There are neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s new government. It’s not representative of the whole country – and it should accept autonomy for Crimea and pledge not to join the EU or NATO to avoid civil war or war with Russia

Summary: Putin’s talk of Ukraine’s transitional government as being entirely made up of neo-nazis who target Russians is an exaggeration, but there’s some truth in it. Ukraine’s new government includes neo-nazis of the Svoboda party and is not representative of the whole country.

EU sanctions are impossible as the EU relies on Russia for gas imports. Arming and funding western Ukrainian groups to fight Russia and its allies would only tip Ukraine into a Bosnian or Chechnyan style civil war. Russia will not back down on this issue as Ukraine was used as a base by its enemies in both World Wars and Chechnya was used as a base by terrorist groups far more recently.

Ukraine’s government should settle for granting Crimea, with its Russian majority, autonomy – and guaranteeing Ukraine will not join the EU or NATO in order to avoid such a war – and the US and EU should encourage them to make these concessions.

Most of the western media talk as though President Putin’s characterisation of the Ukrainian transitional government as neo-nazis who threaten the lives of Russians in Ukraine is purely propaganda.

There is some truth in Putin’s claims though, despite his exaggerations, and despite him being an authoritarian hard line nationalist himself, as well as a frequent propagandist.

The violent neo-Nazis in key posts in the transitional Ukrainian government

Photo: Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the Svoboda or 'Freedom' party, gives a Nazi salute

The largest party in the transitional government , the ‘Fatherland’ party, are not neo-nazis, despite their name. However the ‘National Socialist’ Svoboda (‘Freedom’) party, notorious for its anti-semitism and hatred of Russians and other minorities in Ukraine, has four ministries in the transitional government including Defence and Deputy Prime Minister (1) – (5).  

Svoboda also has 37 seats in parliament, which approved the Interim Prime Minister and President (6). It won only 10% of the vote nationally in the last elections, but over 40% in parts of Western Ukraine, with the party with the largest share of the vote in the East being the now overthrown President Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions (7).

Svoboda’s four ministries in the transitional government are clearly representative of its support in western Ukraine and a huge over-representation relative to its support in the country as a whole.

Svoboda members and some of its MPs still publicly celebrate the Ukrainian SS unit recruited by the Nazis during World War Two and the Ukrainian nationalist Stephen Bandera who allied with the Nazis (8) – (9).

The Deputy Secretary of National Security is Dmitry Yarosh, former head of the paramilitary Ukrainian nationalist group Right Sector, whose members fought against Russian troops in Chechnya (10).

The opposition majority in the Ukrainian parliament voted after Yanukovych’s overthrow to revoke a law which allowed Ukraine’s regions to use official languages of minorities such as Russians, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Tatar along with the Ukrainian language. Ukrainian was to become the only language which could be given official status (11).

Interim President Arseniy Yatsenyuk reversed this ruling. His party Batkivshchyna, or “Fatherland”, is the largest in the transitional government and parliament and luckily it is not as extreme as its name would suggest. Yatsenyuk is Jewish and comes from a family of mixed Romanian and Ukrainian descent (12) – (14).

Svoboda and other ultra-nationalist protesters included many armed with baseball bats, iron pipes and a few guns who still patrol Kiev. Medieval style trebuchet catapults were also used to fire rocks, bricks and petrol bombs at riot police. The last were mostly reported as being amusing, but would be quite capable of killing (15) – (18).

This violence by ultra-right militias may have led to the use of snipers by the government, if those were government snipers (various unsubstantiated rumours include that they were Russians, mercenaries hired by the opposition, or mercenaries hired by the US), though it certainly didn’t justify it.

Why Ukraine should grant the Crimea autonomy and pledge not to join the EU or NATO – and why the US and EU should not try to persuade them to do otherwise

Photo: Ukrainian Russians in Kiev protest against war over Crimea, one sign calling for Putin to protect her by withdrawing his troops

The transitional government is overwhelmingly made up of parties which want to join the EU. Russian actions in Crimea have been sending a message that, as Russian spokespeople put it, this is a “red line” for Russia.

The Ukraine has a large Russian speaking minority, Russian military bases, is right on the border of Russia, historically a close ally of Russia – and an invasion route for the French in the 19^th century and the Germans in the First and Second World Wars.

More recently secessionist republics trying to leave the Russian federation, including Chechnya, were used as bases by terrorist groups for attacks inside Russia (though Russian military torture and massacres in wars against the secessionists contributed greatly to recruitment by these Islamist groups).

President Putin’s popularity in Russia is based on nationalism , restoring Russia’s pride after the collapse of the Soviet Union and economic collapse under Yeltsin’s experiments in an absolute free market that led to chaos. It’s also based on him being seen as a “strong” leader who will stand up to pressure from the US and its allies.

Putin is certainly no democrat, but its hard to believe that any other Russian government would have reacted any differently to a US backed revolution in one of its closest neighbours and allies which also contains strategically important naval bases. The threat to Russians in Ukraine only adds to this.

 If there had been a Russian backed revolution in Canada or Mexico, in which ultra-nationalists threatened US citizens, the US wouldn’t have responded any differently.

If the Ukrainian transitional government attempts to join the EU the likely result will be either civil war in Ukraine with the Russians and Americans each providing arms and training to their proxies there, or else a Russian invasion to install its own client government and prevent US-backed paramilitaries using it as a base, or both. This would not be good for the people of the Ukraine – not even the ones who survived it.

Nor would risking direct military intervention of the kind advocated by the right in the US be good for anyone. It is not wise to suggest potential escalation to World War Three between two nuclear armed powers.

Sanctions on Russia would have little downside for the US, which could afford to play geopolitics with Russia in this way, but western Europe gets much of its gas for heating and electricity from Russia. Germany, the largest country in the EU, gets 25% of its gas imports from Russia.

