestige outshone all rivals, not only in Egypt but throughout the Arab world. President Sadat, though lacking Nasser's charisma, restored Egypt's self-respect by his partial victory over the Israeli occupying forces in 1973. President Mubarak, as air force commander, shared in that partial victory, even if he had still less charisma; his nickname when I met him in 1980 was the name of a well-known brand of cheese "La vache qui rit".

In other successor states of the Ottoman empire the army also played an important role. In Turkey one of the few generals who emerged from defeat with his military reputation burnished became the father of the new nation, taking the name Ataturk. The Turkish army remained for half a century the guardian of the new nation and in particular of its secular and democratic character. Only in the last decade or two has that role been challenged. In Jordan the army had a different role, as the guardian of the monarchy and its protector, in particular, against internal challenge from the Palestinians.

Against this background, I doubt if most Egyptians find it strange that their fate should be in the hands of the army. The army is respected, even reverenced, in sharp contrast to politicians or – worst of all – the police. This may mean, of course, that the popular revolution will be hijacked by a military takeover. But not necessarily.

The Egyptian army, like other armies particularly in the Middle East, is secretive. Their dependence on the US army for much-prized modern equipment (US military aid in 2009 was $1.3bn compared with civil aid of $250m) must mean that the Americans are something of an exception. But I doubt whether the Americans know much about the political attitudes and ambitions of the officer class.

Leaked reports from the US embassy in Cairo show that the embassy were well aware of the widespread bitterness about rising prices, government corruption and even "disdain for the Mubarak government's perceived pro-US and Israel posture". But a mention by an unnamed Egyptian member of parliament in April 2007 of a post-Mubarak military coup as "the best of all the bad options available" is described as the only occasion on which the embassy heard speculation about a possible coup.

In 2009 the embassy reported that the minister of defence Field Marshal Tantawi consistently resists change "but he retains President Mubarak's support, and so he and the top brass will most likely stay in position until Mubarak leaves the scene", and in another report that he "keeps the armed forces appearing reasonably sharp and the officers satisfied with their perks and privileges." No doubt these reports were sound as far as they went, but they do not tell us what we want to know today.

If the army is something of a closed society, that does not necessarily mean that it does not know what the people want, or is against giving it to them. If tomorrow an unknown general or colonel or flight lieutenant (remember Jerry Rawlings of Ghana?) tells us that he has stepped in to restore order following the overthrow of the tyrant Mubarak and that he will restore freedom and democracy, after an essential cooling-off period of course, we must not be surprised, and must prepare to judge him by his actions. That will be the moment when external players, including not only America but ourselves, may have a part in keeping him to his word. It won't be easy.

Daily News Trends

Vodafone says Egyptian authorities forced it to send pro-Mubarak texts

Messages urged 'honest and loyal men to confront the traitors and criminals'

Vodafone has claimed the Egyptian authorities forced it to send pro-government text messages during this week's protests.

Twitter has been buzzing with screen grabs from Vodafone's Egyptian customers showing text messages sent over the course of the demonstrations against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's 30-year-old regime.

A text message received on Sunday by an Associated Press reporter in Egypt appealed to the country's "honest and loyal men to confront the traitors and criminals and protect our people and honour". Another urged Egyptians to attend a pro-Mubarak rally in Cairo on Wednesday. The first was marked as coming from "Vodafone". The other was signed: "Egypt Lovers."

Vodafone said the messages had been drafted by Egyptian authorities and that it had no power to change them. "Vodafone Group has protested to the authorities that the current situation regarding these messages is unacceptable. We have made clear that all messages should be transparent and clearly attributable to the originator."

The company said its competitors – including Egypt's Mobinil and the United Arab Emirates' Etisalat – were doing the same. Vodafone said the texts had been sent "since the start of the protests" but declined to reveal how many such messages it had sent or whether it was still putting them out.

Vodafone is already under fire for its role in the internet blackout that cut Egyptian users off for several days. It said the order could not be ignored as it was binding under local law.

Daily News Trends

Tahrir Square battleground: 'These people tried to slaughter us last night'

Anti-Mubarak protesters in Cairo fight to hold square littered with bricks and burnt-out vehicles after night of bloodshed

They were barely visible at first, a glimmer of tan clothing among the ranks of pro-Mubarak fighters lined on a low overpass above the entrance to Tahrir Square. It was from here that rocks, petrol bombs and bullets had been raining down on the anti-regime opposition defending their barricades below.

At 9am first one, then a second, and then dozens of Egyptian soldiers – the same military forces who had stood back and watched as last night's bloodshed unfolded – finally appeared at this key strategic flashpoint and began driving back those on the bridge. Before them lay a no-man's land littered with broken bricks and burnt-out vehicles that spoke of the extraordinary violence that had played out in the darkness.

