What Israel fears in Egypt - Washington Post

One might expect that Israelis, who live in the only democracy in the Middle East, would turn out in the squares of Jerusalem and the gardens of Tel Aviv to show solidarity with the demonstrators in Egypt. The protesters, after all, are seeking to overthrow an authoritarian regime.

Israelis, however, have stayed at home, warily following events on TV and the Internet.

It is not a democratic Egypt that Israelis fear but the prospect of Egypt being hijacked by enemies of democracy, of Israel and of the United States. Within every revolution are some who hope to use democratic processes to establish oppressive regimes. This was, to a large extent, what triumphed in Iran in 1979 and what happened in Gaza only five years ago. Many Israelis wonder why it would be any different in Egypt, which is home to the world's most powerful and popular Islamist movement.

Should the government of Hosni Mubarak be replaced by one not truly committed to freedom and peace, the consequences for Israel could be devastating. As Egypt struggles toward an internal balance that appeases all forces, including the Muslim Brotherhood, peace with Israel could be the price of an Egyptian compromise. And the risks are worse if the Brotherhood, an organization deeply hostile to Israel, America and the West, gets to call the shots.

Consider what an Egyptian official once told me: "There is no war without Egypt." From 1948 to 1973, Israel had to fight four wars against coalitions of Arab armies. Since the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, however, there has not been even one war between Israel and Arab states. The lives of many Israelis and Arabs have been saved over the past four decades, and the security burden on Israel's economy has become more bearable. Yet if the peace with Egypt dissolves, the risks to the Jewish state and its citizens cannot be overstated.

The implications for the region could be massive. If Israel's western neighbor turns hostile, where would that leave our eastern neighbor, Jordan? Would it remain at peace with us? What would be the impact on other pro-American regimes? How many weeks, or days, would the new alignment of interests between Israel and most Arab regimes last against an aggressive and nuclear-armed Iran? If there is a negative outcome to the events unfolding in Egypt, the world will be living with a new Middle East, but it will be very different from the one we all aspire to.

Meanwhile, Israelis are uncertain about some positions of the U.S. administration. They remember how, after the 2009 presidential election, the Obama administration refused to support courageous Iranians who demonstrated against the oppressive "hate to America" regime in Tehran. People are understandably puzzled when news reports show an ally of America - even an authoritarian one - abandoned while U.S. rivals are honored with state dinners in Washington, despite their gross violations of human rights. In this highly charged region, Washington's actions are carefully watched. Israelis are looking at the results of U.S. policy in Iraq, the recent loss of Lebanon to Iran and how American pressure on Israel led to a "democratic" takeover of the Palestinian Authority by Hamas terrorists. Israelis live every day with the results of the U.S. administration's blunder that made already-difficult negotiations with the Palestinians impossible.

Israelis have learned the hard way that Israel cannot shape internal developments in our neighboring Arab states. While they wish America could responsibly engage in this process and ensure a positive outcome, they also doubt whether even America can prevent events from proceeding toward, and down, a slippery slope.

It is said, and is possibly true, that worry may be in the Jewish genes. With our history, having paved so many roads with good intentions only to see them lead to destruction, and having experienced how democratic slogans and processes have been abused again and again by murderous dictators, it is hard not to be concerned.

The future of Egypt is uncertain: Is it a hostile Islamist tyranny, using democracy as a fake ladder, or a compromise at Israel's expense that may be about to occur? The fear of war and death is on Israelis' hearts and minds.

But if a real democracy, committed to the values of freedom and peace, were to emerge in Egypt, Israelis would overwhelmingly support it.

The writer was Israel's ambassador to the United States from 2005 to 2009.

View the original article here

Historic temple caught in Thai-Cambodia crossfire - Washington Post

PREAH VIHEAR, Cambodia -- High on a cliff overlooking the jungles of northern Cambodia, heavily armed troops crouch in fortified bunkers on the grounds of an ancient temple turned modern-day battlefield.

The stone remains of Preah Vihear, built nearly 1,000 years ago, are supposed to be a protected U.N. World Heritage site. Instead they are at the heart of a dangerous tug-of-war between Cambodia and Thailand - one that has taken at least eight lives and forced 15,000 to flee in four days of clashes recently.

The battle over a hilly patch of land in this remote countryside is rooted in a decades-old border dispute that has fueled nationalist passions and been driven by domestic politics and conspiracy theories on both sides.

A fragile truce has held since Monday night, but the dispute remains unsettled, and troops are digging in for another round of combat.

The Cambodians filled fresh sandbags earlier this week, stacking them meticulously in 10 bunkers along one of the temple's low outer walls. It looks out over a ravine toward Thailand's sandbagged foxholes on the other side.

"We're just praying in our hearts for this to be over," said Hun Demong, a Buddhist monk who fled into a Cambodian army bunker after the fighting broke out on Feb. 4. "We only hope it will not start again."

With ornamental panels dedicated to the Hindu deity Shiva, Preah Vihear was a stunning achievement of the Angkorean empire, whose realm once took in parts of modern-day Thailand and Vietnam.

When the latest firing stopped, the great stone temple itself stood as a silent victim, small chunks of its darkened gray walls blown off by shrapnel from shells fired from Thailand.

The tail of an exploded rocket lay at the feet of a squatting Cambodian soldier atop the 160-step stairway at the temple's entrance. Along a stone causeway leading farther into the complex, an empty gun battery looked out over a charred hillside, its shredded trees and gnarled saplings bearing testament to the ferocity of the fighting.

A pool of dried blood spattered the floor under a sandstone archway, the spot one mortally wounded soldier was carried to by comrades after being hit by an artillery blast.

There is no simple answer to what sparked the latest fighting.

The temple has been the subject of an intense boundary dispute since French colonial forces withdrew from Cambodia in the 1950s.

