NOVANEWS

NOVANEWS

www.theuglytruth.wordpress.com

NOVANEWS 

Egyptian investigating judges referred 43 NGO workers, including 19 Americans, to trial before a criminal court for allegedly being involved in banned activities and illegally receiving foreign funds. Among the Americans is Sam LaHood, the head of the Egypt office of the International Republican Institute and the son of. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. — AP

“Egypt, along with other countries, is likely to be far better off if it prohibits American IGOs from operating freely within its national territorial space, especially if their supposed mandate is to promote democracy as defined and funded by Washington.”

by Richard Falk

A confusing controversy between the United States and Egypt is unfolding. It has already raised tensions in the relationship between the two countries to a level that has not existed for decades. It results from moves by the military government in Cairo to go forward with the criminal prosecution of 43 foreigners, including 19 Americans, for unlawfully carrying on the work of unlicensed public interest organizations that improperly, according to Egyptian law, depend for their budget on foreign funding.

Much has been made in American press coverage that one of the Americans charged happens to be Sam LaHood, son of the present American Secretary of Transportation, adopting a tone that seems to imply that at least one connected by blood to an important government official deserves immunity from prosecution.

Washington has responded with high minded and high profile expressions of consternation, including a warning from Hilary Clinton that the annual aid package for Egypt of $1.5 billion (of which $1.3 billion goes to the military) is in jeopardy unless the case against these NGO workers is dropped and their challenged organizations are allowed to carry on with their work of promoting democracy in Egypt. And indeed the U.S. Congress may yet refuse to authorize the release of these funds unless the State Department is willing to certify that Egypt is progressing toward greater democratization.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, has already said the issue may lead to America pulling its substantial military aid to Egypt’s army…

President Obama has indicated his intention to continue with the aid at past levels, given the importance of Egypt in relation to American Middle Eastern interests, but as in so many other instances, he may give way if the pressure mounts. The outcome is not yet clear as an ultra-nationalistic Congress may yet thwart Obama’s seemingly more sensible response to what should have been treated as a tempest in a teapot, but for reasons to be discussed, has instead become a cause celebre.

The Americans charged are on the payroll of three organizations: International Republican Institute (IRI), Democratic National Institute (DNI), and Freedom House. The first two organizations get all of their funding from the U.S. Government, and were originally founded in 1983 after Ronald Reagan’s speech to the British Parliament in which he urged that help be given to build the democratic infrastructure of newly independent countries in the non-Western world put forward as a Cold War counter-measure to the continuing appeal of Marxist ideologies. From the moment of their founding IRI and DNI were abundantly funded by annual multi-million grants from Congress, either directly or by way of such governmental entities as the U.S. Assistance for International Development  (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy.

IRI and DNI claim to be non-partisan yet both are explicitly affiliated with each of the two political parties dominant in the United States, with boards, staffs, and consultants drawn overwhelmingly from former government workers and officials who are associated with these two American political parties. The ideological and governmental character of the two organizations is epitomized by the nature of their leadership. Madeline Albright, Secretary of State during the Clinton presidency, is chair of the DNI Board, while former Republican presidential candidate and currently a prominent senator, John McCain, holds the same position in the IRI. Freedom House, the third main organization that is the target of the Egyptian crackdown also depends for more than 80% of its funding from the National Endowment for Democracy and is similarly rooted in American party politics. It was founded in 1941 as a bipartisan initiative during the Cold War by two stalwarts of their respective political parties, Wendell Wilkie and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Dempsey urges Egypt to resolve dispute with US

Against this background the protests from Washington and the media assessments of the controversy seem willfully misleading. Since when does Washington become so agitated on behalf of NGOs under attack in a foreign country? Even mainstream eyebrows should have been raised sky high when Martin Dempsey, currently the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, while visiting Cairo was reported to have interceded with his military counterparts on behalf of these Americans made subject to a travel ban and faced with the threat of prosecution. When was the last time you can recall an American military commander interceding on behalf of a genuine NGO? To paraphrase Bob Dylan, ‘the answer my friends, is never.’ So even the most naïve among us should be asking ‘what is really going on here?’