It was the beginning of a day of to-and-fro street clashes in the densely populated neighbourhoods surrounding the square, as anti-Mubarak protesters fought close-quarter battles to hold Tahrir and, in a hail of warning shots and automatic gunfire, the army sporadically attempted to establish buffer zones.

A night of fighting that left more than 1,000 injured and several dead from gunshot wounds. Despite the denials of Egypt's government and interior ministry, both of which claimed these events were not state-orchestrated, the evidence strongly suggested otherwise.

Anti-Mubarak protesters dragged a supporter of the regime through their barricades just after 8am. In his pocket was an identity card showing him to be Ahmed Mahmoud Abdel Razik, a member of the police.

His was not the only identity card taken. Others were on display, taken as their owners were led away for interrogation in the buildings on the back streets before being handed over to the army. Despite the tensions in the crowd most captured fighters were protected from retribution by responsible protesters.

"These people tried to slaughter us last night – five of my fellow revolutionaries were killed by sniper fire at this location, and I saw one man collapse right in front of me at 4am with his brains falling out on to the road," said Mahmoud Mustafa, a 25-year-old anti-Mubarak demonstrator. "But look around you – we remain peaceful, we remain united and we remain determined to bring down this regime. I was never involved in politics before, but now I will stay here until Mubarak leaves or I die, whatever comes first."

The north side of the square was a scene of devastation – both physical and human. At the makeshift aid stations, which have been manned by 70 volunteer doctors in the open air, casualties were still coming in.

A man with a broken back was carried through the crowd on a piece of corrugated metal. Others came through with head injuries, broken arms and cuts.

One of those treating the injured was Dr Ibrahim Fakhr, a surgical professor. "We had shooting at 11pm last night and then again at around four in the morning from a sniper on the roof of the Egyptian Museum. We saw the laser light coming from the weapon. The latest that we have is that seven have been killed by gunfire."

Like the doctors, those trying to defend the square have been forced to improvise. Crude helmets were constructed out of cardboard boxes; others strapped water bottles to their heads. They built makeshift shields and used plastic crates to catch the incoming stones at their barricades.

"I'm an agricultural teacher by trade and I've never built weapons before, but I am good with my hands," explained Said el-Zoughly, who was directing a group of protesters as they broke down a burnt-out vehicle to salvage defence materials and put together catapults and slingshots. "We're not just running around wildly, we're trying to be organised and efficient. Anyone who wants a shield can get one. We'll stay for however long it takes – God is with us."

At the mouth of the square, buildings once held by the pro-Mubarak demonstrators had changed hands by morning. On the roof of one, a group of young men, equipped with stones and firebombs, were briefed by their leader, while others hauled sacks of rocks up the derelict stairs.

"Today's still early, but they're scared of us," he told those around him. "Don't get burnt out. If you are tired get into the building. If you want to sleep stay away from the edges of the roof and its corners.

"Then when they come into no-man's land we can surprise them."

As more people arrived at the square bearing food and supplies for those inside, the clashes – smaller in intensity than those the night before – broke out again. The lines of soldiers between were hit by missiles, and tanks moved in.

Mohamed Saleh, a 25-year-old senior accountant, surveyed the scene. "You must tell the world about this terrorism, government terrorism," he said. "We've been sitting here for eight days with no trouble, no fires, no violence – just a peaceful desire for revolution. Now civilians are being indiscriminately massacred by thugs. If the west cares so much about terrorism then why doesn't it act?

"Mubarak says he wants eight more months in power to manage a peaceful transition. Just see what the first day of that peaceful transition looks like, then you'll understand why we can't stop protesting until he leaves immediately. He is a thug and a criminal and he wants to kill us. Can you imagine what would happen to us tonight if we stood down and stopped defending ourselves? We would be slaughtered. We're fighting now for our lives."

On Twitter and by other means, anti-Mubarak protesters sent out appeals for medical supplies, blood donations and blankets, and exchanged information on which entrances and exits to the square were safe. On the fringes of Tahrir many people were assaulted and harassed by pro-Mubarak thugs, including dozens of local and international journalists who have been portrayed by state television as sympathisers of the revolution and accused of spreading misinformation and circulating drugs.

Elsewhere reports filtered in of other institutions perceived to be anti-Mubarak coming under attack, including the Hisham Mubarak law centre, which has previously provided legal services for arrested democracy activists, and the El Nadeem Centre for Rehabiliation of Victims of Violence, which has campaigned against police torture.

