Inside the White House's Egypt Scramble

As protests erupted in Egypt, Washington struggled desperately to find the right response to the crisis.

by John BarryJanuary 30, 2011

 Pete Souza / The White House

President Obama being briefed on the events in Egypt by his national security team in a meeting in the Situation Room of the White House.

For three days straight, as the Cairo crisis gathered momentum, they had hardly left their desks. Now, huddled in the big office of their boss—one of the administration policy-makers trying to calibrate the U.S. response to the unfolding drama—the advisers watched Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s first statement. Two television sets were running, one showing CNN and the other a satellite feed from Al Jazeera. Someone had popped popcorn in a microwave. In the old days, their boss reflected, he would have ordered in pizza, but since 9/11 the ever-expanding security precautions had shut down deliveries of take-out.

The mood was buoyant, as revealed by interviews with several officials involved in the ongoing administration debate that provide at least a preliminary glimpse of their concerns as Egypt spiraled toward chaos.

Had there been an office pool, the boss thought, the favored bet would have been that Mubarak was about to “do an LBJ” and repeat what President Lyndon Johnson did in 1968 in the face of a wave of protests: announce he would not stand in the upcoming presidential election. Certainly, Mubarak’s departure would present the U.S. with a new set of daunting challenges, but at least it would quiet the Egyptian streets and buy some time for mediation.  Anastasia Taylor-Lind / VII Mentor Program

The Keystroke Revolution

But as the Egyptian president spoke—a couple of the Arabic speakers in the room providing translation—the optimism died. Mubarak announced he was dismissing his government; he talked of reforms. But he also made clear his determination to stay on. There were groans, shaking of heads. This wasn’t going to be enough to halt the tumult in half of Egypt’s cities, and, more disconcertingly, Mubarak’s assertion that the demonstrations were “part of a bigger plot to shake the stability” of Egypt sounded ominous. The Egyptian president had called out the Army on Friday; now his speech sounded as if he was preparing to use it. President Obama’s Middle East advisers believed that if Egyptian security forces opened fire on demonstrators, the country would likely explode. As Mubarak ended his address, someone in the room voiced the thought on everyone’s mind: “Well, what do we do now?”

In the White House, that judgment was swiftly made. Mubarak’s speech was a climactic moment: It was time for President Obama to act.

Throughout the week, as the crisis gathered storm in Egypt, the administration had otherwise been slow to react, seemingly always one step behind events. This was partly because neither the U.S. intelligence community nor diplomats on the ground foresaw how swiftly the protests in Egypt would gather momentum—even if everyone realized that virtually the entire Arab world is a tinder box of pent-up frustration, with despotic regimes unable to meet the needs of, especially, their youth. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself put it last month, in a speech in Doha that now seems uncannily prescient, Arab leaders would face growing unrest, extremism, and even rebellion unless they reformed “corrupt institutions and a stagnant political order.” It was the starkest warning ever delivered by a senior American official, and a message brought home a few days later when Tunisia erupted in revolt.

Yet, when it came to Egypt, the tone was different, and as the protests in Cairo gathered momentum, Clinton’s initial public comments were a mixture of fact and hopeful fiction. “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” she said, an assessment that didn’t take long to be overtaken by events.

Whether Mubarak indeed was committed to responding to “the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people” remained an open question. Clinton’s statement, however, had been carefully calibrated, coming after the first round of what proved to be an exhausting week of discussions by President Obama and his top officials.

From the start, according to sources privy to the discussions, talks revolved around two objectives: how to cajole Mubarak to respond to the demonstrations, while, at the same time, not saying anything publicly that could be taken as American approval of the forcible overthrow of Arab regimes. But as the demonstrations grew in intensity, that balance became increasingly fraught. The demonstrators were, after all, demanding human and political rights to which the United States is committed, but which Mubarak showed no sign of granting.

After much discussion, it was decided that President Obama would not try to speak directly to Mubarak. According to an informed source, the assessment was that president-to-president intervention should be held in reserve as a last recourse. Besides, any exchange with Mubarak would require Obama to say whether he supported Mubarak’s continued rule. And the president was in a bind: He couldn’t bluntly say no. On the other hand, Egyptian authorities would instantly broadcast any expression of support as proof that Washington was backing Mubarak’s hold on power. (Shown this article for review, the White House said: "There's nothing we'd comment on here at the moment.")

So the administration tried to reach Mubarak by other means. The Cairo embassy reached out to his advisers. Other Arab leaders were enlisted. Across the region, the events in Cairo were viewed with mounting concern by other governments. The longer their television screens were filled with those scenes of protest, the likelier they were to trigger comparable uprisings in other capitals. The administration’s message was clear: for your own sake, persuade Mubarak he has to quell the revolt by offering concessions.

By Thursday, though, the Cairo embassy was reporting that Mubarak was mobilizing the Army. Everyone knew that Friday, the Muslim day of prayer, would see the biggest demonstrations yet. Mubarak’s mobilization of the military could only mean that he was set on suppression. There was a real risk of bloodshed—and the judgment both of analysts in Washington and of Arab leaders in other capitals was that killings on any scale could ignite a firestorm—not only in Egypt but across the region.

Taking advantage of a pre-arranged Q&A session on YouTube, Obama warned: “The government has to be careful about not resorting to violence.” Mubarak, he said, needed to be “moving ahead on reform—political reform, economic reform”.

Whether Obama’s warning influenced Mubarak’s actions is unclear. The Army did roll into the streets of Cairo and other cities on Friday. But it did not shoot; and, on Friday evening, Mubarak appeared on television for the first time in the crisis.

Meanwhile at the Pentagon, a high-powered delegation of Egyptian military leaders, including the armed forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Sami Hafez Enan, cut short a scheduled week-long visit after only a few hours, departing instead for the airport. Their Pentagon hosts wished them well, with careful expressions of hope that a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Egypt would permit the continuation of the U.S. military’s long-standing relationship with Egypt’s armed forces. (Since the U.S. funds the Egyptian military to the tune of $1.3 billion a year, the message was clear.)

Administration officials suspect—or, at any rate, hope—that Obama’s blunt declaration forced Mubarak’s hand, prompting the Egyptian president to address his nation. What Mubarak offered in his televised speech, however, was “too little, too late,” as someone at that popcorn-eating gathering said. There was no prospect, Obama’s advisers believed, that Mubarak’s vague promises of reform would pacify the streets.

At a meeting on Friday afternoon, Obama and his top officials, including Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon among them, concluded that the time had come for Obama to talk directly to Mubarak. And Mubarak’s address to the Egyptian people had given Obama the opening he wanted. The White House organized the call.

It was an intervention that dramatically—and publicly—escalated the American involvement in the Egyptian crisis. In an address from the White House, Obama outlined what he had told Mubarak, putting the administration unequivocally behind the demonstrators’ demands. “The people of Egypt have rights that are universal,” Obama said in his speech. “And the United States will stand up for them everywhere.” The president also warned both sides against violence but his message was clear: “When President Mubarak addressed the Egyptian people tonight, he pledged a better democracy and greater economic opportunity. I just spoke to him after his speech, and I told him he has a responsibility to give meaning to those words, to take concrete steps and actions that deliver on that promise.” And, said Obama, “we are committed to working with the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people—all quarters—to achieve” those goals.

