SPOTLIGHT: Hardly surprising that many despots in the Muslim world are quaking in their shoes!: Egypt: bubble, breath of fresh air, first wave of tsunami or another military takeover?

Suddenly Egypt was in focus two weeks ago and has not let off. Everyone has been talking and writing and about not much else: or so it seemed. Western media like BBC and CNN have been making relentless, round-the-clock coverage of developments at Al Tahrir Square and elsewhere in Egypt, often at considerable risk to their reporters on the spot. And no wonder! For one, with a population of 80 million and an area of nearly 400,000 sq. miles, Egypt is the superheavyweight among Arab countries.
For another, Egypt's relationship with Israel, US's most valued ally, is a sort of corner stone of American policy for the Middle East. For a third, popular upheaval or awakening (take your choice) in Egypt could have unpredictable ramifications in a big part of the world. Keeping Egypt in line is therefore a vital matter for American foreign policy. America, which has long supported suppressive regimes in Egypt from Nasser's to Sadat's to present-day Mubarak's, has suddenly discovered the value of freedom of speech and expression and has started sermonising Egyptian authorities (who are they today anyway) to ensure that those values are not trampled by the state apparatus.
All signs point to the conclusion that Mubarak, who has long served American purpose, is now excess baggage which must be shed quickly to make room for more useful tools which would be expected to continue to provide the same service under different verbiage! However, America may learn, yet once again, that it does not always happen that way!
AL TAHRIR SQUARE TO WITNESS HISTORY? Suddenly on the morning of 25 January 2011, just about two weeks ago, tens of thousands of people (mainly young men) converged on the now world-famous Al Tahrir Square of Cairo, Egypt's capital. The crowd included women and babies carried in arms, which said something about the peaceful though resolute intentions of the gathering.
The people had congregated at the Square with a single-point agenda: the ouster of Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak and restoration of democratic norms. For nearly thirty years the country's President had ruled the country like a despot and was reportedly poised to install his son in his place now. Al Tahrir Square became overnight a name almost as familiar as Egypt itself.
The numbers at the Square grew dramatically: From 15,000 on 25 January 11 as reported by local radio to 50,000 by 30 January as reported by BBC to 250,000 as reported by Al Jazeera correspondents and to 1 million peaceful protesters on 1 February 11 again according to Al Jazeera. Some cosmetic concessions have been belatedly offered by Mubarak, including a promise not to contest new elections scheduled for September 2011, and not to nominate his son to succeed him, replacement of the Prime Minister and so on. Too little and too late!
PROTESTERS VERSUS SUPPORTERS For about a week, the protests in Tahrir Square at Cairo and in Alexandria, another big city, and at other places in Egypt continued peacefully. The hated police, who first appeared on the scene, were soon withdrawn and the Military took over - tanks and all - which unlike the police fraternised with the protesters, shaking hands with them and even letting some of them on atop the armoured vehicles.
There appeared to be a case of mutual respect and support at least at that grass roots level. Then suddenly on TV screens appeared a bizarre group of people on camels (what a sight?) and horses which rode right into the midst of protesters trampling them and hitting them right and left with whips. It was surmised that they were sent by the pro-Mubarak people (possibly the ruling NDP among other State entities like the police and so on) to disrupt the protesting thousands. It was claimed by some protesters that they were paid well to perform the disruptive "service".
FREE FOR ALL As if on cue, a large number of pro-Mubarak protesters suddenly appeared on the scene attacking and throwing stones at the protesters and pushing against them from all sides. While the protesters carried crudely written home-made play cards denouncing Mubarak, the "pros" carried professionally printed and designed communication posters and displays in support of Mubarak.
This continued for two full days and more. The military did not lift a finger to separate the attackers from the attacked. Eventually, the protesters also got into the act and there was much stone throwing leaving at least 10 people dead and nearly a thousand injured many of whom got treatment on the spot from participants in the protest, while others had to be rushed to hospitals. The first blood was thus drawn. It was quite clear who had started the violence.
THE TUNIS TRIGGER People had theories about what triggered the sudden outburst of protest. The decades, long winter of discontent in the country due to brutal oppression, absence of freedom of expression and association, extreme poverty of most people on the one hand and affluence of a small, privileged minority at the top, needed a trigger to burst out into the open.
The Tunis uprising against similar despotic rule appears to have provided just that. It was said that a single Facebook message in which one person declared that he (or was it a she?) was headed for the Al Tahrir square to protest against tyranny, led thousands to follow and, more importantly, to dig in.
ISLAMOPHOBIA Concern about the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwanul Muslimoon), long-suppressed, banned and persecuted by successive rulers - from Nasser to Mubarak - appeared to be present in western reactions towards the anti-Mubarak movement. They expressed sympathy and support for the protesters but were wary of the Brotherhood "hijacking" the movement.
Ikhwanul Muslimoon (IM), an international Islamic movement with presence in all Arab countries, has been suppressed by successive dictatorial regimes in all of them for over half a century now. Under strictly controlled parliamentary elections in Egypt held in 2005, despite many irregularities in the process by the Government including the arrest of hundreds of Ikhwan members, Ikhwan candidates, contesting as independents, won 88 seats constituting 20% of the total.
