Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

[AlicetheKurious]

The poster in the final frame says, "Hey, Tantawy, tell Enan: there's a revolution in the Midan*"

*Midan Tahrir = Tahrir Square

(Field Marshal Hussein Tantawy is Defense Minister and heads the Armed Forces Council, but many people believe that he takes his orders from his real boss, Army Chief of Staff Sami Enan -- who has very close ties with Washington and who also happens to be very popular with the Muslim Brotherhood. Sami Enan is almost certainly Washington's choice to be Egypt's next president -- although they've learned from recent experience not to show their hand too soon.)

[JackRiddler]

.

Let's repeat that greatest post ever for the new page. Alice, Egypt, I salute you!

Truly Egypt is the land of miracles. We experienced one first-hand, yesterday.

The euphoria that accompanied the dictator's removal on February 11 had entirely dissipated. In the state media, nothing but bad news about the economy, about the emergence of crazy fanatic groups and sectarian violence, crime out of control, rising poverty, politics in disarray, confusing and contradictory reports about the legal proceedings against leaders of the "former" regime, etc., etc. The people seemed hopelessly divided and angry; some were openly blaming the revolution for every problem, including traffic and the refusal of children to do as they're told. The government seemed unwilling or unable to do its job -- all the ministries seemed paralyzed, ineffective and confused about what to do.

The worst, however, was the dawning suspicion (hardening into certainty) among others -- including me -- that the revolution had been hijacked before our very eyes: the masses, and those who had led it and sacrificed so much for it were being locked out of the decision-making process. Instead, it became very obvious that the Armed Forces Council and the Muslim Brotherhood, both of whom were taken entirely by surprise by the revolution and had initially refused to join it, and neither of whom have ever evidenced the slightest interest in "democracy" had somehow managed to take it over and were rapidly laying the foundation for a new dictatorship in a different guise.

First, you have to understand that the Armed Forces Council consists of individuals who are by definition authoritarian, extremely conservative and secretive (we don't even know all their names!!), who have reaped enormous personal and institutional benefits from their close relationship with the United States and, by virtue of the Army's vast business holdings in Egypt (some experts estimate that it controls around 40% of the Egyptian economy), comprise a significant part of Egypt's capitalist elite. At the same time, journalists are legally forbidden to write about the army's top leadership, let alone describe their personal fortunes or criticize them in any way; workers in the many army-owned factories are forbidden by law to form labor unions; and the army has its own parallel police and judiciary that operate according to its own rules on any matter related to "national security", which it has been allowed to define at will.

The Muslim Brotherhood, like the army, has an extremely authoritarian, top-down structure, it is also very secretive, especially at the top. Its leaders enjoy close personal and political ties to elites in the rich oil-producing Gulf states. Paradoxically, the Muslim Brotherhood has long had a populist image because like the army, its regular members are ordinary Egyptians from all classes. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood and the army are both widely considered free of the taint of corruption (bordering on debauchery) that was associated with the Mubarak regime's political elite, and both claim to be national guardians and defenders: the army's sacred mission being to protect Egypt's borders, while the Muslim Brothers' equally sacred mission being to guard Egypt's moral and religious integrity.

For the first four days of the revolution, both were literally paralyzed with panic. The uprising was determinedly non-sectarian, anti-authoritarian, and its key demands were secular and democratic, for a political and economic transformation. By the night of the fourth day, however, the Muslim Brotherhood could see which way the wind was blowing and decided to adjust its sail accordingly. When one of the panicked revolutionary youth, Nawara Negm, telephoned former Muslim Brotherhood Member of Parliament Mohamed Beltagui in the middle of the night on January 28-29 and begged him to do something because they were being attacked by armed thugs in Tahrir Square, the Muslim Brotherhood grabbed the chance: within an hour, thousands of Muslim Brotherhood youths were rushing to Tahrir Square to defend the besieged protesters, which they did bravely and effectively, earning them instant respect and admiration among the vast majority of Egyptians (including me).

Meanwhile, at the army headquarters a decision had been taken, either independently or more likely at the instigation of the US, to ditch Mubarak. Being extremely cautious by nature, however, the army wouldn't burn its bridges just in case Mubarak could somehow manage to turn things around: while sending encouraging messages to the revolutionaries, the army took a "neutral" stance, refusing to attack the revolutionaries but at the same time refusing to defend them from the weapons of the regime's security forces and mercenary thugs. It was only when workers rose up across the nation that they stepped in decisively and ordered Mubarak out. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the army leadership suddenly found itself hailed as guardians and defenders of the revolution.