It was a breath-taking pledge, with Obama coming close to making the U.S. the guarantor that Mubarak will act. In Egypt, his reference to “all quarters” will be taken to suggest that the U.S. will even reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood, an unprecedented step.

In the last week, the administration has come a long way.

Egypt Protests Show American Foreign-Policy Folly

While popular uprisings erupt across the Middle East, America stands on the sidelines. Stephen Kinzer on why the U.S. should abandon its self-defeating strategy in the region.

by Stephen KinzerJanuary 28, 2011

From left: AFP-Getty Images; Thaer Ganaim / PPO-Getty Images; Sean Gallup / Getty Images

Leading figures in U.S.–Mideast policy (from left): Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

One afternoon a couple of weeks ago, I walked into the British Foreign Office for a meeting with Middle East policy planners. “Tunisia is melting down and the Lebanese government has just fallen,” my host said as he welcomed me. “Interesting times.”

During our meeting, one veteran British diplomat observed that since American policy toward the Middle East is frozen into immobility, change there comes only when there is a crisis. I asked where he thought the next crisis might erupt. “Egypt,” he replied.

Events have moved quickly since then President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia has been overthrown, Hezbollah has chosen the new prime minister of Lebanon and thousands have taken to the streets in Egypt to demand an end to Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year dictatorship. The Middle East is erupting—and the U.S. is watching from the sidelines. Unable to guide the course of events, it can do little more than cheer for its sclerotic allies and hope that popular anger does not sweep them aside.

Washington sees the various local and national conflicts in the Middle East as part of a battle for regional hegemony between the U.S. and Iran. If this is true, the U.S. is losing. That is because it has stubbornly held onto Middle East policies that were shaped for the Cold War. The security environment in the region has changed dramatically since then. Iran has shown itself agile enough to align itself with rising new forces that enjoy the support of millions. The U.S., meanwhile, remains allied with countries and forces that looked strong 30 or 40 years ago but no longer are.

Iran is betting on Hizbullah, Hamas, and Shiite parties in Iraq. These are popular forces that win elections. Hizbullah emerged as the heroic champion of resistance to Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, winning the admiration of Arabs, not only for itself but also for its Iranian backers. Many Arabs also admire Hamas for its refusal to bow to Israeli power in Gaza.

Pro-Iran forces have also scored major gains in Iraq. They effectively control the Iraqi government, and their most incendiary leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, recently returned to a hero’s welcome after an extended stay in Iran. By invading Iraq in 2003, and removing Saddam Hussein from power, the U.S. handed Iraq to Iran on a platter. Now Iran is completing the consolidation of its position in Baghdad.

 

Alex Majoli / Magnum for Newsweek

Images of the Tunisian protests that drove out a dictator

Postcards From the Revolution

Whom does America bet on to counter these rising forces? The same friends it has been betting on for decades: Mubarak’s pharaonic regime in Egypt, Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority, the Saudi monarchy, and increasingly radical politicians in Israel. It is no wonder that Iran’s power is rising as the American-imposed order begins to crumble.

The U.S. keeps Mubarak in power—it gave his regime $1.5 billion in aid last year—mainly because he supports America’s pro-Israel policies, especially by helping Israel maintain its stranglehold on Gaza. It supports Abbas for the same reason: he is seen as willing to compromise with Israel, and therefore a desirable negotiating partner. This was confirmed, to Abbas’s great embarrassment, by WikiLeaks cables that show how eager he has been to meet Israeli demands, even collaborating with Israeli security forces to arrest Palestinians he dislikes. American support for Mubarak and Abbas continues, although neither man is in power with any figment of legality; Mubarak brazenly stage-manages elections, and Abbas has ruled by decree since his term of office expired in 2009.

Intimacy with the Saudi royal family is another old habit the U.S. cannot seem to kick—even though American leaders know full well, as one of the WikiLeaks cables confirms, that “Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like al-Qaeda.” The fact that the Tunisian leader fled to Saudi Arabia after being overthrown shows how fully the Saudis support the old, eroding Middle East order.

As for Israel itself, it will lose much if new Arab leaders emerge who refuse to be their silent partners. Yet Israel clings to the belief that it will be able to guarantee its long-term security with weapons alone. The U.S. encourages it in this view, sending Israelis the message that no matter how militant their rejectionist policies become, they can count on Washington’s endless support.

The U.S. has long sought to block democracy in the Arab world, fearing that it would lead to the emergence of Islamist regimes. Remarkably, however, the Tunisian revolution does not seem to be heading that way, nor have Islamist leaders tried to guide protests in Egypt. Perhaps watching the intensifying repression imposed by mullahs in Iran has led many Muslims to rethink the value of propelling clerics to power.

Even if democratic regimes in the Middle East are not fundamentalist, however, they will firmly oppose U.S. policy toward Israel. The intimate U.S.-Israel relationship guarantees that many Muslims around the world will continue to see the U.S. as an enabler of evil. Despite America’s sins in the Middle East, however, many Muslims still admire the U.S. They see its leaders as profoundly mistaken in their unconditional support of Israel, but envy what the U.S. has accomplished and want some version of American freedom and prosperity for themselves. This suggests that it is not too late for the U.S. to reset its policy toward the region in ways that would take new realities into account.

Accepting that Arabs have the right to elect their own leaders means accepting the rise of governments that do not share America’s pro-Israel militancy. This is the dilemma Washington now faces. Never has it been clearer that the U.S. needs to reassess its long-term Middle East strategy. It needs new approaches and new partners. Listening more closely to Turkey, the closest U.S. ally in the Muslim Middle East, would be a good start. A wise second step would be a reversal of policy toward Iran, from confrontation to a genuine search for compromise. Yet pathologies in American politics, fed by emotions that prevent cool assessment of national interest, continue to paralyze the U.S. diplomatic imagination. Even this month’s eruptions may not be enough to rouse Washington from its self-defeating slumber.

Egypt Revolution: The Purity Protests

The pro-democracy protest is the biggest demonstration in Egypt in years. And women are increasingly taking part in the politics of the street.

by Mike GiglioJanuary 28, 2011

Mohammed Abed / AFP-Getty Images

Former UN nuclear watchdog Chief Mohamed ElBaradei is surround by demonstrators on January 28, 2011 after Egyptian riot police used water canons to disperse a protest calling for the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.

Egyptian police used water cannons against Nobel laureate and pro-democracy leader Mohamed ElBaradei and his supporters as anti-Mubarak protests heated up Friday. Then ElBaradei was put under house arrest as riot police used tear gas and rubber bullets on protesters. The Muslim Brotherhood says at least five of its leaders and five former members of parliament have been arrested. Opposition groups say the new round of protests may make or break the movement to end President Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule. As tens of thousands demonstrated after prayers, the government shut down the Internet and cellphone text-messaging, as well as Cairo’s subway system. "It's over, I think, for the Mubarak regime," said Maha Azzam of the think-tank Chatham House. The U.S. State Department, which has held back on outright criticism of the clampdown, said it was “concerned” about the blocking of communications services—it issued the statement via Twitter.

