peacefare.net

Another big Friday: can Mubarak hang on?

President Mubarak didn’t step down this evening, as I confess I expected (along with almost everyone in Tahrir square as well as CIA Director Panetta), but his speech was a clear indication of how little he understands what is going on. He is still a goner, if only because he is so out of touch.

What he apparently did do is formally transfer all the powers constitutionally permitted to Vice President Omar Suleiman (the exceptions are dissolution of parliament, dismissal of the government and proposing constitutional amendments).  That will satisfy virtually no one in Tahrir square, where Suleiman is no more popular than Mubarak. The constitutional route the regime has taken will drive the protesters ever more definitively to choose an extra-constitutional path, one they would like to see guaranteed by the Army.

Tomorrow is Friday, the big day for demonstrating in Egypt.  The demonstrators had already succeeded earlier today in moving out of Tahrir square and blocking parliament.  Tomorrow they may head for the presidential palace, unless they get clever and decide to head for someplace else.

The Army’s position is highly ambiguous:

Based on the responsibility of the Armed Forces, and its commitment to protect the people, and to oversee their interests and security, and with a view to the safety of the nation and the citizenry, and of the achievements and properties of the great people of Egypt, and in affirmation and support for the legitimate demands of the people, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces convened today, 10 February 2011, to consider developments to date, and decided to remain in continuous session to consider what procedures and measures that may be taken to protect the nation, and the achievements and aspirations of the great people of Egypt.

Is this an auto-coup, an Army takeover in support of the regime? That might go along with the stealth crackdown that seemed to be growing even before today’s fiasco.  Journalists and organizers were finding themselves detained and harshly treated.  Neither the regime nor the protesters show signs of cracking.  Or is the Army reluctant to act against the demonstrators, as many in Tahrir square seem to believe?

I would still expect more crackdown, along with more protests, but with a likelihood that the Army will get fed up and go over to the demonstrators if asked to fire on the crowd.

There is no guarantee that this will end well, and a lot of indications that the regime is determined to make it end badly.  The initiative is now with the demonstrators:  they need to maintain their momentum, to stick with nonviolence, to convince the Army that it will do better without Mubarak than with him, and to prepare for negotiations.

Washington at this point will gain little from shifting back to support for Mubarak, who will have seen President Obama’s remarks this afternoon as an attempt to force Egypt’s transition to the next stage.  I’d suggest putting all the chips on democracy.  Stability is not likely to come for some time yet.

Can Mubarak survive?  He clearly intends to, even if in a weakened condition, and was at pains to assure the public in comforting thones this evening that he would be watching daily events closely.  I suppose anything is possible in this wild world, but I would also put my personal chips on the protesters.  If they don’t succeed tomorrow, they look determined enough to come back for more.

He’s a goner, but nothing else is clear yet

Mubarak’s status is uncertain for the moment, but he is certainly out of power.  The Egyptian Army has apparently taken over, welcomed by the protesters.  They had wanted Mubarak out.  They welcome the Army  because it suggests a non-constitutional route for the immediate future–one that need not pay heed to the constitutional succession or the highly restrictive provisions controlling new elections. It is not yet clear whether they have really gotten their way.

Egypt is important to the U.S., but it is certainly going to be a different Egypt:  maybe one in the hands of the army, maybe one in the hands of the demonstrators, maybe some hybrid.  Short-term, U.S. interests might fare better in the hands of the army, but long-term Egypt will find its way to a more democratic regime, one way or the other.  It would be a mistake to get on the wrong side of that historical wave.  President Obama has already made it clear he welcomes what is coming, though the Americans still seem quite uncertain what precisely that is.

Can the peace with Israel be maintained?  Let’s remember that it has long been considered a “cold” peace, one that would avoid war but lacked the flow of people, goods, services and understanding that makes for a warm peace.  It could of course get colder, and likely will if the Muslim Brotherhood wins a strong position in Egypt that strengthens pro-Palestinian sentiment in Cairo.  But it is hard to picture what Egypt stands to gain from anything more belligerent than some strong words about mistreatment of people in Gaza.  Israel occupies no Egyptian territory, and it will not be in Egypt’s interest to help Hamas–a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate–with more than rhetoric and humanitarian relief.

A bit stronger Palestinian voice is in any event necessary to getting a Mideast peace agreement–that is the unequivocal lesson anyone can see written in the Palestinian papers, which document an Israel ready to reject even the most forthcoming of Palestinian offers.

The question of the moment is who is really in control of Egypt?  Will the Army shove Omar Suleiman aside, or will he remain in power?  If so, he’ll insist on an end to the demonstrations.  That would not satisfy the protesters and create real strains between them and the army.  Stay tuned.  The outcome is still unclear, even if it is moving in the direction of the protesters.