View the original article here

Follow the Egyptian money - Washington Post (blog)

"So in addition to supporting institutions and free and fair elections, we are committed to supporting strong civil societies, the activists, organizations, congregations, intellectuals, reporters who work through peaceful means to fight corruption and keep governments honest. Their work enriches the soil in which democracy grows."
--Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Feb. 5, 2011

The Egyptian protests have thrown a spotlight on what the Obama administration has done in its first two years to help promote democracy in Egypt. The administration has claimed that it privately pressed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for changes, but we have documented how President Obama, at least in his public statements, tended to play down the need for specific actions by the Egyptian government.

Clinton's statement, made while discussing the turmoil in the Middle East during a security conference in Munich, raises another question: How committed has the administration been to supporting democracy-minded civic and social organizations -- what are known collectively as civil society-- in Egypt? To find out the answer, we need to follow the money.

The Facts

Since the Camp David peace accords more than three decades ago, the United States and Egypt have had an unspoken bargain in terms of the roughly $2 billion in aid given each year to Cairo: The Egyptian government had veto power over which nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) could receive the money. This deal meant that funds labeled by Washington as promoting democracy often ended up being used for other projects, such as sludge removal or to bolster the very judicial institutions used to jail democracy advocates.

Meanwhile, the largest chunk of the annual largess, about $1.3 billion, was given to Egypt's military and security forces. The security forces have been repeatedly cited in the State Department's human rights report for torture, prolonged detentions without charge and other abuses. While overall aid to Egypt has declined in recent years, the budget for the security forces and the military has remained mostly intact.

The George W. Bush administration tried to change the dynamic regarding civil society funding, though its effort met with fierce resistance by the Egyptian government. There were banner headlines in the Egyptian press the first time a U.S. ambassador actually gave money to institutions that were independent of Hosni Mubarak's regime, even though the funds amounted to just $1 million. One Egyptian newspaper called it a "bombshell announcement."

The Bush administration's effort was also backed by Congress, which tried to condition aid on improvements in Egypt's human rights record and directed that "assistance shall not be subject to the prior approval by the government of any foreign country."

Egyptian entities that took money directly from the United States ran the risk of being labeled American stooges by Egypt's state-run media. A 2009 audit of Egyptian aid by the USAID inspector general found that the results of the U.S. government's democracy effort were mixed, though the "greatest success" was achieved in programs funded directly by the United States.

"A major contributing factor to the limited achievements for some of these programs resulted from a lack of support from the Government of Egypt," the report said. "According to a mission official, the Government of Egypt has resisted USAID/Egypt's democracy and governance program and has suspended the activities of many U.S. NGOs because Egyptian officials thought these organizations were too aggressive."

Toward the end of Bush's term, his fiscal year 2009 budget proposed spending $45 million on democracy and good-governance programs in Egypt, including more than $20 million on promoting civil society. This would have kept the amount earmarked for democracy programs the same as 2008, even as spending in other areas, such as health, education and economics, was scheduled to be reduced in what is known as the Economic Support Fund as part of a reordering of priorities.

"The United States has developed strategic partnerships with reformers from Egyptian civil society and within governmental institutions," the administration said in a document to Congress. "While some democracy and governance activities, such as reforming the judiciary, will be implemented through direct assistance to the GOE [Government of Egypt], assistance to civil society and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will be funded directly."

But that nascent effort was largely shelved when the Obama administration took office. For fiscal year 2009, the administration immediately halved the money for democracy promotion in Egypt; the civil society funds were slashed 70 percent, to $7 million.

Meanwhile, money that was to be given directly to civil society groups was eliminated and the administration agreed to once again fund only those institutions that had Mubarak's seal of approval. Jennifer L. Windsor, an associate dean at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and former executive director of Freedom Watch, said she was told at the time by U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey that the shift was made to "facilitate" better relations with Egypt's government.

The new policy received little public notice at the time but is documented in official government documents and also on the USAID Web site. Obama's 2010 budget justification to Congress eliminated all mention of giving direct assistance to civil society groups. The 2011 budget proposed modestly increasing democracy funding -- from $20 million to $25 million, with $8.5 million going to civil society groups -- and explicitly stated that "grants will be made to Egyptian registered NGOs."

Freedom House, a bipartisan democracy advocate, tried to sound a warning in 2009 about the reductions. After the administration halved democracy funding for Egypt, Freedom House said in its analysis of the foreign aid budget, "The Obama Administration should reassess this reduction in support and strengthen its diplomatic efforts on behalf of independent democracy and human rights activists in this important country."

In 2010, Freedom House again raised an alarm, and added: "We have serious concerns about the US Government decision to stop funding civil society groups not registered with the Egyptian Ministry of Social Solidarity, essentially giving the Egyptian Government veto power over who receives funding from USAID. Not only is this decision harmful to civil society groups in Egypt, it sets a dangerous precedent in terms of U.S. foreign assistance." It also noted that although the administration indicated it might offset the cuts in bilateral aid with increased funding from other entities--the State Department suggests this totaled $6 million in 2010--"it is not clear that has been the case."

The Obama administration signaled it would cut democracy funding for Egypt within weeks of taking power, even before the president went to Cairo and made his famous speech on outreach to the Muslim world.

Just days before his address, a group of Middle East experts debated the issue on a Harvard University blog. Windsor wrote that the decisions "were a terrible mistake."

She added that she had just returned from Cairo and "what I found most heartening was the diversity of groups and individuals who seek genuine change." They were disorganized, fragmented and needed more support, she said, but "their potential is demonstrated by the fact that the Egyptian security services have asked for a massive increase in funding" -- roughly equivalent to the cut in U.S. funding to democracy groups. "So the advocates for oppression in Egypt will get more funds, and the advocates for freedom get less," she concluded.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley acknowledged Wednesday that "funding for democracy activities in Egypt did drop" between fiscal year 2008 and 2009, which he attributed to the Bush administration's proposed cut in overall economic support funds. "We increased funding in fiscal year 2010 and sustained that in our proposal for fiscal year 2011 while also reorienting our approach to provide direct support to indigenous Egyptian organizations."