Daily News Trends

Middle East unrest according to Glenn Beck and friends

Bored of balanced coverage from the lamestream, so-called news media? What you can learn about the Middle East protests from US rightwing commentators

'Tunisia is our Archduke Ferdinand moment'

Says Glenn Beck, Fox News host:

This is not just happenstance. This is not just poor people mad at rich people. This is coordinated. Tunisia was the beginning. I think there is a chance Tunisia was our Archduke Ferdinand moment that I've been telling you about, warning that it would start in some place that wouldn't look like anything – and most of us wouldn't understand it. He was the guy assassinated in Sarajevo. Month later Austria and Hungary declared war against Serbia and the rest is called World War One

Beck, the apocalyptically-minded TV host, has the most complete theory on Egypt: the protests there are part of what he calls the "coming insurrection".

He illustrates how it will happen in the clip below using blackboards featuring maps of Europe and the Middle East. He marks friends with a yellow smiley face (Israel), "Frenemies" (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.) with blue faces and enemies (Iran) with red. Through the use of stick-on fires to illustrate riots he announces to his American viewers: "I'm going to show you how all this cascades over to us".

Key to all it all is that Europe, as his map shows, is already in flames because of some of our recent street protests. Beck never explains the connection between the Greek government's austerity programme, tuition fees demonstrations in the UK and radical Islam (which no one on the ground in Egypt says is behind the protests there). Do I need to? Because I can't.

To cut to the chase, a new caliphate will emerge in the Middle East and push further east until China, as Beck puts it, says "Knock it off guys" and takes over India, reaching some way into Pakistan. The caliphate will then push north, which is when it will absorb the UK:

What happens to the overwhelming radical population of the UK, of radical Islamicists. What happens? Do they just sit around on their hands or do they see an opportunity? When you take the Marxists and you combine them with the radical in Islam the whole world begins to implode

So there you have it, an "Archduke Ferdinand moment" which will split Europe, the Middle East and Asia into Chinese and radical Islamic zones. In the full Beck, he also introduces Bill Ayers (who Sarah Palin had in mind when she accused Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists"), Hizbullah and Code Pink, a feminist antiwar group. But that's enough for now.

'It has spread, as we predicted it would'

Says a Glenn Beck radio show co-host:

Even when the French riots were going on, this was before Greece. The rioting in France - Paris was on fire virtually every night - we said this is coming to other countries

That's right. The origins of Egypt's protest lie not in Mubarak's dictatorship, a languid economy and lack of opportunity for young people but the 2005 unrest in Paris's banlieues. Does Greece have something to do with it too?

Here is Beck - this time on the radio - expanding on his theme of what the Egypt protests mean for Europe:

The Muslim radicals in Europe and England rise up. You've got the communists and the Muslim radicals, they are not one and the same, they are not coordinating or anything else. But once they start to work together - whether it is coordinated or not, and I don't believe it would be - once they start to work together in concert Europe is done. It is done. Where is the police force that is going to be able to police the entire world like that. Russia? The United States? How are you going to quell the Middle East?

Watch the two of them below:

'It tracks with this administration's views on the economy'

Says David Asman, Fox host:

President Mubarak sent a message by camel to President Obama today ... Mubarak was telling Obama to mind his own business, that he will leave on his own terms, not on terms or timetables dictated by the White House [...]

The administration's inability to have any sway there is what happens when you desert your allies and try to apply Robert's rules of order to the raw power plays of the Middle East. We saw the same thing happen with the Carter administration's mishandling of Iran in 1979 and we are shocked that this administration thinks the same lofty ideals will have better luck in Egypt. It is a fairyland, it is an academic view of the world that frankly tracks very closely with this administration's views on the economy. Take healthcare, for example ...

To a man with a hammer every problem is a nail, as the saying goes. To a man with a problem with Obama's healthcare reform, every problem looks like it has something to do with healthcare reform.

(via Media Matters for America)

'Obama should be impeached'

The strangest thing I've seen on the internet for a while: footage of JFK unconvincingly voiced-over by someone who cannot do a JFK impression.

Recently the fires of discontent in the Middle East have been inflamed by the aid and comfort that have been given to America's enemies by our 44th president [...] The 44th president and Joseph Biden [should] be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours. At that point the speaker of the house, John Boehner, will become the 45th president of our nation. I'm asking John Boehner to use our military power to quell the uprising that is currently threatening the government of Hosni Mubarak

I have no idea whether this is serious or satire. None at all.

'Obama is on the side of radical Islam'

Michael Savage, who calls Obama the "socialist-in-chief", talks over the US president's recent statement calling for a transition to democracy in Egypt.

Obama: ... people want the same things that we all want. A better life for ourselves and our children ...

