A week in, Egypt's mass revolt has undoubtedly appeared to gain critical mass

Today: Feb 1, 2011. 

Nearly 2 million protesters in Tahrir Square (center Cairo) and its immediate environs; hundreds of 1000s reported in Alexandria; about 500 thousand reported in El Mansoura; about 100 thousand reported in Damanhour; thousands reported in Port Said; massive protests also reported in El Mahalla.  This has come one week into protests across the country since the 25th of January "Day of Anger", implemented by tens of thousands of youth (and twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings) having no visible formal leader or representative on their behalf.  Despite major roads between Alexandria and Cairo--the two most populous cities in the country--being reported blocked and in spite of the shutdown of the country's railway system and domestic flights, masses across the country have shown determination to continue protesting.  


The anti-regime movement has continued to draw and absorb momentum, power, and support from Egyptians.  Movie celebrities and Nobel-prize recipients, artists and journalists, opposition elements and the older common man on the street have joined.  These dynamics come with a life and existence previously unknown, to the surprise or joy of many and apparently beyond a slow regime's recognition or comprehension.  Much like throughout the past week, the protests continue to show no sign of sectarian or other factionalized divides.  Masses of people (mostly young, as mentioned above) are united to demand a complete change of government and of direction for the country, as well as an end to associated crippling corruption, heavy-handed brutality, and lack of freedoms and opportunities---symbolized to them most prominently by President Mubarak's departure from the political stage.  These demands have been summed up in the widely displayed Arabic word irhal, meaning "leave."        


In light of events and public official statements through the past week, especially today, there is very little indication or anticipation in this tense yet hope-glimmered environment that the contending sides will be backing down easily.  There are certainly profound outward displays of stubbornness by the regime and the protesters.  Yet all indications are towards approaching tipping point.  Or, that possibly a tipping point has already been tip-toed on, waiting for one little push of inertia.  There are plans for a fresh round of demonstrations to be held on Friday, international news reports say.    

Continuously shifting displays of drama have defined the mood and structure of this past week.  Protesters defied curfews to camp out in areas or to continue running bakeries.  And despite an engineered internet blackout, combined with partial media and telephone clamp-down, they returned to demonstrating.  A vice-president has been appointed (for the first time in 3 decades) amid cabinet reshuffling.  But the young masses who took to the streets are still not appeased or placated, and they are distrustful towards such moves by the regime.  President Mubarak has also announced he will not seek a new term, while saying that he stay on until the upcoming elections and guide the country toward constitutional reform and transitional government.  In the same speech, he also defended his service to the country.  Still no budge from these masses who---seeing this as a ploy to hold onto power as long as possible, and as a defiance to the public---insisted on his stepping down.  


Earlier, anti-riot forces, having initially cracked down brutally on seemingly largely peaceful demonstrators in the first few days, had then mysteriously and inexplicably receded.  They were replaced by army units that have reportedly behaved very differently (positively) on the streets.  Police is still conspicuously absent on many streets, forcing people to form neighborhood and public property watch committees (in cooperation with troops) to maintain order, prevent looting, and to apprehend/ return escaped prisoners to custody.  There are also reports of a general atmosphere of camaraderie among protesters and the masses in coordinating demonstration activity and distributing foodstuffs and water. 

Now, in conjunction with opposition elements, constitutional scholars, thinkers, members of the business community, among others, the youth brunt behind the protests need to settle down and think calmly and clearly on how to proceed strategically.  They need to start planning on how to move forward from this point to participate in the next (transitional) phase.  For them to succeed, they need to embark on these directions without giving up ground or pressure gained in the past few days.  Specifically, they need to begin engaging in the discussions with intelligence chief Mr. Omar Suleiman and a former minister of aviation Mr. Ahmed Shafik (appointed as Vice-President and Prime Minister, respectively), and extend their activities beyond protesting and displaying mass anger.  Yet, with so much at stake, it is crucial to highlight that this inexperienced movement cannot be expected to tread alone with much success into the sophistication and intricacies of such interaction with the state.  This is especially the case if other developments, like an escalation in/towards violence, occur.  To sustain the peaceful momentum it has generated and translate such momentum effectively  into realizing its goals, the young anti-regime protesters may ultimately need the logistical, material, and moral support and guidance of the established opposition.  These protesters will also need to continue to hold steadfast to one another and work in unison.         