The spokespersons for the organizations treat the allegations as a simple case of interference with the activities of a political and benevolent NGOs innocently engaged in helping Egyptians receive needed training and guidance with respect to democratic practices, especially those relating to elections and the rule of law. Substantively such claims seem more or less true at present, at least here in Egypt. Sometimes these entities are even referred to by the media as ‘civil society institutions,’ which reflects, at best, a woeful state of unknowing, or worse, deliberate deception. Whatever one thinks of the activities of these actors, it is simply false to conceive of them as ‘nongovernmental’ or as emanations of civil society. It would be more responsive to their nature if such entities were described as ‘informal governmental organizations.’ (IGOs)

It is hardly surprising that a more honest label is avoided as its use would call attention to the problematic character of the undertakings: namely, disguised intrusions by a foreign government in the internal politics of a foreign country with fragile domestic institutions of government by way of behavior that poses at the very least a potential threat to its political independence. With such an altered interpretation of the controversy assumes a different character. It becomes quite understandable for the Egyptian government seeking to move beyond its authoritarian past to feel the need to tame these Trojan Horses outfitted by Washington.

It would seem sensible and prudent for Egypt to insist that such organizations, and especially those associated with the U.S. Government, be registered and properly licensed in Egypt as a minimum precondition for receiving permission to carry on their activities in the country, especially on matters as sensitive as are elections, political parties, and the shaping of the legal system.

Surely the United States, despite its long uninterrupted stable record of constitutional governance, would not even consider allowing such ‘assistance’ from abroad.  If it had been proposed by, say, Sweden, an offer of help with democracy would have been immediately rebuffed, and rudely dismissed as an insult to the sovereignty of the United States  despite Sweden being a geopolitical midget and U.S. being the gorilla on the global stage.

And these Washington shrieks of wounded innocence, as if Cairo had no grounds whatsoever for concern, are either the memory lapses of a senile bureaucracy or totally disingenuous. In the past it has been well documented that IRI and DNI were active in promoting the destabilization of foreign governments that were deemed to be hostile to the then American foreign policy agenda. The Reagan presidency made no secret of its commitment to lend all means of support to political movements dedicated to the overthrow of left-leaning governments in Latin America and Asia.

The most notorious instances involving the use of IRI to destabilize a foreign government is well known among students of American interventionist diplomacy. For instance IRI funds were extensively distributes to anti-regime forces to get rid of the Aristide government in Haiti, part of a dynamic that did lead to a coup in 2004 that brought to power reactionary political forces that were welcomed and seemed far more congenial to Washington’s ideas of ‘good governance’ at the time. IRI was openly self-congratulatory about its role in engineering a successful effort to strengthen ‘center and center/right’ political parties in Poland several years ago, which amounts to a virtual confession of interference with the dynamics of Polish self-determination.

Although spokespersons for these organizations piously claim in their responses to these recent Egyptian moves against them to respect the sovereignty of the countries within which they operate, and especially so in Egypt. Even if these claims are generally true, ample grounds remain for suspicion and regulation, if not exclusion, on the part of a territorial government. An insistence upon proper regulation seems entirely reasonable if due account is taken of the numerous instances of covert and overt intervention by the United States in the political life of non-Western countries.

Against such a background, several conclusions follow: first, the individuals being charged by Egypt are not working for genuine NGOs or civil society institutions, but are acting on behalf of informal government organizations or IGOs; secondly, the specific organizations being targeted, especially the DNI and IRI are overtly ideological in their makeup, funding base, and orientation; and thirdly, there exist compelling grounds for a non-Western government to regulate or exclude such political actors when due account is taken of a long American record of interventionary diplomacy. Thus the Washington posture of outrage seems entirely inappropriate once the actions of the Egyptian government are contextually interpreted.

SCAF = Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Ghawayesh )

Yet the full story is not so simple or one-sided. It needs to be remembered that the Egyptian governing process in the year since the uprising that led to the collapse of the Mubarak regime has been controlled by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which is widely believed by the Egyptian public to be responsible for a wave of repressive violence associated with its fears that some democratic demands are threatening their position and interests in the country. A variety of severe abuses of civilian society have been convincingly attributed to the military. 