Savage: What the heck does that mean? This is the rhetoric you would have heard from the Black Panthers

And here is a key quote:

Grievances? Here is the community organiser now using community organisational mentality for a nation of Egypt, which is flooded with the Muslim Brotherhood. This is astounding. We are listening to the biggest mistake in US diplomatic history. This fool. This pinheaded fool running this country either doesn't know his history or is on the side of radical Islam. There's no two ways about it

'What the Bible has already said'

Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily:

Iran's quest serves a second purpose of eliminating all of Israel's supposed Islamic allies and replacing them with like-minded radical government heads that will renounce their alliance with the US and harden hatred toward Israel. Of course, this scenario only strengthens what the Bible has already said - that the enemies of Israel will one day attack them, thereby giving occasion for God to destroy their enemies

From about 4 mins, we get a Biblical reading of contemporary Middle Eastern politics

'Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the US government'

Frank Gaffney, neoconservative:

There are questionable people who are sympathetic to the program of the stealth jihadists who have influence with the United States government. Some I think are actually working for it, but for sure people who are persuaded that the folks that they need to work with to reach out to the Muslim-American community, for example, who incessantly turn to Muslim Brotherhood organisations for that purpose, are a very real problem

(Via Think Progress / Gawker)

'We will have a world war on our hands'

Bill O'Reilly forsees a domino effect where, aided by al-Jazeera, the Muslim Brotherhood takes charge in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and Jordan and gives al-Qaida free reign.

'Al-Jazeera is British intel'

Another take on al-Jazeera: Alex Jones talks Egypt with author and host of GCN's World Crisis Radio, Webster Tarpley. I have no idea what is going on here. There is an Anglo-American imperialist plot, they say, aided by al-Jazeera, to overthrow Mubarak. China and Russia might get involved somewhere down the line. Here is one exchange:

Jones: People are opening saying what al-Jazeera is: British intel

Tarpley: Yeah, that's for sure

To clear things up (joke!) at around the 3 mins mark Pink Floyd's Money comes in to provide a sonic backdrop to the Jones-Tarpley chat.

'The US should not fear Egypt regime change'

This may not fit the narrative but the US right is not speaking with one voice on Egypt. There are those (mainly above) who fear the consequences if Mubarak was to fall, but others who support the possibility that Egypt may transition to democracy. The quote heading this section comes from an article for Forbes by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (also home to Paul Wolfowitz) while a Bush administration official, Elliott Abrams, claims in the Washington Post that the Egypt protests are a vindication of his former boss.

Daily News Trends

Egyptian protesters' makeshift helmets – in pictures

Demonstrators in Cairo calling for Hosni Mubarak's removal are resorting to bottles, boxes, bits of foam and anything else they can find to protect themselves from rocks and other objects thrown by regime supporters

Daily News Trends

Egypt protests: the view from the Middle East

Middle East correspondents from the Guardian, Der Spiegel and Le Monde report from around the region on reaction to protests in Egypt

In an effort to provide the most comprehensive coverage of the seismic events in Egypt and the shockwaves they are sending through the region, the Guardian has teamed up with leading European newspapers Der Spiegel and Le Monde. In the coming days we will be exploring ways to share our reporting from the region, so that you can read dispatches from their highly respected correspondents alongside reports from our own team on the ground. Kicking off this collaboration here are a series of audio reports from correspondents for the three papers in Cairo, Sana'a, Tunis and Beirut.

Egypt: Volkhard Windfuhr, from Der Spiegel, reports from Cairo

Windfuhr, who has lived in Egypt since the 1950s and been chairman of the Cairo foreign press association since 1994, confirms there has been a change of attitude from the army today, although he reports that there are rumours of a split in the military's leadership.

Yemen: Tom Finn reports for the Guardian

Thousands of anti-government demonstrators gathered in the Yemeni capital of Sana'a to take part in a "day of rage" against the ruling regime. Finn says protesters had planned to protest in Sana'a's Tahrir Square, but the pro-government supporters got there first.

Tunisia: Mathieu von Rohr, from Der Spiegel, reports

People in Tunisia, where mass demonstrations saw the ex-president Ben Ali flee last month, feel "very proud" that Egyptians have risen up in protest against Mubarak, von Rohr reports. Der Spiegel's foreign affairs correspondent says the mood in Tunisia has become more tense in the last couple of days, with clashes in the streets between police and protesters.

Lebanon: Ghaith Abdul-Ahad of the Guardian reports

Abdul-Ahad says "all is quiet now" in Lebanon after the clashes of last week. There is huge interest in the Egyptian protests from people in the country, however he says Lebanon is "so sectarian" that any potential protests in the country are unlikely to be united.