Crowley added: "We are currently looking at ways to expand our support to civil society in Egypt given the events that are now unfolding. Unfortunately, Congress is contemplating severe cuts in foreign assistance which potentially threaten these efforts at a time when they can have the greatest impact."

The Pinocchio Test

Clinton is certainly correct to say that the United States supports and encourages civil society groups around the world. But when it comes to Egypt, the administration's performance appears to fall short.

Obama ended a potentially promising effort to support democracy groups not beholden to Egypt's authoritarian government in order to curry favor with that government. The administration also reduced the budget devoted to promoting civil society. It is not possible to know whether the tens of thousands of people protesting every day would be better organized or have more visible leaders today if substantial direct funding had been maintained. But it would be better for the administration to admit it made a mistake than to pretend it had not changed the policy.

Two Pinocchios

(About our rating scale).

Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter @GlennKesslerWP

View the original article here

Mubarak spurns opposition demands to leave office immediately - Washington Post

'Revolution': As protesters vow more marches, violent confrontation is feared

The military's role: Allegiance of armed forces remains a pivotal issue

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak ceded some authority to his vice president Thursday but refused to quit, insisting that he would stay in office to oversee a drawn-out transfer of power. His defiance stunned and angered hundreds of thousands of protesters in the capital, who responded with chants of "revolution, revolution."

Enormous crowds, which had gathered in anticipation that Mubarak would announce his resignation in a televised address, expressed disappointment and fury as the message sunk in that the president had no intention of leaving. Some masses moved tentatively toward the heavily guarded state television tower, while others vowed to march on the presidential palace.

"Oh Mubarak, be patient! The people will dig your grave," shouted protesters in the central Tahrir Square late into the night.

Mubarak's rejection of the rebellion, in a rambling late-night speech, capped a confusing day of contradictory messages, exultant expectations and, ultimately, flattened hopes. It left Egyptians and the rest of the world anxious and afraid of how the conflict would unfold in the hours and days ahead.

The Egyptian army, which rolled more tanks into the city center, did not move immediately to impede the demonstrators. But with large protests planned for Friday, the military's allegiance remained a question mark and appeared to swing back and forth between the president and the people.

Some leaders warned that Mubarak was risking a bloody revolt.

"There is no way the Egyptian people right now are ready to accept either the president or the vice president," Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and opposition leader, told CNN. "They have lost all authority, all legitimacy. . . . My fear is that the situation will turn violent."

The developments not only shocked Egyptians but seemed to catch the world by surprise, including the highest levels of the U.S. government. In a written statement, President Obama said "it is not yet clear'' whether the transition to democracy pledged by Mubarak would be "immediate, meaningful or sufficient.''

Earlier Thursday, CIA Director Leon Panetta told Congress that "there is a strong likelihood that Mubarak may step down this evening." In an afternoon speech to university students in Michigan, Obama gave no indication that he expected otherwise, calling the events in Egypt "a moment of transformation that's taking place because the people of Egypt are calling for change."

View the original article here

US noncommittal on Muslim group joining talks - Washington Post

MUNICH -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration will withhold judgment on the decision by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to engage in dialogue with the embattled government of President Hosni Mubarak.

In an interview airing Sunday on National Public Radio, Clinton was noncommittal about the fundamentalist group's role in talks to try to end Egypt's political crisis, but she said the decision suggests "at least they are now involved."

Clinton says the U.S. has been very clear about what it expects in the transition process to a new government in Egypt.

The United States, she says, along with the people of Egypt want so see an orderly transition that leads to free and fair elections.

View the original article here

I didn't think Egypt's revolution was possible. But here we are. - Washington Post

From a storefront window near Tahrir Square, I am filming scenes from a war movie.

Handfuls of stones form ribbons in the air, moving in a kind of slow motion. A man with a beard kneels, holding his hands up in prayer, unworried about the rain of heavy rocks that miraculously misses him. Then time speeds up, and the man rises and throws stones along with his comrades.

By now, in the middle of the week, the president has said he will step down in September, but that is disappointing to the people and their aspirations. In 2006, it would have been possible for Hosni Mubarak to calm the public by nominating a vice president, or forming a new government that excluded corrupt ministers and promising not to run in the next election. This is not enough anymore. I now hear nonstop shooting outside, while learning news of demonstrators wounded - or killed.

Egyptians published a date for their revolution on Facebook, and here they are, bare-chested, facing tear gas, riot police sticks and bullets. Several days into the fight, they are still capable of gathering in hundreds of thousands, dancing, chanting, shouting, creating slogans and carrying banners against the corrupt president improvised on every piece of material imaginable.

"People want to bring the regime down," the banners read, and "Please give up now my hands are too numb (from carrying the banner too long)" and "Your expiration date is January 25." Rumors spread in the absence of trustworthy information: Israel will drop weapons to the police militias; don't drink juice, it contains a sedative.

To be with the crowds in Tahrir Square is like being in a motion picture - but instead of just watching in awe, I am living the event. I am 36 years old. I thought one day my grandson might see this moment. But here I am.

Cairo isn't where I live anymore, but it is where I have to be now. I had been working as an editor in Doha, Qatar, and was scheduled to be in Cairo now for the international book fair. That was canceled, of course, but I am here anyway, and I plan to stay. I may lose my job, but losing a job is better than losing a country.

I see children on their parents' shoulders, singing for Egypt. I see a man dressed in Muslim Brotherhood garb shouting, "Freedom! Freedom!" - normally members of that group quote a verse from the Koran. But this man, with his child on his shoulders, too, is shouting only for freedom. It is a transformation, everyone merging together.

