Mahir Ali

AMID REPORTS of open combat in parts of Damascus, it must be immensely gratifying for Egyptians that their transitional battles do not involve the use of firearms. Although hundreds of lives were lost, the confrontation never approached the dimensions of a civil war — which is how the Red Cross has lately characterised the Syrian situation.

A primary reason for the disparate course of events in the two countries is that Egypt’s armed forces decided to take the sting out of largely peaceful anti-government protests by dispensing with the services of Hosni Mubarak, who after 30 years in power inevitably bore the brunt of popular displeasure.

It is unknown whether the Syrian army, whose support has been crucial to Bashar Al Assad’s presidency, has contemplated any move along those lines. Given the extent to which the Assad clan is embedded in the power structure, it would inevitably have been much trickier. At this stage, however, the question is probably academic; after so much bloodshed, it is unlikely that such a gesture would any longer suffice as a palliative.

The short-term prospect is that of bloody chaos, with a senior defector from the Syrian regime — Nawaf Fares, the former ambassador to Baghdad — warning this week that an increasingly desperate Assad would be inclined to use chemical weapons. Fares also aired the unlikely claim that Damascus coordinated a series of bombings across the country with Al Qaeda. It can only be hoped he is wrong on both counts, although American and Israeli officials have been quoted as saying Assad’s forces have been moving stockpiles of chemical weapons out of storage facilities.

While the regime’s actions over the past year leave precious little scope for giving it the benefit of the doubt, the aims and inclinations of the rebel forces also remain murky, and Syrian minorities are understandably apprehensive about the future. A similar trend can be witnessed in Egypt, where some Christian Coptic representatives last Sunday boycotted a meeting with visiting US secretary of state Hillary Clinton on the grounds that she was advancing the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood by upholding the concept of civilian supremacy in a democratic set-up.

Officially, this was the tone struck by Clinton in meetings with Mohamed Mursi, the newly elected president, and Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf). There are no transcripts of what was actually said, but a US official described her talks with Mursi as “candid and cordial”, which sounds like diplomatic jargon for polite disagreement, while Tantawi, shortly after his encounter with Clinton, declared at a military ceremony: “Egypt will not fall. It is for all Egyptians, not for a certain group — the armed forces will not allow that.” (If the American visitor paid a courtesy call on the toppled tyrant she described 18 months ago as a family friend, it went unreported.)

No one is in any doubt about the identity of the “certain group” Tantawi had in mind, and Scaf’s made its intentions reasonably clear in the weeks before Mursi was sworn in by underscoring its right to veto constitutional provisions it did not agree with and by declaring it would not countenance any civilian interference in military affairs. It also endorsed — and may well have instigated — the supreme constitutional court’s dissolution of parliament on the grounds that party-affiliated candidates contested seats intended for independents.

The parliament, elected at the turn of the year, had an Islamist majority, with the Brotherhood constituting the largest single bloc. It’s legality could surely have been challenged earlier, and it leaves in doubt the status of the constituent assembly chosen by the parliamentarians.

Mursi made a half-hearted attempt to defy the dissolution, but the parliament met last week just for five minutes, during which it agreed to appeal the verdict. Beyond that, he has broadly pursued a pragmatic course, making no effort to challenge the military and accepting the inevitability of Tantawi continuing as defence minister, a post he held for 20 years under Mubarak.

Mursi has also agreed to honour all of Cairo’s existing international agreements, including — implicitly — the treaty with Israel that made Egypt a pariah in the Arab world for so many years. A spokesman for the president announced early on that of the two vice-presidential posts, one would go to a woman and the other to a Coptic Christian, in what was clearly an effort to defuse suspicions of an Islamic fundamentalist set-up. Mursi has also formally resigned from the Brotherhood.

On the face of it, these are gratifying steps, but suspicions remain, and it will take a great deal more to convince sceptics that Islamist majorities in Arab parliaments ought not to arouse any more concern than Christian-Democratic majorities in European parliaments. It is not enough for the Brotherhood to make the right sort of noises. It needs to demonstrate that it means what it says. After all, just last year it had vowed to sit out the presidential election.