Jordan: Martin Chulov of the Guardian reports

There's a "tense calm" in Oman, Chulov says, where "all eyes" have been on Egypt. There is a lot of support for the protesters in Egypt, and talk about how protests may follow on on the streets of Jordan – where demonstrations are planned for Friday 4 February. So far the demonstrations have been carefully planned, but people are watching to see if tomorrow's protests are have more spontaneous elements, Chulov reports.

Daily News Trends

Egypt's vice-president complains rioting is bad for business

Tourism loses at least $1bn as one million visitors flee anti-Mubarak protests

Egypt's vice-president, Omar Suleiman has warned protesters that rioting is chasing away foreign tourists and investors who are vital for the country's economy.

He said Egypt had lost at least $1bn in tourism in the past nine days and that a million tourists had left during the turmoil.

Tui Travel, Europe's biggest travel company, warned that the unrest in Egypt and Tunisia would cost it up to £30m as customers cancelled or rescheduled holidays.

Tui has cancelled all holiday bookings for Egypt from Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, but is still running holidays booked in the UK for Red Sea resorts such as Sharm el-Sheikh "in line with government advice". This means that, at present, UK customers will not get a refund if they cancel their trip.

"If we are not able to operate any further holidays to Egypt for the rest of the winter from any source market except for the UK, we estimate the second-quarter impact will be approximately £20m. If UK government advice changes and we can no longer operate from that source market we would expect the impact to increase by approximately £5m," Tui said.

Repatriating customers from Tunisia and cancellation of holidays to the country has cost Tui another £5m.

Egypt's revenues are driven by tourism, which are thought to bring in about £7bn a year. Taxes on ships using the Suez canal generated £6bn in the last financial year. But Egypt still ran a current account deficit of £505m in the third quarter of 2010 and had to borrow to cover the difference.

Analysts at ratings agency Fitch, which downgraded Egypt today to BB, warned of further downgrades.

Many western businesses have shut their operations and pulled out senior staff. The agency said a lack of trade and tourism, which accounts for 11% of GDP, would send tax revenues into a downward spiral, making the budget deficit worse. The stock market remained closed.

The country's ports have seen much of their business move to Malta, Israel and other Mediterranean destinations as Egypt's docks remain largely shut down.

The Suez canal, which carries about 8% of global sea trade, has stayed open despite the chaos, with armed guards protecting the waterway that links the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, but ships have avoided Port Said and Alexandria.

Daily News Trends

US embassy cables: Tantawi resistant to change in Egypt

Cable dated:2008-03-16T16:43:00
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 CAIRO 000524
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE FOR S AND NEA/FO WHITE HOUSE FOR OVP DOD FOR OSD
E.O. 12958: DECL: 3/16/28
TAGS: PARM, PREL, PGOV, MASS, MARR, PTER, IS, EG, XF
SUBJECT: SCENESETTER FOR MINDEF TANTAWI'S VISIT TO THE U.S. MARCH 24-28
REF: A. CAIRO 452 B. CAIRO 488 C. CAIRO 507
CAIRO 00000524 001.2 OF 002
Classified By: Ambassador Francis Ricciardone for reasons 1.4 (a)(b)&(d).

1. (S) Summary: Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi will travel to Washington, Tampa, and Chicago March 24-28. He will meet senior officials in Washington and at USCENTCOM HQ in Tampa, and view U.S. civil defense arrangements in Chicago. Mrs. Tantawi and as many as five senior generals will accompany him. Tantawi will seek assurances that the USG will not condition or reduce military assistance to Egypt in the future. He will emphasize Egypt's continuing value to the United States as an indispensable ally in the region, and he will press to return BRIGHT STAR to a full field training exercise. The eighty-year-old veteran of five wars with Israel is committed to preventing another one ever. But he is also frozen in the Camp David paradigm and uncomfortable with our shift to the post-9/11 GWOT. Recognizing that he is reluctant to change, we nonetheless should urge Minister Tantawi towards a broader and more flexible partnership based on shared strategic objectives, including border security, counter-terrorism, peacekeeping and civil defense. End Summary.

2. (S) Border Control: Egyptian effectiveness in preventing arms smuggling into Gaza is essential to stopping Palestinian rocket fire into Israel. When the Secretary pushed hard on smuggling in October 2007, the Egyptians finally got serious and agreed to open an FMF case that will deploy counter-tunnel technology to the Rafah border. The case also includes extensive training. The initial shipment of equipment is expected in June. Training will begin this spring in the US, due to Egyptian sensitivity towards having foreigners stationed at their borders. The Egyptians are also building a concrete barrier wall on the Egyptian side to avoid a repeat of the January incursion, in which thousands of Gazans poured into Rafah.

