Egypt: Supreme Guide and Army General shadows

Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (top) and the Brotherhood's Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie 

“The Muslims defeated the Islamists” in Egypt.

To my mind, these five words by Walid Abi-Mershed in his column today for Saudi Asharq Alawsat explain the army’s removal of Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s first Islamist president, after millions of people protested over his leadership.

A scintillating account of the rise and fall of Morsi one year after assuming office comes in this think piece titled “Shadows of the Supreme Guide and Army General” and penned in Arabic by Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of pan-Arab al-Hayat:

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei went to al-Ittihadiya Palace to meet with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi on the latter’s invitation.

The meeting was one-on-one, except that the visitor sensed the presence of others.

He saw behind the president the silhouettes of Mohamed Badie, Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, and his second-in-command Khairat el-Shater.

Such shadows raise suspicions. The visitor worried about the president resorting to the supreme guide, not the constitution.

That’s why ElBaradei told this (al-Hayat) newspaper, “I met with the president, we had a conversation and I gave up on him.”

Hamdeen Sabahi went to al-Ittihadiya Palace.  The shadows’ insistence on attending the meeting reminded him of his conversation with presidential candidate Morsi during the countdown to the runoffs.

Hamdeen had won some five million votes in the first round and opted out of the presidential race.

Morsi was hoping to woo those voters to secure victory over Ahmed Shafiq in the runoff.

Hamdeen asked Morsi a difficult question: “If you won the presidency, would you be a president independent of the Muslim Brotherhood’s diktats?”

Morsi could not answer and chose instead to offer Hamdeen the post of vice president.

Hamdeen begged off.

Amr Moussa went to al-Ittihadiya Palace and met with Morsi and the two shadows.

Since he emerged from the meeting and monitored the president’s performance, he did not hide his disquiet about the future of Egypt, the native land of Taha Hussein and Naguib Mahfouz that has always been a beacon of hope for its people. Moussa got into such a sweat about Egypt’s spirit.

That was in the lead-up to June 30, which all three men consider to be a landmark day.

They believed early presidential elections were de rigueur to save the country from Morsi’s regime. Clearly, they meant to save it from the big shadow cast on the regime – the shadow of the supreme guide.

Standards and the code of ethics require professional journalists not to fall for the opposition. So we had to make our way to the headquarters of the Freedom and Justice Party, political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I asked the party vice chairman Dr. Essam el-Erian if he ever-expected President Hosni Mubarak to fall and Egypt to choose a president from the Muslim Brotherhood.

I liked his answer: “I am confident this pipedream never crossed any Egyptian’s mind. Any Egyptian would be lying if he told you he expected the revolution to succeed or Hosni Mubarak to fall or Mohamed Morsi to become president. Had the era of miracles not been a thing of the past, I would have told you we are living in that era.”

Erian did not seem worried about June 30.

His self-assurance made him say he not only expected Morsi to complete his mandate but could also win a second term.

Erian sounded confident and relaxed and on completion of our conversation he invited my colleague Mohamed Salah and I to the office of party chairman Saad el-Katatni. The later was equally laid-back.

The “January 2011 revolution” took by surprise both the Brotherhood’s supreme guide and the armed forces’ top dog at the time, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi. The two men reacted with aplomb.

Voters then eagerly opted to cast off the shadows of Mubarak and his generals. They ended up with Morsi’s regime and the supreme guide’s shadow.

Morsi failed to dispel the impression that “the supreme guide’s bureau is the president’s president.” His mistakes piled up and the media showed him no mercy.

Fear of “Brotherhood-ization” by millions of Egyptians turned “June 30” into a broad uprising against the president and the shadow lurking in the palace.

In January 2011, Tantawi felt the army had to connect with the public squares.

In June 2013, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi felt the army had to reconcile with them and sponsor them.

The result was a full-blown intifada and a quasi-coup.

The “Brothers” refused to come to terms with the outcome.

They refused to reflect on the reasons that drove millions to public squares to jeer them.

They refused to recognize the implications of the millions of signatures on the Tamarrud petition.

The “Brothers” preferred to aim at Gen. Sisi’s shadow to portray the Brotherhood as the victim and the scapegoat.

When the head of the High Constitutional Court Adly Mansour was sworn in as interim president, they elected to see Gen. Sisi’s silhouette behind him.

Yesterday’s sight of two Egypts facing off in the shadows of the supreme guide and army general was traumatic.

The “Brothers” ventured to take the supreme guide’s shadow into the palace.

Removal of an elected president in a quasi-revolution and quasi-coup is a gamble as well.

There is no solution other than to quickly exit this tunnel and sail into an Egypt in the shadows of a constitution compatible with its spirit and an elected president unbound in his palace by the silhouettes of a supreme guide and an army general. 

12 million handguns put Egypt in the lap of the gods

Renowned Egyptian media star and talk show host Imad Adeeb, writing today for the Saudi newspaper of record Asharq Alawsat, explains why Egypt is now in the lap of the gods:

What is happening in Egypt now is very bad. It is not the worst. But sadly, insiders believe it is the beginning of accelerated descent to anarchy in the country.