Against the swelling crowds late Tuesday evening, the murderous president recites his old achievements. He flirts with the common man in a tone suitable for love letters, not a brief speech of a president living his last days in office. Mubarak has lost his last chance to hand power over smoothly to his vice president, Omar Suleiman, even on a temporary basis, to prepare for the upcoming presidential elections. On "Departure Friday," the president could taste his own poison as the crowds remained defiant in the square, seeming to echo his own words that "Homeland is everlasting, and people are passers-by."

All this is happening even in the absence of Internet and cellphone connections. The regime banned al-Jazeera from broadcasting, and the list of violations goes on - foreign correspondents in custody, broken cameras, plastic and real bullets shot into the crowds of demonstrators.

On the ninth day of the revolution, the president gave a green light to the Ministry of Interior to push riot police, thugs, paid outlaws and state police in plain clothes to demonstrate as supporters of the regime.

In the early morning, they were carried in trucks to places around and inside Tahrir Square to provoke the peaceful demonstrators there. It's a method that has never failed this president, a surefire way to forge elections and fight demonstrations.

These militias clashed with the protesters, using guns and Molotov cocktails to kick them out of the square. The demonstrators then organized themselves, hurling stones and forcing the president's militias to retreat, until they finally took over the situation. Some broke the stones into smaller pieces, some carried them to the throwers. An assembly line of resistance.

I had been working on a novel about a future revolution, picturing the day the people finally went against the regime. I imagined crowds, how the regime would provoke people and how the people would snap, step by step. Pure fiction.

I will have to rewrite it.

Ahmed Alaidy is the author of the novel "Being Abbas el Abd." This essay was translated from the Arabic by Safaa Fathy.

View the original article here

For cautious Mubarak, change became overwhelming - Washington Post

CAIRO - Hosni Mubarak kept Egypt under total control for nearly three decades, not through charisma or inspiration, but by building a system of patronage and brutality that was beyond challenge. In the past two weeks, those methods have failed him.

The popular uprising in the Arab world's biggest country has tested the limits of Mubarak's reliance on the system he inherited and reshaped, and his frequent threat that, without him in charge, the country would face chaos - a tradeoff that the country's middle and upper classes have not been willing to make.

Change here has been pushed by a new generation that refuses to accept the rationalizations of its parents. When the economy began to sour two years ago, young people discovered that a system built on nepotism and bribery was shutting them out of university slots and jobs. Their grievances mounted, and then spilled out on the streets, with demands for an end to Mubarak's authoritarian rule.

Mubarak - aloof and, up to now, savvy about keeping himself in power - attracts great loyalty, still, of course.

His followers call him their father and protector. But interwoven with the passion and faith of those on his side are new feelings - of sympathy. After he addressed the nation Tuesday night, in his pleasant baritone, supporters on the streets of Cairo argued that he's an old man, at 82, and should be allowed his dignity.

Aladdin Elaasar, author of the book "The Last Pharaoh,'' calls Mubarak's government "a neo-sultanistic regime." It's a system, he writes, based not on ideology or even leadership qualities, but on "a mixture of fear and rewards to his collaborators."

Or, as Elaasar put it: "The ruler exercises his power without restraint, at his own discretion."

The blinded 'hero'

Mubarak sits atop the pyramid of Egyptian society. Orders flow down, and money - almost certainly - flows up. Egyptian corruption grew to enormous proportions under him.

"But it was very comfortable for him," said Amaney Jamal, an expert on Arab politics at Princeton University. "He felt the status quo was sustainable."

Under this structure, what doesn't flow back up to the top is reliable information. Mubarak's Egypt is a nation with a huge and pervading police structure, but critics say its spies and torturers were incapable of presenting a reliable picture of the country to the people at the apex, because they rejected anything that didn't fit their own view. "We live in a triangle society," said Abd Al Rahman, an English teacher. The subordinate's duty is to obey, not to discuss and never to question.

This is a weakness of any hierarchical structure, but in Egypt's case it became nearly absolute.

"He has merged his own ego with the state," said Dina Guirguis, of a Washington-based group called Voices for a Democratic Egypt. "He views himself as Egypt's hero."

View the original article here

Clashes in Sudan as southerners in army refuse to withdraw to north - Washington Post

JUBA, SUDAN - Clashes spread across a key border region in southern Sudan on Saturday after a wave of mutinies among southerners in the northern army, leaving at least 41 people dead as Sudan begins to separate into two nations following a southern referendum on independence last month.

Official results show that 99 percent of southerners who voted backed forming their own country, and full independence is set to take effect in July. The referendum was the core provision of a U.S.-brokered 2005 peace deal between Sudan's Arab and Muslim north and the rebellious African and largely Christian south, ending a 22-year war that led to the deaths of 2 million people.

The recent violence broke out Thursday in Malakal, the capital of Upper Nile state, as the northern army, the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), began withdrawing its remaining contingents in the south.

Former southern militiamen in the northern army mutinied against other southern soldiers and northern commanders, refusing to relocate to the north with all their weaponry. The fighting continued throughout the day Friday. At least 22 are confirmed dead, mostly soldiers, according to a U.N. official, who said the fighting had mostly stopped by Saturday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media on the matter.

Similar uprisings within the SAF ranks erupted Saturday in the Upper Nile towns of Melut, Paloich and Maban, said Malaak Ayuen, head of information in southern Sudan's army, the former rebel Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA).

"The fighting has spread across Upper Nile," said Ayuen, who said he could not yet give total casualty figures. The SPLA has stepped in to try to quell the fighting but was not part of the original clashes, according to officials.

On Saturday, the uprising began at Paloich, the base of Sudan's most productive oil fields, before spreading 20 miles to the SAF base in the town of Melut. There, at least 18 soldiers were killed, said Akuoc Teng Diing, the Melut County commissioner.

"The bodies are still being collected, and the number is rising," said Akuoc, speaking by phone from the clash site midday Saturday.

Although part of the northern army, the vast majority of the SAF soldiers in these bases are southerners. Many are longtime veterans who fought in the national army against the southern rebels.