Surprise, we’re back!

Nothing I could think of illustrates the background to yesterday’s surprise return of demonstrators en masse better than these two interviews. Here is Wael Ghonim, Google exec and protest promoter/organizer, reacting yesterday to an anchor’s showing of photos of those who died in the demonstrations:

And here is Vice President Omar Suleiman two days earlier, accusing the protesters of being under foreign influence and shilling for religion (but caveat emptor: ABC has disabled the embed code, so clicking here will take you to the Youtube website):

Egyptians made their preference known with the appearance in Tahir square of the biggest crowd yet, one that revived the protests and the calls for President Mubarak to step down. Leaderless no more, the dramatic support for Ghonim will slow Suleiman’s effort to steer the negotiations in a direction that leaves the regime largely intact. So, too, will the spread of labor unrest, a clear sign of the broadening base of the protests in Egypt (as it has been in other conflicts of this sort).

Even cold-hearted Washington has been moved by this contrast. The last few days the Obama Administration was tilting towards an orderly transition, yesterday they were back on a quick and decisive one. Their vacillations are understandable–American administrations don’t often risk their vital interests in Middle East peace and the fight against terrorism by betting on scruffy young people–but there is just as much risk in betting on Mubarak, who in any event will not be around for long, or on Suleiman, who will do his best to maintain an autocratic regime to which he has devoted his entire life.  This point is well and forecefully made in Tom Gjelten’s piece this morning on NPR.

It is hard to keep protests going against a regime as wily and survival-focused as this one–yesterday it was busy raising public sector salaries, among other things, to try to calm the populace. But nothing has happened so far that guarantees that the movement towards democracy is irreversible. The protesters will have to keep it up a while longer.

Is Obama selling out the protesters?

Ross Douthat in the NY Times is full of praise for President Obama’s caution and realpolitik with respect to Egypt:

Obama’s response to the Egyptian crisis has crystallized his entire foreign policy vision…it’s clear that the administration’s real goal has been to dispense with Mubarak while keeping the dictator’s military subordinates very much in charge. If the Obama White House has its way, any opening to democracy will be carefully stage-managed by an insider like Omar Suleiman, the former general and Egyptian intelligence chief who’s best known in Washington for his cooperation with the C.I.A.’s rendition program. This isn’t softheaded peacenik dithering. It’s cold-blooded realpolitik.

Or is it just a mistake?

The president has been remarkably unclear in the last day or two about where Egypt should be going. Democracy talk is out again.  I am with him all the way if he wants to suggest that Egyptians should decide their own fate, but when he says Cairo can’t go back where it came from he is suggesting something else: that as long as it doesn’t go all the way back to a Mubarak-style autocracy, the U.S. may be prepared to accept or help stabilize the outcome.

That is a message Omar Suleiman no doubt enjoys hearing, as he clearly has no intention of taking Egypt much more than a meter or two down the path of “reform.”  And it may be a message welcome to some in Congress.  But do we really think that Egyptians will accept a revolution that gives power to the man President Mubarak might have given power to even in the absence of the street protests?  It may be realist, but is it realistic?

Of course behind this “realism” lies fear:  in particular of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Reuel Gerecht, also in the NY Times today, clarifies why fear of the Brotherhood coming to power is overblown, even if the organization itself continues to be odious.  In fact, he argues that bringing it into a broad democratic tent might be the best thing that could happen to defuse and even reverse radicalization among Sunnis. An analogous experiment is underway with Moqtada al Sadr’s Shia political forces in Iraq, so far without any great detriment to the U.S.

My hope is that President Obama is somewhat less realist than Douthat thinks, and somewhat more pragmatic about the need to ensure that he is not seen as selling out the protesters.  If Omar Suleiman is able to restore autocratic “stability” to Egypt, and if President Obama is perceived as having helped him do it, the next protests will not be as benign towards the United States as those of the last ten days.

PS: This is a lot better than the Black-eyed Peas half-time show:

Cairo starts down a constitutional path to we know not where

In the bright light of the first day of the work week here in DC things are even clearer than they were yesterday: the Egyptian regime and the Obama Administration are sticking with a constitutional route to a still ill-defined but “representative” end-state, while the protesters are prepared to go the extra-constitutional route to full-fledged parliamentary democracy. As Mohamed El Baradei put it yesterday on CNN:

We need to abolish the present Constitution. We need to dissolve the current Parliament. These are all elements of the dictatorship regime, and we should not be — I don’t think we will go to democracy through the dictatorial Constitution.

This is no small matter, but the protesters are not likely to get their way unless the army comes over to their side more definitively than seems likely at present.  In the meanwhile, they will need to keep up the pressure through a continuing presence in Tahrir square and other efforts to mobilize supporters, who seem tired but not quite exhausted.