3. (C) The Egyptians insist that they are committed to do all they can to stop smuggling into Gaza. They acknowledge the threat that Hamas poses to their own security and to the peace process. They claim to have discovered more than 200 tunnels since November 2005. Tantawi will argue that Egypt is doing everything within its power but is not the only source of weapons in Gaza. He believes that Israeli politicians are blaming Egypt for domestic political reasons and resents the impact on Egyptian military assistance. He will also urge that the USG exert influence on Israel to ease humanitarian conditions in Gaza. EGIS Chief Omar Soliman has the lead on negotiations with Hamas but Tantawi will also likely urge that Rafah be opened to ease humanitarian pressures in Gaza.

4. (S) With Tantawi we should acknowledge that the counter-tunneling technology that we will introduce this summer will contribute to interdiction efforts but does not represent a complete solution. Indeed the Army Corps of Engineers experts who designed the system have told us that the Gaza border represents a "worst case scenario" for interdiction. In a March 6 meeting with NEA A/S Welch, Tantawi hinted that the Egyptians have adopted additional measures at the border. We are still interested in a trilateral meeting with the Egyptians and Israelis (ultimately perhaps to include the PA) to share intelligence and tactics. So far the Israelis have demurred. We should broaden the discussion to maritime interdiction efforts and also addressing the weapons trail, which starts in Yemen and Sudan.

5. (S) Civil Defense: The Red Sea ferry accident in February 2006 embarrassed the Mubarak government and cost more than 1000 lives. Tantawi will bring to Washington his mandate from President Mubarak to integrate the military into crisis response management. On this he needs and will be grateful for our help -- a small but important advance against the MOD's staunch resistance to engagement with us in shifting their priorities and transforming their forces. ASD for Homeland Defense McHale has suggested including Egyptian representatives in U.S.-based civil emergency exercises

CAIRO 00000524 002.2 OF 002

planned for spring and fall 2008, and inviting GOE officials to a civil defense symposium at the Army War College this fall.

6. (S) Peacekeeping: Egypt has contributed to all UN and AU peacekeeping efforts in Africa, and is sending 1300-1400 troops for the UN/AU Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Egypt has also offered UNAMID two additional mechanized infantry battalions; the UN has accepted one. Despite our repeated requests, the Egyptians declined to contribute helicopters; they simply do not have the logistical and operational capability to operate in Darfur's challenging environment. We recommend that the helo request not be raised again.

7. (S) Reform: In the cabinet, where he still wields significant influence, Tantawi has opposed both economic and political reforms that he perceives as eroding central government power. He is supremely concerned with national unity, and has opposed policy initiatives he views as encouraging political or religious cleavages within Egyptian society. In a speech on March 9, Tantawi said one of the military's roles is to protect constitutional legitimacy and internal stability, signaling his willingness to use the military to control the Muslim Brotherhood in the run-up to the April 9 municipal council elections. On economic reform, Tantawi believes that Egypt's economic reform plan fosters social instability by lessening GOE controls over prices and production. Tantawi rejects any conditioning on Egyptian FMF on human rights or any other grounds. Before this year he thought that FMF was inviolable and regarded ESF as a layer of protection against possible cuts to FMF. He will argue that any conditions on military assistance are counter-productive. He will also state that the military is not behind human rights problems in Egypt and that U.S. Congressional human rights conditionally is mis-targeted.

8. (S) Washington interlocutors should be prepared to meet an aged and

change-resistant Tantawi. Charming and courtly, he is, nonetheless mired in a post-Camp David military paradigm that has served his cohort's narrow interests for the last three decades. He and Mubarak are focused on regime stability and maintaining the status quo through the end of their time. They simply do not have the energy, inclination or world view to do anything differently. Nonetheless, for the benefit of Tantawi's omnipresent aides, we should focus discussions on the future and how to operate as strategic partners as we face the challenges of that future together. RICCIARDONE

Daily News Trends

The west must be wary of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood | Benny Morris

The Brotherhood's aim is to take over the Egyptian state through the democratic process – and then bring an end to democracy

• Richard Bulliet: Time to end US fear of the Muslim Brotherhood

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is playing a canny political game – and its objective – let no one doubt this – is to take power.

Opinion polls over the past decade have awarded the Brotherhood the support of between 30% and 60% of the populace, and it is the best organised and most powerful political party in the country. But while many of its supporters are taking part in the street demonstrations sweeping Egypt's cities, the organisation has kept a deliberately low profile. The Brotherhood has not published its calculations, but one may assume they include a desire to avoid the mass arrest by the security services of its leadership cadres and a clash with the army, whose general staff – like Iran's in 1978-79 – fear and detest the Islamists.