But others only officially integrated into the SAF after the peace deal. During the war, they were part of a patchwork of tribal militias that controlled most of Upper Nile, supported by the northern Sudanese government in Khartoum to wage a proxy war against the SPLA and keep the key border region open for oil exploration.

According to officials, it is these former militiamen who are behind the uprisings.

With all SAF forces now required to withdraw to the north and the southerners in its ranks disarmed and discharged back to the south, the ex-militia elements are resisting the move.

View the original article here

US presses Egyptian army to bless talks with opposition - Washington Post

The Obama administration, encouraged by the relative calm in Egypt on Friday, is urgently trying to persuade opposition groups to participate in a dialogue with Vice President Omar Suleiman in a meeting scheduled for Saturday morning.

Over the past 24 hours, senior administration officials have urged the army and a still-unformed council of respected leaders from across Egyptian society to step forward and bless the dialogue.

President Obama plans to reiterate his call for a transition in public remarks at the White House Friday afternoon.

At the Saturday meeting, the administration hopes that government and opposition leaders will begin to draw the contours of a multi-step transition, including the immediate suspension of harsh emergency laws and establishment of a roadmap for constitutional change and free and fair elections.

Reform protesters have continued to insist that no dialogue can begin until President Hosni Mubarak leaves office. Officials - who discussed the administration's efforts on condition they not be identified or directly quoted - agreed that no substantive progress will be made until Mubarak steps aside.

They said that Mubarak's departure had not been directly addressed in administration conversations with Suleiman, defense leaders and others outside the government. But, they said, that was the recognized subtext.

Suleiman, they said, was increasingly aware that his own credibility was diminishing the longer he remained tethered to Mubarak, as was the likelihood that he can serve as an acceptable alternative.

In conversations with Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi and Lt. Gen. Sami Enan, the military chief, administration officials stressed the importance of preserving the army's position as the most respected institution in Egypt. The administration was also coordinating its message with European leaders speaking to their own Egyptian contacts.

Even as it presses for a dialogue with the opposition - and with its own preferred outcome in mind of an "orderly transition" that includes Mubarak's departure and a strong military role - the administration remains wary of proposing a specific plan. Officials were loath even to name those opposition figures with whom they are speaking, lest those figures be tainted with a "made in America" label.

Conversations that on Wednesday and Thursday focused heavily on the need to stop what appeared to be government-sanctioned attacks on protesters and journalists shifted overnight to a U.S. emphasis on the speed and substance of a dialogue. The Egyptians, they said, are well aware of the demands of the protesters and the reform agenda.

But administration officials expressed concern that top decision-makers in an increasingly divided and indecisive Egyptian government would not seize what they saw as a narrow opportunity provided by Friday's partial lull in violent clashes.

A meeting between Suleiman and some political leaders Thursday was seen as useless because representative and respected Egyptians refused to attend. Officials said that Mubarak's removal from the scene, either through resignation or some other unspecified means of relinquishing power to Suleiman was key to successful talks Saturday.

Administration analysts charting the course of the demonstrations since late last week said that political leaders and respected Egyptians not directly involved in politics have been reluctant to say they represent the predominately youthful protesters. The army, anxious to retain its apolitical reputation, has been similarly reluctant to play a political role in pushing Mubarak toward the exit.

Officials now believe that the violence earlier this week, along with indications that the Muslim Brotherhood has begun to step into a more visible leadership role, have made prominent Egyptians more receptive to appeals to step up to the plate.

View the original article here

Egypt has Obama cautiously shifting world view on democracy - Washington Post

Shortly after taking office, President Obama traveled to Cairo to declare a new day in U.S. relations with the Muslim world - saying there was "no straight line" to building democratic societies in the Middle East.

The June 2009 address was in part intended to show a clean break from a George W. Bush-era "freedom agenda" of promoting electoral democracies across the region. Yet Obama now finds himself forced to move much closer to that worldview as he escalates pressure on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to make immediate changes.

Obama has shifted in that direction cautiously over the past week and a half, balancing between urging wider freedom and maintaining his position that the events are for Egyptians, not Americans, to decide. To some extent, that may be his only safe course: Obama does not yet know what kind of government will take shape in Egypt, and administration officials are confident that if it a hostile regime were to wind up taking hold, the president would inevitably take some of the blame.

And so the rhetoric has been circumspect. On Sunday, the administration called for an "orderly transition." By Tuesday, that had escalated into a demand that Mubarak begin implementing democratic changes immediately, but it was not clear what that meant, or exactly what the White House would like to see happen next. Although senior officials have made it plain that they want Mubarak to leave office right away, Obama has not said the same. He has left that to protesters in the streets of Cairo - and to some outspoken foreign policy hawks at home, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Obama has navigated some internal divides as well. In the Situation Room on Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice - who has a history of urging pressure on authoritarian regimes - called for the administration to take a harder line on Mubarak, one administration official said. That view was met with some resistance from others, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Obama decided that, in his public remarks about Mubarak that night, he was "not going to go all the way, but not let him off the hook," one official said. In typical fashion, Obama shared his comments with his advisers ahead of time and allowed each side to weigh in.

"By the time everyone left, we all ended up agreeing on where we ended up," the official said.

So far, Obama's measured steps have drawn mostly praise across the political spectrum. Criticism has come largely from potential Republican presidential candidates. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) said it is "frightening" to watch Obama on Egypt, and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty said the administration's response has been "inconsistent and bordering on incoherent."

But GOP leaders in the House and the Senate have expressed support, saying it is vital for the United States to speak with one voice on foreign policy. Even former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has been silent on the matter.

Still, Obama's approach has not eliminated the potential peril for him domestically. If an Islamist regime takes control, comparisons to Iran will be inevitable, with Republicans accusing Obama of not managing one of the most vital U.S. allies in the Middle East and potentially endangering the security of neighboring Israel.

At first, the president appeared reluctant to push Mubarak, an ally, but appeared to grow more comfortable urging changes as Mubarak appeared less flexible.

"Historians will write, if Egypt turns out well, that this was the capstone of a shift in the administration," said Robert Kagan, a Brookings Institution scholar who is part of a working group that is warning the White House to prepare for a change in Egypt.

Some leaders in the Jewish community expressed concern this week when White House spokesman Robert Gibbs urged Egypt to incorporate the views of opposition parties. They wondered whether Gibbs was referring to the Muslim Brotherhood. White House officials held a conference call Wednesday night to reassure Jewish leaders.

The administration is mindful of the potential drawbacks of becoming too closely involved in the internal upheaval of another country. The Bush administration pressured the Israeli government to allow elections to go forward in the Palestinian territories in January 2006 - then found itself in the uncomfortable position of leading a boycott of the elected Hamas government, embittering many Palestinians.

Egypt has elections scheduled for this fall, and without Mubarak on the ballot, some fear the Muslim Brotherhood could gain political power. Such a victory would put Obama in a place similar to the one Bush found himself in after the 2006 Palestinian elections, and would challenge his pledge to allow Egyptians to determine their political future

"It's not that [Obama and his aides] have said, 'We want the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt,' " said Marc Lynch, an Egypt expert at George Washington University. "It's that if they respect democracy and reject violence, they should have as much a right to participate in elections as anyone else."

kornbluta@washpost.com wallstenp@washpost.com

Staff writer Scott Wilson contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Haiti panel announces candidates for runoff presidential election - Washington Post

Many Haitians sighed with relief Thursday after election officials announced that former first lady Mirlande Manigat will face Michel Martelly, a carnival singer known as Sweet Micky, in a runoff presidential election next month.

The long-delayed decision by Haiti's electoral council pushed government-backed candidate Jude Celestin out of the running. Celestin, a previously unknown bureaucrat who ran the state road-building agency, was the handpicked successor of sitting President Rene Preval, whose response to last year's disastrous earthquake and management of the slow recovery effort have disappointed many Haitians.

Shops and schools were closed as anxious Haitians braced for the announcement. An analysis of the Nov. 28 vote by the Organization of American States found widespread fraud, missing votes and altered tallies. The group said supporters of all three leading candidates tried to steal votes.

The OAS recommended that the electoral council reverse its preliminary results - which had Celestin finishing second - and stage a runoff between Martelly and Manigat. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Haiti on Sunday and pushed the Preval government to accept the OAS conclusions and withdraw its candidate from the second round, set for March 20.

Martelly and Manigat offer voters a real choice in personalities. Manigat is the former first lady, wife of Leslie Manigat, who was president for several months in 1988 before being ousted by the military. Almost always referred to as "Madame Manigat," the 70-year-old law professor cuts a regal, mature figure.

"Sweet Micky," her 49-year-old opponent, is a household name - a carnival performer and kompa music singer whose raunchy songs top the Haitian charts.

In an interview last month, Martelly promised that his administration would be serious and transparent. "I will set a good example," he said. "I have clean hands. We will respect the money and the people."

The next question is what happens with Preval. Under the constitution, Preval's five-year term is supposed to end Monday. Legislation passed by Preval supporters last year in the Senate would allow him to remain in office until May because his 2006 inauguration was delayed.

If Preval steps down, as many Haitians would like, the Haitian constitution says the highest-ranking member of Haiti's supreme court should serve as a caretaker leader until a new president is sworn in. The court's presidency is currently vacant.

Diplomats have said Haiti could lose billions of dollars in aid if the Preval government and the electoral council do not not accept the OAS's recommendations.

View the original article here

Three possible scenarios for Egypt's future - Washington Post

As the Egyptian political crisis grows more violent and uncertain, analysts have begun to turn to historical parallels for answers. Will an Islamist movement or a new strongman - or both - emerge to seize control, in an eerie repeat of the 1979 Iranian revolution? Or will Egypt's secular tradition and powerful military allow for a messy transition to democracy, as happened in Indonesia in 1998? Or will it be something in between, such as the initial outcome of the Romanian revolution of 1989?

Even in the age of Twitter, the final result will probably not be known for weeks. It took four months for the shah of Iran to leave after the shooting of demonstrators led to popular outrage. In Egypt, no real move to democracy can be assured until several changes in law and the constitution are enacted. The next presidential election is now scheduled for September, but a careful process of reform would be needed to ensure a transition to democracy.

Among the key changes required: altering Article 76 of the constitution, which imposes onerous requirements that effectively prevent any opposition candidate from running for the presidency; lifting the emergency law that empowers the security services to detain without charge anyone deemed a threat to the state; reinstating judicial supervision of elections, including the presence of judges at every polling station; and making sure the machinery of the state (such as television) is in the hands of more neutral people than the ruling party.

Those reforms, of course, would not ensure a result that is beneficial to U.S. interests. Drawing from history, here are the three possible scenarios most discussed by analysts.

The Iranian outcome

Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak today, was an anchor of U.S. power in the Middle East who maintained relations with Israel. He was socially progressive, with a largely secular approach. But when he was ousted in a popular revolution, a theocratic clique led by the long-exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power and smothered a movement originally led by students and moderates. Moreover, the outcome was deeply damaging to the United States, with Iran the major backer of anti-Israeli militants in the region.

The parallel is imperfect - there is no Egyptian spiritual or religious leader living in Paris awaiting a triumphant return to Cairo - but some experts are concerned about the possibility of an Egyptian Islamist movement grabbing the reins of the uprising. The Muslim Brotherhood has long been an illegal but semi-tolerated force in Egyptian politics.

Mubarak clamped down on moderate opposition forces and used the Muslim Brotherhood as a foil to fend off Western demands for greater freedoms. "If they do gain control, it's going to be almost impossible for the people to take it back," says former State Department official Leslie Gelb, referring to the Brotherhood. Ian Johnson, a journalist who has written on the movement, quoted its former leader as saying he "still wants to impose Islamic law, or sharia, in Egypt, but says he would do so slowly, building up support at the grass-roots level rather than imposing it from above, as was done in Iran."

Others discount the Muslim Brotherhood's strength, however. Anthropologist Scott Atran says it can count on only 100,000 adherents out of a population of more than 80 million.

The Indonesian outcome

In 1998, President Suharto's 32 years of authoritarian rule came to an end. He was another longtime U.S. ally whose departure was deeply feared in the White House. But in the end, the world's most populous Muslim country made a messy and long transition to democracy - and remained a key partner of the United States.

Thomas Carothers, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points to Indonesia's experience as a more likely scenario for Egypt than the Iranian outcome, though he warns that the path will still be difficult. But there are similarities between Egypt and Indonesia: a relatively secular tradition, a strong military that has (thus far) refused to repress protesters, and an uprising led by a mix of youth and civic society.

Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch also thinks the Indonesia scenario is more likely than an Iranian outcome, because the restoration of political freedom in Egypt would allow more moderate political forces to emerge, just as in Indonesia, with the military possibly helping to provide stability during the transition.

The Romanian outcome

Romanian revolutionaries overthrew dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989 - and killed him - but within months the military and Communist elite had engineered their survival, with the designated president, a former ally of Ceausescu's, winning 85 percent of the vote in a May 1990 election

Egypt's security services - army, paramilitary, National Guard and the like - are about 1 million strong. It is quite possible that the country's ruling elite would slowly squeeze the life out of the opposition by making Mubarak a transitional figurehead and enacting a few cosmetic reforms that give the illusion of change. State control of the media would not be lifted, and elections would still be manipulated to ensure the election of a president beholden to the current power structure.

What saved Romania in the end was that it wanted to become a member of NATO and the European Union, and so eventually a more democratic system of government emerged. But such incentives are not currently available for Egypt.

View the original article here

Anti-government rallies in Yemen stay calm - Washington Post

SANAA, YEMEN - They took to the streets on Thursday, tens of thousands of pro- and anti-government demonstrators, driven by the upheavals gripping the Arab world and a desire to shape the course of their impoverished nation.

"We need freedom. Get out, Ali Abdullah Saleh, get out!" the crowd in one part of the capital chanted, referring to their president and holding banners calling for the end of corruption.

"No to chaos and destruction," the crowd in another part of the capital shouted, clutching large portraits of Saleh and declaring that he was vital to Yemen's stability.

The sentiments exemplified how much the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia have altered mind-sets across the region. Among both groups of protesters in Yemen's capital, a long-standing fear of autocracy had vanished, replaced by a boldness that may represent in the years ahead the most far-reaching change that emerges from the wave of populist rebellions.

On the streets of this dusty, crowded capital there was a sense that here, too, ordinary people could finally hold their president, a vital U.S. ally, accountable after more than three decades in power.

"We can change our president. We feel confident," said Saleh Said al-Jawhari, 25. "I have two college degrees, in accounting and English. But I've been jobless for a year. I am no longer afraid to confront this regime."

In recent days, the leaders of several countries in the region have made conciliatory gestures, apparently to prevent popular frustrations from boiling over as they have in Egypt. The most recent came Thursday from Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, serving his third term, who promised to end a 19-year-old state of emergency and allow more political freedoms, the state news agency reported. A major opposition demonstration is planned in Algeria next week.

Despite predictions that the demonstrations in Yemen could turn violent because of a tribal culture and abundance of weapons, the rival rallies were for the most part peaceful. To avoid violent clashes, Yemen's political opposition moved its protest from the capital's Tahrir, or Liberation, Square when the ruling party decided to stage its own rally there.

Protests took place in seven provinces. In the southern city of Aden, a hotbed of anti-government sentiments, several people were injured in clashes between security forces and protesters. There were also minor scuffles between rival groups in the capital.

But by 1 p.m., the protesters had mostly dispersed, and the capital had returned to normal, although police and soldiers remained on many corners throughout the day.

The events came a day after Saleh announced that he would not seek another term or anoint his son Ahmed as his successor. He has also pledged other political reforms, raised government salaries, extended welfare payments and slashed income taxes, in an effort to defuse tensions in a nation already reeling from widespread poverty, two rebellions and a resurgent branch of al-Qaeda.

A White House statement said that President Obama had called Saleh and welcomed the measures but stressed the need "to follow-up his pledge with concrete actions."

View the original article here

Haiti panel announces candidates for runoff presidential election - Washington Post

Many Haitians sighed with relief Thursday after election officials announced that former first lady Mirlande Manigat will face Michel Martelly, a carnival singer known as "Sweet Micky," in a runoff presidential election next month.

The long-delayed decision by Haiti's electoral council pushed government-backed candidate Jude Celestin out of the running. Celestin, a previously unknown bureaucrat who ran the state road-building agency, was the handpicked successor of sitting President Rene Preval, whose response to last year's disastrous earthquake and management of the slow recovery effort have disappointed many Haitians.

Shops and schools were closed as anxious Haitians braced for the announcement. An analysis of the Nov. 28 vote by the Organization of American States found widespread fraud, missing votes and altered tallies. The group said supporters of all three leading candidates tried to steal votes.

The OAS recommended that the electoral council reverse its preliminary results - which had Celestin finishing second - and stage a runoff between Martelly and Manigat. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Haiti on Sunday and pushed the Preval government to accept the OAS conclusions and withdraw its candidate from the second round, set for March 20.

Martelly and Manigat offer voters a real choice in personalities. Manigat is the former first lady, wife of Leslie Manigat, who was president for several months in 1988 before being ousted by the military. Almost always referred to as "Madame Manigat," the 70-year-old law professor cuts a regal, mature figure.