While the Ukrainian parliament is elected, the transitional government is not. Only after new elections will there be a fully legitimate government representative of all Ukrainians.

The US government has repeatedly condemned changes to the consitutions of Honduras under Zelaya and Venezuela under Chavez when carried out by democratic referenda and elected constitutional assemblies. This leaves it looking more than a bit hypocritical when condemning the Russian government’s criticism of the transitional Ukrainian government as being in breach of Ukraine’s constitution.

The Russian majority in the Crimea voting by referendum to leave Ukraine would no more be against international law than Kosovo’s Albanian majority voting to leave Yugoslavia by referendum. The US government opposes the first and backed the second purely in order to expand its own influence and reduce Russia’s. It has no democratic principle behind its positions.

Minorities in Crimea justifiably fear repression under a Russian nationalist client regime, but the fears of Russians in Crimea of being ruled over by a government including Svoboda are just as real.

Given the massively greater military power of Russia and Russia’s fear of Ukraine being used as a base for its enemies, as it was in both world wars, the best deal the Ukrainian government is likely to get is to give up the Crimea in return for staying in power itself while agreeing not the join the EU.

(That’s before even taking into account Russian fears of Ukraine being used as a base for terrorist attacks into Russia, as Chechnya was by Islamic militants).

Giving western Ukrainians the false impression that the EU will use economic sanctions on Russia (which Putin might well choose to endure to maintain his strong man image and which would hurt the EU more than Russia) to tip the balance, would be misleading them and doing them no favours.

Ditto for pretending that the US will fight World War Three for them.

Arming and funding groups that include neo-nazis and so reducing their country to a Bosnian or Chechnyan style war in the name of “freedom” would be even worse.

There is no freedom for anyone except the killers in a civil war – and no freedom even when it ends if one side are Russian ultra-nationalist extremists and the other side Ukrainian neo-nazis.

(1) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Ukrainian_Union_Fatherland

(2) = Interfax Ukraine 27 Feb 2014 ‘Ukrainian parliament endorses new cabinet’,
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/193222.html

(3) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government#Composition

(4) = Channel 4 News (UK) 05 Mar 2014 ‘How the far-right took top posts in Ukraine's power vacuum’, http://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-government-far-right

(5) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)

(6) = Reuters 07 Mar 2014 ‘In Ukraine, nationalists gain influence - and scrutiny’,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-ukraine-crisis-far-right-insight-idUSBREA2618B20140307?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

(7) = The Nation 06 Mar 2014 ‘The Dark Side of the Ukraine Revolt’,
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178716/dark-side-ukraine-revolt#

(8) = See (7) above

(9) = BBC News 07 Mar 2014 ‘Ukraine's revolution and the far right’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26468720 (see third photo down and text above and below it)

(10) = See (4)

(11) = IB Times 09 Mar 2014 ‘Watch Your Tongue: Language Controversy One Of Fundamental Conflicts In Ukraine’, http://www.ibtimes.com/watch-your-tongue-language-controversy-one-fundamental-conflicts-ukraine-1559069

(12) = See (11)

(13) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk

(14) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Ukrainian_Union_Fatherland

(15) = BBC Newsnight 01 Mar 2014 ‘Ukraine: Far-right armed with bats patrol Kiev’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26394980

(16) = BBC News 01 Mar 2014 ‘Ukraine: The far-right groups patrolling Kiev’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26398112

(17) = ABC News ‘The Kiev Protests Look Apocalyptic’,
http://abcnews.go.com/International/photos/kiev-protests-starting-apocalyptic-22316896/image-pro-european-integration-protesters-build-catapult-throw-stones-22317002

(18) = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUvrKv0pHNY (BBC news report)

Baradei and the secular opposition need to make common cause with Morsi's supporters before they become the military's next targets themselves

El Baradei and much of the secular opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi in Egypt either don’t understand the meaning of democracy or else don’t believe in it. El Baradei rejected every offer of negotiations and compromise with Morsi, the elected President, blocking talks when other opposition leaders and groups like liberal Ayman Nour agreed to them. The demands of the opposition were ludicrous; including that Morsi, the elected President, resign before negotiations even begin (1) – (2).

Democracy doesn’t mean one faction getting everything their own way. In a democracy that’s impossible. It’s the opposite of democracy. Real democracy is a compromise between every single person in a country in which each has an equal say in the negotiated compromise reached.

By refusing any compromise or negotiations; and by welcoming a military coup that placed Mubarak’s people and the military back in power, El Baradei and much of the secular opposition have also made themselves powerless dupes (3).

There is only one way for them to redeem themselves and restore a chance of preventing a counter-revolution in which General Sisi will be the new Mubarak in all but name; they need to call for the military to release the elected President and the hundreds of other members of the Brotherhood arrested since the coup and then begin immediate negotiations with them.

When both Morsi protesters and their opponents were killing each other in ones and twos at a time El Baradei was claiming that Morsi had given up any right to remain in power.

Now the army and their hired thugs with swords and knives have killed hundreds of protesters against the military coup, the vast majority of whom were peaceful and unarmed.

They are likely the same thugs working for Mubarak’s people and the military who attacked anti-government protesters under Morsi . The opposition believed what they wanted to believe and have been taken for fools by the dictatorship and the military (4).

The military has introduced censorship, closing down every Muslim party’s media outlets as well as Al Jazeera Egypt and arresting their staff. This allows state TV to prevent Egyptians seeing that the protests against the coup are just as big as the pro-military and pro-coup protests (5).

 They’ve even taken cameras from CNN reporters to prevent them filming. If there’s nothing to hide why would they do this?

They’ve used live ammunition to massacre protesters twice – and showed their continued dishonesty by claiming they hadn’t (6) – (7).