The Brotherhood also presumably wants to avoid deterring the secular middle class from participating in the popular upsurge, a participation that gives the popular revolt cachet abroad as well as at home (and in the greater Arab world). A display of Islamist leadership at the head of the crowds would alienate much of that middle class. So the Brotherhood has kept virtually out of sight.

But it has endorsed Mohamed ElBaradei as its choice to head a transitional regime. He is not exactly a household name in Egypt – he has lived abroad for the past three decades. As the head of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), a position he left in November 2009, he was frequently critical of the United States and Israel and was seen by some as an appeaser of Iran. No doubt his behaviour appealed to Egypt's Islamists. But ElBaradei is western-educated and appears to be a secularist, and he is likely to be shunted aside by the religious fanatics once they feel confident enough to emerge from the shadows. ElBaradei will then have filled the role of the Mensheviks, who paved the way for the eventual Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917.

For now, the Brotherhood will be satisfied with toppling the hated Mubarak regime, which, following the Gamal Abdel Nasser (1954-1970) and Anwar Sadat (1970-1981) regimes, has serially imprisoned and tortured the Brotherhood's cadres for decades. Above all, the organisation no doubt wants the prospective interim regime to organise and oversee free and fair general elections, say in six months' time.

But once the campaigning for these elections gets under way, we will see the country awash with Muslim Brotherhood activists and placards, broadcasts and sermons; perhaps even a measure of intimidation and violence. The Brotherhood's aim is to take over the state through the democratic process, and is likely, as one of its first acts, to annul Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

It is possible that the movement will follow the model of Turkey's Islamists and try to follow democratic norms and adopt a stance of neutrality between Iran and the west. But it is more likely, given Egypt's position and history, and its own history, that the Brotherhood will follow the model of Iran and the Gaza Hamas. Both have employed extreme violence to crush their potential and real rivals to maintain power.

The Brotherhood is anything if not patient. It has looked to take over, and "purify", Egypt since the movement's foundation by Hassan al-Banna in 1928. Given the power of its enemies and the state's institutions, the movement's leadership has traditionally advocated a non-violent route to power (it was usually the movement's more impatient breakaways, like the Jama'a al Islamiyya, who murdered Sadat in 1981, who went in for blatant violence). But observers in the west should not delude themselves. This is not a movement for which democracy has any appeal, worth or value. Its leaders see democratic processes merely as means to an end, an end that includes an end to democracy.

Daily News Trends

Egypt cracks down on foreign journalists

Members of international media and human rights groups arrested, attacked and beaten in intimidation campaign

Dozens of foreign journalists were arrested, attacked and beaten today as the Egyptian government and its supporters embarked on what the US state department called a "concerted campaign to intimidate" the international media.

A number of human rights workers also fell victim to crowd violence, while police raided the offices of two groups in Cairo – the Hisham Mubarak Law Centre and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights – and arrested observers. Amnesty International said one of its staff was detained at the Hisham Mubarak Law Centre with a colleague from Human Rights Watch.

The Egyptian interior ministry arrested more than 20 foreign journalists in Cairo – including the Washington Post's bureau chief and a photographer – while al-Jazeera said three of its journalists had been detained.

In Egypt's second city, Alexandria, hostility to western journalists escalated as angry mobs accused reporters of being Israeli spies and demanded they leave.

According to locals, Egypt's national television channel had warned viewers to beware of Israeli agents masquerading as journalists and seeking to damage the country's image and national interest.

On the streets, it was impossible to interview protesters without a crowd of people gathering, shouting accusations and jabbing fingers. One western TV crew was threatened in a residential area away from the scene of protests, with angry residents beating the roof of their car and refusing to allow the team to enter an apartment building. Local Egyptians acting as fixers to western journalists were also accused of being Zionists.

A hotel in central Alexandria being used as a base by reporters has been threatened at least twice in the past week by angry protesters. Journalists were warned against filming or taking photographs from hotel balconies of protests below.

The antipathy to the media appeared to extend to both opponents and supporters of the regime. The wave of violence and arrests prompted the US state department spokesman PJ Crowley to write on Twitter: "There is a concerted campaign to intimidate international journalists in Cairo and interfere with their reporting. We condemn such actions."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs described the "systematic targeting" of journalists in Egypt as unacceptable, and called for those detained to be freed.

The leaders of France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain said in a joint statement that the "attacks against journalists are completely unacceptable".

Foreign photographers witnessed a string of attacks by supporters of Hosni Mubarak near Cairo's Tahrir Square, the scene of battles between the president's backers and protesters demanding he step down after nearly 30 years in power.