Failing that, Vice President Omar Suleiman will go all the way for a game-winning touchdown.  It is clear today that, despite the regime’s claims to the contrary, his statement yesterday was not agreed with the protesters, but it more than likely represents the maximum intent of the regime, which is to pre-empt and co-opt the protests rather than change the Egyptian political system in any fundamental way.  It falls short of promising anything like representative parliamentary democracy, and it implicitly leaves President Mubarak in office until the end of his term.  President Obama likewise could not be vaguer about where things are headed:  Egypt he said yesterday cannot go “back to what it was.”

For both Obama and Suleiman, keeping President Mubarak in place is important not only for the sake of “stability” but also because his leaving office would trigger–under the current constitution–elections in 60 days.  The Muslim Brotherhood, even if illegal, is the most organized of Egypt’s opposition parties and might do very well in elections held that soon.  While President Obama is trying to sound nonchalant about the Brothers, he definitely does not want them winning Egypt’s first really competitive elections.

Many secular protesters would not want that either, even if for the moment they find themselves in the anti-regime camp with the Brotherhood.  But their solution is for President Mubarak to resign and Egypt to be governed extra-constitutionally while it prepares for elections, presumably not within the 60 day time limit.  They might want to see something like what is going on right now in Tunisia, where a new Interior Minister has prohibited the former ruling party from operating. Mr. Suleiman is not interested in that idea being imported into Egypt.

Bottom line is the same as yesterday:

• stick with the constitution, which despite its faults offers a clearly marked path that leads we know not where; or
• abandon the constitution and try to hack a new path through the regime’s many brambles towards democracy.

For the moment, Cairo seems headed for the constitutional path to we know not where.

As I got some grief yesterday for not publishing all of Omar Suleiman’s statement, I include below the whole thing:

“The Vice-President held a series of meetings with representatives of the full spectrum of political parties and forces, as a well as a number of youths from the 25 January movement. The meetings arrived at the following consensus:

All participants of the dialogue arrived at a consensus to express their appreciation and respect for the 25 January movement and on the need to deal seriously, expeditiously and honestly with the current crisis that the nation is facing, the legitimate demands of the youth of 25 January and society’s political forces, with full consideration and a commitment to constitutional legitimacy in confronting the challenges and dangers faced by Egypt as result of this crisis, including: The lack of security for the populace; disturbances to daily life; the paralysis of by public services; the suspension of education at universities and schools; the logistical delays in the delivery of essential goods to the population; the damages to and losses of the Egyptian economy; the attempts at foreign intervention into purely Egyptian affairs and breaches of security by foreign elements working to undermine stability in implementation of their plots, while recognizing that the 25 January movement is a honorable and patriotic movement.

The participants in the national dialogue agreed on a number of political arrangements, and constitutional and legislative measures, which the participants agreed by consensus would be of a temporary nature until the election of new president at the end of the current presidential term, including:

First: Implementing the commitments announced by the President in speech to the nation on 1 February 2011:

1. No nomination for a new presidential term will take place;

2. A peaceful transition of authority within the constitutional framework;

3. The introduction of constitutional amendments to articles 76 & 77, and related constitutional amendments needed for the peaceful transition of authority;

4. Legislative amendments related to the amendments of the constitution;

5. Implementation of the rulings of the Court of Cassation, regarding challenges to the People’s Assembly election

6. Pursuit of corruption, and an investigation into those behind the breakdown of security in line with the law

7. Restoring the security and stability of the nation, and tasking the police forces to resume their role in serving and protecting the people.

Second: In implementation of these commitments the following measures will be taken:

1. A committee will be formed from members of the judicial authority and a number of political figures to study and recommend constitutional amendments, and legislative amendments of laws complimentary to the constitution to be completed by the first week of March.

2. The Government announces the establishment of a bureau to receive complaints regarding, and commits to immediately release, prisoners of conscience of all persuasions. The Government commits itself to not pursuing them or limiting their ability to engage in political activity.

3. Media and communications will be liberalized and no extra-legal constraints will be imposed on them.

4. Supervisory and judiciary agencies will be tasked with continuing to pursue persons implicated in corruption, as well as pursuing and holding accountable persons responsible for the recent breakdown in security.

5. The state of emergency will be lifted based on the security situation and an end to the threats to the security of society

6. All participants expressed their absolute rejection of any and all forms of foreign intervention in internal Egyptian affairs.

Third: A national follow-up committee will be established and composed of public and independent figures from among experts, specialists and representatives of youth movements, and will monitor the implementation of all consensual agreements, and issues reports and recommendations to the Vice-President.