Yet somehow this is all supposed to be acceptable because the elected President who was overthrown came from a Muslim party and the protesters are mostly from religious Muslim parties.

Everything is supposedly forgivable because those doing it are secular. Mubarak was secular. The military are secular and have killed, tortured, sexually abused and raped more protesters than any other group in Egypt. Stalin was secular. Pinochet was secular. Saddam was secular. Assad is secular. Hitler was secular.

I’m an agnostic and would never, ever vote for a religious party, but many Egyptians voted for Morsi and Muslim parties and their votes should count. Being secular does not make you automatically right and being religious does not make you automatically wrong.

Some point out that many voters in the Presidential elections in Egypt were voting against Shafiq, Mubarak’s former Prime Minister, rather than for Morsi. That’s true, but unexceptional. In pretty much every democracy with a first-past-the-post system a large proportion of voters are voting against the other party or candidate as much or more than for the person or party they vote for.

This winner-takes-all version of democracy is far from ideal in my opinion and not full democracy, which should involve every vote counting equally, for instance by a multi-member executive to give everyone equal say.

However it does not make a military coup, the jailing of the elected President and the massacre of protesters against this coup legitimate.

Protesters in Egypt who claim it wasn’t a coup are frankly full of shit. They are basically saying democracy is them getting their own way, by whatever method. They’re also fooling themselves if they believe they have any real power now.

The military and Mansour (Mubarak’s man) and the Chief Prosecutor (ditto) and General Sissi have the real power as long as they can play the secular opposition to the military and Mubarak off against the Muslim parties’ opposition.

Mansour (the interim President) has given the Prime Minister the power to call a state of emergency and the secret police units disbanded after the revolution are back (8). General Sissi, who lead the coup, has made himself not only Commander In Chief of the armed forces, a position only held by elected heads of government in a democracy, but also Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister (9).

So if the Prime Minister refuses to call a state of emergency, Sissi just gets Mansour to sack him – and Sissi, as Deputy Prime Minister, becomes Prime Minister and calls a state of emergency.

I hate the current Conservative government in the UK and didn’t vote for them. I’m completely against most of what they’re doing and so is most of the country. I was equally opposed to about 60 or 70% of the last Labour government’s more right wing policies. I don’t believe elections should be a blank cheque that let governments do whatever they want till the next election comes either. Does that mean a military coup and massacring those parties’ supporters would make it all better?

Only an idiot would think so. The same is true in Egypt. Negotiations, power sharing and referenda on major issues are the way to real democracy – not backing military coups and massacres by the old guard of the dictatorship.

Those who claim that Islam and democracy are incompatible are wrong, because there are multiple interpretations of Islam, many of them progressive enough to be entirely reconcilable with democracy.
For instance El Tayeb, the head of the Islamic University in Cairo, which was given the power to rule on the meaning of sharia and Islam by the constitution passed by referendum under Morsi, is a moderate who has said women should not wear hijabs or head coverings as there’s nothing in the Quran about them (10) – (11).

Tayeb has also condemned the killing of Muslim Brotherhood and other anti-coup protesters by the army.

Not only are those saying Islam and democracy are irreconcilable wrong though, they are helping out Al Qa’ida and similar extreme Jihadist groups who also condemn any involvement in elections and democratic politics as un-Islamic (12).

Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the head of Al Qa’ida has claimed that elections “did not follow Sharia” (i.e Al Qa’ida’s extreme version of Islamic Sharia law) (13).

True, in the month or so before the coup Morsi did begin to appoint and ally with some extreme Sunni Islamist groups and clerics. This was foolish but likely an act of desperation after over a year of trying to get the opposition to agree to negotiate had failed and when these groups seemed like his only allies against a military coup.

The opposition to Morsi claim that if Morsi had been allowed to remain in office Egypt would no longer have been a democracy. Obama’s opponents in the US make the same claims about him with as little evidence.

If this coup is allowed to stand and the current line among the media and governments that the Muslim Brotherhood must “be reasonable” and “make concessions” which are to include accepting the overthrow of the first democratically elected President in Egyptian history, the jailing of members of his party and the massacre of peaceful protesters, then it makes Al Qa’ida’s propaganda about how we don’t really mean it when we say we support democracy, about how secularism is corrupt and hypocritical, about how Islam and democracy are irreconcilable seem true.

Then there will be a lot more radicalisation of Muslims in Egypt and worldwide, more terrorist attacks like the one that killed the police recruits and civilians recently. General Sisi and the Egyptian military like to pretend the coup and the killing of protesters is a response to this terrorism. In fact they’re the cause of it (14).

It’s just like Tony Blair and George Bush’s ludicrous nonsense about how it was necessary to invade Iraq to stop Al Qa’ida, who weren’t even in the country until after the invasion.

Compulsive liars, dishonest rulers and those who can’t tell the difference between reality and what they want to believe will all try to pretend that the relationship of cause and effect can just be reversed wherever they feel like it. As the White Stripes pointed out, they can’t.

El Baradei and the rest of Morsi’s opponents need to wake up, see their own faults and stupidities which are as severe as any of those of Morsi or the Brotherhood. They need to call for his release and sit down to negotiate before the revolution is over and Sisi place as a new version of Mubarak, this time the puppet master controlling the President rather than the President himself, is so firmly entrenched in power he can turn his guns on the secular opposition, having crushed the Muslim opposition.

The US government meanwhile can shut up about how it promotes democracy and human rights as long as it keeps funding the coup regime and refuses to even call the coup a coup.