Ikhwanul Muslimoon is a non-violent movement of educated, middle class practising Muslims with no links with al Qaeda or sympathy for it. In fact al Qaeda hates the IM like poison due to the latter's peaceful approach. Such is the fear of resurgence of Islam in the West, however, that at least one of the reasons why America continued to support the despotic and tyrannical rule of Hosni Mubarak was that it had ruthlessly suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood over decades and maintained a deeply friendly approach with Israel at the cost of Palestinian's rights.
Sure enough now, when pressed by America at various levels to hand over power, Mubarak came back with a plea that if he did that, there would be chaos and the Ikhwanul Muslimoon would take control. He was merely playing on the western fear or phobia of Islamic movements.
SUNDAY SURPRISE Despite this backdrop scenario, in a dramatic development on Sunday 6 February 11, it was announced that negotiations were underway between Ikhwanul Muslimoon, the only large opposition party, and the new government in Egypt, with perhaps other unnamed opposition groups also participating.
This could be seen as a concession to the government from the opposition's earlier stand that there would be no negotiations till Hosni Mubarak stepped down. It is certainly hoped that this does not lead to a split in the opposition. Ikhwan explained that the contacts would not amount to negotiations, but are meant to explore ways to break the deadlock and move ahead with a reform plan, a roadmap to the restoration of democracy.
This must certainly be happening with American approval as far as the new government in Egypt is concerned. A very interesting explanation for this is that America is getting tired of Israel dragging its feet on the settlements issue in the Palestine-Arab areas and American moves in Egypt are tantamount to applying some pressure on it to behave!
THE POLICE/MILITARY VAST DIFFERENCE The vast difference between the Egyptian police and Egyptian military was brought out by the way in which they interacted with the demonstrators. While the police used force against them, the Military men were seen shaking hands and otherwise fraternising with them.
The different roles of the police and the military in Egypt, under successive oppressive regimes including that of Mubarak's explain the difference in the roles played by them in the current crisis. While the police was the chief instrument in the hands of the rulers and the ruling party, the National Democratic Party, to keep the people in line through arrest, imprisonment, and widespread torture, the Military's role was confined to defending the country.
It should be kept in mind that according to its constitution Egypt has a multi-party system. But in practice only the NDP was allowed to function freely. The case of popular but outlawed Ikhwanul Muslimoon also reflects the difference between official policy and practice. The prompt withdrawal of the police from Tahrir Square prevented a possible early catastrophe.
ELBARADEI JUMPS IN Very early as the anti-Mubarak demonstrations got underway on El Tahrir Square - as early as on their second day I think - El Baradei suddenly appeared on the scene with an echo on his lips for President Mubarak to step down, almost as if on cue or prompt or signal from America.
Did the name strike a bell about the man and events associated with his name and with the infamous American invasion of Iraq? Yes, at least for me! I distinctly recall Colin Powell, then US Secretary of State speaking before the Security Council in 2003 trying to make out a case for invading Iraq for possessing or making weapons of mass destruction.
Dr ElBaradei who had been tasked by the Council to verify whether Iraq was guilty of this did not find any evidence of this. But till the last he failed to give Iraq a clean chit. There was always a sentence in his successive reports which blamed Saddam for not co-operating with his fact-finding efforts.
This provided the fig leaf which America used (to its long lasting shame) as its excuse for attacking Iraq, which, as was soon proved, had no WMDs. Cynics may therefore be excused for detecting a connection between ElBaradei's role in the Iraq invasion and the subsequent award of Nobel Peace Prize to him in 2005! The poise and confidence with which ElBaradei appears to have jumped into the fray at El Tahrir Square in Egypt indicates whence those come from! Let us see how ElBaradei's role unfolds in the coming days and weeks.
THE EGYPTIAN MILITARY For now and for understanding imminent developments in Egypt, it is important to take a look at the Military in the country. The role of the Military in the two-week old conflict has been in focus throughout. It has reciprocated the friendly overtures of the anti-Mubarak crowd and not interfered with the demonstrations. But it invited criticism by not promptly separating the attacking pro-Mubarak demonstrators from the under-attack, anti-Mubarak protesters resulting in 10 deaths and nearly a thousand wounded.
At this point a word or two about the Military in Egypt would serve to put its role in the country's policies in perspective. The country, less than half the size of Pakistan in terms of population, has nearly half a million servicemen in uniform with an equal number of reserves making nearly a round million in uniform or at call.
All Egyptian males between the age of 18 and 30 years have an obligation to serve with the military for between 12 to 36 months depending on their educational and other background. This is followed by a 9-year reserve service obligation. Officers are well-paid and boast a higher standard of living than their civilian countrymen. The Military has close links with the US Military and depends heavily on its financial and technical support in addition to supply of arms and training in America. This, among other things, explains America's clout with the rulers in Egypt.
The military thus has had it very good under the present regime and may be considered to have a vested interest in the status quo - possibly with someone else in place of Mubarak. Will the military hijack the movement was a question in some people's minds. On the other hand it is also said that prosperity in the Military is limited to its upper echelons and the ranks lower down are not too happy with their status and that consequently the ranks and the officers are at different wavelengths in many respects.
([email protected])