To cut a long story short, the army found itself in charge of a country in upheaval, under immense pressure to meet impossibly conflicting demands. The Americans ordered the army to provide a "peaceful transition" to a superficially democratic new regime that will provide internal stability while ensuring that the US' and Israel's interests were not affected. The people charged the army with simply carrying out their demands for genuinely revolutionary transformation, including a radical shift in the nation's economic and foreign policies that would remove it decisively from the Western (and Israeli) sphere of influence. Suddenly and with no preparation, the army found itself thrust into the spotlight, its leaders forced to communicate with and explain and defend their decisions to a suddenly assertive public, something that they have no experience or skills at doing, and which freaked them out.

What to do? What to do? I believe that at this point, the Muslim Brotherhood approached the Armed Forces Council with what must have seemed like a perfect plan: if the Armed Forces Council would play along and "give" them the next parliament, and thus the power to oversee the creation of Egypt's new constitution, the Muslim Brotherhood would ensure that the army got the nation's presidency, and everybody would be happy. The people would have their "democracy", with genuinely elected leaders to run their internal affairs, the Muslim Brothers would dominate the country's internal politics and at the same time the president would prevent any serious change to the country's foreign policy or general direction.

The Muslim Brotherhood's main selling-point was that they had the street creds and the disciplined cadres and the populist support to deliver voters. What they wanted from the Armed Forces Council was to take advantage of its temporary but absolute power to shape the legal and security landscape to promote the Brotherhood and prevent other players, especially the revolutionary and liberal elements, from mounting an effective challenge.

I believe that the Armed Forces Council, cautious as ever, decided to test whether the Muslim Brotherhood could walk the walk, not just talk the talk, and that the March 19th referendum on constitutional amendments was this test. The subject of the referendum was 8 amendments to the old constitution, almost all dealing with personal qualifications for presidential candidates (like he or she can't have a foreign spouse, etc.), none dealing with presidential powers or other substantive issues. Bizarrely, the Muslim Brotherhood fought for the "yes" camp as though their very lives depended on it. On the other side, almost all the revolution's leadership, as well as the religious leadership of the Copts, liberals, secularists, businesspeople, and labor unions supported the "no" side, arguing that the old constitution was tailor-made for a dictatorship and, since the revolution had nullified it, it was crazy to re-legitimize it with a few minor amendments.

But the Muslim Brotherhood (and the Armed Forces Council) played dirty. While the Armed Forces Council gave people only a few days to even read the amendments and then rigidly enforced a legal clampdown on any media coverage 48 hours before the referendum, the Muslim Brothers were allowed to hang enormous banners in the poorest neighborhoods proclaiming a "yes" vote to be a religious duty, and to distribute pamphlets and food packages in green bags with "YES" printed on them. Then they mobilized rural preachers in village mosques and got the Salafists on board in popular neighborhoods. Like Tea Partiers in the US identifying universal health care as an insidious communist plot, they claimed that the real reason the "no" camp wants to get rid of the old constitution is because of Article 2, which Sadat inserted and which says, "Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its language." The "no" camp's protests that they have no problem with Article 2 fell on deaf ears. They supplemented the religious appeals with arguments to the middle class that the "yes" vote means "yes" to economic and political stability and that "no" means prolonging the uncertainty. Another of their effective talking points was that a "no" vote would alienate the Armed Forces Council, but that a "yes" vote would affirm the public's support for the AFC and at the same time speed up their withdrawal from civilian politics.

Bottom line, the Muslim Brotherhood ran a campaign for the "yes" vote that was a masterpiece of deceit and demagoguery. When the votes were counted, 77.8% had voted "yes" and 22.2% had voted "no". The "no" camp didn't see it coming and emerged shell-shocked from the experience. In contrast, the Muslim Brotherhood dropped its conciliatory and humble mask and began talking and acting like they owned the country. As for the Armed Forces Council, clearly it had seen enough. Suddenly it began issuing law after law that violated the spirit and every principle of the revolution and ignoring the consequent outcry. In each case, all the political forces were opposed, except for the Muslim Brotherhood, which enthusiastically supported them. Tellingly, the Armed Forces Council, after declaring the results to be a triumph of democracy, nullified the results by issuing a "Constitutional Decree" comprising 62 clauses which voters had never seen before and had certainly not voted on. The Muslim Brotherhood solemnly hailed the Armed Forces Council's allegiance to the revolution and to democracy.

It was during this same period that Egypt began experiencing a bizarre and unprecedented outbreak of sectarian attacks against churches and mosques, to which the Armed Forces Council responded with inexplicable passivity. The state media began issuing alarmist headlines about the imminent collapse of the economy, and for the first time it became acceptable for state-owned newspapers, radio and television to attack the revolution and accuse its instigators of "sowing chaos" and destroying the country. "Soon, because of you, we will all become beggars!" they screamed. Those economic experts and political analysts who tried to respond with facts and logic, were banned and relegated to the few independent media outlets and the internet. Still reeling in the aftermath of the March 19 referendum, and struggling to deal with the rapid-fire emergence of seemingly random crises, the revolutionaries found themselves on the defensive at every turn and treated with arrogance and contempt by both the Armed Forces Council and their strutting partners, the Muslim Brotherhood.