The Greek daily newspaper Kathimerini said its correspondent in the city was treated in hospital for a stab wound to the leg after being attacked by pro-Mubarak demonstrators in Tahrir Square. A Greek photographer was also beaten.

An Associated Press reporter saw eight foreign journalists detained by the military near the prime minister's office.

Turkey's state broadcaster TRT, said its Egypt correspondent was beaten by a group of around 15 pro-Mubarak demonstrators with batons and lost a tooth in the attack. His camera, money and mobile phone were stolen. Three other Turkish journalists were also stopped and roughed up near Tahrir Square, TRT said.

A reporter for Turkey's Fox TV, his Egyptian cameraman and their driver were abducted by men with knives while filming protests yesterday, but Egyptian police rescued them, according to Anatolia, a Turkish news agency.

Polish television TVP said two of its crews were detained in Cairo, while the Arabic-language satellite channel al-Arabiya pleaded on a news scroll for the army to protect its offices and journalists.

The Egyptian government has accused media outlets of being sympathetic to protesters who want Mubarak to resign now rather than complete his term. Yesterday, government spokesman Magdy Rady described allegations of state involvement in clashes and attacks on reporters as a "fiction," adding that the government welcomed objective coverage.

"It would help our purpose to have it as transparent as possible. We need your help," Rady said. However, he claimed that some in the media were not impartial and were "taking sides against Egypt."

Egyptian authorities shut al-Jazeera's office on Sunday, complaining that its round-the-clock coverage was slanted toward protesters and could encourage more unrest.

There were reported assaults on journalists for CNN, CBS, the BBC, Danish TV2 News, Swiss television and Belgium's Le Soir newspaper, among other organisations. Two Associated Press correspondents were also set upon.A correspondent and a cameraman working for Russia's Zvezda television channel were detained by men in plainclothes and held overnight on Tuesday.

Reporter Jean-Francois Lepine of Canada's CBC all-French RDI network said that he and a cameraman were surrounded by a mob that beat them until they were rescued by the Egyptian army.

"Without them, we probably would have been beaten to death," he said.

Daily News Trends

Vodafone's Egypt texts may do them lasting damage | Charles Arthur

Vodafone may have been forced to send out pro-Mubarak texts, but operating in oppressive countries is always risky for a brand

Vodafone has admitted sending out pro-Mubarak text messages to users of its mobile service in Egypt – although as the company says, in a mea exculpa, it was obliged to by the government.

I had seen the pictures on Flickr last night, and followed some debate (involving Graham Linehan on Twitter) in which people debated whether they could be faked, and whether the translations given really did indicate a pro-Mubarak instruction; one suggestion was that the words were somewhat in the Nostradamus mode, where the meaning depended on what you wanted it to mean.

This will be seized on by people who already want to dislike Vodafone (hello, UK Uncut) as further evidence of corporate evil. Certainly, it's the sort of thing that will have executives in technology companies heaving a sigh and being grateful it wasn't them.

Arguably, the staff at Vodafone Egypt didn't have much choice; it may be only 44.7% owned by the government there, but possession of a gun (or tank, or army, or secret police force armed with knives and sticks and a ruthless approach) is nine-tenths – often more – of the argument. But technology companies can hardly pretend they're surprised when they do business with autocratic regimes and then are unpopular when those regimes use their products to reinforce their diktat. Remember Nokia Siemens, which provided equipment that was used to monitor opposition in Iran? Or how about Cisco, whose routers have been used to build China's Great Firewall, which keeps the majority of its citizens in wilful ignorance of the opinions of the world beyond its shores?

The fact is for any corporation that if you're keen to do business with an autocrat, you'll be part of the collateral damage if – when – the shit hits the fan. Yet like moths batting themselves against a lightbulb in the belief that it's actually the sun, companies keep returning to do business with countries and regimes whose life spans must be limited because of their repressive nature: no tyrant is immortal, not even (despite appearances) Robert Mugabe, and Zimbabwe will be lucky if it survives his passing without turmoil.

It's not only technology companies, of course. I'm astonished that BP has thrown in its lot once more with the Russian government, having already had its ownership of one joint venture there simply stolen. But moths don't think about their headache. They just see something and think it's the sun.

And the people who succeed Mubarak and Mugabe and the rest – in Burma, in Iran, in North Korea, at some point in China – will not forget the brands that helped in the conspiracy to keep them down. The only faint light for Vodafone is that even while it was sending out those messages, its technology enabled the rebellion. It will have to rehearse that argument well. It's going to need it some time in the next few months.

Daily News Trends