(1) = AP / Independent 11 Dec 2012 ‘Masked gunmen attack opposition protesters as crowds gather for rallies in Egypt’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/masked-gunmen-attack-opposition-protesters-as-crowds-gather-for-rallies-in-egypt-8405979.html , 12^th paragraph, ‘Cracks in the opposition's unity first appeared last weekend when one of its leading figures, veteran opposition politician Ayman Nour, accepted an invitation by Morsi to attend a "national dialogue" meeting. On Monday, another key opposition figure, El-Sayed Badawi of the Wafd party, met Morsi at the presidential palace.’

(2) = LA Times 08 Dec 2012 ‘Egypt protesters demand that Mohamed Morsi step down’, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/08/world/la-fg-egypt-rallies-20121208

(3) = CNN 08 Jul 2013 ‘ElBaradei: Morsy's ouster was needed so Egypt cannot 'fail'’, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/04/world/meast/egypt-elbaradei

(4) = LA Times 28 Jan 2013 ‘Egypt protests continue; opposition rejects talks with Morsi’, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/28/world/la-fg-wn-egypt-protests-opposition-rejects-talks-morsi-20130128

(5) = Al Jazeera 04 Jul 2013 ‘Egypt's military shuts down news channels’, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/2013740531685326.html

(6) = Guardian 18 Jul 2013 ‘At the second kneel of the prayers, the attack began’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/18/egyptian-security-attack-on-morsi-supporters

(7) = NYT 27 Ju 2013 ‘Hundreds Shot in Cairo Attack on Morsi Rally’, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/world/middleeast/egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

(8) = Guardian 29 Jul 2013 ‘Egypt restores feared secret police units’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/29/egypt-restores-secret-police-units ; 5^th paragraph ; ‘Ibrahim's announcement came hours before Egypt's interim prime minister was given the power to place the country in a state of emergency – a hallmark of Egypt under Mubarak.’

(9) = Independent 24 Jul 2013 ‘Showdown in Cairo: Egyptian general demands permission to take on the ‘terrorists’’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/showdown-in-cairo-egyptian-general-demands-permission-to-take-on-the-terrorists-8729903.html

(10) = The National Review 06 Jul 2013 ‘Elections Are Not Democracy’, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352778/elections-are-not-democracy-andrew-c-mccarthy

(11) = The National (UAE) 21 Mar 2010 ‘Mubarak appoints a new chief of Al Azhar’, http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/africa/mubarak-appoints-a-new-chief-of-al-azhar#page1

(12) = CRS Report for Congress May 2005 ‘Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology’, http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32759.pdf ; see pages 10 to 11

(13) = Egypt Independent 29 Jul 2013 ‘’, http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/07/06/al-zawahiri-calls-for-victims-and-sacrifices/

(14) = guardian.co.uk 24 Jul 2013 ‘Egyptian general calls for millions to protest against 'terrorism'’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/24/egypt-general-sisi-protest-terrorism

The demonstrations across the Middle East and North Africa have been as much about jobs and pay as democracy from the start

While most of the focus has been on demands for political democracy the protests across the Middle East and North Africa have been as much against unemployment, for jobs and for higher pay from the start. For instance in early January the BBC reported ‘The number of people killed in unrest over unemployment in Tunisia over the weekend has risen to 14, officials say…. The protests first broke out in December over a lack of freedom and jobs.’ (1)

The Tunisan man whose suicide by setting himself on fire set off the protests came from a family whose farm land had been taken by a bank after it foreclosed on the families debts. (2)

In Egypt at the end of January they reported ‘At least eight people have been killed and dozens injured since the protests against unemployment, corruption and rising prices began on Tuesday.’ (3)

This is not surprising as political and economic equality go hand in hand – and similarly for political and economic inequality. Having a job does you little good if you are jailed without fair trial, tortured or shot; while having the right to vote is not much good if you’re homeless or struggling to make enough money to be able to afford to eat.

In every case the global recession caused by the financial crisis and corrupt and brutally oppressive undemocratic governments have played a part. In most (e.g Egypt and Tunisia) neo-liberal economic policies promoted by the IMF and ‘developed world’ governments have also played a role. Even while these policies were creating economic growth poverty was increasing and unemployment wasn’t falling. With the recession, both rocketed.

In Egypt Amnesty international reported that as the clean up of Tahrir Square began “In hospitals, banks and insurance companies, employees gathered to demand better pay and working conditions.”  Protesters for higher pay include everyone from public sector employees such as ambulance drivers to tourism workers (4) – (5). Mubarak followed neo-liberal economic policies recommended by the IMF. While this resulted in economic growth,  the benefits went to a small minority. Mubarak’s family has an estimated fortune of $70 billion, another thousand families who are close to Mubarak benefited greatly and unemployment fell, more than half the population lives on less than £1 a day and there are a million homeless street children in Egyptian cities (6) – (10).

Trade unions have also been important in many cases. In Egypt it was the General Strike called by trade unions that seemed to tip the military into finally forcing Mubarak to resign (11).

(sorry for repeating some of one of my previous posts on Egypt here but i thought it justified a post of it's own on how from the start of the protests in Tunisia on, jobs, pay and unemployment have been core issues)

Last updated 1st March 2010

(1) = BBC 10 Jan 2011 ‘Fourteen killed in Tunisia unemployment protests’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12144906

(2) = Independent 21 Jan 2011 'Tunisia: 'I have lost my son, but I am proud of what he did'', http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/tunisia-i-have-lost-my-son-but-i-am-proud-of-what-he-did-2190331.html

(3) = BBC 28 Jan 2011 ‘Egypt protests escalate in Cairo, Suez and other cities’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12303564

(4) = Amnesty Livewire 14 Feb 2011 ‘The new face of Egypt’,http://livewire.amnesty.org/2011/02/14/the-new-face-of-egypt/

(5) = BBC News 14 Feb 2011 ‘Egypt crisis: Protests switch to demands on pay’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12448413

(6) = IMF Survey Magazine 13 Feb 2008 ‘Egypt: Reforms Trigger Economic Gr
owth’,http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/car021308a.htm