It took a while, but sometime during the past two weeks or so, the revolutionaries were finally able to overcome their denial, and fully recover from the referendum fiasco. The actions of the Armed Forces Council and the Muslim Brotherhood, and all the seemingly random pieces suddenly clicked together seamlessly and the picture became all too clear. They became angry, and began to fight back. The internet and the independent media raged with accusations against both, backed with documents, video clips and eyewitness testimonies. Clearly, the regime was still in place and this time the people will not be pacified until it was well and truly cleaned out. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

A date was set, May 27th, to revive the revolution and to demonstrate that its demands are not negotiable. The state media instantly reverted to its true role, with wall-to-wall lies and cheap propaganda on behalf of power. The government ministers who were associated with the Mubarak regime issued dire warnings about the disastrous cost to the nation of further instability caused by "irresponsible elements". The Muslim Brotherhood shrilly accused the revolutionaries of "ignoring the people's will" as manifested in the referendum results and of trying to create a new dictatorship in the name of the revolution. They accused people of disloyalty to the great "people's army" and of conspiring to create dangerous divisions between Egypt's armed forces and its people. The Salafists issued dire warnings about "infidels and Liberals" trying to destroy Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists ordered all Muslims to boycott the demonstration. Instead, they called for a massive counter-demonstration near Al-Azhar "In Support of the Armed Forces Council".

Even Field Marshal Tantawy took the unprecedented step of speaking directly to the people on tv (most people had never even heard his voice before), to warn people that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy and further demonstrations will only speed up the collapse. Military police began to arrest activists distributing pamphlets calling for the demonstrations on May 27. Finally, as the public anger continued to escalate, the Armed Forces Council began to backtrack a bit, making conciliatory but cosmetic and easily reversible gestures towards people's demands. Then they issued "Communique #58" warning people that on Friday, May 27th, the armed forces would be occupied guarding public property and would not be able to secure any demonstrations or protect the people who participated in them. At the same time, they ominously claimed that there were "indications" that "suspicious elements" "might" be planning to infiltrate or violently attack the demonstrators. I wouldn't even call it a covert threat. It was really quite a campaign; I think they used everything they had to prevent people from going out.

Even the biggest "opposition" party under Mubarak got into the act: it decided to hold its leadership elections on the other side of town at the same time as the planned demonstration.

By yesterday morning, most people were expecting a bloodbath, if indeed anybody was foolhardy enough to show up. The tension was unbelievable. I was so worked up that I decided that no matter what, I was going. I told my husband that he could come with me or not, but I'd be there -- I was damned if I'd let the bastards prance in and pluck the country out of the dead hands of the martyrs who had died and all the thousands who had paid in blood for this country to be free. He moaned and groaned and tried to make me feel guilty about the kids, but this time I wasn't having it. I told him he could stay in that restaurant near Tahrir Square and we'd keep in touch by phone.

As our car approached downtown, I strained to see Tahrir Square. It was still early, and I could make out some large banners, but there didn't seem to be many people. To make things worse, the temperature was already scorching and the sun was unbearably hot, which by itself would keep a lot of people away. My husband said, "See? Nobody's coming." My heart was pounding, because today would either demonstrate that the Muslim Brotherhood was right, and they do indeed control "the street", or it would mark a turning point for the people taking their revolution and their country back. The Armed Forces Council would be forced to pay attention to us again, or else.

We parked in front of the restaurant and went in to find it full of journalists and columnists from Egyptian, Arabic and European media, cadres from various leftist parties, dissident authors and artists, all smiling and friendly but clearly anxious at the same time, just like me. I asked the owner to turn the channel to the wonderful "Tahrir" satellite tv station, which I have come to depend on for reliable coverage of events in Egypt, and he did. The Square wasn't very full, but I and an old activist and veteran of many of Egypt's wars decided to walk there together. The sun really was unforgiving, which is quite normal for this time of year.

When he and I arrived, people were getting ready for Friday prayers, some performing their ablutions with bottled water, others spreading their prayer rugs or even newspapers on the ground. It was still a crowd, but nothing compared to those preceding or even immediately following Mubarak's removal. We walked around a bit, reading the various banners and signs outlining the revolution's demands, most prominently for a constitution first, before parliamentary or presidential elections. Another important demand was for real justice and impartial application of the law, and for the release of political prisoners and an end to military trials for civilians. Some signs demanded a civilian-led presidential council to replace the Armed Forces Council.

We didn't stay long, it was so hot and the prayers were about to start, so we went back to the restaurant, where I gratefully accepted an ice-cold beer, followed by two glasses of water, and talked and joked a bit with some activists. Ahmed, a young man who's been at the heart of the revolution from day one, was at his laptop. "Why aren't you in the Square?" I asked him. "Are you kidding? I'm running Tahrir Square from here!" he laughed, patting his computer. I said hi to a reporter I've met before from Al-Jazeera Arabic and said to him, "When are you people going to stop shoving the Muslim Brotherhood down our throats?" He said, "Give me a break, I'm doing what I can without getting fired!" People were walking past the restaurant towards Tahrir, and I decided to go back, this time for good.