When 29-year-old Dalia Ziada, a popular Egyptian blogger, took to the streets of Cairo to protest this week, she saw an astonishing sight: In the crowds were university students and mothers with families in tow—a diverse mix of women marching and chanting, and running from the police.

Related: Inside Egypt's Facebook Revolt »

During Friday’s mass demonstrations, women also participated, vocally and visibly, in what became a brutal standoff with authorities. (Police reportedly used tear-gas, rubber-bullets and water-cannon against the protesters.)

“Men and women are standing side-by-side in calling for their rights,” said Ziada in a telephone interview, before the government cut all cell phone connections.

Esraa Abdel Fatah, who also protested in Cairo this week, and who is known as “Facebook Girl” after organizing a nation-wide strike through her page in 2008, had a similar take: “We’re all Egyptians.”

This air of inclusiveness has surrounded Egypt’s upheaval from the start, with protesters highlighting the movement’s “purity” and lack of religious or political agenda beyond democratic reform. Women, who in Cairo are often groped in the streets, report that other demonstrators have been remarkably respectful.

Related: Egypt Protests Show American Foreign-Policy Folly »

Sara Abu Bakr, a journalist and publisher in Cairo, was surprised by the lack of sexual harassment, for which Egypt is infamous, especially during large public events. “This was supposed to be sexual molestation day, and nothing happened,” she said. Several activists in Cairo reported the same.

On the street and online, “Purity”—be it political or sexual—has become a rallying cry.

“You don’t see political flags [in the crowds],” said Ahmed Samih, an activist who directs an Internet radio station in Cairo. “You don’t see the Muslim Brotherhood. You see Egyptians. You see the flags of Egyptians all over the place.”

Or as Ziada put it: “All you have is an idea.”

Some observers, however, worried that the government might employ professional rabble-rousers to specifically target women. Whether Friday’s government crackdown took aim at women in particular was hard to assess since the government cut Internet access as well cell phone communication.

But it was clear that the standoff was violent and chaotic.

There were reports that police used water cannons on Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, a pro-democracy leader and President Hosni Mubarak’s top adversary, during Friday’s protests. He had returned to Cairo earlier in the week to demand reform.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which until this week was seen as the only force capable of bringing big numbers to the streets, officially endorsed the demonstration after staying on the sidelines for much of the week.

“No political force is in the position to claim this. It’s coming from the people,” says Wael Khalil, a veteran activist in Cairo. “The Tunisian people stood their ground and defied the brute force together. And I think Egyptians…are out to outdo the Tunisians in taking matters into our own hands.”

This article originally appeared on The Daily Beast.

Egypt Revolution: Inside a Cairo Street Protest

In the Egyptian capital, demonstrators are defying President Mubarak’s curfew and fighting police. Ursula Lindsey joined a group of young protesters Friday and reports on the dramatic scenes.

by Ursula LindseyJanuary 28, 2011

Mohammed Abed / AFP-Getty Images

Egyptian demonstrators flash V-signs next to a burning police vehicle in as protests erupt in Cairo on January 28, 2011.

After a day of historic protests, Cairo has entered a restless night as youths continue to fight police in the city’s central square and the national party headquarters and national museum burn.

An overnight curfew has been declared in Cairo, with President Hosni Mubarak calling in the army after a day of increasingly dramatic clashes between protesters and security forces.

The roar of the crowds and the beat of tear gas canisters being fired had reverberated through the Egyptian capital all day Friday. Inspired by the Tunisian revolution and fed up with Mubarak’s 30 years of authoritarian rule, thousands of protesters attempted to converge on the city’s central Tahrir Square to send a message that the time for change has come.

Meanwhile, the country was plunged into a telecommunications black hole, as the government took the unprecedented step of shutting down the Internet, cellphone service, and even most international telephone lines.

Early Friday morning, in a house in the middle-class neighborhood of Agouza, a group of young activists watched Al Jazeera and waited anxiously for the revolution to start.

Several of the young people in the room were members of Nobel laureate and would-be presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei’s Campaign for Change. Many of them also have links to the We Are All Khaled Said protest movement, which was formed after a young Egyptian man of that name was apparently beaten to death in police custody last year.

Sally, 32, is a psychiatrist who just moved back to Cairo from London, partly because, she says, “I want to see change.”

Salma and Omar, 19 and 22, are the niece and nephew of a political opposition figure. Salma, a slight, soft-voiced brunette, has already been arrested once for her political activism. She and her brother both say, matter-of-factly, that they’re ready to die to “free Egypt from this terrible regime.”

Ziad, 30, whose home this is, is a human rights lawyer and longtime activist. His mother, Ekram, a journalist, was one of 50 student militants arrested by President Sadat after Egypt’s 1977 bread riot—the last time Egyptians revolted this dramatically against their government. Today Ekram laid out a big breakfast of bread, olives, jam, eggs, and fruit juice. “Eat up,” she told her son and his friends. “You’re going to be running around all day.” She, meanwhile, would stay home to man the precious working land line.

All of the activists were surprised by the success of last Tuesday’s “Day of Rage” protest, when thousands of demonstrators roamed freely through the city, easily overwhelming a seemingly flabbergasted security apparatus. Nobody expected it to be that easy Friday. Indeed, everyone expected violence. “These dictators, they never learn their lesson,” said Ekram. “They understand—like Ben Ali—too late.”

Friday’s demonstrations were coordinated by groups across the spectrum of Egypt’s political opposition, including young members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who had agreed, however, not to chant religious slogans. But activists were deprived of all the tools they have used so far to organize—Twitter, Facebook, and SMS service on cellphones were shut down Thursday. By Friday morning, Internet and cellphone service across the country was gone. The activists had to resort to traditional organizing: designated land lines and safe houses; face-to-face meetings; pre-arranged rendezvous.

The plan was for large groups to gather, right after Friday prayers, in four or five Cairo neighborhoods.

At 1:15, we headed out of Ziad’s house. In groups of twos and threes, we walked along nearly empty streets toward a large square on the eastern side of the Nile. Along the way, we passed many groups of plainclothes police.

In the square, a crowd of about 2,000 people materialized. Protesters waved Egyptian flags and called out, “Hey Egyptian...Get down here!” and “We want...the fall...of this regime!”

While Ziad and his friends are mostly seasoned political activists, many of the demonstrators I spoke to were out on the street for the first time. That was the case of Doa’, a veiled 34-year-old who works in a supermarket and was at a demonstration for the first time. She’d never joined before, she says, because “I was not believing any change will happen.” But she was outraged by the deaths of seven protesters over the last three days. In Egypt today, “People are treated in a very bad way and poverty is increasing,” she said.

Doa’ was part of a joyful crowd that included professional and working-class Egyptians, Muslims, and Christians, men and women, and whole families from toddlers to grandmothers. But today many of the fist-time protesters like Doa’ have experience the state’s heavy-handed tactics. The government mobilized a massive security presence Friday: 450,000 central security troops were resportedly dispersed across the capital. They fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters.

ElBaradei was greeted with water cannons and tear gas when he and his supporters exited Friday prayers. He is now under house arrest.