(7) = guardian.co.uk 04 Feb 2011 ‘Mubarak family fortune could reach $70bn, say experts’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/04/hosni-mubarak-family-fortune

(8) = guardian.co.uk 06 Feb 2011 ‘A private estate called Egypt’, by Professor Salwa Ismail, London School of Economics,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/06/private-estate-egypt-mubarak-cronies

(9) = guardian.co.uk 14 Feb 2011 ‘Egypt's army calls for end to strikes as workers grow in confidence’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/14/egypt-army-strikes-workers

(10) = UNICEF ‘A new approach to Egypt’s street children’,http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/egypt_30616.html

(11) = Guardian.co.uk 09 Feb 2011 ‘Egyptian talks near collapse as unions back protests’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/09/egypt-protest-talks-union-mubarak

Egypt : Four Good Reasons why Obama should be backing El Baradei and the Protesters and dropping Mubarak's dictatorship

Obama is risking making the same mistake Carter did during the Iranian revolution in 1979 by continuing to back Mubarak’s dictatorship in Egypt to keep right wing members of his own party and the Republican opposition happy. This ensured the transition was chaotic, allowing Khomeini and extreme fundamentalists to crush the liberals and socialists among the opponents of the Shah’s dictatorship. To minimise the chances of the same happening in Egypt, Obama should tell Mubarak, his NDP party and the Egyptian military to stand down and allow a National Unity government , as demanded by Egyptian protest leader and former IAEA head Mohamed El Baradei , allowing a peaceful transition to democracy. He should also tell Egypt’s  government and military they won’t get a penny more in military aid  till this happens. As El Baradei says US government “life support to the dictator” must end (1).

El Baradei, the protest leader in Egypt, could not be more different from Ayatollah Khomeini, the senior protest leader in Iran in 1979. He is no Islamic fundamentalist and no potential dictator or theocrat.

There is no guarantee what the new government in Egypt will be, whatever Obama does, because Mubarak’s time is running out just as the Shah’s was in 1979. So Obama would be better dropping him to get some influence with the new government – and help ensure the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t freeze out other opposition groups entirely - than alienating opposition groups who may soon be the new government.

Even if the Muslim Brotherhood come to power through elections – like the AKP Islamic government in Turkey and Hamas in Gaza – these precedents suggest they will not be as extreme as the Taliban, nor are they likely to support Al Qa’ida. They will fight them instead, as Hamas do in order to avoid giving the US any excuse to target them. Zawahiri and most armed jihadists or terrorists hate Islamic political parties like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood that seek political power through the ballot box – and are in turn hated by them.

Every expert on jihadist terrorist groups like Al Qa'ida - like Fawaz A. Gerges, has found that torturing dictatorships churn out recruits for them them like factories

Many people are claiming Obama and the US government face a dilemma on Egypt – that if they don’t keep backing Mubarak’s dictatorship the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood could take power and form a government hostile to the US, or even friendly to Al Qa’ida. The same people have tried to re-write history to claim the Shah was overthrown in 1979 due to Carter not backing his dictatorship strongly enough.

The last Shah (king or emperor) of Iran - dictator of Iran from 1953 to 1979 - US President Carter's administration backed him to the last moment against a revolution involving socialists, liberals and Islamic fundamentalists which was hijacked by Ayatollah Khomeini and the fundamentalists

What we know about Egypt today and the similarities with (and differences from) the events of the 1979 Iranian revolution show that Obama faces no such dilemma though – because backing the dictatorship is even more likely to allow a more extreme Muslim Brotherhood government to come to power.

In 1979 Carter continued to support the Shah’s dictatorship and urge him not to step down or go into exile even after the Iranian army and SAVAK secret police had shot hundreds of unarmed protesters dead and dragged thousands away to torture.  Soon the Iranian army couldn’t stomach facing killing thousands of their own people; and as the demonstrations grew bigger and bigger the military refused to fire on the demonstrators and some began to join them. Carter’s adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski favoured moving from a civilian fronted monarchical dictatorship to a military government, but was over-ruled. His plan was irrelevant anyway as the majority of the military weren’t willing to kill for the Shah anymore (Brzezinski has improved with age and experience – now calling for negotiations with Hamas). The Shah fled into exile and in the chaos Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists among the revolutionaries were able to eliminate the socialists, liberals and others (2) – (3).

The strategy of backing a dictatorship did not prevent an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy hostile to the US and Israel, but created one. This was due both to decades of US backed torture and killings by the Shah’s dictatorship and due to Carter’s decision to back it to the last rather than help encourage an orderly transition to democracy and support the more democratic elements of the opposition.

There is a situation in Egypt today which is similar in some ways but very different in others.

Demonstrators fill Tahrir Square in Cairo

The pro-democracy demonstrations were begun by (mostly secular or moderate Muslim) students and trade unionists, are backed by liberals like former UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohamed El Baradei and according to Amnesty and International ‘‘This was a protest that crossed class, ideology and religion, and that is what scares the government.’(4) The Muslim Brotherhood have since joined the protests, but are not leading them. So while, as in Iran in 1979, the opposition includes Muslim fundamentalists along with socialists and liberals, the balance of power among them is different.

Photo: Demonstrators and Egyptian soldiers smile at one another - from the Sunday Herald

Human Rights Watch’s were reporting as of yesterday at least 83 people killed so far in Egypt, mostly by soldiers and both uniformed and plain clothes police shooting them with live ammunition or rubber bullets.

They “confirmed at least 33 dead in Alexandria and heard plausible reports of at least 50 to 70 dead at a single morgue in Cairo.” (5)

Reuters similarly reports over 100 dead and 2,000 injured, based mostly on Egyptian doctors and hospitals’ reports (6).