This time, I couldn't believe my eyes. The square was filling up so fast, and still people were coming, streaming in from every direction. Several stages were set up and on each one people were making speeches, each one more amazing and inspiring than the other. The Tahrir tv station had its own stage, and there, a famous movie director was debunking the lies of the Muslim Brotherhood, who claim that they were the ones who defended the demonstrators from attack on February 2nd (the infamous "Camel Attack") -- he said that he was there and saw with his own eyes the people who defended the square that day, and they were all ordinary citizens unaffiliated with any political movement or group. Over and over, people chanted, "Muslim, Christian, we are one hand!" There were Muslim clerics, Coptic priests, people from all walks of life, some desperately poor, some obviously rich. It was Tahrir Square all over again. There were even some Salafists there, and women wearing the niqab. I had the ridiculous urge to ask them, "Don't you know this demonstration is only for ungodly infidels and communists?" I was so excited, I found myself shouting out loud and clapping and smiling at everybody.

Gradually, I became aware of something very strange. The sky had clouded over and a gentle, cool breeze had started. Suddenly the temperature was very comfortable. This was incredible -- this late in the spring, grey skies are very rare and besides, the weather forecasts had predicted clear skies and temperatures of 39 degrees Celsius (just over 102 Farenheit). To make things even weirder, a few drops of deliciously refreshing rain fell on us. The crowd was getting bigger and bigger. A parade walked past, made up of around 30 people carrying a huge flag horizontally over their heads and chanting; some of the signs were humorous, others were dead serious. A prominent banner said, "Armed Forces = Ours; Armed Forces Council = Theirs." One young man carried a large photo of a middle-aged bearded sheikh with the words, "I want my father" printed underneath. I looked at him and laughed out loud, because I thought it was a joke alluding to the Salafists' slogan "I want my sister," about the female converts to Islam who are allegedly kidnapped by the Church. Then, as I turned away, it struck me that this was not a joke, that his father had either been arrested or killed. I quickly went back to him and told him I was sorry, that I had misunderstood. He smiled at me and said, "No need to apologize, you light up the Square." I smiled back and said to him, "God bless you" and continued walking around, savoring "the voice of freedom" and the joyful relief of knowing that the prayers I hadn't even dared to make, had been answered beautifully.

Much later, as I walked back to the restaurant, going against the flow of people heading towards the square, my worries and fears had completely been washed away. The restaurant was now packed tight with people in a celebratory, even exultant mood. Some of the activists were being interviewed on the phone by tv news stations and they were shouting out above the din, "Today the people have spoken loud and clear and declared that the revolution belongs to THEM, not to the Armed Forces Council, nor the Muslim Brotherhood nor any other selfish opportunists!" Lots of people were remarking about the strange weather and one well-known political analyst said to me, "It turns out God is a Liberal, after all!" I laughed and said, "No, God is a secularist!"

That evening, I watched the coverage on tv. I didn't even bother to watch the state tv, but turned first to al-Jazeera Direct Egypt, to savor the blustering bald-faced lies of the Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, who claimed that the Brotherhood had most certainly NOT boycotted the demonstration, in response to the nearly gleeful interventions of the other guests. It was hilarious, listening to him telling them that this hostile interpretation of the day's events is unnecessarily divisive and undemocratic.

Then I turned to the Tahrir tv station, where I was able to see the pathetic demonstration that the Brotherhood had organized near al-Azhar. I'm not usually vindictive, but after all their antics and their puffery, and their betrayal of the revolution, they sure deserve to be exposed and shamed, and they sure are. The rest of the coverage was all about the magnificent day's events in Tahrir Square and all around our great nation.

We were knocked down for a while, but now we're back.

[AlicetheKurious]

I'm going to stage a beverage riot if there isn't a fresh shipment of Fayrouz in Vancouver before summer arrives.

Most unfortunately, Fayrouz is produced by Al-Ahram Beverages, which was owned by the Egyptian state before it was sold to Heineken International as part of the Mubarak regime's privatization policy.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I'm going to stage a beverage riot if there isn't a fresh shipment of Fayrouz in Vancouver before summer arrives.

Most unfortunately, Fayrouz is produced by Al-Ahram Beverages, which was owned by the Egyptian state before it was sold to Heineken International as part of the Mubarak regime's privatization policy.

Big beer companies ruin beer.

Jack's right about "best post ever" btw.

I had a tear in my eye after reading that, in a good way.

[Allegro]

The poster in the final frame says, "Hey, Tantawy, tell Enan: there's a revolution in the Midan*"

*Midan Tahrir = Tahrir Square...