Meanwhile, Tahrir Square was the scene of pitched battles. By 3 p.m., protesters say, the authorities had started firing rubber bullets at them. Demonstrators carried the wounded across nearby Kasr Al Aini bridge, then flagged down taxis and called ambulances. Minutes away, in one of the five-star hotels along the Nile, foreign tourists asked frantically whether they could place calls outside the country.

At dusk, the authorities announced a curfew. The headquarters of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party were reportedly on fire. All communication networks were still down. Ekram, Zaid’s mother, still had no news of her son or any of his friends. “God protect them,” she said.

What seems clear after Friday is that Egypt seems well past any possible compromise on negotiation. Mubarak’s regime sees the protesters’ calls for a change as an existential threat and has responded with overwhelming force. But the demonstrators, who in the last few days have glimpsed an alternate future for their country, don’t seem ready to back down. No one here knows what tomorrow will bring.

Arab Pundits Cheer the Tunisia, Egypt Protests

Whether the unrest from Tunisia to Egypt will result in democracy is unclear, but the Arab media are celebrating nonetheless—and taking away a few key lessons about entrenched regimes across the region.

by Salameh NemattJanuary 28, 2011

  Lefteris Pitarakis / AP

Protests near Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo.

Following the political earthquake that removed Tunisia’s President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali from power nearly two weeks ago, seismic waves have been shaking ruling regimes from Algeria to Egypt, and from Jordan to Yemen. But if political earthquakes could somehow be measured on a “political” Richter scale, the question would be: Is this a magnitude 3 mild tremor that will pass, leaving behind little damage to the region’s authoritarian regimes and dictatorships? Or will it prove to be a magnitude 7 shocker, causing serious damage to a number of regimes?

Watching and reading Arab pundits and political analysts offers no conclusive answer. Most of the pan-Arab press appears to be celebrating the “Jasmine Revolution” that brought down the Tunisian dictator, cheering on protesters in Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, and Jordan and the rest of the Arab world. Meanwhile, Arab leaders have been at pains not to appear opposed to “the will of the Tunisian people” while at the same time trying not to encourage the spread of the “democracy virus” to their own countries.

It is anybody’s guess how events will ultimately unfold in Tunisia, where a transitional government made up of remnants of the “ancien regime” and a group of opposition and independent figures is trying to appease the disorganized and still angry masses, promising sweeping political reforms and democratic elections within months. But so far Tunisia’s revolution has only gone halfway, removing a president and shaking the establishment but not gutting the entrenched regime that still holds considerable power. That regime includes a military-security establishment that might decide, at any moment, to take things into its own hands and decide the future of the country, for better or worse.

It would be naive to assume that Tunisia has already made the transition from dictatorship to democracy before the current standoff unfolds, a process that may take several months and could turn bloody at any moment.

But the events in the region have certainly dispelled a number of myths and offered a few lessons for governments and observers. Perhaps the most important myth is that the Arab regimes, most of which have been ruling for decades, are too resilient and cannot be toppled, except through foreign military intervention or an inside coup or seizure of power. The other myth now being seriously questioned throughout the Arab media is that Islamists are the only alternative to these secular or apparently secular regimes. In Tunisia, the Islamists appeared to have little visible influence in the popular uprising, while the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has deliberately kept a low profile, perhaps for tactical reasons, leaving the disorganized popular masses of protesters of various political shades to take the lead.

Elaph.com, the Arab world’s most popular online newspaper, argues that the recent events in the region have demonstrated that “people are capable of breaking the fear barrier,” despite the ruthlessness of the ruling regimes. The paper quoted Burhan Ghalyoun, the director of a Middle East research center, as expressing surprise that the Tunisians “have achieved massive change at lightning speed, which goes to prove that change is not as difficult as we previously thought.”

Understandably, most of the official and semi-official Arab media have recognized people’s “right to peaceful demonstration and freedom of expression,” echoing calls from Washington and the West, but warned, at the same time, against actions that may undermine stability and security. Wisely, many governments in the region, including that of Jordan, have moved quickly to reduce the prices of consumer goods and promise political reforms to preempt an escalation of popular anger.

But unlike previous protests in Egypt and other Arab countries, this time the region’s leaders and their governments have not rushed to blame “foreign forces,” namely the U.S. and other Western countries, for instigating the riots. Tunisia’s government had always adopted a pro-Western stance, but today the West, which had turned a blind eye to human rights violations in that country for decades, is now almost silently watching as that regime crumbles, without any sign of wanting to do anything to save it.

However, one might argue that this month’s protests are not only the product of worsening living conditions resulting from the global economic crisis and homegrown corruption and mismanagement. They are also the product of decades of political oppression and humiliation by regimes that are now beginning to realize they can no longer oppress their own people with impunity. Social media and other modern and widely accessible communications tools have stripped these regimes of their monopoly on information. And since knowledge is power, the power is now shifting from the ruling few to the unruly masses, and these masses, in turn, are challenging the status quo throughout the region. But it is certainly too early for pro-democracy advocates in the region and beyond to bring out the Champagne glasses. It isn’t over till it’s over, and it is definitely not over yet.

As Tunisia's army quells chaos, will it hinder democracy?

By Khairi Abaza, Special to CNNc/div>

i/div>

v

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Khairi Abaza says dictator Ben Ali's fall brought chaos and uncertainty for Tunisians
• He says military helping keep order, but will it lead to "soft" dictatorship, not democracy?
• He says army seemed to side with the people in Ben Ali ouster; should it be seen as patriotic?
• Abaza: The West must stand with Tunisian people as they reach for democracy

Editor's note: Khairi Abaza is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a non-partisan policy institute that aims to promote democracy.