Amnesty International reports over a thousand protesters have been beaten and dragged away by police to join the many prisoners the dictatorship had already jailed (7)

According to a 2004 Human Rights Watch report and Amnesty International’s 2010 annual report on Egypt, adults and children arrested in Egypt are often tortured by methods including “beatings with fists…batons… sticks…and electric cables…suspension in…painful positions…electric shocks” and “sexual intimidation and violence” including sexual abuse of children. Many victims of torture are beaten to death (8) – (9). No wonder the Egyptian people won’t tolerate a government that does this to them and their children. How can the US government justify continuing to support it?

There are conflicting reports about whether “looters” and killers are “thieves” and “Muslim brotherhood” or plain clothes (and fancy dress) secret police (10).  Many Egyptians suspect the latter . Police have certainly done nothing to stop the looters – with ordinary Egyptians organising to defend themselves from them - which makes it likely the dictatorship hope allowing chaos will let them dishonestly pose as the only thing preventing chaos (11).

 The Algerian military have a longstanding practice of dressing up as Islamic fundamentalists, complete with fake beards, to carry out massacres of civilians and blame them on Islamic fundamentalist groups in order to allow their dictatorship to pose as defending the people against Islamic fundamentalists. (though some massacres were also carried out by fundamentalist terrorist groups) (12)

The soldiers and police responsible for the killings in Egypt are heavily funded and armed by the US government. The Obama administration has so far provided Mubarak’s dictatorship with $1.3bn a year of military aid (a 25% increase on the amount provided by the Bush administration), plus arms sales  (13) – (14).

The US government initially provided statements of support for the dictatorship even after the shooting had begun. Though some of it’s statements have been more critical since, they have stopped well short of calling for Mubarak and his NDP party to stand down and allow a peaceful transition to democracy.

US Secretary of State (i.e foreign minister) Hillary Clinton on Thursday described Mubarak’s regime as “stable” and said that it was attempting to meet the legitimate needs of it’s people – claims met with well deserved scorn by El Baradei (15).

US Vice President  Joe Biden double standard has lead him to claim that Mubarak, as “ a good friend and ally of the United States” is not a dictator, even though he is having his own people shot dead for protesting democracy, has rigged elections, banned opposition parties and jailed the Presidential candidates even of those parties he hasn’t banned – plus jailing thousands of people without fair trial and tortured them (16) – (17).

The marginally tougher line taken from Friday the 28^th on rapidly became vague and self-contradictory. This may be due to splits in the Obama administration, or might be an attempt to send mixed messages in the hope of satisfying both supporters and opponents of backing Mubarak in the US.

US officials first said they were “reviewing” (not suspending) military aid to Egypt – and that the future of it would depend on Mubarak “addressing the legitimate needs of the Egyptian people” and on the behaviour of his government and the Egyptian military. Clinton then  reversed this – saying there is “no discussion as of this time about cutting off any aid”  to Egypt, adding “we always are looking at and reviewing our aid” (18) – (19).

(This echoes the US administration’s and the EU’s dissembling on the 2009 military coup in Honduras  , which they responded to by allowing it (despite having US troops and bases in the country)  and by recognising sham elections taking place under conditions of opponents of the coup makers being tortured and killed  and a boycott by the elected government’s supporters.)

British Foreign Minister William Hague has parroted Clinton almost word for word on Egypt, with the same lack of any call on the dictator to stand down and the same call on the dictatorship and the people to both avoid violence – as though the unarmed pro-democracy protesters fighting back against armed police with armoured cars are equally to blame for it (20) – (21).

Israel’s government, as usual hypocritically condemning dictatorship in Arab countries while simultaneously allying with the dictators, has made statements supportive of Mubarak, saying it’s confident his government will weather the storm (22).

Calls from the US  and UK governments to address the “legitimate needs of the Egyptian people” are too vague – and calls to avoid “violence or provocations that could cause violence” are fence-sitting between the dictatorship and the people. The vast majority of violence by the protesters has been by the dictator’s police firing on or dragging away unarmed demonstrators (23).

Photo: Mohamed El Baradei makes a speech to protesters in Tahrir Square

The main protest leader Mohamed El Baradei couldn’t be more different from the 1979 Iranian revolution’s main spokesman Ayatollah Khomeini. He is no Islamic fundamentalist, nor a potential dictator or theocrat. El Baradei is a well educated Egyptian and Nobel peace prize winner who lost his position as UN IAEA nuclear watchdog head after the Obama administration succeeded where Bush had failed in having him replaced because of his refusal to do US governments’ bidding in hyping Iraq’s non-existent nuclear programme in 2002-2003, or in exaggerating Iran’s nuclear programme (24) – (28) . This will not have won him many friends at the top levels of either main party in the US – whose government under Bush tapped his phone to try to get ammunition against him (29). His criticism of the Iraq war and of  the Bush and Obama administration’s for backing dictatorships like Mubarak’s won’t have won him many either (30). (Baradei’s successor as IAEA head has assured US officials he’ll do as the US government tells him (31) – (33) However Baradei publicly praised Obama’s change of policy on Iran compared to Bush – and the neo-cons of the Bush administration are no friends of Obama, so he personally and politically may not be entirely hostile to Baradei (34). His high international profile makes it more difficult for Mubarak to jail or kill Baradei and boosts the protesters’ media profile. He’s also a very eloquent spokesman.

As Baradei has said “The American government cannot ask the Egyptian people to believe that a dictator who has been in power for 30 years would be the one to implement democracy. This is a farce.” (35)

Bush spent 8 years telling us Mubarak was implementing reforms and moving towards democracy. It never happened (36). It won’t happen under Mubarak or his cronies now either.