At the same time, the quality of Egyptian democracy will be impossible to judge for as long as military supremacy goes unchallenged. A non-confrontational approach would be ideal in this respect, possibly a gradual attrition of political power rather than a sudden transformation. But such a process would necessitate recognition on the army’s part that the role it has effectively played for the past 60 years cannot remain unchanged. The present hierarchy evidently does not see things this way, but there are hopeful indications of a somewhat different perspective among younger officers.

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which is very much a part of the anti-Assad revolt, was reportedly buoyed by Mursi’s inauguration, and the latter reciprocated the sentiment by pledging moral support for the rebels. No surprise there. But as long as civilian-military tensions remain resolved, wiser Egyptians may also be inclined to view events in Syria as a cautionary tale. There’s plenty of cause to hope that the worst-case scenario won’t come to pass, but there’s no harm in keeping in mind what it would possibly entail.—KT

Ashraf Ezzat

“There was something huge brewing up, which Mrs. Clinton was not informed with, awaited her arrival”

When president Obama visited Egypt in June 2009, and gave his famous and good for nothing speech for the Muslim world from the big reception hall at Cairo University, he and his team must have felt that Cairo was the quietest and most peaceful place on earth second only to the Seychelles islands.

The reason for that was so simple, but rather dictatorial; the deposed President Mubarak was so careful nothing and no one would bother the American delegation, he simply ordered the day off for all Cairenes whom were also told to stay home and not venture to go out until Mr. Obama had already boarded his flight back to the States.

Mrs. Hillary Clinton, who have been lately engaged in a diplomatic drone attacks on the Russians and the Chinese over the Syrian issue, must have thought nothing would be rewarding and relaxing like winding up her latest world tour with a visit to the historic city of Cairo, where she would only have to do the hand shake-routine and smile back at few of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) faces, but at the end of the day she would have all the time to enjoy sightseeing, may be the pyramids, and indulge in the Cairene serenity, she still recalls from the 2009 visit.

Prior to Mrs. Clinton’s visit to Cairo, the usual security arrangements were meticulously gone over time and again and a full week weather forecast was submitted to help the state secretary to decide on her wardrobe during the visit. … and yes, a couple of young American tourists were kidnapped in Sinai close to the borders with Israel, to highlight the Sinai loose security issue, just in case Mrs. Clinton forgot to bring it up.

President Morsi meets secretary Clinton in Cairo

But that was not all. Something was missing. There was more to this visit than just the usual speeches, the TV interviews and the expected tranquil royal suite with the majestic view of the pyramids.

There was something huge brewing up, which Mrs. Clinton was not informed with, awaited her arrival.

In her brief and careful remarks after meeting with the newly elected president, Mr. Mohamed Morsi of the MB, and Instead of calling for an immediate handover of power as American officials have in the past, Mrs. Clinton instead emphasized only the need for “building consensus across the Egyptian political spectrum.”

What Mrs. Clinton did is simply add more gray to the current vague picture, whereas what most Egyptians longed for is black and white.

The White House’s struggle to deliver a satisfactory message here, for all parties involved including Israel, reflects its dilemma with how to deal with a rapidly evolving contest for power whose outcome remains yet unclear.

The American diplomacy is trying to balance a public push for a democratic Egypt against a deeply seated desire to maintain long-term ties with both factions, the generals and the Islamists, in a context where the United States seems to have virtually zero influence in post-Mubarak Egypt, and almost any American statement is sure to provoke a backlash. And provoke a backlash it did.

Thousands of anti-MB rallied outside Mrs. Clinton’s hotel, The Four Seasons, at downtown Cairo to protest what they called the American plot to help the MB to outweigh the generals and take full control of the country.

According to the protesters, the American administration unable to curb down the post-Mubarak Islamist tide, decided to use the MB to discipline Hamas and may be make it come to terms with Israel.

By nightfall Saturday, thousands of protesters, who practically surrounded Mrs. Clinton’s Hotel, kept chanting anti-American and anti-MB slogans all night long. One of the protest leaders chanted “If you like the MB so much, why you don’t take them back with you”

General Tantawi meets Clinton

In the following morning, without a good night sleep I presume, Mrs. Clinton went on to meet General. Houssein Tantawy, the head of the supreme council of armed forces (SCAF) behind closed doors.