In addition, all participants in the dialogue saluted the patriotic and loyal role played by our Armed Forces at this sensitive time, and affirmed their aspirations for a continuation of that role to restore of calm, security and stability, and to guarantee the implementation and of the consensus and understandings that result from the meetings of the national dialogue.

The super bowl of Egyptian politics

I know most of the American public is more interested in the Packers and Steelers today, where the outcome will be clear and unequivocal.  But Egypt is still in play, and it is far harder to tell in which direction Cairo is headed than to choose the Super Bowl winner.

It is certainly tempting to sympathize with the demonstrators who say President Mubarak has to go first, and only then will negotiations be meaningful.  But the sad fact is that would leave Egypt, according to its Mubarak-designed constitution, either in the hands of Vice President Omar Suleiman (in case of temporary unavailability of the President), torturer in chief of the Egyptian secret services, or Speaker of the People’s Assembly (in case of the President’s resignation), Ahmad Fathi Sorour, a party hack who has presided for more than 20 years over a puppet parliament and is said to have designed much of the repressive legislation of the Mubarak regime.

Moreover, no free and fair election can be held in Egypt without amendments to the constitution, which in its present form requires that the elections be held in 60 days from the removal of the president and that candidates pass muster in the People’s Assembly, whose members are overwhelmingly Mubarak cronies chosen in fraudulent elections in December. Can either Suleiman or Sorour be trusted to steer the ship of state towards free and fair elections that would replace that parliament as well as the president and almost certainly sink the regime and all that holds fast to it?

There is another path:  treat the constitution as the scrap of paper it is written on and try to hack a new path towards democracy.  Some would have this done by an army takeover; others might prefer the army to install a civilian caretaker government that might even leave Mubarak in place, force him to allow a new parliament to be elected freely and fairly, amend the constitution, then proceed with presidential elections.  This would necessarily be a government that could not command a majority in the current People’s Assembly, so it would depend for its effectiveness on the army force-marching the parliament to the desired results.

So there is a fork in the road:

• stick with the constitution, which despite its faults offers a clearly marked path that leads we know not where;
• abandon the constitution and try to hack a new path through the regime’s many brambles towards democracy.

The Americans, who have a good deal of clout in the matter, seem to be opting for the former, because they know and like Omar Suleiman and hope he will maintain stability but lead eventually in the right direction, which of course for them means not only democracy but also protection of their interest in seeing the Israel/Egypt peace treaty maintained.  At least some of the opposition political parties also seem inclined to stick with the constitution, but others might prefer the extra-constitutional route.

The people in Tahrir square want to be sure their sacrifices will be honored with a result that meets their expectations.  They seem devoted to the proposition that Mubarak must step down, but far less interested in the constitutional route than in an army-led transition.  Most Egyptians seem to trust the army’s guarantee more than Suleiman’s.  But if Suleiman can keep army backing, that will give him a great advantage.

Whether Mubarak resigns or not is becoming less relevant to the outcome, as his power is waning.  It seems to me that replacement of the current government with one that includes many people clearly and unequivocally devoted to democracy is in order.  Until that or Mubarak’s removal happens, the demonstrators had better hold on to Tahrir square and be prepared to fill it quickly, as they did on Friday, with peaceful and good-humored people.

A statement just issued by Suleiman’s office, supposedly on the basis of discussions today with representatives of the protesters and the political opposition, tries to steer the outcome in the constitutional direction (but there is no sign the protesters have subscribed yet).  While offering unspecified constitutional amendments, the guarantees are far from robust:

“In implementation of these commitments the following measures will be taken:

1. A committee will be formed from members of the judicial authority and a number of political figures to study and recommend constitutional amendments, and legislative amendments of laws complimentary to the constitution to be completed by the first week of March.

2. The Government announces the establishment of a bureau to receive complaints regarding, and commits to immediately release, prisoners of conscience of all persuasions. The Government commits itself to not pursuing them or limiting their ability to engage in political activity.

3. Media and communications will be liberalized and no extra-legal constraints will be imposed on them.

4. Supervisory and judiciary agencies will be tasked with continuing to pursue persons implicated in corruption, as well as pursuing and holding accountable persons responsible for the recent breakdown in security.

5. The state of emergency will be lifted based on the security situation and an end to the threats to the security of society

6. All participants expressed their absolute rejection of any and all forms of foreign intervention in internal Egyptian affairs.

Third: A national follow-up committee will be established and composed of public and independent figures from among experts, specialists and representatives of youth movements, and will monitor the implementation of all consensual agreements, and issues reports and recommendations to the Vice-President.

In addition, all participants in the dialogue saluted the patriotic and loyal role played by our Armed Forces at this sensitive time, and affirmed their aspirations for a continuation of that role to restore of calm, security and stability, and to guarantee the implementation and of the consensus and understandings that result from the meetings of the national dialogue.”