Fence sitting by the Obama administration on Egypt is due to the right of the Republican and Democratic parties (along with the ever present Israel lobby) criticising them for supposedly “taking the side of the demonstrators” and risking a US and Israeli allied government  being replaced by a neutral or hostile Muslim Brotherhood one (37).

A peaceful, orderly transition would give the best chance for a multi-party democracy, which would be a much better result for everyone than an Islamic revolution – but that peaceful transition is unlikely unless Mubarak is persuaded to stand down and go into exile.

Islamic Parties in government (and in opposition) are enemies of Al Qa’ida and other Jihadist terrorists, not their friends –including the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

In Turkey the AKP Islamic party (‘Justice and Peace’ party) led by Prime Minister Tacip Erdogan has been much more moderate than the extreme nationalist military dictators who preceded it. It has not meekly deferred to the US or stayed allied with Israel on foreign policy – refusing to allow US troops to invade Iraq from it’s territory in 2003 and clashing with Israel over the Israeli military attack on the civilian Gaza aid flotilla, but neither has it been actively hostile to either – and only placed restrictions on trade with Israel after the attack on it’s citizens in the Gaza flotilla. The AKP has certainly not had any links to Al Qa’ida or similar groups – instead jailing Al Qa’ida members for bombings of the British consulate and banks in Turkey (38).

According to experts, such as Fawaz A. Gerges and  Loretta Napoleoni, Islamic parties in the Middle East are frequently targeted by armed jihadist groups as “collaborators” for taking part in elections and hate one another. In fact Gerges found that Zawahiri (Bin Laden’s Egyptian deputy in Al Qai’da) hates and despises the Muslim Brotherhood for trying to get power through peaceful political campaigns (39) – (40). Hamas in Gaza, far from allying with Al Qa’ida or other international Jihadist groups have fought and killed Al Qa’ida linked groups and anyone allied to them in order to ensure the Israeli government cannot tar them with the Al Qa’ida brush (41).

So it’s quite possible that even if the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt through elections (As opposed to taking power by force) that it would be considerably more moderate than the Taliban and no ally of Al Qa’ida.

Allowing them to take part in elections is likely to make them more moderate by strengthening the hand of those who prefer the peaceful political route and weakening that of those who say force is the only thing that can succeed. Banning them from participating in elections will increase recruitment to armed jihadist and terrorist groups.

There is no way to know what the results of democratic elections would be – but that is the whole point of democracy - to let the people of a country decide their own government. The Muslim Brotherhood would certainly get a significant number of votes and seats, but whether they would be the sole governing party, part of a coalition government, or the main opposition party can’t be known. While we can hope the Muslim Brotherhood don’t win elections, no-one has any right to tell the Egyptian people who they can or can’t vote for.

Once again, backing the dictatorship will not guarantee the Muslim Brotherhood will be excluded from power either. It makes it more likely that when the regime does fall it will do so in chaos that could allow the Brotherhood to seize power by force rather than a National Unity government allowing a transition  to democracy, as proposed by El Baradei.

This is not about getting Mubarak or else an Egyptian Taliban

We should also be sceptical of our governments using the excuse that they have to back dictatorships for fear of Islamic fundamentalists, given that they arm and support the Saudi dictatorship, who, even according to Clinton’s private admissions, provide the largest haven for funders of terrorism in the world; whose religious police force schoolgirls back into burning buildings to die rather than allow others to see them “improperly dressed”; and whose government backed the Taliban (42) – (44). The US government also continues to arm and fund Pakistan’s military, who have always funded and trained jihadist terrorist groups in India, Kashmir, Afghanistan – and in Pakistan itself, to intimidate the military’s secular civilian and moderate Muslim rivals for control of Pakistan’s government, public funds and foreign aid (45).

As El Baradei has said “This is what the regime ... sold to the West and to the U.S.: 'It's either us, repression or al Qaeda-type Islamists.” (46). The reality is that is not the only choice – and even if it was, it would be the choice of Egyptians. No-one else has the right to deny them the same democratic rights and freedoms they enjoy, to tell them they and their children must accept a corrupt government that tortures, kills and even rapes them and their children.

Time for the US government to stand for the freedom and democracy it claims to support

As El Baradei says “When you see today almost over 100,000 young people getting desperate, going to the streets, asking for their basic freedom, I expected to hear from secretary Clinton stuff like 'democracy, human rights, basic freedom' – all the stuff the US is standing for” (47)

 

Sources

(1) = Reuters 30 Jan 2011 ‘ElBaradei urges U.S. to abandon Mubarak’,http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/30/us-egypt-usa-elbaradei-idUSTRE70T30920110130?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

(2) = Lawrence Freedman (2008) ‘A Choice of Enemies’, Weidenfield & Nicolson, London, 2008, Chapter 4, especially pages 64 - 72

(3) = Kenneth M. Pollack ‘The Persian Puzzle’, Random House, New York, 2005, chapters 4 – 6

(4) = Amnesty USA 27 Jan 2011 ‘Egyptian Protests Day 3: Next Steps’, http://blog.amnestyusa.org/middle-east/egyptian-protests-day-3-next-steps/

(5) = Human Rights Watch 29 Jan 2011 ‘Egypt: End Use of Live Fire at Peaceful Protests’,
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/01/29/egypt-end-use-live-fire-peaceful-protests

(6) = Reuters 29 Jan 2011 ‘Death toll in Egypt's protests tops 100: sources’,http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/29/us-egypt-dead-idUSTRE70S3ZM20110129

(7) = Amnesty International 28 Jan 2011 ‘Egyptian authorities urged to rein in security forces’,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/egyptian-authorities-urged-rein-security-forces-2011-01-28

(8) = Human Rights Watch 25 Feb 2004 ‘Egypt’s Torture Epidemic’,
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/02/25/egypt-s-torture-epidemic