Thank you, Alice, for the music and poetry from people in the Square. Listening, still listening.[REFER.]

[AlicetheKurious]

The IMF versus the Arab spring

Austin Mackell
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 May 2011 15.39 BST

The IMF is depicted as the rich uncle saving wayward children, but proposed loans for Egypt and Tunisia could be devastating


The IMF issued very positive reports about Tunisia, Egypt and Libya shortly before the uprisings. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

In the midst of the media storm surrounding IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn last week, my feelings were perfectly expressed in a tweet by Paul Kingsnorth: "Could someone please arrest the head of the IMF for screwing the poor for 60 years?"

Without diminishing the seriousness of the sexual allegations against Strauss-Kahn, the role of the IMF, over past decades and at present, is a far bigger story. Of particular importance is its role at this crucial moment in the Middle East.

The new loans being negotiated for Egypt and Tunisia will lock both countries into long-term economic strategies even before the first post-revolution elections have been held. Given the IMF's history, we should expect these to have devastating consequences on the Egyptian and Tunisian people. You wouldn't guess it though, from the scant and largely fawning coverage the negotiations have so far received.

The pattern is to depict the IMF like a rich uncle showing up to save the day for some wayward child. This Dickensian scene is completed with the IMF adding the sage words that this time it hopes to see growth on the "streets" not just the "spreadsheets". It's almost as if the problem had been caused by these regimes failing to follow the IMF's teachings.

Such portrayals are credulous to the point of being ahistorical. They do not even mention, for example, the very positive reports the IMF had issued about both Tunisia and Egypt (along with Libya and others) in the months, weeks, and even days before the uprisings.

To some extent, though, the IMF is aware that its policies contributed to the desperation that so many Egyptians and Tunisians currently face, and is keen to distance itself from its past. Indeed, as IMF watchers will know, this is part of a new image that the IMF, along with its sister organisation the World Bank, has been working on for a while. The changes, so far, do not go beyond spin. You can't, as they say, polish a turd – but you can roll it in glitter.

Take, for example, the heartwarming IMF and civil society webpage, which as early as August 2007 was noting that civil society groups, by and large, "believe that global institutions also need to be accountable to a broader definition of stakeholders to be effective and legitimate".

Why then, is the IMF not (as Mohamed Trabelsi, of the International Labour Organisation's North Africa office, suggested when I interviewed him recently in Cairo) meeting the civil society groups and unions in Egypt and Tunisia? It would rather make backroom deals with Mubarak-appointed finance minister, Samir Radwan, and the generals currently running Egypt who are themselves members of an the economic elite that sees its privilege threatened by the approach of democracy.

Beginning in the 1990s, IMF-led structural adjustment programmes saw the privatisation of the bulk of the Egyptian textile industry and the slashing of its workforce from half a million to a quarter-million. What's more, the workers who were left faced – like the rest of Egypt – stagnant wages as the price of living rocketed. Though you wouldn't know it from western coverage, the long and gallant struggle of these workers, particularly the strike of textile workers of Mahalla el-Kubra, is credited by many Egyptian activists as a crucial step on the Egyptian people's path towards revolution.

This failure to appreciate the revolutions as a rebellion not just against local dictators, but against the global neo-liberal programme they were implementing with such gusto in their countries, is largely a product of how we on the western left have been unwitting orientalists, and allowed the racist "clash of civilisations" narrative to define our perceptions of the Middle East. We have failed to see the people of the region as natural allies in a common struggle.

It is this blindness that makes the revolutions appear as instantaneous explosions, like switches suddenly flicked, rather than as events in a continuum. A good place to start the story, if you want it to make sense, would be the Egyptian bread riots of 1977, which came following an initial round of economic liberalisation (which was as much a part of Sadat's change of cold war allegiances as his salute to the Israeli flag in Jerusalem). It should not have surprised us that as people's struggle to survive grew more and more grinding following the IMF-led reforms of the subsequent decades they would rise up once more.

Nor should we surprised at the moneyed fightback, which will no doubt be attempted. During this transition period, forces like the IMF will seek to lock in and enlarge the neoliberal project before there is an accountable government to complain about it.

The example of South Africa, as documented by Naomi Klein, immediately springs to mind. The ANC's famous Freedom Charter, she points out, contained many demands for economic justice including the provision of housing and health care, and the nationalisation of major industries. However, while Nelson Mandela was negotiating the structure of the new parliament, Thabo Mbeke was busy in economic talks with FW de Klerk's government during which, in Klein's words, he was persuaded "to hand control of those power centres to supposedly impartial experts, economists and officials from the IMF, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the National Party – anyone except the liberation fighters from the ANC".

The team of ANC economists busy drawing up their plan would find themselves unable to implement it once the party was in government. The consequences for South Africans have been disastrous.

