Today's Article
Corporate media
mouthpieces ignore
what Egypt's military
cabal has been
doing in that country.
mouthpieces ignore
what Egypt's military
cabal has been
doing in that country.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Why Egyptians Are Still Fighting Their Military ‘Keepers’
By Cliff Montgomery - Nov. 30th, 2011
Members of the U.S. corporate media have put on quite a show of apparent confusion over the new wave of
revolutionary protest in Egypt. The protests are occurring even as the country enjoys a strong turnout for its
parliamentary elections, which began on Monday.
‘But why protest the U.S.-backed ruling generals for their management of things in the post-Mubarak era,’ the
corporate talking heads often seem to ask, ‘when elections now are happening across Egypt?’
As readers might expect, the corporate mouthpieces simply ignore what the military cabal has been doing in
that country.
Egypt’s ruling military council calls itself the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). Earlier this month,
SCAF-appointed deputy Prime Minister Ali al-Selmi called for the installation of so-called “supra-constitutional
principles.”
“The proposed principles would give the military permanent powers to intervene in the political process, would
shield the military budget from public scrutiny, and would have allowed the SCAF to dominate the selection
process for the committee charged with writing Egypt’s new constitution,” states a press release from Human
Rights First, a non-partisan, non-profit international organization dedicated to preserving human rights and
basic dignities. It is based in New York City and Washington D.C.
Even though “al-Selmi and the SCAF have recently backed away from some of these claims during
negotiations with representatives of political parties,” the proposals continue to provoke “almost universal
criticism from political parties from across the [Egyptian] political spectrum opposed to what was seen as a
brazen power grab by the military,” adds the press release.
“The SCAF appears to be reverting to the pattern of rule employed by former President Mubarak for decades,”
Human Rights First’s Neil Hicks declared in the press release.
“It is portraying itself and its authoritarian practices as essential bulwarks against instability, extremism and anti-
Western sentiment, while at the same time allowing such forces to bubble up to the surface from time to time
to play on the fears of secularists, religious minorities and the West,” Hicks continued.
“This was a dangerous game under Mubarak that contributed to Egypt producing some of the most virulent
religious extremists in the region. It ultimately failed to produce a stable, sustainable government in Egypt. It is
reckless to believe that a return to military-dominated authoritarianism in Egypt would produce anything but
further instability, economic uncertainty and political violence,” Hicks flatly stated.
Hicks pointed out that SCAF also needs “to restore basic political freedoms [...], to end the trial of civilians by
military courts, to cease attacks on independent civil society organizations and to release detained bloggers
and cease attacks against independent journalists.”
This damning assessment of SCAF’s activities appears to gel with recent messages from the military council
itself, “one of whose members has said the new parliament would not be able to dismiss the government or
pick new ministers,” according to a Reuters article printed yesterday.
“The new parliament's main task is to select a 100-member constituent assembly to write a constitution that
will then be put to a referendum,” continued Reuters.
“Whether that can be done before the planned presidential election in June is hard to say,” declared the news
service. “Nor is it clear if a new president will immediately dissolve parliament.”
But two things are clear.
First, “on paper, the generals will have the final say over all matters of state until the new president is installed,”
stated Reuters.
Second, “[the U.S.-backed generals] may discover that the popular legitimacy enjoyed by the next assembly
proves irresistible.”
“Were they to ignore parliament the way Mubarak did,” continued Reuters, “they might face a new wave of
unrest from Egyptians who now know the power of the street.”
That is a power which is becoming ever more obvious, and it is slowly taking over from Egypt to Wall Street and
Main Street.
But Reuters has one matter wrong. It is not the “power of the street”--it is simply actual democracy, the voices
and power of the people themselves. And it cannot be stopped.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - Nov. 30th, 2011
Members of the U.S. corporate media have put on quite a show of apparent confusion over the new wave of
revolutionary protest in Egypt. The protests are occurring even as the country enjoys a strong turnout for its
parliamentary elections, which began on Monday.
‘But why protest the U.S.-backed ruling generals for their management of things in the post-Mubarak era,’ the
corporate talking heads often seem to ask, ‘when elections now are happening across Egypt?’
As readers might expect, the corporate mouthpieces simply ignore what the military cabal has been doing in
that country.
Egypt’s ruling military council calls itself the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). Earlier this month,
SCAF-appointed deputy Prime Minister Ali al-Selmi called for the installation of so-called “supra-constitutional
principles.”
“The proposed principles would give the military permanent powers to intervene in the political process, would
shield the military budget from public scrutiny, and would have allowed the SCAF to dominate the selection
process for the committee charged with writing Egypt’s new constitution,” states a press release from Human
Rights First, a non-partisan, non-profit international organization dedicated to preserving human rights and
basic dignities. It is based in New York City and Washington D.C.
Even though “al-Selmi and the SCAF have recently backed away from some of these claims during
negotiations with representatives of political parties,” the proposals continue to provoke “almost universal
criticism from political parties from across the [Egyptian] political spectrum opposed to what was seen as a
brazen power grab by the military,” adds the press release.
“The SCAF appears to be reverting to the pattern of rule employed by former President Mubarak for decades,”
Human Rights First’s Neil Hicks declared in the press release.
“It is portraying itself and its authoritarian practices as essential bulwarks against instability, extremism and anti-
Western sentiment, while at the same time allowing such forces to bubble up to the surface from time to time
to play on the fears of secularists, religious minorities and the West,” Hicks continued.
“This was a dangerous game under Mubarak that contributed to Egypt producing some of the most virulent
religious extremists in the region. It ultimately failed to produce a stable, sustainable government in Egypt. It is
reckless to believe that a return to military-dominated authoritarianism in Egypt would produce anything but
further instability, economic uncertainty and political violence,” Hicks flatly stated.
Hicks pointed out that SCAF also needs “to restore basic political freedoms [...], to end the trial of civilians by
military courts, to cease attacks on independent civil society organizations and to release detained bloggers
and cease attacks against independent journalists.”
This damning assessment of SCAF’s activities appears to gel with recent messages from the military council
itself, “one of whose members has said the new parliament would not be able to dismiss the government or
pick new ministers,” according to a Reuters article printed yesterday.
“The new parliament's main task is to select a 100-member constituent assembly to write a constitution that
will then be put to a referendum,” continued Reuters.
“Whether that can be done before the planned presidential election in June is hard to say,” declared the news
service. “Nor is it clear if a new president will immediately dissolve parliament.”
But two things are clear.
First, “on paper, the generals will have the final say over all matters of state until the new president is installed,”
stated Reuters.
Second, “[the U.S.-backed generals] may discover that the popular legitimacy enjoyed by the next assembly
proves irresistible.”
“Were they to ignore parliament the way Mubarak did,” continued Reuters, “they might face a new wave of
unrest from Egyptians who now know the power of the street.”
That is a power which is becoming ever more obvious, and it is slowly taking over from Egypt to Wall Street and
Main Street.
But Reuters has one matter wrong. It is not the “power of the street”--it is simply actual democracy, the voices
and power of the people themselves. And it cannot be stopped.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Wait, why does an
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
* Please check out our ads--they
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!