In supporting and encouraging the youth, all Egyptian opposition elements must not return to clinging to their highly particularized interests/positions and squabbling and discord.  This older anti-regime segment can work to speak on behalf of the protesting youth.  But they must realize that if their efforts are to succeed, they must ultimately partner with youth rather than to take any action or make any proposal that could signal or be interpreted as a domination over the latter's voices.  For example, towards this end, the opposition can work to mentor the youth movement protesters and help them to productively channel the latter's energies (with resources and moral support) towards making effective arguments and proposals for change as these younger compatriots stand their ground.


In other words, at the very least there needs to be constant communication and coordination within and between these two groups.


On many levels, the coming days and weeks will prove ultimately as a report card to the unprecedented protests that have defined this youth-generated movement.  Indeed, much uncertainty and ill-comfort about what might happen next still hang in the air.  But no one can doubt that much has been achieved already, providing a foundation for a new constructive political culture and consciousness in the country.  No one can deny that there has been a loud and notable break with long-established physical, cultural, and psychological barriers of apathy, fear, intimidation, and debilitating hopelessness.  Similarly, momentum and ongoing drama are prompting talk of an Egyptian rebirth and of pride.  Now it is the moment of the youth and of the twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings, and it is critical that they work to translate this moment into a deep legacy to continue inspiring the rest of the country.  It is equally critical that opposition elements, thinkers, writers and journalists, constitutional scholars, and other established opinion-makers and movers and shakers with an interest to see meaningful change continue to lend and even increase support for their younger compatriots.  

Tunisia's "Jasmine Revolution": Regional (and Broader) Implications?

Within the past month, Tunisia has witnessed a large popular uprising culminating in and galvanized by familiarly recognizable protests over poor economic prospects/conditions and the heavy-handed regime-sanctioned crackdowns on the street.  Called the "Jasmine Revolution" the nearly-month-long uprising is particularly significant in the high speed, and especially in the civilian source of its projection [although this assumption that the final blow was dealt by popular pressure has now been disputed], with which intense drama has unfolded.  At any rate, what we have witnessed is nothing short of remarkable.  

The MENA (Middle East and North Africa region) has witnessed several revolts, protests, coups, insurrections, and wars challenging regimes and status-quo environments even in the post-colonial era.  Yet such past challenges, despite the varying circumstances in which they were born, have almost uniformly yielded little.  The most significantly emerging fruit here has, as many commentators will have undoubtedly pointed out, often been merely changes of names.  That, at most, touted changes have been often suspected of carrying the stitching marks of elaborate cosmetic surgeries: that wounds---old and new---have been repackaged hastily without regard to considerations over fully healing.  

In contrast to this, the recent and continuing Tunisian dynamics brings to focus serious questions regarding the sustainability of political systems and economic systems in uncertain times.  At a deeper more specific level, they once again put the spotlight on the wisdom and viability of exercising governmental authority in a repressive and over-aggressive manner (combined with what has been seen as periodic crumbs and general widespread official apathy), in the region.  Leaders, pundits, and officials are quick to either proclaim or dismiss the possibility of the "Tunisian Scenario" on the airwaves, in blogs, and on social media sites.  In trying to get a hold over understanding the seemingly dizzying weeks, I present in no particular sequence a list of news articles and op-eds that put Tunisia's events in the broader regional contexts (not a completely exhaustive list, but one that can hopefully be sufficiently representative).  Of course, much more information and analysis will be available in the days and weeks to come ...    

[Note: a temporary caretaker cabinet has been set up to organize elections, stabilize the country, and to implement reforms and head inquiry commissions over corruption and Ben Ali's regime's response to the protests.  But the retention of Ben Ali officials for the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Interior Minister (responsible for internal security) posts in the new 'unity government' has left many Tunisians skeptical and angry.  A fresh round of protests has been reported, along with the resignation of 3 independent members of the cabinet, barely a day after the new cabinet announcement.]  

  1. Could other Arab countries follow Tunisia's example? Roger Hardy, BBC. 

  2. No sign Egypt will take the Tunisian road. John Leyne, BBC; another view/angle. 

  3. Tunisia unrest a wake-up call for the region. Ian Black, The Guardian. 

  4. Tunisia's protests spark suicides in Algeria and fears throughout the Arab world. Ian Black, The  
  Guardian; The Arab world's horrific new trend: self-immolation. Blake Hounshell. Foreign Policy 
  Passport. (blog); new additional reported attempts here. 

  5. The 'bin Laden' of marginalisation: the real terror eating at the Arab world is the socio-economic 
  marginalisation. Larbi Sadiki, Al Jazeera English. 

  6. Tunisia protests serve warning to autocratic Middle Eastern regimes. Kristen Chick. The Christian
  Science Monitor. 


  7. To the tyrants of the Arab world ... Lamis Andoni, Al Jazeera English.  

  8. Arab regimes on edge. Marc Lynch. Foreign Policy. blog. 


  9. Two views/angles of U.S. comprehension of, and response to, Tunisia (1,2)

  10. People power succeed without Western backing. Emad Mekay, Inter Press Service (Johannesburg); 
  another view/angle.

  11. Unrest spreads to Algeria. Emad Mekay, Inter Press Service (Johannesburg).

  12. Arab bloggers cheer on Tunisia's Revolution. Robert Mackey. THE LEDE. The New York Times. 
  (blog)

  13. Kenya should draw lessons from the goings-on in Tunisia. Daily Nation. (Nairobi). [Not a part of 
  the MENA obviously, but an article like this reveals that people are feeling the reverberations far from 
  Tunisia and are reflecting on them.] 

President Obama, and an Old Familiar Tug of War

When reading a friend's simple Facebook status, I was inspired to ponder and write this long blog article.  

In addition to a remarkable eloquence that draws you in with a sense of compelling non-elitism, President Obama's ability to combine idealistic values with a pragmatic emphasis is perhaps unmatched in the current political class.  This second characteristic is significant, not least because frustrating tensions between idealism and pragmatism are nothing new.  And such tensions have oft-frequently weighed down on past presidents, advocates/activists, and many others among both those seeking change and those seeking to perpetuate the status quo.  

In the 1950's, Eisenhower as president sounded the horn on the increasing convergence of national security and economic interests in what he termed the "Military/Industrial Complex."  Yet Eisenhower, in his experience as a general in WWII and later on as the second Cold War-based U.S. Commander-in-Chief, 

must have realized the significance and implications that U.S.-Soviet competition for world influence would present to him, his Soviet counterparts, and each other's respective allies.  From the very beginning of these newly-erupting tensions, these implications included armed conflict, and just as important: espionage, counter-intelligence, and covert ops.  The CIA's and British Intelligence's involvement in the overthrow of an unfavored yet democratically-elected Mossadegh was just as significant in Iran and the Middle East as the place the Korean War held for the Korean Peninsula and Far East Asia during the same time period.  It can be argued that both of these events have legacies that have shaped the contours and substance of their immediate targets lasting well into the present day.  These two cases have similar objectives in common.  Besides the stated fear of culturally losing Iran to the Eastern Bloc, there was also the very real anger at Mossadegh Government's move to nationalize the British-dominated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in a proclaimed act of economic and political self-determination.  Meanwhile, the Korean War was the first test venue of flying jets and using them in aerial combats.  And they were both, to varying degrees, proxy engagements between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.  Yet, these two cases have end up very differently: South Korea (the ally to be protected from an invading North) has generally prospered, with the exception of North Korea; while Iran has partly found, and partly contributed to, itself moving along a course where it remains internationally shunned.  Neither the U.S. nor its principal Cold War allies are solely responsible for these outcomes; they have however played pivotal roles.  Nor have the two cases been only the cases emerging from the pages of Cold War, but they are among the first to perhaps play out contradictions in a difficult and testing modern time period.       

Jimmy Carter's presidency was seen as a breath of fresh air in the wake of Nixon's Watergate disaster and amid revelations of Nixon's paranoia-induced massive wiretapping and surveillance.  [President Gerald Ford's efforts towards healing the nation and his public demeanor and stature as Washington outsider of sorts was certainly admirable to the public mood of the time, but that wasn't enough to salvage his position especially given Ford's decision to pardon his ex-President.]  Furthermore, Carter's public electoral campaign and presidential emphasis on humanitarian values was so pronounced that his term has been noted as the "human rights presidency."  Above all, the cornerstone of the shine of his presidency lay in success at helping to broker the first-ever peace process for the Middle East (Camp David Accords/Egypt-Israel Treaty). Despite these high points, Carter's single term ended with disaster abroad (i.e. the Iranian Hostage Crisis) and continuing debilitating inflation at home [the argued culprit here was especially the charge that he hadn't moved fast enough to deregulate the economy].  Former President Carter has been for expanding humanitarian work since his departure from national political office; and, though not without controversy (some of it needlessly hyped), he has seemingly managed to continue to set the bar high among members of subsequent political classes after him running into the present.      

In the early 1990s President early Bill Clinton's and First Wife Hillary Clinton's efforts at health care--among other intiatives--re-energized the country with new found hope in social/economic issues in a way that is perhaps up until then unparalleled since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal program.  Yet Clinton was bogged down and frustrated by many elements, most notably a hostile Republican-controlled Congress. [Remember Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms?].  Further compounding his frustration lay in media seemingly more interested in his Oval Office intimacy than engaging him in his actual policy direction.  While Reagan was known as the Great Communicator and Bush I as the man who saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (and by extension, the rest of Arabian Peninsula & the Arab World) from Saddam, Clinton was perhaps known as a Great Negotiator or Great Bridger (or, according to some displeased Liberals, the Great Compromiser) of sorts.  He's the president who brought Don't Ask/Don't as a middle-road compromise between Liberals and Conservatives (even to the chagrin of a moderate Conservative in the military, future Sectary of State Colin Powell, who reportedly resigned from his then-Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff position in protest).  Clinton's also the president who---recognizing the opportunities of interconnectivity and growth brought about by the incoming new wave of Globalization to sweep the world, once the Soviet Union became fully relegated to the annals of history---championed the international trade agreement mechanisms (NAFTA), embraced the WTO (which had been transformed from GATT), and did much to deregulate the financial industry to the concern of culturally and politically liberal allies.  

Despite all of this apparent across-the-aisle outreach, he was still deeply challenged (especially domestically) by his Conservative detractors, and the well-known impeachment and media frenzy ensued.

I honestly don't know what to make of the much-disastrous eight years of the previous Bush II Administration in terms of analyzing the idealism-pragmatism tug of war.  Maybe I am hesitant to do so because perhaps my understandings of idealism and pragmatism, and especially of idealism, are so drastically dissimilar to many Neoconservative views.  Maybe it is also because I am confused by the stark gulf of contrasts between Neoconservative publicly uttered idealism and the realism of conditions (especially political, economic, and diplomatic) on the ground that the held idealism was supposed to smooth over.     

Even Obama, despite his impressive command of words and his profound intelligence and grasp of political/socio-economic environments---and in spite of repeated efforts to reach across the aisle---has been frustrated time and time again by lack of cooperation (to put it mildly and diplomatically) from not only across the aisle but also from some leading members of his own party.  Added to this is a new strange phenomenon he has been facing of anti-this and anti-that which has snagged many segments of American society---from Muslim/Arab Americans to Latino immigrants to health care expansion to the GLBT community---in a vicious dragnet and forced-out steam of hype, phobia, anger, hyperbole.  And of course, the continuing serious problems in stabilizing and rebuilding the mess that has been characterizing post-9/11 Afghanistan, the still-somewhat-uncertainty of Iraq, the draining stalemate (to put it mildly) over Israel/Palestine, as well as continuing civil rights concerns (such as FBI approaches with Muslim/Arab Americans) and delay of fulfilling some campaign promises (such as taking the last steps/phases of closing down Gitmo) are way too much on a single person's plate.  The resurgence of the Republican party (now reinvigorated by Tea Partiers) in last November's elections not only accentuates the importance of opportunities missed by Democrats, but also should highlight disturbing concerns and reservations about what turbulence may come---even among moderate and establishment Republicans who care to ponder.  Opportunities were missed due to many, perhaps intertwining, reasons: lack of sufficient resolve among some crucial segments of the Democratic leadership; continual discord directed by many Republicans; and unchallenged hype/distortion created by some of their quarters; sluggish improvements in inherited economic and other conditions which possibly denied longer-term perspectives over proposed initiatives, among others.              

What we see in all these examples is the great energy (but also great obstruction) in the idealism-pragmatism tug of war.  What we also see is the inevitability of that tug of war, whose dynamics can molded into a working platform or be deliberately exacerbated by short-term or foolish selfishness of action.  It is very hard (and politically suicidal, many in the Washington Beltway might conventionally add) to rise above the entrenched unwisdom of conventional systems of interactions and policy-making, not least because such dynamics and modes help to shape and solidify the rules of the game of setting the agenda, defining the issues, even creating the standards/criteria of analysis and evaluation---no matter who initiated unwisdom and lack of foresight.  Which makes the need to avoid---or at least, minimize---the pushes and and pulls between (considerations regarding the "right thing to do" and "what could be presented and accepted as workable") all the more pronounced.  Well-justified euphoria can be ripped apart by even the slightest doubt in the face of relatively-less-volatile circumstances, or by enormous sincere and heartfelt momentum that is generated only to not fully materialize in word and deed.  