These new loans from the IMF threaten to bind the newly democratic Egypt and Tunisia in much the same way. Once more, local elites could collaborate with the institutions at the helm of global capitalism to screw the broader population. If this occurs, these revolutions will be robbed of much of their meaning, and a terrible blow will be dealt to the broader Arab spring. Link

[lupercal]

^ Alice the new loans are coming from development banks, like the World Bank, and the IMF is not a development bank, so I don't know about the accuracy of that Guardian article (the Guardian is a propaganda organ, and that reads like propaganda, but it's a common mistake). In any case, Egypt's new leaders have themselves sought out these loans, and on a scale that dwarfs Mubarak's borrowing by an order of magnitude:

Egypt seeking loans from IMF, World Bank: minister
By Omar Hasan (AFP) – Apr 26, 2011

KUWAIT CITY — Egypt is talking to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to secure loans worth around $6 billion, Cairo's Finance Minister Samir Redwan said on Tuesday.

"We are negotiating with IMF for loans of between $3-4 billion and with World Bank for about $2.2 billion," Redwan told reporters in Kuwait on the sidelines of a meeting of the Egyptian premier with Kuwaiti businessmen.

Redwan is a member of a high-level Egyptian delegation headed by Prime Minister Essam Sharaf visiting Kuwait as part of a Gulf tour. They have visited Saudi Arabia and will be in Qatar on Wednesday.

The minister said that Cairo is also seeking aid from Arab countries, but "nothing yet."

The Egyptian delegation will request an additional $100 million in soft loans from the state-run Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development, Redwan said.

He said he would meet the director of Kuwait Investment Authority, the sovereign wealth fund managing investments estimated at $300 billion, to urge more Kuwaiti investment in Egypt.

The Egyptian delegation would also hold talks with the Kuwait-based Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.

A senior IMF official said last week the fund is studying the needs of Tunisia and Egypt with an eye to helping them rebuild after their revolutions.

"The Egyptian authorities estimate that they have a financing requirement of about $10 to 12 billion over the period running through to June 2012," said Masood Ahmed, IMF director for the Middle East and Central Asia.

"We are discussing and... are happy to provide a financing, but there is this process of trying to find what is the nature of this financing they could mobilise before making a firm decision whether and what kind of financing they might need from us."

Both countries earlier this year saw popular revolts overthrow strongmen who had been in power for decades.

Redwan expected Egypt to have real growth of two-percent this year and around four percent in 2012, while budget deficit is estimated to hit as high as $10 billion next year.

During the meeting at Kuwait Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Egypt's premier promised to resolve obstacles to investment in the country following the overthrow of former president Hosni Mubarak.

He vowed to adopt complete "transparency and very clear rules" regarding the treatment of foreign investments.

Sharaf said Egypt's economy is passing through a "bottleneck," but stressed that foreign investment will increase once these obstacles are resolved.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... bac545.331

[lupercal]

I think it is your comment above which is "irrelevant", not mine.

Possibly though unlikely, but I'm glad you've discovered the difference between the IMF and World Bank. As to the relevance of my posts on Egypt may I take this opportunity to modestly point out that:

1) I was the first here to bring attention to the Coptic church bombing in Alexandria last Jan. 1, on Jan. 1: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30725&p=374723

2) I was the first here to point out that Egypt had been targeted for regime change, and to predict the outcome, on Jan. 17:

Anyway Alice I was just getting on to say that as much as I know you don't want to hear this, it sounds from what you're reporting here and in the church bombing thread that Egypt has also been targeted for destabilization and possible regime change, which accords with Elliot Abram's "prediction" upthread. And as much as that might sound desirable in prospect I doubt very much whether you'll like what you see when the dust settles.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30865&p=377877

3) And, of course, I was the first here to call bullshit on Tunisia's bogus Jasmine Revolution, and the first to predict that Egypt's coup d'etat would be dubbed the Lotus Revolution, which it seems it has:

Lotus Revolution is a term currently used by various western news sources to describe the protests in Egypt that forced President Mubarak to step down in 2011 as part of the 2010–2011 Arab world protests, which followed the Jasmine Revolution of Tunisia. Lotus is known as the flower representing resurrection, life and the sun of ancient Egypt. It is uncertain who gave the name, while columnist of Arabic press, Asharq Alawsat, and prominent Egyptian opposition leader Saad Eddin Ibrahim claimed to name it the Lotus Revolution. Lotus Revolution later became common on western news source such as CNN.[4] Other names, such as White Revolution and Nile Revolution, are used but are minor terms compare to Lotus Revolution, currently common in Arabic and Western media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

So by any objective standard it appears that as posts go mine have been particularly relevant if not downright prescient, now that I look back on them. Fancy that.