(9) = Amnesty International World Report 2010 – Country Report – Egypt,http://report2010.amnesty.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa and http://report2010.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=77

(10) = See (3) above

(11) = Al Jazeera 29 Jan 2011 ‘Looting spreads in Egyptian cities’,
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/2011129175926266521.html

(12) = Justice Commission for Algeria Nov 2004 ‘The Massacres in Algeria 1992-2004’, http://www.algeria-watch.org/pdf/pdf_en/massacres_algeria.pdf

(13) = Washington Post 09 May 2009 ‘Obama Picks Egypt as Speech Venue’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803843.html

(14) = Christian Science Monitor ‘$50 billion later, taking stock of US aid to Egypt’, http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html(15) = guardian.co.uk 27 Jan 2011 ‘Egypt braces itself for biggest day of protests yet’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/27/egypt-protests-biggest-day-yet

(16) = Christian Science Monitor ‘Joe Biden says Egypt's Mubarak no dictator, he shouldn't step down...’, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down

(17) = Go to the web page linked below and see sources (28) to (34) on it,
http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/sourcesofstability/

(18) = Guardian 29 Jan 2011 ‘White House warns $1.5bn aid to Egypt could be withdrawn’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/29/white-house-aid-egypt

(19) = BBC News 30 Jan 2011 ‘Egypt protests: Hillary Clinton urges 'orderly transition’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12319445

(20) = BBC News 27 Jan 2011 ‘Hague: Egyptian protests 'legitimate'’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9377000/9377641.stm

(21) = BBC News 29 Jan 2011 ‘Foreign Office warns against travel to parts of Egypt’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12310266

(22) = Time 28 Jan 2011 ‘Israel Has Faith Mubarak Will Prevail’, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044929,00.html

(23) = See (19) above

(24) = guardian.co.uk 07 Oct 2005 ‘UN nuclear watchdog wins Nobel peace prize’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/oct/07/energy.nuclearindustry

(25) = Guardian 15 Sep 2006 ‘IAEA says Congress report on Iran's nuclear capacity is erroneous and misleading’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/15/usa.iran

(26) = Reuters 19 Sep 2007 ‘Rice swipes at IAEA, urges bold action on Iran’,http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/19/us-iran-usa-rice-idUSN1822732020070919

(27) = guardian.co.uk 30 sep 2009 'No credible evidence' of Iranian nuclear weapons, says UN inspector’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/30/iranian-nuclear-weapons-mohamed-elbaradei

(28) = guardian.co.uk 31 Mar 2010 ‘Cautious reports on Tehran nuclear programme 'were framed to avoid war',http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/iran-nuclear-programme-cautious-language

(29) = Washington Post 12 Dec 2004 ‘IAEA Leader's Phone Tapped - U.S. Pores Over Transcripts to Try to Oust Nuclear Chief’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57928-2004Dec11?language=printer

(30) = guardian.co.uk 31 Mar 2010 ‘Mohamed ElBaradei hits out at west's support for repressive regimes’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/mohamed-elbaradei-tyrants-support-militants

(31) = guardian.co.uk 30 Nov 2010 ‘Julian Borger : Nuclear Wikileaks: Cables show cosy US relationship with IAEA chief’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks

(32) = guardian.co.uk 02 Dec 2010 ‘US embassy cables: New nuclear chief a 'once-a-decade' chance to shake up UN bureacracy’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/215499

(33) = guardian.co.uk 02 Dec 2010 ‘US embassy cables: UN nuclear chief promises to take a low-profile role on Iran’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/216128

(34) = Washington Post 01 Feb 2009 ‘A Conversation with Mohamed ElBaradei’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013003085_2.html

(35) = Reuters 30 Jan 2011 ‘ElBaradei urges U.S. to abandon Mubarak’, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/30/us-egypt-usa-elbaradei-idUSTRE70T30920110130?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

(36) = See the page linked below under Sub- heading ‘Mubarak and Son – a Family Dictatorship’ and sources 28 – 42 on it, http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/sourcesofstability/

(37) = The Daily Beast ‘Obama's Risky Path in Egypt’, http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-27/obamas-support-for-egypt-protesters-risks-a-key-ally/

(38) = Guardian 17 Jan 2007 ‘Turkey jails al-Qaida cell for consulate bomb’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/17/turkey.alqaida

(39) = Fawaz A Gerges (2005) ‘The Far Enemy – Why Jihad Went Global’, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005, pages 9 -10 (on torture and dictatorship radicalising people into terrorists and jihadists), pages 110- 116 – on Jihadist/terrorist groups and Islamic fundamentalist political parties hating and despising one another (and Bin Laden’s deputy Zawahiri hating the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood); pages 93 -4 on torture of Zawahiri by Egyptian dictatorship leading him to join Al Qa’ida to build organisation to take revenge

(40) = Loretta Napoleoni (2005) ‘Insurgent Iraq’ Constable & Robinson, London, 2005, Chapter 3 (pages 61 – 62 of paperback edition)

(41) = Observer 16 Aug 2009 ‘Hamas destroys al-Qaida group in violent Gaza battle’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/15/hamas-battle-gaza-islamists-al-qaida

(42) = guardian.co.uk 05 Dec 2010 ‘WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding

(43) = BBC News 15 Mar 2002 ‘Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1874471.stm

(44) = Rashid , Ahmed(2001) Taliban Tauris, London ,2001

(45) = See post linked below and sources for it, http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2009/10/use-bushs-methods-get-bushs-results.html

(46) = Reuters 30 Jan 2011 ‘ElBaradei urges U.S. to abandon Mubarak’, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/30/us-egypt-usa-elbaradei-idUSTRE70T30920110130?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

(47) = guardian.co.uk 27 Jan 2011 ‘Egypt braces itself for biggest day of protests yet’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/27/egypt-protests-biggest-day-yet