The meeting with general Tantawy was seen by some of the liberal parties as a provocative move that added to the polarization of the political scene in Egypt.

As if this was not enough of a disappointment for Mrs. Clinton, her invitation to convene with the Coptic heads was unexpectedly turned down by most of the leaders of the Christian community in Egypt.

“We kind of hoped Mrs. Hillary Clinton had transparently met with all parties and factions of the Egyptian political spectrum in the same room, and not to divide and aggravate the already volatile situation by meeting with the Salafists and the MB first and in private and then ask to meet with some of the Coptic community heads” said Emad Gad, a prominent Coptic activist.

On Sunday, and after inaugurating the new American consulate in Alexandria, all of Mrs. Clinton’s appointments and her expected visit and speech at the library of Alexandria, an event I planned to attend, were cancelled for security reasons.

The road to the library of Alexandria was practically blocked by anti-American protesters who raised shoes, a sign of disrespect, and showered Mrs. Clinton’s car with a descent quantity of Egyptian tomatoes forcing her car to turn around and head for the airport.

After almost one year and a half of the so called Arab Spring, I think it’s only fair to admit that the Europeans and the Americans were outpaced and taken by surprise by the uprisings in both Tunisia and Egypt and it was not before Gaddafi took up arms did they sober up and sent in the NATO planes.

After that they were ready, and in full gear, for Syria, where the Arab spring turned into a nightmare and a theater for all the local and international powers to play out their ugliest plans.

Till this moment, the American administration is trying to make head or tail of the post-Mubarak Egypt and May be that’s why we don’t hear the Obama’s campaign Bragging about how they got rid of Mubarak. Because, frankly, they didn’t.

As the American plane was taking off the Cairo airport and heading for Tel Aviv, I guess Mrs. Clinton started typing down the report of her two-day visit to Egypt, and her lines went as follows …

“Egyptians are not happy with our current stance, the MB are wary of our moves, and I don’t trust them either. I’m Afraid we don’t have an influence over the generals … not even by threatening to withhold the American annual aide; anyway we’ve done it before and didn’t work. Dealing with the Islamists will cost us; it has already turned the seculars and Copts against us. As for the peace treaty with Israel, no robust commitment detected, and there are too many possible scenarios. … I don’t know, but I liked Egypt 2009 better. Cairo is not tranquil nor friendly as it used to be.”—OM

Ramzy Baroud

The widespread killings of Rohingya Muslims in Burma — or Myanmar — have received only passing and dispassionate coverage in most media. What they actually warrant is widespread outrage and decisive efforts to bring further human rights abuses to an immediate halt.

“Burmese helicopter set fire to three boats carrying nearly 50 Muslim Rohingyas fleeing sectarian violence in western Burma in an attack that is believed to have killed everyone on board,” reported Radio Free Europe on July 12.

Why would anyone take such fatal risks? Refugees are attempting to escape imminent death, torture or arrest at the hands of the Ethnic Buddhist Rakhine majority, which has the full support of the Burmese government.

The relatively little media interest in Burma’s "ethnic clashes" is by no means an indication of the significance of the story. The recent flaring of violence followed the raping and killing of a Rhakine woman on May 28, allegedly by three Rohingya men. The incident ushered a rare movement of unity between many sectors of Burmese society, including the government, security forces and so-called pro-democracy activists and groups. The first order of business was the beating to death of ten innocent Muslims. The victims, who were dragged out of a bus and attacked by a mob of 300 strong Buddhist Rhakine, were not even Rohingyas, according to the Bangkok Post (June 22). Not all Muslims in Burma are from the Rohingya ethnic group. Some are descendants of Indian immigrants, some have Chinese ancestry, and some even have early Arab and Persian origins. Burma is a country with a population of an estimated 60 million, only 4 percent of whom are Muslim.