(CNN) -- The fear and chaos that follows the fall of the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abedine Ben Ali on January 14 raises uncertainty about the country's future. Already, it can be said that Tunisia will never be the same.
The best-case scenario is a move toward a liberal democracy. The worst case is a perpetual state of chaos, followed by another autocratic or even theocratic regime. Whatever the final result, it is clear that the Tunisian army will have a significant role in shaping the future of this North African state.
The Tunisian army, more than any other institution, is helping the country overcome its current state of chaos. When it finally succeeds (chaos cannot endure for too long before exhaustion sets in), an important question looms: What role will the army play in the shaping of the new political order?
Will it genuinely support a liberal democratic order? Or will it help establish a "softer" style autocratic rule -- what we might call "dictator light" -- that will ultimately renew the familiar cycle of Arab autocracy that is a façade of stability, propped up by the West as a counterweight to the threat of an Islamist regime?
An underreported story from Tunisia is that the military actually played a role in the unrest that began in December. Of course, the military did not provoke it (it was an organic uprising), but it adopted policies that contributed in small ways to the Jasmine Revolution's success.
For one, the army refused to use live bullets against the demonstrators. It was for this reason that Ben Ali fired his army chief, Gen. Rachid Ben Ammar, shortly before fleeing the capital, Tunis. Tunisians have acknowledged this patriotic decision; the army sided with the people.
Second, when militias presumably loyal to Ben Ali started to destabilize the country, the army mobilized to protect the population. Indeed, shortly after the appearance of the militias in the streets of Tunisia, the army created emergency hot lines for citizens to call for the army's help. While the military could not be everywhere at once, Tunisians say it was responsive in most instances.
Today, the army is keeping a modicum of order in Tunis and other parts of the country, despite lootings and scenes of chaos. The military also launched an assault on the presidential palace, where forces loyal to Ben Ali are seeking refuge. Thus, it appears the military seeks to bring an end to the Ben Ali era while restoring order to the capital. Indeed, Tunis sets the tone for the rest of the country.
In addition to the militias, the army is arresting some of the more unpopular figures from the Ben Ali regime, including the former head of security and some relatives of Ben Ali's wife, who are accused of corruption.
While the military has acted laudably on the streets of Tunisia in recent days, the West must ensure that the new regime that emerges in Tunis is one in which the military does not play a significant part.
The scene is reminiscent of the 1991 "palace coup" in Algeria. After significant Islamist electoral gains, the army played a role in bringing to power a respected exiled dissident, Mohamed Boudiaf, to lead the country and serve as a popular and respected façade for a military regime. Boudiaf was assassinated shortly after he took office, presumably for promising reform and an end of the military domination of politics.
Afterward, Algeria lapsed into authoritarianism. Two decades later, corruption, unemployment and political frustration are still rife. The regime lacks accountability and transparency.
In Tunisia today, the continued prominence of the military puts the country at risk of a "soft" palace coup that might rip the fruit of this revolution and gradually slide the country into a more "liberal" authoritarian rule.
To best support the Tunisian people and protect Western interests in a durable way, the West should stand firm with the Tunisian people and ensure that the country moves toward a liberal democracy.
Only a real democracy can ensure that the people of Tunisia will be satisfied with the results of their uprising, and only then can the West ensure that theocrats or autocrats do not wrest control of the country.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Khairi Abaza.

A 'democracy Renaissance?'

(CNN) -- President John F. Kennedy once said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
The recent pro-democracy mass protests around the Arab world -- in places like Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt --reflect the beginnings of a "democracy Renaissance," launched by the millions of citizens within these countries that have been ruled for decades by ruthless autocrats and soft dictators.
The recent "Jasmine Revolution" in Tunisia began with the desperate act of a young unemployed man who set himself on fire. And that passionate fire would ultimately rage against the Tunisian government machine until its long-serving president would be forced into exile two weeks ago. The young man was 26-year-old Mohammed Bouazizi, an unemployed fruit stand owner who became distraught when a policewoman confiscated his unlicensed produce stand. He died from his burns.
Following suit, several other unemployed youth around the country tried to commit suicide, and subsequent mass protests would soon topple the 23-year reign of Tunisia's strongman, 74-year-old Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali.
Long-standing autocratic rule within the Arab world shows a "depressingly familiar pattern" in terms of regional suppression of democracy, notes Egyptian-American writer Mona Eltahawy, in a recent Washington Post opinion piece. Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, 68 years old, has been in power since 1969; Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh (64) has ruled since 1978 and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (82) since 1981.
Eltahawy wrote that these dinosaur political figures are "not so much fathers as grandfathers of their nations, these autocrats clinging to office -- and are increasingly out of touch with their young populaces."
Much larger than Tunisia, the nation of Egypt is home to some 80 million people -- with Mubarak as its not-so-democratic leader since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. From creating a virtual police state to promoting censorship by placing all media under state control, Hosni Mubarak has spent the better part of 30 years strengthening his autocratic rule, while millions of young Egyptians remain hungry and unemployed.
Over time, his regime has needlessly tried to silence bloggers, imprisoned prominent pro-democracy activists such as Saad Eddin Ibrahim, and during these most recent mass protests even placed 2005 Nobel Peace Prize co-winner (and political opposition leader) Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei under house arrest.
As young Arabs around the Middle East continue to use Twitter and Facebook to awaken versions of democracy Renaissance around the region, they would be wise to remember the concepts of nonviolent civil disobedience taught by such giants as Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Mohandas K. Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King.
Just as Gandhi and King used nonviolent civil disobedience to end British colonial rule in India and end segregation in Jim Crow America, these peaceful political methods have also helped to successfully overturn authoritarian rule during the Rose Revolution in the Republic of Georgia and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine.
During the time known as "Prague Spring," after the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, millions of Czech citizens responded with passive nonviolent resistance -- frustrating soldiers by painting over street signs, cutting off their water supplies mysteriously and playfully decorating buildings with flowers, flags, and slogans like, "An elephant cannot swallow a hedgehog." Although it took 30 more years to topple communism in that nation, Czechoslovakia finally became a democratic nation during the non-violent Velvet Revolution of 1989.
And every global observer should proudly remember the brave "Tank Man of Tiananmen Square" who, the day after Chinese police cracked down on demonstrations in 1989, defiantly stood in front of a column of advancing Chinese tanks with only his plastic grocery bags by his side. Refusing to yield to a column of tanks, this still-unknown "Tank Man" brought it to a halt. He would represent the aspirations for freedom for all people worldwide for generations to come.
As we continue to see massive protests in places like Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and possibly elsewhere in the Arab world, let us all pray for safety and security for every citizen and hope that it does not take a brave act of nonviolent civil disobedience by some unknown Tank Man to awaken us to the Arab world's quest for true democracy.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Arsalan Iftikhar.

'We are witnessing today an Arab people's revolution'

(CNN) -- We are in the midst of a brave new world.
The uprisings raging from Tunisia to Egypt to Yemen are heralding a new Arab, post-Islamist revolution.
Today's events across Egypt illustrate the futility of a dictatorial Mubarak regime seeking to push back the tides of history with mere repression and brutality. They will not succeed.
President Hosni Mubarak's days, like those of deposed Tunisian President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, are numbered. The effects on the region were, until today, unthinkable.
Today's Arab revolution is no less significant than those that preceded it in recent decades in Eastern Europe and Latin America. This time, Arabs are not being led by their leaders -- from colonialism to pan-Arabism or Islamism or any other "ism" -- as was the case in the past.
Instead, they have turned on those leaders who have failed to provide them their dignity, justice and a better life. Make no mistake, we are witnessing today an Arab people's revolution.
Like those before them, today's Arab revolution will transform the region's politics. What is happening today is nothing short of what the respected Arab commentator, Rami Khouri, prophetically described late last year as the birth of Arab politics. He was right. Politics in the region will never be the same again.
Propelled by the young and the digital revolution, citizens will demand nothing less than the right to choose and change their representatives in the future.
To glimpse the nature of what can emerge, we should understand the rapidly changing social structure of Arab societies. Those societies are more educated, urban and connected than ever before. Due to the phenomenal growth of secondary and university-level education, literacy rates among the region's youths have skyrocketed in the past 40 years. The percentage of people living in Arab cities has risen by 50% in the same period.
The number of mobile phone users and internet users has proliferated to hundreds of thousands since the technology was introduced to the region 10 or 15 years ago. No wonder, then, that the people have finally snapped at the lack of opportunity and representation and the high levels of corruption and control that characterize their lives.
Most tellingly, more has united the protesting people than divided them. Notable has been the absence of a clear, emerging leader of the protests, particularly from Islamist party leadership.
The call for dignity, justice and a better life has been a universal value -- not the domain of any one particular opposing party or movement. Instead, the national movements, which these conditions have spawned, will continue to demand a political system that is more pluralistic, democratic and produces effective and competent governments sensitive to the legitimate aspirations of all the society's people.
Crucially, the unfolding events will also require a new set of calculations from the old regimes' main backers: the United States and its allies. The long-term changes for Western policy in the region should be profound. Gone should be the reflex to side with those who willfully subvert the democratic and constitutional process out of fear of the Islamist boogeyman.
The binary calculation between supporting stability on the one hand and the risks of unprecedented regime change, particularly the rise to power of Islamist parties, no longer holds. The people of the region are deciding.
The irony is that while U.S. policymakers have been playing catch-up, it has largely been U.S.-created technology -- the internet, particularly Facebook and Twitter -- that has sustained the spread of the Arab revolution.
Now is the time for policymakers to suggest an appropriate response to support a peaceful political transition in each country. Western policymakers must strike a careful balance between ensuring key interests (including support for a comprehensive peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israel's security) and respecting the wishes of the region's people. In this regard, support for the peace process and Israel's interests will best be ensured by real and tangible progress over the next year.
In the case of Egypt, the most populated Arab nation and symbol of Arab leadership, the transition will be particularly important. If managed well, it will provide a useful example for all in the days and weeks ahead. The U.S. in particular has a role in persuading Mubarak to outline a peaceful transition of power to an interim administration that will manage the process to a new democratic constitution and elections.
There should also be a role for international and regional organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Gulf Council and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to lend technical and material support to the transition.
It has not been lost on many that the U.S. and other Western governments have been trying to catch up to the unfolding events -- attempting to balance support for old friends and allies with a call for restraint and urgent economic and political reforms.
This will not do. It is time to break through the past fears that have guided Western policy with fresh hope for a better future for the people of the region. It is time to choose change.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Salman Shaikh.

Will Egypt Crack

The writer is a fellow with the Centre for the Study of Global Power and Politics at Trent University, Canada shibil.siddiqi@tribune.com.pk

Already the term ‘post-Tunisia’ is being used to describe the restive mood in the Middle East. Tunisia signalled that it is possible to bring down a seemingly impervious Arab autocracy through a popular movement. Egypt will be the battleground where this notion is seriously tested.
Anti-government demonstrations broke out all across Egypt on January 25 and have continued daily since. Like Tunisia, the explosion of the proverbial ‘Arab street’ in Egypt has been led by civil society. Connected in ways that were impossible scant years ago, Egyptians have been coordinating protests over cell phones and social networking websites. Egypt’s largest organised political opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood, is sitting the protests out. Used to engaging in political theatre with the Egyptian establishment, it will likely sit on the sidelines till a winner begins emerging on Cairo’s streets.
Though not as authoritarian as Tunisia, Egypt’s political system is also relatively closed, and since Hosni Mubarak’s ascendance to the presidency in 1981, the country has been under a nearly uninterrupted state of emergency with the suspension of civil liberties. But it is Egypt’s ongoing political transitions that have greatly exacerbated existing fault lines. Rigged parliamentary elections in late 2010 buried Egypt’s pretensions to parliamentary democracy. And Egypt’s upcoming presidential succession in September — the first in 30 years — ensures triggers for both popular discord and intra-elite struggles involving the ruling party, the military and the Mubarak family. With pressure building at the top and at the grassroots, Egypt appears ripe for revolution.
But there are two significant contrasts between Egypt and Tunisia. First, the Egyptian government, too, has observed the Tunisian example. Establishment forces will, no doubt, attempt to manage the situation on the streets quickly, while attempting to co-opt the movement’s demands. Already over a thousand protestors have been arrested and the popular social networking tool, Twitter, banned. The second contrast is that Egypt occupies a geo-strategic league all its own. It is the most populous Arab country and the premiere military power in Africa. A pliant Egypt also underpins American security architecture in the Middle East, including guaranteeing that Israel faces no credible conventional military threat in the region. In return, since 1979, Egypt has been one of the largest recipients of American military and economic largesse in the world — second only to Israel.
Clearly attuned to these implications, Washington has not yet adopted a colour-coded brand for the embryonic popular movement against the Egyptian government in the vein of the so-called ‘Green Revolution’ in Iran last year. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reiterated her country’s support for Mubarak, while urging reforms that Washington hopes will act as a pressure valve for the protesters.
At stake is no less than a democratic regime-change in Egypt that would fundamentally alter the face of the region and the fortunes of its people. It is about time.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 29^th,  2011.

Ripe for Revolution

A Muslim nation has overthrown its corrupt, incompetent and arrogant government. Most Pakistanis would love to be that nation, hoping that Tunisia’s revolutionary ripples, already rocking Egypt and nudging Yemen, will reach Pakistan too. Enduring raging inflation, malignant corruption, dilapidated public services, an ultra-incompetent, dishonest government and an extra-insincere opposition, ineffectual judicial remedies, brutal feudal lords and tribal chiefs, lynch mobs, daily drone and terrorist attacks, assemblies of cheats, tax evaders and fake degree holders, surely Pakistan is ripe for revolution?
Sadly not — the ingredients for revolution are simply not in place. The 1979 Iranian revolution was led by Ayatollah Khomeini who had an iconic status amongst Iranians across that country. The Shah, on the other hand, was a ruthless dictator installed by the US, with no public mandate, who ruled for decades through repression. The revolution had strong roots amongst the leading intellectuals, was galvanised by the middle class and supported by Marxists, nationalists and Islamists alike. The largely ethnic homogeneity of Iran helped forge this unity of purpose.
Tunisia, in 2011, had many similar factors at play. President Ben Ali was a notoriously corrupt, textbook dictator ensconced for 23 years. He enacted strict control and censorship across the media, allowing only sham elections in which he invariably bagged up to 90 per cent of the votes. Opposition parties were stifled and people were fearful of voicing criticism of the government. Deprived of these outlets for expression, resentment ignited when the self-immolation of a young, unemployed university graduate, whose fruit stall was confiscated because he had no licence, set ablaze the frustrations of the middle class. Trade unions joined in the massive street protests. Tunisia’s revolution was, like Iran, shored by its high literacy rate and the absence of ethnic and sectarian divisions.
Despite a wave of public protests, Egypt is unlikely to emulate Tunisia, due to factors also present in Pakistan. Egypt has a sharp religious divide between Coptics and Muslims as well as numerous Islamic groups pitted against each other. Arab analysts cite low levels of literacy and a general feeling of apathy and defeatism in the population as further reasons that Egypt will continue to fester rather than revolt. Pakistan has these and additional factors which militate against a revolution: deep and multiple ethnic, linguistic, tribal and sectarian fault lines; a paucity of alternative intellectual narratives, radical leaders or strong unions; and an elected government and freedom of speech. Ironically, democratic elections and free speech help perpetuate the corrupt, unjust stranglehold of the feudal-industrial power elite. Revolutionary forces require a moral impetus that illegitimate dictatorship provides but elected government does not. Secondly, frustration needs to simmer under a repressive regime until it reaches the temperature for mass revolt. Pakistan’s free media allows an outlet for public dissatisfaction. The often harsh treatment of politicians and police officials at the hands of journalists and judges ameliorates public anger. Vocal opposition parties, unhindered street protests and strikes allow a regular release of fury, draining the momentum necessary for the emotional surge that revolutionary zeal requires. Pakistan’s ‘peasants’ have neither the radical leadership nor the intellectual support to rise up against the vicious feudalism that subdues them but has not yet starved them. The middle class is distraught by unemployment, inflation and lack of equal opportunity but does not have critical mass, unlike in Iran and Tunisia. Political parties have dissipated ‘people power’ along provincial, tribal, linguistic and sectarian lines. Revolutions require a unifying rationale and the only ideology which has the potential to transcend these divisions is Islam. Yet that, too, requires a leadership which commands respect and a mass following. Given the number of religious parties and their intolerance of each other’s beliefs, that unifying leadership is missing. Dire prognostications about imminent revolution are misguided. In fact, a revolution of any kind would be better than the alternative. This society is losing respect for law and order itself. At least revolution replaces one order with a different order of competing ideology. But anarchy replaces order with disorder and there lies the real danger — that this country, desperate for change but unable to muster genuine revolution, will twist instead towards lawless turmoil.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 29^th, 2011.

The Tunisian contagion

Iftekhar A Khan

After ruling Tunisia for 23 years, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali has taken refuge in Saudi Arabia. He is ensconced in a palace covered by date palm trees in Jeddah. So another puppet of the West has gone to live in ignominy in the kingdom. Ben Ali has followed the trail set by self-proclaimed Field Marshal Idi Amin Dada who, after ruling over Uganda for eight years (1971-1979), had made his last sojourn to the Saudi kingdom, where he died in 2003 and is buried. However, the Tunisian uprising has jolted the tinpot rulers and Western proxies in the Middle East. As Le Monde reported, Ben Ali’s wife Leila Trabelsi, a former hairdresser, took with her 1.5 tons of gold ingots to Saudi Arabia. What one holds against Muslims is their greed, which is unsurpassed. Could it be something like a genetic flaw? However, 1.5 tons of gold, extracted out of millions of tons of ore, is now the proud possession of Ben Ali. All one wishes him is: May you live long to enjoy your pickings, friend. What happened in Tunisia is no miracle. The change was in the offing because Tunisians, like large populations of many Muslim countries, have seethed in anger against their corrupt ruler and his repressive regime propped up by the West. Although the Tunisian upheaval is just the beginning, it may well be the harbinger of freedom for the enslaved people in the Middle East ruled by assorted dictatorships and monarchies. None other than Moammar Gaddafi lamented Ben Ali’s overthrow and told the Tunisians that they would regret what they did. When public protests and sheer street power manage to dislodge a tyrant and force him to flee for his life, it is understandable that others like him in the neighbouring countries get jitters. Similarly, Egypt’s 82-year-old “Pharaoh,” as defence analyst Eric Margolis calls Hosni Mubarak, must feel the tremors caused by Tunisian insurrection. He has already ruled the land of the Pyramids for almost three decades and now intends to install his son, Gamal. But Hosni Mubarak’s intelligence chief, Gen Omar Suleiman, will probably scupper his boss’s plans, even if the aspiring intelligence guru himself is as young as 75. After Israel, Egypt is the largest recipient of US aid in the region. The US provides financial support and military equipment to the Egyptian government just to keep the Egyptian people in check. As a result, ordinary Egyptians disappearing during midnight knocks are a common phenomenon. Imperial power has assigned a similar role to the armed forces of many other Muslim countries in the region and outside it. If we analyse the circumstances under which the Tunisian rebellion took place, it is manifestly obvious that the conditions there were similar to those existing in our own country – soaring food prices and unemployment, including that among educated youth, cronyism and outrageous corruption by the ruling elite. Western politicians may have many shortcomings, including that of the heart and the cup, but cronyism and plunder by their families is not one of them. It’s essentially a soft spot of good Muslim rulers and politicians alone. Look for such signs in the present political dispensation. The sons and daughters of various shades of politicians are gearing up to rule over the hoi polloi with emaciated bodies and sunken eyes. When the hungry are taking their own lives, Yousuf Raza Gilani – the lavishly dressed prime minister, who would be a matinee idol as long as he doesn’t speak – announces the construction of parliamentarian lodges (along with 500 servant quarters) costing three billion rupees. The only explanation that comes to mind is that scions of saints and saintly families, who never had to earn an honest two-time meal through sweat and hard work, would be unlikely to have respect for public money. The writer is a freelance contributor based in Lahore. Email: pinecity@gmail. com

Are Sufis essentially non-violent

The writer is national editor at The Express Tribune naveed.hussain@tribune.com.pk

Mumtaz Qadri, the self-confessed killer of Salmaan Taseer, is said to be associated with the Dawat-e-Islami, a non-violent, non-political, Sufi-inspired group of the Barelvi school of thought. The Barelvis are mainly pacifists, having little or no militant tendencies, while most jihadists and militant groups, with few exceptions, believe in a more puritanical version of Islam where veneration of Sufi saints and rituals and devotional music and dances at their shrines, are considered apostasy.
So does this mean orthodox Islam is essentially violent and Sufi Islam non-violent? My answer is, ‘no’. Blanket generalisations are wrong in either case. Neither are all orthodox Muslims militants, nor are all Sufis pacifists. Many would disagree with the latter part of my thesis because they believe Sufis are peace-loving, proselytising preachers. But I say, not essentially.
Before going further, let’s first see what exactly Sufism is. Islam has an exoteric and an esoteric dimension. The exoteric, or outer, dimension is scriptural and normative. The esoteric dimension, on the other hand, is liberal, spiritual and pluralistic and hence characterised by humanism, tolerance and accommodation of differences. Sufi masters have described fighting one’s ‘evil self’ as a greater jihad than armed struggle. Nonetheless, all Sufis weren’t and aren’t non-violent. Read history. Sufi sheikhs and dervishes led revivalist movements, fighting foreign rule as well as the ‘tyranny and oppression’ of Muslim rulers.
In 1240, Baba Ilyas-i-Khorasani and Baba Ishaq, two popular Sufi sheikhs, mobilised nomadic Turkmen against the Seljuk rule in what is modern-day Turkey, demanding a revival of ‘pure’ Islam. And in the 15^th and 16^th centuries, several Sufi masters led armed uprisings in the Ottoman Empire against the ‘lax’ official Islam.
In modern times, most rebellions, led by Sufi masters, were targeted against the British, French and Italian colonialists. The Sanusiyya — a Sufi order widespread in Libya, Egypt, Sudan and the Sahara — fought against the Italian colonialists. And the Muridiyya order, founded by Amadu Baba, fought the French in Senegal. In the late 19^th and early 20th centuries, Sufis from Naqshbandiyya and Qadiriyya orders fought jihad against ‘godless’ Russian tsars and the Soviets.
In the region now called Pakistan, Sufis, dervishes and mullahs pioneered several millenarian and revivalist movements directed against British colonialists. Mirza Ali Khan, better known as the ‘Faqir from Ipi,’ a hermit from the Waziristan region, led his disciples in a successful rebellion against the British. And the Hur movement of the late 19th century in Sindh was also mobilised by a saintly figure, Sibghtullah Shah Badshah.
Having said that, I think Qadri’s act shouldn’t be a surprise. Qadri, in his own words, was motivated by a sermon of a local imam. The government should, at least, monitor Friday sermons at all mosques. This is essential to check hate-preaching and extremism which has become an existential threat for Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 19^th,  2011.

