Revolution of Sphinxes is seemingly winning its way. In the past articles we’ve reviewed the possible beneficiaries of this victory. Now it’s time to look at the current situation in Cairo. Destiny of the main prize — the power — would be determined not at the Tahrir Square. Secret political bargaining between the main pretenders for the people’s victory is about to start. The only thing is clear: it wouldn’t be common folk who reap the fruits of triumph. They once again would be robbed by the politicians. One of the two main political powers (with a feasible assistance from the third one — which is to help wrapping the purchase into a pretty cover) would buy the victory, gained by the common Egyptians.
Hosni Mubarak is not Ben Ali by any chance
In the very beginning of Egyptian events all the commentators at once have been claiming them to be the continuation of Tunisian Jasmine revolution. In this connection, we should note that Mubarak and Ben Ali (ex-President of Tunis for those of you who have already forgotten his name) — are players from the different leagues. It’s quite clear that despite his huge political experience (30 years in power is not a mere trifle), Mubarak would still have to leave. The question is not when he’s about to do it (quite soon, perhaps) — but how?
Hosni Mubarak is not just a player out of Premier League — he’s a master. Simultaneously he managed to be an ally of America and Israel while still having friendly relations with Arabian countries. He played complicated political game with Palestinian Autonomy and turned Egypt into the global touristic centre. He ruled 80-million-strong country, imitating the democratic processes and creating the outward appearance of human rights observance in the eyes of the Western world, having simultaneously oppressed the resistance of Islamic fundamentalists — and all of that took place on the background of corruption, eroding the country. One would agree that it requires quite a skill. Add here certain Mubarak’s “virtues” like keeping control over the Suez Canal, attraction of Western and Arabian investments into the petrochemical industry, increased significance of Egypt as the gas exporter — and you’d completely understand his unwillingness to look like a “loser” and leave the country with the whistles of triumphing crowd. Mubarak started playing political chess 60 years ago and as far back as then — when most part of today’s Egyptians weren’t even born yet, and those who were born couldn’t tell the pawn from the king — he had already been the Grand Master. Comparing to Mubarak, Ben Ali with his barber wife — whom an entire Tunis was laughing at — is merely a member of primary school chess group. He fled the country like Ostap Bender after the failed multi-board chess-play in the town of Vasyuki. Mubarak, on the contrary, will leave country in dignity, having insured all of his interests in Egypt prior to that.
After the first days of the people’s uprising, when authorities were paralyzed with shock, now they are gradually regaining the initiative. Here are the main steps Mubarak undertook in order to restore the control over the situation:
— Appointment of Omar Suleiman as the Vice-President. In the first part of “Revolution of Sphinxes” I’ve given a detailed characteristic of this extraordinary man. We should add that during the last years General has moved out of the shadow and became a public person, which is quite uncommon for a man of his trade. He speaks perfect English and well-known in the USA and the Western Europe as a specialist of settling the Middle-Eastern conflicts. And he deserved that reputation — he used to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders together across the same bargaining table. His experience of cooperation with American and European special services makes him a longed-for candidate to replace Mubarak for the West. Appointing Suleiman, Mubarak solved two issues at once: calmed down the West, which would’ve undoubtedly preferred General to the “Muslim Brotherhood” and gained a mighty political ally, who might’ve become his competitor in conditions of political instability. Suleiman is more of Western candidate, rather than Mubarak’s one. His activity at the new post has already become prominent — policemen in civvies and employees of his services are already provoking the crowd at the Tahrir Square and around the country. Besides that, given the fact that people are tired of fighting against power, combination of “strong arm” along with the unstained biography can make General a desired candidate for presidency in the eyes of Egyptians. His coming to power would guarantee the status quo to everyone — and, unfortunately, to the common Egyptians, too. This Mubarak’s move is actually the strongest. Authorship of the rest seemingly belongs to Suleiman himself.
— Gradual restoration of control over the media. Attempt to block the Internet and cell phones in the very beginning of riots complicated the coordination efforts of the crowd at first, but in Egypt (as well as in Russia) not everyone has an access to the world web. That’s why locking up the television was of much greater importance — it has an essentially broader audience. Al-Jazeera’s signal is not transmitted in Egypt anymore. And it’s not clear who’s going to be next.