Regardless of numbers, the abuses are widespread and rioters are facing little or no repercussions for their actions. “The Rohingyas…face some of the worst discrimination in the world,” reported Reuters on July 4, citing rights groups. UK-based Equal Rights Trust indicated that the recent violence is not merely due to ethnic clashes, but actually involves active government participation. “From June 16 onward, the military became more actively involved in committing acts of violence and other human rights abuses against the Rohingya including killings and mass-scale arrests of Rohingya men and boys in North Rakhine State.”

The ‘pro-democracy’ Burmese groups and individuals celebrated by Western governments for objecting to the country’s military junta are also taking part in the war against minorities.

Politically, Burma has a poor reputation. A protracted civil war has ravaged the country shortly after its independence from Britain in 1948. The colonial era was exceptionally destructive as the country was used as a battleground for great powers. Many Burmese were slaughtered in a situation that was not of their making. As foreign powers divided the country according to their own purposes, an ensuing civil war was almost predictable. It supposedly ended when a military junta took over from 1962 to 2011, but many of the underlying problems remained unresolved.

Since an election last year brought a civilian government to power, we have been led to believe that a happy ending is now in the making. “Burma's opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi made her historic parliamentary debut on Monday (July 9), marking a new phase in her near quarter century struggle to bring democracy to her army-dominated homeland,” reported the British Telegraph.

But aside from mere ‘concerns’ over the ethnic violence, Aung San Suu Kyi is staying on the fence — as if the slaughter of the country’s ‘dark-skinned Indians’ is not as urgent as having a parliamentary representation for her party, the National League for Democracy in Burma. Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu called on "The Lady" to do something, anything. “As a Nobel Peace Laureate, we are confident that the first step of your journey toward ensuring peace in the world would start from your own doorstep and that you would play a positive role in bringing an end to the violence that has afflicted Arakan State,” he wrote. However, “Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy continues to carefully sidestep the hot-button issue,” according to Foreign Policy.

The violent targeting of Burmese minorities came at an interesting time for the US and Britain. Their pro-democracy campaign was largely called off when the junta agreed to provide semi-democratic reforms. Eager to offset the near exclusive Chinese influence over the Burmese economy, Western companies jumped into Burma as if one of the most oppressive regimes in the world was suddenly resurrected into an oasis for democracy.

“The gold rush for Burma has begun,” wrote Alex Spillius in The Telegraph. It was ushered in by US President Barak Obama’s recent lifting of the ban on American investment in the country. Britain immediately followed suit, as a UK trade office was hurriedly opened in Rangoon on July 11. “Its aim is to forge links with one of the last unexploited markets in Asia, a country blessed by ample resources of hydro-carbons, minerals, gems and timber, not to mention a cheap labor force, which thanks to years of isolation and sanctions is near virgin territory for foreign investors.” Since US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her "historic" visit to Burma in December 2011, a recurring media theme has been ‘Burma riches’ and the ‘race for Burma’. Little else is being discussed, and certainly not minority rights.

Recently, Clinton held a meeting with Burma’s President Thein Sein, who is now being branded as another success story for US diplomacy. On the agenda are US concerns regarding the “lack of transparency in Burma's investment environment and the military's role in the economy” (CNN, July 12). Thein Sein, however, is guilty of much greater sins, for he is providing a dangerous political discourse that could possibly lead to more killings, or even genocide. The ‘reformist’ president told the UN that “refugee camps or deportation is the solution for nearly a million Rohingya Muslims,” according to ABC Australia. He offered to send the Rohingyas away “if any third country would accept them.”

The Rohingyas are currently undergoing one of the most violent episodes of their history, and their suffering is one of the most pressing issues anywhere in the world. Yet their plight is suspiciously absent from regional and international priorities, or is undercut by giddiness over the country’s “ample resources of hydro-carbons, minerals, gems and timber.”

Meanwhile, the stateless and defenseless Rohingyas continue to suffer and die. Those lucky to make it to Bangladesh are being turned back. Aside from few courageous journalists — indifferent to the country’s promise for ‘democracy’ and other fables — most are simply looking the other way. This tragic attitude must immediately change if human rights matter in the least.—AN