Egypt Brotherhood’s presidential victory claim seen as preemptive maneuver

By Mustapha Ajbaili

Muslim Brotherhood’s presidential candidate Mohammed Mursi’s surprise dawn media appearance in which he claimed victory in Egypt’s first free election was seen as a “preemptive maneuver” to thwart possible vote rigging by the election commission backed by the ruling generals.

The vast and well-organized network of the Muslim Brotherhood began releasing instant results of the vote count shortly after the polling stations closed at 10 p.m. on Sunday. The results showed Mursi advancing in most of the provinces.

His rival and former air force commander Ahmad Shafiq was shown to be leading in few but sizable areas, including the Sharqia province, which is home to both candidates.

About six hours into the vote count, Mursi’s campaign, which had delegates in all the 13,000 plus polling centers across Egypt, compiled results and announced its victory in a press conference at dawn.

After a campaign spokesman said Mursi had secured 52.5 percent of the votes, against 47.5 of Shafiq, the Brotherhood candidate surprisingly appeared to make the announcement himself.

Surrounded by senior Brotherhood members, including the president of the dissolved People’s Assembly, Mursi promised to be the president of all Egyptians and offered a message of “peace.”

“Hand-in-hand with all Egyptians for a better future, freedom, democracy, development and peace,” Mursi said, without clearly stating that he had won the election, apparently leaving it for the electoral commission to formally announce.

“We are not seeking vengeance or to settle accounts,” he said, adding that he would build a “modern, democratic state” for all Egyptian citizens, Muslims and Christians.

Veteran Egyptian journalist Ahmed Abdallah, said Mursi’s “prompt declaration of victory was a smart move against any possible attempt to rig the results in favor of Shafiq.

“Because everything is possible in Egyptian politics, the Brotherhood moved quickly to claim victory and present results from their widely effective network of delegates across the nation,” he said.

“If they had waited until the morning, the results could have been different,” Abdallah said.

In the same vein, deputy editor-in-chief of AlArabiya.net, Farrag Ismail, said the Brotherhood’s quick move to declare victory was “a precautionary measure for fear of fraud.”

In the first round of the elections, Brotherhood held a press conference every hour to announce the latest results “with the January 25 television channel covering the press conferences as a testimony,” he said.

“The Brotherhood’s announcement early this morning was seen by some as a precipitous declaration, but they did it because they did not trust the high electoral commission which oversees the elections and they did not trust the military council, believed to favor Shafiq.”

Supporters of Mursi flocked to Cairo’s iconic Tahrir Square on Monday morning to celebrate their candidate’s self-proclaimed victory.

Any different result in favor of Shafiq, if announced by the election commission this week, would likely anger Mursi’s supporters already celebrating in the streets and would plunge the country deeper in turmoil.

Spokesman for Shafiq’s campaign, Ahmed Sarhan, told the media this morning that the Brotherhood’s declaration was designed to establish a de facto situation to discredit any possible different results that could be announced later by the independent election commission.

(Published on English.AlArabiya.net Monday June 18, 2012)

Egyptians are as polarized today as they were under Mubarak

By Mustapha Ajbaili

Torn between the choice of a former air force commander who promised to restore stability with an iron fist and an Islamist who pledged to implement “God’s law” if elected president, many secularists in Egypt turn to Tahrir Square to seek refuge from an excruciating reality.

Following the ouster of Hosni Mubarak last year, liberal democrats shifted the focus of their ire to the generals who took over power. However, the refusal by the Muslim Brotherhood to join the protests for an immediate end to military rule essentially aborted the “second revolution.”

Observers in both the West and the Arab world should have understood then that the Islamist movement is the key to any major change in the country. Mainstream Arab and Western media portrayed the conflict in post-revolutionary Egypt as one between the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and the liberal revolutionaries.

Reality indicates that this is a major conflict but not a defining one.

Recent results from the presidential elections coupled with the verdict in former president Hosni Mubarak’s trial reveal that a decades-old fight between the Brotherhood and the former regime is far from over and that it continues to dominate and shape the country’s political scene.

Egyptians are as polarized today as they were during Mubarak’s decades-old rule. The old regime, with its links to the military, has served the interests of many people who continue to support it. The Brotherhood relies on a wide base of staunch supporters and members linked in a web of complicated shared interests as well.

The liberals who dream of a Western-style democracy find themselves on the periphery with the painful reality of having to choose between Mohammed Mursi and Ahmed Shafiq or boycott the elections.

George Friedman, of Stratfor Global Intelligence, recently wrote that Westerners misunderstood the popular movement demanding an end to the military rule as one that was “driven by the spirit of Western liberalism.”