— “Open day” in prisons and the simultaneous disappearance of policemen from the city streets. That created an atmosphere of chaos in the streets of Egyptian cities, while looting and banditry became commonplace and casual. Having coincided, these two moves sown the seeds of fear, which were intended, from one hand, to draw attention away from the political rallies (who’d go to the square when your own home may be robbed at that time?), from the other one — to inspire demands for the “strong arm” that would stop all that mess and bring the feeling of security back. Simultaneously repressions against the foreign reporters were initiated. As a result, after just a few days TV news were full of pictures — not from the al-Tahrir Square, but rather the ones, portraying the terrors of banditry. People protesting against Mubarak are being indirectly accused of that — they’ve allegedly liberated the criminals and they are to be blamed for the absence of police (poor policemen are allegedly guarding the square — thus the city streets became dangerous once again). Quite impressive, isn’t it?
— having, thus, beaten off the common people, Mubarak increased his pressure on the USA and the EU, which demanded his immediate leave at first. And (lo and behold!) West yielded to him. At the Munich conference for security British Prime Minister made an unequivocal statement that main thing for Egypt were the reforms, rather than transition of power and Frank Wisner — special envoy of the White House in Egypt — echoed his words, having stubbornly confronted President Obama himself. Wisner considers that “before moving forward we should achieve assent between common people. Mubarak should remain in power and carry out the necessary changes”. Had anyone ever heard about special envoy having an independent point of view from the people whom he represents? Simultaneously with that, skilful throw-ins into the foreign media were made — our Russian colleagues also fallen for them. Even the respectable RBC agency republished the announcement Rashad al-Bayumi — one of the “Muslim Brotherhood” leaders — threatening to create an interim government in case of Mubarak’s leave and denounce the peace treaty with Israel, i.e. unleashing new war at the Sinai Peninsula. This may lead to the blockade of Suez Canal and unrestrained leap of oil and gas prices. RBC refers to the Japanese TV-channel NHK, but there’s no such news at its web-site, and during the Euronews interview al-Bayumi spoke quite a lot and disjointedly about different matters, but didn’t even mention this one. Omnipresent Yulia Latynina prophesies the third world war against Muslims on the pages of “Novaya Gazeta” — but she wasn’t kind enough to read at least a couple of books or Western articles about “Muslim Brotherhood” prior to that. Given all my personal enmity towards obvious dictator Hosni Mubarak, we should give him deserved credit for being truly a Grand Master of politics.
professional virtues. Far-sightedness is an essential merit for the statesman.
Why did Mohammed El Baradei return to Egypt?
Doctor of Law, Mohammed El Baradei is a quite famous man. Winner of Nobel Peace Prize, permanent IAEA chief, he left cozy Austria, where he has been living for a long time and returned to Egypt in order “to lead” the anti-Mubarak opposition. The worst thing is that no one was waiting for him in Egypt, he doesn’t have a substantial authority there and there’s nothing he can change in that country. Even the smart PR-moves like the announcement of his house arrest haven’t changed his ratings an inch. One only needs to watch the Euronews interview with his representative George Ishak — he twisted and twirled, trying to avoid answering a simple question (whether El Baradei had already met with U.S. ambassador) in order to understand that he did meet with ambassador and he did counsel with him. Doctor El Baradei has one, yet decisive advantage over two other candidates: Omar Suleiman and “Muslim Brotherhood”. It is his reputation of moderate, pro-Western, democratic and even slightly anti-American politician. Without any doubts, this political capital would be needed in the post-Mubarak Egypt. Whoever of the two main claimants for the victory, stolen from common people, becomes its beneficiary — he will need a fancy and attractive cover, which these stolen goods would be wrapped into. Doctor El Baradei would become this very cover. For now it’s hard to predict in what quality he’d be present but he would undoubtedly grant certain respectability to the dubious bargain, made under cover of Egyptian darkness.
The only people who would gain nothing (or negligibly nothing) out of this bargain are the common Egyptians — the very poor who are just willing to live a little bit better. There is no difference for them, who will feed them to satiety and this is why no one will feed them at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment