Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Are Africans misreading the Egyptian crisis?

Are Africans misreading the Egyptian crisis?
By: Comment
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 8:15 am

A United States writer remarked that "Euphoria spreads across the face of our nation like the broad grin of an idiot" in describing the mood that gripped America during the period leading to the presidency of Barack Obama.

Obama had the momentum and everyone from Talk Show Queen Oprah Winfrey to Hip Hop mogul, P. Diddy, was gripped by Obamamania. Obama's message resonated with the young, many claimed, and he represented change.

He was televisual, had a better campaign website than his rivals in the Democratic and presidential race - all marks of superior savvy in the realm of what's happening now and what the youth want to see.

Once president, he would be different from his predecessor, George W. Bush, we were told and promised. He spoke well and with rare charisma reminiscent of Malcolm X and Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

His rivals had typical US politicians' websites with the America flag backdrop, looking presidential, scary and pro-establishment.

Not a single newscaster criticised Obama, well, except Fox News.

Years later, U.S. policy has not shifted significantly.

U.S. domestic concerns have not changed dramatically, at least compared with the expectations advanced by the Obama campaign. Obama is now pretty much a typical US president: with rehearsed speeches, predictable political punchlines and carefully chosen words, unlike during his presidential campaign.

Many people are now wondering if this is the same Obama whom they saw move the U.S., the world into believing history was being made, not because he was the First Black President for the US, but because under him "things would never be the same again" and that "change we can believe in" would occur.

That euphoria has died down.

Enter Egypt.

The events in Egypt are heralded as the "end of dictatorships" and many Egyptians care less about what comes after Mubarak

They want to replace his administration with a pro-democracy one. Democracy building is a messy, tedious and all too easily derailed business. More so when it comes to Egypt which has no tradition of democracy, a pervasive secret police culture and no credible institutions barring the army.

It's strange but true that the army will be building democracy in Egypt, led by a man Field Marshal Hussain Tantawi described in the WikiLeaks cables as "Mubarak's poodle" and anti-reform in every sense of the word.

Tantawi it is said epitomises the strong centrist traditions that have characterised governments in Egypt, traditions that go back thousands of years to the Pharoahs.

It partly explains the army's ambiguity on repeal of the emergency laws that have stifled dissent and outlawed opposition.

Mubarak's power grip was the product, to a more or less extent, of the U.S. administration, which poured billions into his military establishment, and helped sustain and extend his crony capitalist class.

Obama visited Egypt in June 2009, when he was still green as a president. Human rights groups seized that opportunity to tell the world about Mubarak's regime.

Obama gave a speech at Cairo University, which largely avoided the issue of human rights and the poverty that gripped millions of Egyptians who live below the global poverty index of US$2 a day.

Before the crisis, little was known about Mubarak's violations, outside of Egypt, and his police state was largely ignored by the western powers. In fact, they helped Mubarak survive for so long.

The incongruity between Mubarak and Obama's speeches in the media were almost childish given that barely a year before they had visited each other and played their public diplomacy very well.

An embattled Mubarak said he wanted no foreign interference in Egypt's political process and Obama said 'change' was coming to Egypt.

In his second speech during the Tahrir Square demonstrations, Mubarak spoke in Arabic, not Egyptian, to try and reassert his nationalism and connect with Egyptian sentiment, but it was too late.

The Military

Not much has changed so far in Egypt, insofar as the leadership is concerned. There's nothing novel about the 'change' - the Egyptians also did it in 1952. Lots and lots of countries all over the world have had military coups over the years.

The same lot are in power now who were in power yesterday. And these are the people who get all the money and power and privileges in Egypt - including all the US aid money - while ordinary Egyptians are poor and oppressed.

The people have indeed triumphed, but they do not have a proper organisation in the country to take over power.

To the west and the military the situation was unsustainable. Mubarak had to go because he was making the natives restless and that threatened to unravel the current system. So the Army put a word in his ear and he "retired" to "spend more time with his family", enjoy his golden years, etc.

It's not yet "change we can believe in" but a de facto 'military coup' that we see in Egypt today.

Mubarak might have been offered an exit package (money, immunity, etc.) given the speed with which he changed his mind in 24 hours.

The link between the US and Egyptian military is very strong, and the subtle U.S. public-private diplomatic manouvres are still intact in that country.

The last few days, especially, have seen the military in both the U.S. and Egypt play diplomatic roles usually played by foreign secretaries.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not feature much in the Egyptian crisis negotiations. She was replaced by the "big boys" -- Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Joint Chief of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen -- military characters.

When times get tough for the US, policies change dramatically; even to warrant running diplomacy out of the Pentagon.

Yet the shift is still only cosmetic, as it does not satisfy Egyptian nationalism.

The Egyptian Supreme Military Council running that country still has individuals who are very much pro-American and who were trained in US military colleges and establishments. It was loathed by the people, yet it took centrestage in the early days of the revolution. Why, and who made sure that that happened? Why did the police, which had no such strong connection whatsoever with the USintelligence, disappear off the streets of Cairo in the very early days?

Admiral Mullen admitted to Associated Press that the Egyptian military trained at the Pentagon in "thousands and their families lived with us" and that a strong connection exists between the two military establishments.

That line of communication and support has been alive and well for over 30 years and will not die because of Mubarak's exit. The changes we see in Egypt, to an extent, pretty much reflect US interests.

Mubarak is gone, but dismantling the age-old military and intelligence connection between the US and Egypt will be a daunting task, if at all possible.