[barracuda]

1) I was the first

2) I was the first

3) And, of course, I was the first

[AlicetheKurious]

And, of course, I was the first here to call bullshit on Tunisia's bogus Jasmine Revolution, and the first to predict that Egypt's coup d'etat would be dubbed the Lotus Revolution, which it seems it has:

Lotus Revolution is a term currently used by various western news sources to describe the protests in Egypt that forced President Mubarak to step down in 2011 as part of the 2010–2011 Arab world protests, which followed the Jasmine Revolution of Tunisia. Lotus is known as the flower representing resurrection, life and the sun of ancient Egypt. It is uncertain who gave the name, while columnist of Arabic press, Asharq Alawsat, and prominent Egyptian opposition leader Saad Eddin Ibrahim claimed to name it the Lotus Revolution. Lotus Revolution later became common on western news source such as CNN.[4] Other names, such as White Revolution and Nile Revolution, are used but are minor terms compare to Lotus Revolution, currently common in Arabic and Western media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

So by any objective standard it appears that as posts go mine have been particularly relevant if not downright prescient, now that I look back on them. Fancy that.

You really take the cake, lupercal, for seeing only what you want to see, regardless of the facts. Mubarak's Egypt was a "treasure" not only for Israel and the US, but also for the IMF and the World Bank -- do you really believe that, ever again, the World Bank and the IMF will directly control Egypt's economy through not one, but two cabinet ministers? (Mubarak's Investment Minister Mahmoud Mohieddin, who was at the same time Managing Director of the World Bank, and Finance Minister Youssef Boutros Ghali, aka Chairman of the International Monetary and Finance Committee at the IMF) Neither was in any way accountable to anybody but the absolute dictator who was controlled by the same puppet-masters who controlled them.

The bloodsuckers lost their best "friends" ever -- and all they got in return is a people awakened and fighting mad and spitting at the very mention of the World Bank and the IMF. Don't bet on the plodding milquetoast Samir Radwan being able to sign any agreement with the IMF -- unless they have a witness protection program to hide him away forever from the people who'll string him up from a lamp-post in Tahrir Square if he even tries.

As for the "Lotus" thing, Egyptians don't use that expression. If you don't want to out yourself as either an ignoramus or a (witting or unwitting) agent for the counter-revolution, you should call it either "The Egyptian Revolution" or "The January 25th Revolution", as Egyptians do. As-Sharq al-Awsat is a mouthpiece for the Saudi royals, whose fear and loathing for the Egyptian revolution is comparable only to Israel's. Saad Eddin Ibrahim is a prick who has long outlived his usefulness even to the CIA, and his relevance to Egypt, although he keeps trying to insert himself anyway. How embarrassing for him. And for you, that you consider these at all representative.

[lupercal]

Neither was in any way accountable to anybody but the absolute dictator who was controlled by the same puppet-masters who controlled them.

Alice you must realize that this makes no sense? If Mubarak was an absolute dictator, then he wasn't a puppet. If he was a puppet, then his ministers weren't accountable to him. I know it seems harsh but there's a huge amount of cognitive dissonance in your accounts of Mubarak which, given the degree to which I imagine Egypt has been propagandized, is completely understandable.

Don't bet on the plodding milquetoast Samir Radwan being able to sign any agreement with the IMF

Oh he'll get his $2.2 billion alright, and more, far more:

G-8 Finds $40 Billion for Arab Spring From Development Banks, Direct Aid
May 27, 2011


Group of Eight leaders pledged to support pro-democracy movements in North Africa, announcing a mix of loans from international development banks and direct aid totaling at least $40 billion.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy invited delegations from the two countries at the vanguard of the so-called Arab Spring movement to attend the second day of the G-8 summit he is hosting in the Channel coastal resort of Deauville, saying the success of Egypt and Tunisia is “absolutely crucial.”

Institutions such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank could provide more than $20 billion for Egypt and Tunisia through 2013, including 3.5 billion euros ($5 billion) from the European Investment Bank, to support “suitable reform efforts,” said a statement today on the so- called Arab Spring after a two-day summit in the French seaside resort of Deauville.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in a press conference, said G-8 countries will provide another $10 billion in direct aid to Tunisia and Egypt, and that oil exporting countries in the Gulf such as Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will kick in another $10 billion. Those figures weren’t included in the communique.

Egypt and Tunisia have seen foreign investment plunge and tourism suffer since toppling their autocratic leaders this year, threatening economic instability as war rages in neighboring Libya. The International Monetary Fund says the region will need more than $160 billion over the next two years.

Hosted by Sarkozy, the fellow leaders of the G-8 nations -- the U.S., Russia, Italy, the U.K., Germany, Canada and Japan -- agreed to set up a “partnership” with the region to encourage the transition to democracy and foster “short-term economic stability.”

Sarkozy, who invited the interim leaders of Tunisia and Egypt as well as representatives of the IMF, the World Bank and Arab League to the second day of the summit that ended today, said the success of the two countries at the vanguard of the Arab Spring is “absolutely crucial."