As well the military is responsible for a series of harsh moves against dissenters who blog or otherwise act in a manner deemed critical of military rule. In effect, the Egyptian government, although admittedly long concerned about these spurious NGOs operating within its territory even during the period of Mubarak rule, is itself seemingly disingenuous, using the licensing and funding technicalities as a pretext for a wholesale crackdown on dissent and human rights so as to discipline and intimidate a resurgent civil society and a radical opposition movement that remains committed to realizing the democratic promise of the Arab Spring.

There is another seemingly strange part of the puzzle. Would we not expect the United States to side the Egyptian military with which it worked in close harmony during the Mubarak period. Why would Washington not welcome this apparent slide toward Mubarakism without Mubarak? Was this not America’s preferred outcome in Egypt all along, being the only outcome that would allow Washington to be confident that the new Egypt would not rock the Israeli boat or otherwise disturb American interests in the region.

There is no disclosure of U.S. motives at this time for its present seemingly pro-democracy approach, but there are grounds for thinking Washington may be reacting to the success of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nour (Salafi) Party in the Egyptian parliamentary elections and even more so to the apparent collaboration between these parties and the SCAF in planning Egypt’s immediate political future.

In such a setting it seems plausible that sharpening state/society tensions in Egypt by siding with the democratic opposition would keep alive the possibility of a secular governing process less threatening to U.S./Israeli interests, as well as inducing Egypt itself to adopt a cautious approach to democratic reform. Maybe there are different explanations more hidden from view, but what seems clear is that both governmental in this kafuffle have dirty hands and are fencing in the dark at this point, that is, mounting arguments and counter-arguments that obscure rather than reveal their true motivations.

In the end, Egypt, along with other countries, is likely to be far better off if it prohibits American IGOs from operating freely within its national territorial space, especially if their supposed mandate is to promote democracy as defined and funded by Washington. This is not to say that Egyptians would not be far better off if the SCAF allowed civilian rule to emerge in the country and acted in a manner respectful of human rights and democratic values. In other words what is at stake in this seemingly trivial controversy lies hidden by the smokescreens relied upon by both sides in the dispute: weighty matters of governance and democracy that could determine whether the remarkable glories of the Arab Spring mutate in the direction of a dreary Egyptian Autumn, or even Winter.

Editing: Debbie Menon

NOVANEWS 

by Bob Johnson

Obama values Israel over America and Americans.

Many Americans know that despite the economic depression Americans are suffering under, the politicians in Washington are still sending well over $3 BILLION tax dollars every year to the Jewish state of Israel. This in spite of the fact that we have veterans living on the street and children going hungry. What many people may not know is that the $1.3 BILLION the U.S. politicians give away to Egypt is merely leverage to guarantee that Egypt will not oppose Israel’s continued expansion onto Palestinian lands. In short, it is payment for Egypt to look the other way and not take a stand against Israeli aggression.

A leading Egyptian lawmaker and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Essam el-Erian, said that if the U.S. withheld or cut foreign aid to Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood would consider altering its 1979 peace treaty with Israel. He also said U.S. politicians should understand that “what was acceptable before the revolution is no longer.”

Essam el-Erian’s statement makes it painfully clear that American tax payers are having their pockets picked by kosher plutocrats in Washington not only for cash going directly to the Jewish state, but also for cash going to Egypt for the benefit of Israel! What a scam!

America is leaderless. Both political parties and the political charlatans who represent those parties not only betray America and her people, they actually brag openly about it! Who can forget Obama recently speaking to a convention of Reform Jews and saying to great applause, “I’m proud that even in these difficult times we’ve fought for and secured the most funding for Israel in history. I’m proud that we helped Israel develop a missile defense system that’s already protecting civilians from rocket attacks.” He is actually proud of putting Israel’s interests high above the interests of America and Americans! His statement is as bad a Marie Antoinette’s statement, “Let them eat cake.” Revolution followed shortly after that statement!

As the American founder and Deist Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition, “But such is the nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing.” However, it’s not easy for the truth to be told. With the media being unnaturally and excessively dominated by Jews, it’s not likely the Jewish state of Israel will receive objective coverage through that media. And it is also not likely the treason American politicians are committing against America and Americans on behalf of Israel will be reported either.

NOVANEWS

“A phone call from the American embassy in Cairo used to be the sure thing to straighten up such a wretched mess. But this time it wasn’t enough.”