US has always treated Pakistan unfairly

Asif Haroon Raja

The US has always remained inclined towards India and treated Pakistan unfairly. In the early 1950s, when the US built a defensive arc to contain communist southward expansionism, Pakistan was made part of SEATO and CENTO only when India turned down the offer. Pakistan agreed because of its acute security concerns from hostile India and unfriendly Afghanistan. During and after Indo-Sino border conflict in 1962, the US and the west filled up India ’s arsenal with weapons and equipment. By so doing, it tilted the regional military balance towards India which was aligned with USSR. During the 1965 Indo-Pak war, the US blocked supply of armaments to Pakistan and India, despite knowing that Moscow was continuing to supply India its defence needs uninterruptedly. Pakistan ’s military reserves got so critically depleted that it had to agree to ceasefire at a stage when its strategic reserves were well poised to mount a counter offensive in Ravi-Chenab corridor. The US sanctions seriously jeopardized Ayub Khan’s second five-year development plan which had all the potential to address east-west economic imbalance. The US once again stopped the flow of military supplies to Pakistan after March 1971 while India kept receiving its defence needs from Moscow. It placed Pakistan at a serious disadvantage when war broke out in November 1971. The US, western world as well as the UN remained drawn towards India and none came to Pakistan ’s rescue when it was dismembered. India was let off by USA and the west for its nuclear explosion at Pokhran in 1974. But when ZA Bhutto expressed his intentions to make Pakistan nuclear, he was threatened of dire consequences. India ’s progress in nuclear program was ignored, but Pakistan ’s nuclear program was subjected to unrelenting propaganda campaign in the 1980s and bogey of Islamic bomb was raised to frighten the world. Harsh sanctions were imposed on Pakistan by USA in 1965, 1971, 1979, 1990 and 1998 and thus became the most sanctioned country in the world despite being the most allied ally of USA . India on the other hand was never punished either by USSR or USA despite its poor track record in state terrorism, cross border terrorism and human rights violations. Despite series of sanctions, Pakistan ’s economy till 1990 was much healthier than India . The visible discriminatory incline was again seen on the occasion of nuclear tests by India followed by Pakistan in May 1998. While India was given a polite slap on the wrist, all hell broke lose on Pakistan . Its sin has not been forgiven to this day since nuclear capability with a Muslim state is unacceptable to USA , Europe , Russia and India . China and North Korea are the only two non-Muslim countries that have no ill-designs against Pakistan ’s nuclear program. Rather, the two have contributed towards it. Deliberate efforts are underway to disable Pakistan ’s nuclear program. The US has awarded civilian nuclear deal to India in violation of NPT to allow India further upgrade its nuclear capability. It has however, denied the same to Pakistan and also wants to roll back its modest program. While it has no objection to India inking nuclear agreements with Russia , Japan , France and Israel , it expresses its deepest concerns over China installing another reactor at Chashma. The US has also been trying to smuggle out enriched uranium from Pakistan . In the conventional field also, while India has been given full leverage to shop sophisticated weapons from anywhere in the world, Pakistan could get its F-16s after a delay of 23 years. Even counter terrorism equipment is given with undue hesitancy so as not to displease India . During the Kargil conflict, G-20 countries led by USA came down heavily upon Pakistan . Intense pressure was put on Pakistan to withdraw its forces from occupied territories. Ultimately it was forced to give up its gains without getting anything in return. India has never been accused of its massive human rights abuses in occupied Kashmir . Ignoring UN resolutions, which clearly lay down the need for a fair plebiscite, and also turning a blind eye to freedom struggle raging since 1989, the US and the west never question India . They agree with India ’s harebrained stance that liberation movement is Pakistan aided and fall within category of terrorism. Now when the armed resistance has got converted to unarmed movement led by teenagers demanding freedom from India, the champions of human rights are still tightlipped and the western media silent. Despite knowing that Kashmir is a flashpoint, the US has distanced itself from playing any part towards its resolution. It has however been applying pressure on Pakistan to settle the dispute on Indian terms by accepting Line of Control (LoC) as permanent border. India has not committed a single soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq to fight the militants. Pakistan is fighting US dictated war on terror since 2001 and has committed nearly 150,000 troops. Its casualty rate is many times more than combined fatalities suffered by 48 countries involved in counter insurgency. Yet the wrath of USA falls on Pakistan and affections and benefits are reserved for India . During ten-month Indo-Pak military standoff in 2002 when the entire military might of India had got deployed on Pakistan’s eastern border on a fabricated charge that Pakistan was behind the terrorist attack on Indian Parliament, the US sympathized with India. It made no effort to make it pull back its forces from the border. In that timeframe, Pakistan was extending all out support to US military to consolidate is gains in Afghanistan . Four air bases in Balochistan were leased to US military and 70,000 troops had been deployed along its western border to prevent the fleeing Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters to enter Pakistan . Since India was on the wrong, it had to withdraw with egg on its face. The US pressured Pakistan to disable six Jihadi groups including Lashkar-e-Taiba engaged in supporting liberation movement in occupied Kashmir , control cross LoC movement and to let India fence the LoC in Kashmir . These steps took the life out of freedom movement. Indian military leaders started crowing that its forces had succeeded in snuffing out terrorism in Kashmir . Pretending to be a strategic ally, the US allowed CIA, FBI, Mossad, RAW, MI6 and RAAM to carryout intensive covert operations against selected regions in Pakistan from Afghan soil with a view to weaken Pakistan’s hold over nuclear arsenal. ISI trying to foil foreign inspired conspiracies displeased USA . It strove to cut ISI to size so that it was not in a position to put up a frontline defence for Pakistan . When Mumbai attacks took place in November 2008, Pakistan was blamed and the entire western world and USA began to sympathize with India and are still doing so. USA and UK exerted extensive pressure on Pakistan to let Indian air force carry out surgical strikes against suspected terrorist camps in Azad Kashmir and Muredke so as to avoid a full fledged war. All the strike formations of Indian military remained in battle locations for many months in 2009 and Gen Kapoor hurled threats of limited war under a nuclear overhang. The US took no notice of these jingoistic statements. Several RAW sponsored terrorist group attacks were launched in Lahore on sensitive targets. Ignoring Pakistan ’s protests, the US harped that India posed no threat to Pakistan ’s security and that it should shift all its forces from eastern to northwestern border. With this background and ongoing history of discriminations, how can the US claim that it doesn’t harbor ill intentions against Pakistan and has not been treated unfairly? The US will have to do a lot more to alleviate the misgivings and fears of people of Pakistan and win their hearts and minds. Attitude and evenhandedness and not aid will bring the change. —The writer is a defence analyst.