"Sweet Micky," her 49-year-old opponent, is a household name - a carnival performer and kompa music singer whose raunchy songs top the Haitian charts.

In an interview last month, Martelly promised that his administration would be serious and transparent. "I will set a good example," he said. "I have clean hands. We will respect the money and the people."

Martelly promised to begin a campaign to provide free or low-cost education to every Haitian child. Half of the nation's children do not go to school.

The next question is what happens with Preval. Under the constitution, Preval's five-year term is supposed to end Monday. Legislation passed by Preval supporters last year in the Senate would allow him to remain in office until May because his 2006 inauguration was delayed.

Preval could remain in office until a successor is elected. The president has repeatedly said that he wishes to remain in Haiti after his term is over and not flee into exile, as many of his predecessors have done.

If Preval steps down, as many Haitians would like, the Haitian constitution says the highest-ranking member of Haiti's supreme court should serve as a caretaker leader until a new president is sworn in. The court's presidency is currently vacant.

As the election drama unfolds, many projects to help Haiti recover from the earthquake have slowed as donors wait to see whether the country will face more chaos and violence. Diplomats have said Haiti could lose billions of dollars in aid if the Preval government and the electoral council do not not accept the OAS's recommendations.

View the original article here

Egypt has Obama cautiously shifting world view on democracy - Washington Post

Shortly after taking office, President Obama traveled to Cairo to declare a new day in U.S. relations with the Muslim world - saying there was "no straight line" to building democratic societies in the Middle East.

The June 2009 address was in part intended to show a clean break from a George W. Bush-era "freedom agenda" of promoting electoral democracies across the region. Yet Obama now finds himself forced to move much closer to that world view as he escalates pressure on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to make immediate changes.

Obama has shifted in that direction cautiously over the past week and a half, balancing between urging wider freedom and maintaining his position that the events are for Egyptians, not Americans, to decide. To some extent, that may be his only safe course: Obama does not yet know what kind of government will take shape in Egypt, and administration officials are confident that if it a hostile regime were to wind up taking hold, the president would inevitably take some of the blame.

And so the rhetoric has been circumspect. On Sunday, the administration called for an "orderly transition." By Tuesday, that had escalated into a demand that Mubarak begin implementing democratic changes immediately, but it was not clear what that meant, or exactly what the White House would like to see happen next. Although senior officials have made it plain that they want Mubarak to leave office right away, Obama has not said the same. He has left that to protesters in the streets of Cairo - and to some outspoken foreign policy hawks at home, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Obama has navigated some internal divides as well. In the Situation Room on Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice - who has a history of urging pressure on authoritarian regimes - called for the administration to take a harder line on Mubarak, one administration official said. That view was met with some resistance from others, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Obama decided that, in his public remarks about Mubarak that night, he was "not going to go all the way, but not let him off the hook," one official said. In typical fashion, Obama shared his comments with his advisers ahead of time and allowed each side to weigh in.

"By the time everyone left, we all ended up agreeing on where we ended up," the official said.

So far, Obama's measured steps have drawn mostly praise across the political spectrum. Criticism has come largely from potential Republican presidential candidates. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) said it is "frightening" to watch Obama on Egypt, and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty said the administration's response has been "inconsistent and bordering on incoherent."

But GOP leaders in the House and the Senate have expressed support, saying it is vital for the United States to speak with one voice on foreign policy. Even former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has been silent on the matter.

Still, Obama's approach has not eliminated the potential peril for him domestically. If an Islamist regime takes control, comparisons to Iran will be inevitable, with Republicans accusing Obama of not managing one of the most vital U.S. allies in the Middle East and potentially endangering the security of neighboring Israel.

At first, the president appeared reluctant to push Mubarak, an ally, but appeared to grow more comfortable urging changes as Mubarak appeared less flexible.

"Historians will write, if Egypt turns out well, that this was the capstone of a shift in the administration," said Robert Kagan, a Brookings Institution scholar who is part of a working group that is warning the White House to prepare for a change in Egypt.

Some leaders in the Jewish community expressed concern this week when White House spokesman Robert Gibbs urged Egypt to incorporate the views of opposition parties. They wondered if Gibbs was referring to the Muslim Brotherhood. White House officials held a conference call Wednesday night to reassure Jewish leaders.

The administration is mindful of the potential drawbacks of becoming too closely involved in the internal upheaval of another country. The Bush administration pressured the Israeli government to allow elections to go forward in the Palestinian territories in January 2006 - then found itself in the uncomfortable position of leading a boycott of the elected Hamas government, embittering many Palestinians.

Egypt has elections scheduled for this fall, and without Mubarak on the ballot some fear the Muslim Brotherhood could gain political power. Such a victory would put Obama in a place similar to the one Bush found himself in after the 2006 Palestinian elections, and would challenge his pledge to allow Egyptians to determine their political future

"It's not that [Obama and his aides] have said, 'We want the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt,' " said Marc Lynch, an Egypt expert at George Washington University. "It's that if they respect democracy and reject violence, they should have as much a right to participate in elections as anyone else."

kornbluta@washpost.com wallstenp@washpost.com

Staff writer Scott Wilson contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Fireworks in Beijing kill 2 celebrating New Year - Washington Post

BEIJING -- Chinese state media reports say two people have been killed and more than 220 hurt in Beijing by fireworks set off to celebrate the Lunar New Year.

The official Xinhua New Agency said Friday that the traditional fireworks frenzy in the capital from late Wednesday through Thursday killed two men who were setting off shoddy fireworks and injured 223. It says most suffered eye injuries.

The tradition of setting off fireworks to ward off evil spirits results in injuries and fires every year, with the biggest fire this time gutting a five-star hotel in northeast China. There were no casualties.

Xinhua says more than 20,000 street cleaners were needed to clean up an estimated 2,380 tons of exploded fireworks in Beijing.

View the original article here