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat / Cairo

Egypt’s ruling military council has rejected US threats to end aid payments to the country.

One of the 19 is the son of US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Sam LaHood and five other Americans are in Egypt while the others have left, according to a statement from the Egyptian prosecutor’s office.

US-Egypt tensions have risen considerably following the decision to ban 43 pro-democracy staffers- including 19 Americans- from travel and refer them to a Cairo court on charges of violating laws regulating the operation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Among those hit by travel bans is a son of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, as well as other foreign staffers of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute.

A statement released on the council’s official Facebook page stressed that Egypt is a country with a rich heritage that cannot be pressured or blackmailed into doing someone else’s bidding.

The council also added that Egypt’s international relations with the US and other countries were governed by the common interests of both parties, and that “Egypt does not bow to the domination of anyone.”

… Now, such a statement, coming out from a military that has been indulging in an obscenely large American aid (US$1.3 billion annually) for the past 30 years, is quite perplexing and calls for some contemplation.

Egyptian investigative judges Sameh Abu Zeid, right, and Ashraf el-Ashmawi, who are investigating the foreign funding of NGOs, enter a press conference at the Justice Ministry in Cairo on Feb. 8, 2012

To begin with, and to put the reader into perspective, the whole “crackdown on foreign NGOs Cairo offices” with the decision to prosecute 43 staffers is but a cheap political stunt we Egyptians have seen it so many times before but with slight variations.

The catch goes like this. …  In dealing with any foreign investment, be it in the field of industry, publishing, tourism, etc, Egyptian authorities would grant the applicant for investment, or in our case, the NGOs, a temporary permit to operate in the country until all the required paper work is completed, but of course the paper work is never completed and the final authorization is never granted for security reasons.

If things went smoothly and convenient for the authorities, nobody would bring up this final authorization issue, if not, the targeted venture/business would be suspended and its workers/staff legally convicted of breaking the regulation rules and also of illegal foreign funding.

It’s a dirty old trick, but works fine and even looks good before any court of law.

A phone call from the American embassy in Cairo used to be the sure thing to straighten up such a wretched mess. But this time it wasn’t enough.

Workers from a non-governmental organization National Democratic Institute, wait as Egyptian officials raid their office in Cairo, Egypt, Thursday, 29 December, 2011

The American embassy aggressively intervened; Leon Panetta, the US defense secretary, telephoned Egypt’s military ruler, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, and asked him to lift the travel ban on the American citizens, even a delegation from the supreme council of armed forces (SCAF) flew to Washington for negotiations over the issue.

The awfully weird thing is that SCAF grew more hostile and adamant about legally pursuing this NGOs case after the generals had cut short the visit to the U.S and returned to Cairo.

Something unusual happened back there in the Pentagon behind closed doors.  “Egypt military generals play risky game with U.S” The associated press reported … Watch the video here.

Were the Egyptian generals so naïve and stupid as to jeopardize 30 years of US alliance and support over this small NGOs’ issue … or is this a whole new deal aimed at helping the military to censor freedom of expression and silence the growing tide of dissent in Egypt?

But on the other hand, SCAF may also fear it has much more than US aid to lose if it fully embraces a democratic transition that could bring civilian oversight of its considerable financial assets and curb its long-standing domination of power.

In the meantime, Egypt’s ruling generals have deployed additional soldiers and tanks across the country in preparation for the anniversary of former president Hosni Mubarak’s ouster from power on 11 February.

The move is seen as a warning to activists planning to mark the day with a national strike and civil disobedience campaign to demand a swifter transition to civilian rule.

Prime Minister Kamal Al-Ganzouri told a press conference that calls for civil disobedience were part of a plan to “overthrow the state” and all Egyptians should unite to get through the crises and dangers the country was facing.

More military tanks are deployed in Egyptian major cities as the country braces for general strike.

Al-Azhar, a prestigious seat of Sunni Muslim learning, also criticized the calls for civil disobedience, the state-owned Al-Ahram news portal reported.

Pope Shenouda, head of the Orthodox Coptic church, said the civil disobedience was against Christian religion, according to the MENA news agency

Egypt’s de facto ruler Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, called earlier this week for plans for the first post-Mubarak presidential election, currently scheduled for June, to be completed quickly.