Egypt is too strategically connected with the U.S. It was the first Arab country to sign a peace pact with Israel and the Suez Canal controlled by Egypt is important in in providing a passage for oil flows to the U.S. so a Tianamen Square option was out of the question for the U.S. The fights that broke between the police and the people in the first two days of the demonstrations would have made the situation worse. Who came up with the strategy to take the police, who are trained to deal with rioters, out of the equation?

There are US secrets embedded in the Mubarak regime's superstructure. WikiLeaks, among other revelations, told us that Egyptian 'torturers' were trained by the FBI, that the US knew of 'routine' police brutality in Egypt, but still supported that regime.

The Egyptian military has remained totally aligned with the U.S., while nationalistic sentiment has risen. This is a disastrous cocktail, and the bubble might just burst, in the days, months or years to come.

Crowds are demanding more than the change we see today. That's why they are still in Tahrir Square. The U.S. and Egypt's Supreme Military Council might just be underestimating the nationalistic sentiment in that country. Yet, the history of revolutions has taught us a lot. The 1979 Iranian Revolution took an unexpected turn. Egypt can also take unexpected twists.

While the Egyptian "Wall of Fear" has fallen, what is to follow that occasion?

Unfolding events in the Middle East might just provide a clue. Hamas is already celebrating this event. The opposition in Egypt is in a mess and there are no organised politicians that can effectively take over from the military, the Muslim Brotherhood commands very little support, and was even shocked and neutralised by the nationalistic sentiment.

Will the military easily relinquish power? Who will constitute Egypt's new Parliament? Who has the secret files of the Mubarak regime? What will be the interplay between Mubarak's vice president Omar Suleiman - a figurehead of Mubarak regime - and military characters like the Head of Artillery and the Head of the Infantry who do not really like him?

How will the CIA and the Mubarak's former intelligence deal with all intelligence files? What will happen to all the dark secrets shared by the U.S. and the Mubarak regime? Is Obama sincere in his rhetoric or it's mere public diplomacy?

While US, UK and other powers congratulate the masses in Egypt, behind those messages are their strategic interests in the region that they won't let go without giving a fight. Which means the Egyptian military now will serve the U.S. with same policies, the very policies people angrily rejected.

Enter Africa, Zimbabwe

While many Africans celebrate this new wave of changes, they are failing to make connection with the real message coming out of Egypt, out of Tunisia.

Former Egypt ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein was deposed for his anti-imperialist ideas and his nationalistic ideas, including the nationalisation of the Suez Canal.

This new revolution might just be a reaffirmation of Nassir's nationalism. We saw Egyptians, Muslim and otherwise, demonstrating peaceably together on Tarhir Square, putting Egypt's needs first. We heard more "I am an Egyptian" chants soon after Mubarak resigned.

The events in Egypt are also a reaffirmation that change is largely an internal process, although external forces can exert pressure. Those events can also be viewed as a triumph of Nasserism, and of the Egyptian people who were badly treated by colonialism, by governments that supported Mubarak over the years -- including the 18.9 million people who did not even make it to Tahrir Square.

The tragedy of Mubarak is that he crashed the Egyptian nationalistic sentiment and their dream of self-determination, of restoring the Egyptians' dream of success, of freedom, of self-determination.

Interestingly, this revolution has coincided with the 21st Celebration of Nelson Mandela's release from three decades of incarceration.

Africa is reaffirming its place in world history. While it embraces some basic democratic tenets, it is not necessarily embracing western democracy in its entirety.

The African struggle has always been about democracy. This is not new. The African anti-colonial struggle was about democracy and the paradox of Africa is that many autocratic regimes on the continent have been helped to stay in power by the west. Yet the same western countries abandon those regimes when the African tide turns.

Switzerland is now freezing Mubarak's assets, after 30 plus years. Britain today still has a multi-million pound townhouse in London, in Mubarak's son's name. ABC News reported that US taxpayers' money helped buy nine Gulf Stream jets for Mubarak. Why all these revelations now? And on what authority has the Swiss government done this? Is it panicking for some reason that we do not know?

Mubarak is still in Egypt and is still a very strong link in the transition despite his "resignation". We have to take a cautious approach and watch events as they unfold.

This is a lesson for Africa, for Zimbabwe.

Unless change comes from within, and the demands of the people are genuine and not driven by some external force, there will always be a disconnect between the people and their rulers.

Unless calls for democracy are modelled on a nation's aspirations, not necessarily western liberal democracy as we see today, there will never be true change.

All the euphoria and rhetoric about change in Zimbabwe has been largely disconnected from the nationalistic sentiment.

There has never been a sustained argument from opposition forces in Zimbabwe about nationalism; nor has there been genuine respectful policy debates on the Zimbabwean question and the restoration of dignity for Zimbabweans.

The inclusive Government has revealed some dark aspects of the disconnect between the so-called pro-democracy forces and those who directly participated in the Liberation Struggle.

That disconnect will remain forever, if change is desired simply to change the faces of the people in power.

The political groups in Zimbabwe squabble about positions as we have seen with the useless banter between the "nutty Professors" - Welshman Ncube and Arthur Mutambara.

They should expend their energy on providing Zimbabweans with their alternative policies on land, indigenisation and empowerment and the economy; and how they propose to resolve the inequities brought by decades of colonisation.

The misreading of the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions will deal a huge blow to African countries if they do not take time to analyse and appreciate the spirit of nationalism, self-determination and quest for individual respect that underpin those revolutions.

It is time to go beyond the Facebook euphoria and start thinking about the real questions.

*Comments and suggestions: itayig@hotmail.com

Labels: EGYPT

posted by MrK @ 1:12 AM