U.S. does not support freedom in Egypt By Christoph R. Horstel

[Farrah Zafar]

With courage, enthusiasm and readiness to endure police brutalities and other hardships, the Egyptian people have managed to oust their hitherto nearly unchallenged president Hosni Mubarak and his son Gamal as designated political heir plus assurances for substantial changes in the constitution, a referendum and more attention to the needs of the poor. So far, so good.

But are we sure, how much freedom and social justice this new constitution will grant the people? How do we know, that the next set of government measures will gradually overcome the widening gap between rich and poor, mass poverty and joblessness in Egypt?

To check the chances of the people’s will to prevail, we look at history: Since the last 15 years serious transition or succession problems in the Arab world were discussed in western countries. Does anyone truly believe the U.S. never developed any change strategies and/or contingency plans to readiness status?

Then we consider social change in Egypt and elsewhere: A new class of mainly young and often secular-minded Arabs has developed among a larger change from a patriarchal society with hand made goods to an economy with wealthy capitalists, regional entrepreneurs and exporters of natural goods. And it were the wealthy, who used governmental power to further enrich themselves, thus pushing back the traditional set of landlords and bazaar traders.

At least three more key issues should be observed: It was the Serbian movement “Otpor” (once supported by the then U.S. ambassador Richard Miles), and nowadays renamed to “Centre for Non-Violent Action” (CNA) (at least indirectly financed through the “Open Society” network of the U.S. billionaire George Soros), which trained activists of several countries including Egypt and Tunisia. Does that mean the Egyptian revolution is in the hands of the U.S.? Not at all. These activists have a common trademark of working mainly via internet.

“Facebook revolution” is the new buzzword in western capitals – that says more than the eager commentators may have intended. Since all those wonderful internet platforms are subject to U.S. law obliging them to full disclosure of all information on all clients any time to U.S. intelligence, it is very clear, that little happens in Egypt that is not on the intelligence agenda.

No matter how often observers write that the U.S. were taken by surprise, stumbling behind events etc. – that is what those intelligence circles want us to believe. We still hear official blabber on intelligence failures on 9/11 and before the Iraq invasion. Had the U.S. with and through their leading Egyptian collaborators wished to stop the uprising early on, that had never put serious problems in the past and would not have this time. Rather the U.S. had helped prepare the events and let them happen:

The U.S. proxies, namely ex-IAEA boss ElBaradei, were ready, the military was faithful and ready, intelligence well informed. For a political steam pot like Egypt just a tiny, well-calculated reduction in pressure on the lid means heavy spill-overs. Imprisonments, torture and killings even continue to this day. For years the U.S. had used some of their support funds for Egypt to finance all those opposition groups susceptible to U.S. influence, translate: “democratic groups” or “development of civil society”. In vain did Egypt protest against this blatant interference in its interior affairs, as we know through embassy cables in WikiLeaks. And there are enough pictures and records of meetings hosted by Hillary Clinton for Egyptian friends of “Freedom House”.

Does this take any credibility off the Egyptian revolution? Not at all. But the U.S. is trying all the time to influence the results and hijack the benefits. Only awareness and efficient counter activities can stop this.

But this background induces us to look at second key issue: the present leadership personnel, since it will be those leaders to organize the start of Egypt’s future – and maybe more, if they do not abandon power as promised. The CIA lists Omar Suleiman as the most powerful Middle Eastern intelligence chief, the people dub him “Mubarak II”. Suleiman enjoys best contacts to the U.S. intelligence leadership. He has made Egypt a preferred CIA rendition hub and has personally overseen torture.

Therefore it is little wonder, that the demonstrators asked for his removal and were pacified only somewhat by introduction of the Supreme Military Council (SMC) as the real though unconstitutional leadership, comprising among others the defense minister Tantawi and army chief Enan. But what does this mean? In order to fully and truly do the will of the Egyptian people, the army and its intelligence shooting-star Suleiman would have to ultimately give up its obedience to the U.S. That is highly improbable: Location and time are not ready yet for Egypt’s Erdogan.

Until the end of February, the SMC will publish a proposal for changes to the constitution, a nationwide referendum is to be held within two months. That means, as the third key issue: turmoil in Egypt, is far from over. Three simple truths call for attention: The only single intact coherent power base in Egypt is the army. Like in the German army, many higher officers are more or less closely linked to the U.S. by multiple bonds - including years of consecutive training steps, many of them held in the U.S. The whole political fabric in Egypt: social groups, parties, internet-based groupings – are no viable power base, since they lack structure and experience. The one exception is the Muslim Brotherhood. And these valuable people are just by name a political monolith. But that is already enough for the U.S. to riddle them with government spies and make sure their influence will be limited at least for now – and mainly limited to those parts and personalities, which are “constructive” or, more accurately put: “open to influence”.

Another thought for accurate political calculation: Exchange old puppets by fresh puppets is old style. Modern U.S. policy accepts even full chaos as a viable “system” – in case a stable obedience can neither be reached quickly nor guaranteed for the next 20 years: Afghanistan and Pakistan are sad examples.

And, last not least, Obama’s speech on the Middle East held Tuesday made it clear: In their struggle against Iran the U.S. want to be sure to enlist any of the new and unstable leaderships. That is also one of the non-public but rock-hard pre-conditions to U.S. support.

For any opposition movement in the region a tough question appears: How to make sure, that no foreign power can hijack or misuse the accomplishments of political activities? Check the priorities: If the government is not pro-U.S., a one-year time delay in mass demonstrations may help to avoid being identified as part of the present U.S. regional plotting. And publicly as well as credibly disassociating the movement from U.S. government policies may prove helpful in many ways.

*The author is a government and business consultant in Germany, multiple book author and expert since 25 years on issues of Central Asia, the Middle East and security-related questions