We yelled ourselves hoarse warning good people, rulers, elites, political parties and (Muslim) Brothers: “Beware the risks of confrontation!”

We yelled ourselves hoarse saying a high frequency of vocal violence among adversaries is a logical prelude to violence on the streets and public squares.

All that happened and is happening is everyone’s loss. There can be no winners in this battle, only losers.

President Mohamed Morsi lost his popularity among the coterie of revolutionaries who voted for him in the presidential runoff. He lost the confidence of “Couch Potato Party” members who were monitoring his performance in office and looking forward to a better life. He squandered the momentum and international support he generated by brokering the (Hamas-Israel) Gaza agreement.

The opposition has closed ranks, but it faces a constitutional fait accompli after (Morsi’s Nov. 22) constitutional declaration and the planned mid-December referendum on the draft constitution.

The blood of citizens was spilled in clashes at the doorsteps of al-Ittihadiah Presidential Palace in Cairo. It was also spilled in Alexandria, al-Mahalla and Buhaira. Groups also started torching the head offices of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party.

Authoritative sources expect acts of violence and counter-violence on Cairo streets to escalate to unprecedented levels in the coming hours and days. They do not rule out political assassinations of prominent figures by unnamed sides, and the regime’s initiation of political arrests.

There is conclusive information that more than 12 million handguns were smuggled into Egypt across the borders with Sudan and post-Gaddafi’s Libya over the past two years.

Yesterday, charges of conspiracy against the regime were filed against Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Amr Moussa, Hamdeen Sabahi and Ahmed el-Zind, head of the powerful Egypt Judges’ Club. Corruption claims were also filed against a number of public figures.

The situation is akin to internecine strife in which each side is resorting to litigation, strikes, demonstrations, media campaigns, political money, rifle cartridges and Molotov cocktails.

The idea of dialogue leading to compromise is the last thing on the sides’ minds.

Blood is being shed, the economy is collapsing, legitimacy is at risk, and the country and its people are sitting on the tip of a volcano of anger presaging anarchy.

Was the proposed constitution worth such a price?

Are current events in Egypt the harbingers of an authoritarian regime or of something uncharted?

Egypt Brothers' Mursi to face (?) in June runoff

Who will Mohamed Mursi (left) face in the June runoff?

With counting underway after two days of voting in Egypt’s first free and transparent presidential elections, Egyptian media superstar and talk show host Imad Adeeb is in no doubt: “None of the 13 candidates will win an outright majority.”

He expects a June 16-17 runoff between the top two candidates to pit the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Mursi against one of four other frontrunners.

His likely challenger in the runoff will either be moderate Islamist Abdelmoneim Abulfotouh, or one of three liberals -- ex-premier Ahmed Shafiq, former Arab League chief Amr Moussa or leftist Hamdeen Sabahi.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s election campaign headquarters announced at a press conference the results they have so far show Mursi facing Shafiq in about three weeks’ time.

At this writing, results aggregated by Ahram Online in 15 different governorates show a total of 11,088,494 voters cast their ballots in these governorates as follows: 

Mursi                        2,696,652 (24.03 per cent)   

Sabahi                      2,581,190  (23.3 per cent)

Shafiq                      2,555,730 (23.03 per cent) 

Abulfotouh                2,012,019 (18.1 per cent) 

Moussa                    1,542,831 (11.2 per cent)

Official results are not due to be announced for days, but it looks likely voters will have a good idea of the top runner and his challenger by tomorrow, Saturday.

Adeeb, in his column for today’s edition of Saudi Asharq Alawsat, writes, “The question now is who will Mursi’s challenger be?

“So far, there are no clear indications. What we can say though is that the Coptic vote went to Shafiq. Women voters were divided between Mursi and Abulfotouh on the one hand and Shafiq and Moussa, on the other.

“It can also be said most businessmen voted for either Shafiq or Moussa. Merchants chose between Mursi and Shafiq. Youths were deeply split in choosing between Islamist and pro-revolution currents…

“As for the turnout, it will range between a minimum of 50 percent and a maximum of 60 percent.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mursi, who is 61 and seems certain to be in the June 16-17 runoff, received a scholarship from the University of Southern California for academic excellence in engineering in the early 1980s and earned a Masters Degree and PhD in rocket science in 1982.

His profile on Ahram Online shows he served as a professor at California State University in North Ridge between 1982 and 1985.

On completing his overseas academic endeavors, Mursi headed the engineering department at Zagazig University in Egypt between 1985 and 2010.

He was the official spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood’s parliamentary bloc from 2000 to 2005.

Muslim Brotherhood as Egypt’s new hegemon

Newcomer Khairat el-Shater (top) and frontrunner Amr Moussa (left)

Did Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood bite more than it can chew when it fielded its own kingmaker Khairat el-Shater to run for president in May, reversing an earlier pledge to stay out of the race?