“The result is that we have a showdown not between the liberal democratic mass and a crumbling military regime but between a representative of the still-powerful regime (Shafiq) and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

(Published on English.alarabiya.net on June 11, 2012)

Egypt’s ‘trial of the century’ a warning for revolutionary forces

By Mustapha Ajbaili

 

Following today’s ruling that sent Hosni Mubarak and his interior minster, Hababi al-Adly, to prison for life and the acquittal of Mubarak’s two sons’ Alaa and Gamal and other senior members of the Central Security (SS), revolutionary powers were dealt another blow and it is time they put their differences aside and re-collect themselves in a powerful mass to push back against the old regime that is now forcefully returning to Egypt. 

The ruling military in Egypt has succeeded in driving a wedge between revolutionary forces as it drove the battle from the streets of Cairo to a legal maze and a network of constitutional paths and hedges.

 

Legal immunity for Morocco’s armed forces rings alarm bells

                                               (Photo courtesy of Hespress)
By Mustapha Ajbaili

A Moroccan draft law that seeks to grant members of the armed forces legal immunity for “military operations” carried out inside the kingdom has sparked criticism by human rights organizations who say it violates the principle of equal justice under law.

The “basic guarantees for the military” draft law states that “criminal investigation shall not be applied to members of the Royal Armed Forces who are executing the orders of their commanders…during an operation inside the national territories.”
The proposed legislation also states that military members will be “entitled to state protection … against threats, prosecution, or abuse during or after their duty.”

The participation of military forces in the crackdown on pro-democracy protests in some Arab Spring countries like Libya, Yemen and currently Syria, has left many people in the region increasingly suspicious about their armed forces.

The Egyptian army, for instance, had noticeably sided with protesters in the early days of the country’s anti-regime uprising, but was later accused of violently cracking down on protests and of committing extra-judicial killings and imprisoning revolutionaries.

A coalition of 18 human rights organizations in Morocco last week sounded alarm bells by warning that the proposed legislation would “legitimize the rules of impunity” if passed.

In a joint statement, the rights groups dismissed the draft law – prepared and submitted by the minister delegate for defense in the Islamist-led government – as a “dangerous step that would jeopardize freedoms and threaten the safety and the lives of the citizens.”

The Moroccan Coalition for Human Rights Groups urged the parliament not to approve the draft legislation, which it said needed “substantial amendments to conform to basic principles of human rights and the state of law.”

“Issuing and executing military orders has to be in accordance with the rules of professionalism and responsibility attached to members of the armed forces in protecting civilians during states of war and peace,” the rights groups added.

The groups also said that the government should not allow human rights violations to take place under the pretexts of military discipline.

Families of victims who died in the Western Sahara War during 1975 -1991 also criticized the proposed legal immunity for members of the army, saying it “goes against the spirit of the new constitution and the recommendation of the Equity and Reconciliation Commission with regards to the questioning of security services and international treaties signed by Morocco.”

Ibrahim Asaidi, Arab world defense policies analyst, told Al Arabiya that Article 7 of the proposed legislation “clearly” violates Morocco’s new constitution, which states that all citizens, including members of the armed forces, are equal under the law.

Asaidi said the legislation is designed to protect high-ranking military officials, including powerful generals, from being questioned in high profile corruption cases nationally and internationally.

In February, Morocco’s King Mohammed pledged to improve the conditions of the serving and retired military personnel following small-scale protests by veterans and a few cases of soldiers burning themselves to death.


(Published on English.alarabiya.net May 28, 2012)

Has Morocco’s gov’t hit a brick wall in reform mission?

By Mustapha Ajbaili


Since assuming office nearly five months ago, Morocco’s moderate Islamist-led government has worked arduously to punch a hole in an old system resistant to reform. It has failed almost at every attempt, disappointed many of those who saw in them a glimmer of hope, and created enemies with various social forces, including largely the unemployed graduates.

The pessimists are gaining ground and the protest movement, once thought to be dead, rebounded last Sunday with sizeable rallies in several cities.

The much publicized “participatory governance” ─ a shared decision-making process between elected officials and the royal court ─ has turned into a euphemistic expression for a post-Arab Spring form of collective totalitarianism.

Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane has walked a tightrope for almost five months, trying to satisfy the public without upsetting the king and the coterie of oligarchs running the political show from behind a curtain.

During the election campaign, Benkirane’s Justice and Development Party (JPD) promised to mend the state budget by fighting corruption, inequality, and privileges.
Benkirane must have known well that he was up against a system set up in a way to ensure that no political party wins an outright majority and is thus unable to form a government by itself.

Benkirane found himself in a coalition with one of Morocco’s most corrupt and powerful political parties, the Istiqlal (Independence) party and the populist Islamist leader will see his coalition breaking apart the moment he begins to touch sensitive nerves of corruption.

We saw that recently when PJD Minister of Information Mustapha el-Khalfi came up with a proposal to reform the media sector. The proposed bill contained new audiovisual media guidelines devised to ensure the transparency, independence and competitiveness in the sector. Media hawks orbiting the establishment, best known locally as the Makhzen, hit back at the minister’s proposed plan and rejected it entirely.

Why?
Mediated explanations focused on the fact that the new guidelines sought to “Islamize” the Moroccan media and that the hawks were defending the values of modernity, openness and liberty.

However, such values are the least of their concerns. They are more concerned about money and about losing their privileges, because the new guidelines call for the transparency of audiovisual production contracts and that they be awarded on merit, not favoritism.

What happened next?

The hawks appeared to have won the skirmish. The minister was summoned to the palace and all we heard later was that his proposed bill was ordered to be shelved.

This is just a small example of the government’s failure to reform the system and while it is still early to make a definitive judgment about its performance, its tendency to surrender each time it provokes a fight is frustrating to the people.

Implicit alliance of Egypt’s Islamists and military rulers shows cracks

By: Mustapha Ajbaili


An alliance that was formed following the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak between Egypt’s powerful Muslim Brotherhood group and the intractable ruling generals has exhibited cracks in the recent weeks as the country moves closer to the presidential race.


Both parties built up their strengths in the shade during Mubarak’s 30-year rule. The military took advantage of billions of dollars in U.S. military aid to strengthen itself far from the public limelight, while the Muslim brotherhood built up a massive underground network that brought it closer to the lives of millions of Egyptians.


In the wake of the Jan. 25 revolution, both forces made their presence felt in the country’s political center stage. Both appeared to understand one another’s might, agenda, and the need for mutual cooperation, which developed into an alliance – however implicit this might be. The coming together of the two forces in the post-revolutionary Egypt spared the country a clash of the titans.


Coming under fire from liberal groups last year, the military moved closer to the Brotherhood and succumbed to its “less painful” demands in several occasions to win their support. For the generals, winning the support of Egypt’s most powerful political bloc was essential for steering the boat in the direction of their intended objective, which looks more like a democracy, but not a democracy. They want a system in which elected officials manage domestic affairs but have little say on strategic matters.


While everyone was busy talking about a “Turkish model” that reconciles Islam with democracy, the generals in Cairo appeared to be heading towards a “Turkish model” in which a "pasha" general – like the leader of Turkey’s 1980 military coup, Kenan Evren – acts as the custodian of the state’s strategic issues, especially when it comes to foreign policy, including primarily the relation with the United States and Israel.


Muslim Brotherhood leaderships, appearing to have learned from decades of enmity with Egyptian rulers, decided this time it was in their best interest to support the military in the path to democracy, because they are all but certain to emerge as the victors.


The two forces had interests in joint collaboration during the transitional period, but their starkly different – if not opposing – visions of the future dictated their inevitable breakup – and the cracks are emerging.


The Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), has expressed cynicism over the military council’s staunch support for the cabinet of Prime Minister Kamal al-Ganzouri.


“Is it a desire to abort the revolution and destroy the people’s belief in their ability to achieve their goals? Or is there an intention to defraud or influence the forthcoming presidential election?” the Brotherhood’s party asked in a statement.


“If anyone intends to reproduce the former corrupt regime with new faces, the people are ready to move in order to revive their revolution,” the Islamist party threatened.


The military and the Brotherhood have worked together – or rather played together – in an often climate of distrust, which never burst into the open until last week.


Egypt’s military ruler Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi said he could not take it anymore. “We were careful not to be provoked, but what happened recently is enough.” Sounding the warning bell, he called “on all to be aware of history’s lessons not to repeat past mistakes.”


At this stage in Egypt’s transition, the Muslim Brotherhood likely realized that it and the military have two different understandings of democracy.


Unlike the generals, Islamists want a democracy in which elected officials and public institutions would have full power over the military and the country’s foreign policy. The ruling generals, under pressure from Washington, will never accept this…at least without a fight. It is Israel’s security here which is at stake!



(Published in English.alarabiya.net on March 2, 2012)

مغرب "الأوراش الكبرى"... إلى أين؟

مصطفى اجبيلى

 

ميناء طنجة المتوسط، تي جي في طنجة - الدار البيضاء، موروكو مول... إلخ، كلها مشاريع كبيرة من شأن أي بلد أن يفتخر بمثلها. لكن إلى أي حد يمكن لمثل هذه المشاريع أن تسهم حقاً في التنمية الاقتصادية للبلد؟ وما مدى نجاعتها في تقليص البطالة ومحاربة الفقر وتعزيز التنمية البشرية في بلد يتذيل بلدان شمال إفريقيا والشرق الأوسط في نسب التعليم؟ 

من بين عشرات المقالات اليومية في الجرائد المغربية نجد النقد والنقد المضاد في الشأن السياسي والاجتماعي وغيره, دونما التطرق بشكل كافٍ للسياسات الاقتصادية التي ينتهجها البلد. 

وقد أثار موضوع "الأوراش الكبرى" بالتحديد اهتمامي كونها تكلف دافعي الضرائب في المغرب أموالاً طائلة، وتجعل البلد برمته عبداً دائماً للدول والمؤسسات المالية العالمية المانحة للقروض دون أن تقدم هذه المشاريع "العملاقة" مردوداً إيجابياً ملحوظاً للشعب، خصوصاً الفئات الفقيرة منه. ربما تساعد هذه المشاريع في خلق بضعة آلاف من فرص العمل وتشجيع بعض الاستثمارات الأجنبية هنا وهناك, لكن الثمن باهظ جداً على المغرب. فمعظم تلك المشاريع عبارة عن صفقات سياسية أكثر منها اقتصادية. 

فمشروع القطار السريع يوهمني بأن المغاربة كلهم في عجلة من أمرهم كي يقطعوا المسافة من طنجة إلى الدار البيضاء في ساعتين عوضاً عن أربع. هذا المشروع - بحسب مراقبين - هو صفقة لإرضاء فرنسا الغاضبة من شراء المغرب طائرات إف 16 الأميركية بدلاً من "رافال" الفرنسية.. ببساطة هكذا تبدو الأمور. فرنسا أقرضت المغرب ملياري يورو كجزء أكبر من ميزانية إنشاء المشروع. ومعظم هذا المبلغ سيعود إلى فرنسا من خلال الشركة الفرنسية المكلفة بإنشاء المشروع والمهندسين الفرنسيين الذين سيعملون في المشرع.  

هكذا تعمل الدول والمؤسسات الكبرى، تقرض الأموال للدول الفقيرة من خلال اتفاقيات رسمية وتستعيدها في البداية  بشكل غير مباشر من خلال شركاتها التي تعمل في إنشاء هذه المشاريع، وبعدها بشكل مباشر حيث تقوم الدول الفقيرة بسداد الديون والفوائد المفروضة عليها، وحين تشتد الأزمات الاجتماعية على هذه الدول الفقيرة وتتخلف عن سداد ديونها في الوقت المطلوب تعاد جدولة هذه الديون بشروط عادة ما تكون سياسية كشراء الذمم في الأمم المتحدة والتبعية المطلقة، أو اقتصادية كفرض مزيد من الفوائد على القروض وفتح المزيد من القطاعات أمام الشركات الغربية، وفى بعض الأحيان تفرض عليك أن تقبل أن تكون مزبلة لنفاياتها النووية أو مستنقعاً لصناعاتها الملوثة للبيئة.. وكل هذا طبعاً باسم التنمية الاقتصادية العمياء. 

هذا ما يحدث في المغرب للأسف الشديد، نقترض فنتورّط ثم تُفرض علينا شروط من قبيل أن نفتح مولاً كبيراً لتسويق الماركات العالمية وامتصاص المزيد من دماء المغاربة، أو منح هكتارات شاسعة من الأراضي لهذا الغربي أو ذاك الخليجي.

أتساءل ما إذا كان بإمكان فرنسا أن تقرضنا ملياري يورو لكي نطور بها صناعاتنا الوطنية ونبني بها مؤسسات لتكوين طاقات بشرية في أعلى المستويات العالمية. غالب الظن أن فرنسا سترفض؛ لأنها لو فعلت ستكون بذلك تساعد المغرب على أن يكون مستقلاً ذاتياً ومنافساً لها ولشركاته ولطاقاتها البشرية.

لقد آن الأوان لمن يرعى سياسات التنمية الاقتصادية في المغرب أن يدرك أن المغرب ليس دبي ولا أمريكا لكي يبني مولات وقطارات سريعة تورطنا أكثر مما تفيدنا. فلو كانت فيها فائدة لوجدنا تركيا كلها مولات وقطارات سريعة، فمثل هذه المشاريع عادة ما تكون عبارة عن مظاهر وليس دوافع للازدهار الاقتصادي، وهذا ما يجب أن يدركه المغرب، حسب رأيي المتواضع.