As Saturday will mark one year since the ouster of President Mubarak, Egyptians remain deeply divided and confused, amid increasing political fog, over how they perceive post-Mubarak Egypt.

For more articles by Dr. Ashraf Ezzat visit his website.

Are the Freedom Fighers in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in the Vanguard of a Global Revolution?

NOVANEWS

“Egyptians infuriated by the deaths of 74 people in soccer violence staged protests in central Cairo and clashed with the police forces, as the army-led government came under fire for failing to prevent the deadliest incident since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak.”

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat / Cairo,

Protesters chant anti-government slogans during a protest condemning the death of soccer fans at Port Said stadium, near the Interior Ministry in Cairo, Feb. 2

For the third day in a row, Deadly clashes continue to rage in Egypt over football riots leaving 12 killed and more than 2500 wounded in street clashes over authorities’ failure to stop Port Said football violence.

State media reported renewed scuffles between members of the security forces encircling the building of the ministry of interior and demonstrators who included hardcore soccer fans, aka Ultras, known for confronting the police and who were on the frontlines of protests against the military throughout the last year.

The Ultras played a prominent role with anti-government activists in the uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak a year ago, and a spokesman on their behalf has suggested pro-Mubarak forces were behind the soccer incident, or at least complicit.

The soccer violence will likely strike news followers as most unfortunate and tragic accident, but for the supreme military council of armed forces of Egypt (SCAF), a council reluctant to relinquish power, it will definitely strike a different chord.

For a military institution that is supposed to hand over power to civilians by next July, after a monopoly of power for more than six decades, any incident that would allow chaos and insecurity to prevail will certainly be welcomed.

A stampede is an act of mass impulse among a crowd of people in which the crowd collectively begins running with no clear direction or purpose. But last Wednesday’s soccer violence that left 74 killed and at least 1,000 people injured in the Egyptian coastal city of Port Said when soccer fans invaded the pitch after local team al-Masry beat Cairo-based Al Ahli, has been no accidental stampede.

The fingers are once again pointing at the police’s complicity in the bloody incident as well as the overall instability and insecurity that has been afflicting the country since the fall of Mubarak.

The scenes and initial investigations proved all the gates to the football pitch were deliberately ordered open minutes before the end of the match, and also showed the police forces stood still and did almost nothing to prevent the disaster.

While the violence escalated in Port Said stadium, the police forces practically did nothing to prevent it.

“It seems the whole thing had been planned beforehand.” said Mahmoud el-Sayed, one of the football players at Al-Ahly club (the most famous football club in Africa)

While a whole year has lapsed since the Egyptian revolution erupted, it is getting more and more obvious every day that toppling Mubarak was the easy part of the revolt and the real battle, if you like, that has been raging throughout the last year is between the will of the people and the mighty apparatus of the police and the military, who have practically been running the show in Egypt since 1952.

What happened in the stadium of Port Said, a continuation of the security vacuum policy, could only be explained as part of a plan by the military council and the interior ministry to push the country into chaos and force Egyptians to embrace military rule.

That fact that SCAF succeeded in securing parliamentary elections (completed in January 2012) across nine different governorates but were incapable of securing a football match where clashes were possible raises few legitimate doubts about the hidden motivations behind the soccer riots and the seriousness of the military to cede power to a civilian government as well.

Egypt’s ruling generals have put themselves on a collision course with the country’s new parliament after declaring that MPs will not have the final say over the drafting of a fresh constitution. Being referred to as “the guardian of constitutional legitimacy”, SCAF is pushing for a constitution draft that includes guiding principles for Egypt’s new constitution, but also, and most importantly, introduces amendments that would shield the military from civilian oversight.

SCAF is being pressured to hand over power to a civilian administration and a civilian president as soon as possible. But the top brass, refusing to get out of the scene empty handed, suggest the armed forces should have the final word on major policies even after a new president is elected.

But that is not likely to resonate well among the revolutionaries and political activists and will be the more reason for protests and violence to escalate on the Egyptian street, for the Arab spring has confirmed one thing: the army is not fit to govern – neither in Egypt nor in Syria or Yemen.

Egypt soccer violence

NOVANEWS