Only time will tell if it did.

But the contentious decision has already raised eyebrows everywhere as well as alarms both at home and abroad.

The decision to field Shater, deputy Supreme Guide of the Brotherhood and a prominent businessman, was taken by a close 56-52 vote in the Shura Council, the organization’s second highest decision making body.

When the Brotherhood assured the public in spring 2011 that it won’t run anyone for president it was confident its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, would win a commanding victory in the legislative polls, which it did in December.

As if to stress the point, the Brotherhood threatened members with expulsion if they ran, or supported anyone who would run, for the highest executive office in the country.

The Islamist vote for president is already split among three main Islamist candidates: Mohammed Selim El-Awa, who is close to the Brotherhood, Salafist preacher Hazem Salah Abu-Ismail and Abdelmoneim Abul-Fotouh, who was booted out of the Brotherhood for announcing he would run for president before the group changed tack.

A pubic opinion poll published today in Egypt’s leading daily al-Ahram shows one-time foreign minister and former secretary-general of the Arab League Amr Moussa remains the frontrunner in the upcoming presidential ballot, followed by Salafist Abu-Ismail.

The poll was based on interviews with a random sample of 1,200 adults across Egypt between 25 and 29 March 2011.

Among those polled, 31.5 percent said they favored Moussa for president, followed by 22.7 percent for Abu-Ismail.

Dr Mohammed Abdel Salam, of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies (ACPSS) tells Arab electronic newspaper Elaph in remarks published today Shater’s candidacy shows the Brotherhood trying to gain control of all key state institutions and become the country’s political hegemon.

By joining the fray, says Abdel Salam, Shater will be hurting Abu-Ismail and Abul-Futouh’s chances and boosting those of Amr Moussa and former prime minister Ahmad Shafiq.

In its leader, the London-based pan-Arab daily al-Quds al-Arabi describes the Brotherhood’s nomination of Shater for the presidency as “a huge strategic mistake.”

“The Shura Council 56-52 vote to nominate Shater shows a deep split in Brotherhood ranks – perhaps the widest in its history,” the paper suggests, adding:

“The split will take long years to mend… Egypt would be better served if the incoming president were non-Islamist, or at least not specifically from Brotherhood ranks.

“It is impermissible to have a president of the republic, a prime minister, a National Assembly speaker and a Constituent Assembly chairman all from the Muslim Brotherhood. That is the apex of dictatorship, even if coming through ballot boxes…”

Sending Arab forces to Syria on the table

By the late M. Kahil, from my press archives

A suggestion to send Arab troops to Syria will be considered by Arab League foreign ministers at their Saturday meeting in Cairo, according to Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby.

Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, told CBS News on Saturday Arab troops may have to step in to halt the bloodshed in Syria.

Arab observers already deployed in Syria have failed to stop the violence there. President Bashar al-Assad’s forces killed another 32 civilians across the country on Sunday, according to activists quoted today by Aljazeera.

Amr Moussa, Elaraby’s predecessor at the helm of the Arab League and is now a serious contender for the presidency in Egypt, is openly supportive of Sheikh Hamad’s idea.

“It’s a serious proposal that should be discussed by the Arab states to determine those for or against, which countries intend manning the force, and the force’s task. This suggestion should be mulled over in depth,” Moussa tells Lebanese an-Nahar daily’s Khalil Fleyhane in an exclusive interview published this morning.

By mid-day local time today, an ongoing online public opinion poll running on the Aljazeera.net portal showed 83 percent of 10,372 respondents in favor of “sending Arab troops to Syria to protect demonstrators there.” Only 17 percent, or 1,759 respondents, had voted against by this time of writing.

But it is far from clear what role would be envisaged for the Arab troops in Syria. Would they be mandated to serve as an interventional, deterrent or peacekeeping force?

Some 35 years ago, the Arab League created a military intervention force to stop Lebanon’s civil war. When created in 1976, the so-called ADF (Arab Deterrent Force) originally comprised contingents from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, UAE, among others. By 1979, the ADF had metamorphosed into a purely Syrian occupation force that ruled Lebanon until 2005.

“Is sending troops to Syria viable? Who will do that, given the do or die defense of Assad’s regime by Iraq, Algeria and Lebanon?” Tariq Alhomayed asks in his Monday editorial for the Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat. Should most Arab and foreign states want to stop the killing machine in Syria, he says, it’s not enough to send Arab troops there. The move should be made either under the aegis of the UN Security Council or through creation of what is known as a “coalition of the willing.” Its objective would be to carve a buffer zone in Syria with Turkey’s help. The zone would hasten the regime’s fall by encouraging mass defections from the Syrian army.

Titles of two think pieces I like at Egypt’s shorouknews.com:

• “Washington learning Arabic and the Moslem Brothers English,” by Mohamed al-Menshawi
• “Why did Tunisia’s revolution rejuvenate and Egypt’s go gray?” by Wael Kandeel