Encouraging the fragile democracy in both countries “is the most important issue at this G-8,” Sarkozy told reporters in Deauville.

The promise of support was one of the main goals of President Barack Obama heading into the summit. Obama last week promised Egypt $1 billion in loan guarantees through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the cancellation of $1 billion in debt, about a third of what Egypt owes the U.S.

The European Union said two days ago it would increase aid to countries in North Africa and to the east of the 27-nation bloc by 1.2 billion euros. Sarkozy said France’s share of the direct aid is 1 billion euros. Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany will contribute as much as 300 million euros, with the emphasis on creating jobs for young people in the region.

“What’s important now is to get the money to the people quickly,” Merkel told reporters in Deauville. The EU should set up “new, fast and efficient structures” to get the aid flowing.

Britain will provide Egypt, Tunisia and other Arab nations with 110 million pounds ($180 million) of aid over four years to encourage political and economic development, Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said yesterday.

Germany, Europe’s largest economy, doesn’t view debt cancellation as the right approach, said an official attending the summit who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are confidential.

“Most of the aid that will be delivered quite frankly will be done through multilateral channels,” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters last night. “Debt forgiveness really would not be a particularly useful tool in terms of what we could do in this region.”

(snip)

“More important than any numerical figure, I think, is the vision that it lays out,” he said. “This is largely a case of trade not aid, investment not assistance over time. It’s really about establishing the conditions under which the private sectors in these economies can flourish and the benefits of growth are broadly shared.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-2 ... nisia.html

Which is what I've been saying all along: it's all about the banks and "establishing the conditions under which the private sectors in these economies can flourish," a.k.a. privatization, period. Oh and nipping any kind of Arab-African union in the bud, or heaven forbid an Arab-African currency. It has nothing, but nothing, to do with democracy. Democracy is just a Trojan horse, like it was in Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, and every other unlucky nation hit with a glorious fake "people-powered" revolution.

p.s. for an idea of what I fear lies ahead for Tunisia, Egypt, and, it seems, Yemen, I put together a little preview: Let's look in on Kyrgystan, shall we?

p.p.s. last point: Operation Ajax was about the same damn thing -- getting rid of that awful commie Mosaddegh so his puppet successor could re-privatize APOC, currently named BP.

[AlicetheKurious]

Alice you must realize that this makes no sense? If Mubarak was an absolute dictator, then he wasn't a puppet. If he was a puppet, then his ministers weren't accountable to him.

Are you doing that on purpose?

[Nordic]

Alice, I've seen for days now you had put up new posts in this thread and I was waiting for the right time to read them, because I wanted to have the time to really sit down and enjoy them.

Now I have. Thank you. You provide us a window into this universe which we would otherwise simply not have! And you're a great writer.

(blowing you lots of kisses)

[eyeno]

Alice you must realize that this makes no sense? If Mubarak was an absolute dictator, then he wasn't a puppet. If he was a puppet, then his ministers weren't accountable to him.

Are you doing that on purpose?

Lupercal I fully support your desire to put forth patterns you believe you see. This however is a very flawed model you have put forth.

Hierarchy is what it is. Mubarak can be both a dictator and a puppet at the same time due to the layered hierarchy of control structures. Mubarak can be a dictator to those below him, and also a puppet of higher powers, such as the powers of money lending interests he served. Nothing here is exclusive of another thing. Mubarak can be both a puppet and dictator.

It all depends on how high or low a person may be in the hierarchy. One man's puppet is another man's dictator.

[Peachtree Pam]

I'm not alone in wishing the World Bank et al would stay the hell away from us and shove their money up their collective asses. They were the ones who partnered first with Sadat and then with Mubarak to loot and destroy the Egyptian economy in the first place.

Don't be naive, lupercal. These guys are predators. When they "offer" nations money, it's like a fisherman offering a juicy worm to a fish. What they want to do to the so-called "Arab Spring" is kill it dead and stomp on the corpse.

Alice, telling it like it is!

Lupercal wrote:
^ PP I suppose this has something to do with DSK, so let me say a) I have no disagreement with Alice on this particular point, as I said above, and b) the World Bank, which is run by US-appointed directors and was chartered to make development loans like this one, is not the IMF, which until now at least has been run by European-appointed directors and was chartered to regulate the currencies of developed nations. In other words, I get your point, but it happens to be irrelevant.

Unfortunately, you "supposed" wrong. I was congratulating Alice on her pungent, accurate description of the actions of the World Bank, not those of the IMF, although the objectives of both institutions are much the same.

My post had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with DSK. I always post any comments on DSK under the appropriate thread.

I think it is your comment above which is "irrelevant", not mine.

Possibly though unlikely, but I'm glad you've discovered the difference between the IMF and World Bank.

Lupercal, why do you post on RI? Is your objective to insult, confuse, and denigrate people who are seriously trying to find out the truth of what is happening in the world and why certain actions are taking place?

You are a joke.