In less than two years, President Obama has proven to be the "man of the hour" and the "man of the moment" for his electrifying energy, his passionate courage, his sober conviction.  But as hopeful as I have been swept to be, the euphoria could be temporary band-aid as much as it can be the signal of a new light to be lit.  Of course, things could've been much worse; yet there is as much as, if not more, potential still unrealized.  The complicated interactions, plights, drama, and dynamics of the problems, challenges, and the good luck and the misfortunes, etc are cannot be simplified to a specific game-winning shot in a sports video.  Neither do real-life "shots" boil down to a relatively straightforward game-plan and counter-plan.  Nor can the real-life "spectator crowd" simply settle for a few plays during game.  I understand that things take time, dedicated effort, patience and perseverance.  And wisdom at some point is bound to be acquired.  But they also take constant pressuring and being receptive to pressure, mixed with a delicate balancing act between compromising on a given stance and insistence on a stance.  All the while realizing that the wrong compromise can set one back years or undo a lot of what good has been done, just as much as the wrong insistence can block one for years from moving forward.  Big and bolder constructive steps need to be taken, and bigger and bolder constructive support needs to be given.       

An Awakening for America

In the wake of the shooting in Arizona just three days ago that critically wounded a Congresswoman and that slew a federal judge, I would have to agree with seasoned observers that something strange, alongside the frustrations of a sluggish economy, is happening in the United States.  A climate (or upsurge) of hate and deliberate provocation, mixed in with a genuine concern about the direction(s) the country is taking, is emerging and continuing to fester.  

However I will briefly add to the discussion on this development.  Last year, I wrote a bit about the anti-Obama mischaracterization, and a little bit more on growing peculiar anti-Muslim sentiments (1,2,3,4) in the U.S.  It is my understanding that these and other outbursts of frustration or opposition are travelling in different directions, targeting a diverse array of issues.  These venues have included acrimonious town-halls over healthcare reform, the debate over and the reaction to the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell military policy, and the swelling of inflammatory and hyped nativist attitude and physical attacks directed towards American Muslim property and their persons.  But [especially with the surfacing and prominence of various right-wing pundits (such as on Fox News, blogging channels, and radio stations) and various fringes of right-wing groups like the Tea Party Movement---not to forget even some Republican candidates' election campaigns throughout last year---] these outbursts hardly indicate a random or chance congruence.  At the very least, they appear to be shared through broader networks weaving the anti-this and anti-that together.  

When violence and ugly rhetoric---from threats, incitements, and racist and inflammatory slurs to assaults and arsons---coincides with the surfacing of such frustration and opposition, it is a clue that something very serious is lurking around.  All the more when such rhetoric and activity are encouraged by, or when they find a receptive or uncritical ear in, segments of the political establishment and of the media/punditry.  I agree with those who call for sincere and calm soul-searching.  Many of us are facing difficulty and uncertainty regarding financial, job, and other stability.  Many of us are frustrated about the current state of affairs, where progress has seemed very sluggish.  These fears and concerns are understandable and worthy of empathy/sympathy.  But absolutely NONE of these constitute legitimate space for cheap, dangerous, and bigoted opportunistic rhetoric.  Absolutely NONE of these serve as justifications for condoning or acting upon it, either.  

On a similar note, imagery has always been a powerful tool for criticism, sarcasm, and for even having an innocent laugh.  But controversies throughout the last few years---from the bigoted and inflammatory ugliness displayed in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, to the ugliness manifested in the "Ground Zero Mosque" debate, to the continuing increase in physical and verbal anti-Muslim attacks and discrimination, to reported attacks or threats on people merely for attending rallies, to finally the recent episode in Arizona---potentially reveal the dark side to the potency in the imagery of pictures and words.  We must be more thoughtful in the construction and usage of the metaphors and images we call upon.  We need to exercise restraint in our words, attitudes, and demeanor.  We must work to constructively challenge action which fails to hold up to the standards of civility.  And we must demand of those in a position of influence to join the effort to do so (and, especially, to provide a positive example).