SCAF remains the revolution's most dangerous enemy

I must give it to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) - I underestimated them by miles. While half the revolutionary forces were dead scared of the Muslim Brotherhood possibly winning the presidency with Morsi and the other half scared Shafiq could win - the real power that is still holding Egypt in its grip was overlooked: the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces with their power hungry generals.

Two days before the presidential elections, which possible outcome I discussed in my recent blogpost, the High Constitutional Court in Cairo ruled on June 14 that Egypt's Parliamentary Elections Law was unconstitutional with a third of the MPs having to give up their seats. In the consequence of this ruling the Egyptian parliament was immediately dissolved and tanks were positioned around the building with the army barring MPs from entering.

It was clear that the ruling made by judges appointed still by Mubarak had the consent of SCAF, even though the generals were quick to state that they were not happy about it - but nevertheless used iron force to make sure parliamentarians were not able to enter parliament anymore.

What no one had expected and took everyone by surprise and into a shock came true: the people of Egypt went into voting for a president in a country that had neither a constitution nor a parliament. An unprecedented affair!

But as if this was not yet enough trouble, the SCAF thought up even more. On the evening of the second voting day (June 17), shortly after the polling stations finally closed at 10 pm, SCAF issued an amendment to the Constitutional Declaration - basically stripping the new president of his powers and securing almost all powers - including the legislative - for them alone. Egypt was without parliament, not yet decided on who won in the presidential election and with a constitutional situation no one had ever voted for. To put it bluntly: the SCAF had taken over Egypt and staged a 'coup'.

In my assessment in my blogpost I had contemplated the idea that SCAF could plan a coup after the president was elected and rejected this for what I thought were sound reasons. Never in my wildest dreams however did I come up with the idea SCAF could stage a 'soft' coup already before the president was even elected! That indeed was a move by SCAF that took me just as much by surprise as basically everyone else both in Egypt and abroad. In fact this move scared the Obama administration so much, that they issued a clear warning to SCAF that aid could be frozen if the army was not to change this course and hand power over to a civilian government!

I  - and obviously even the closest allies - truly underestimated both SCAF's power hungriness and their ignorance. For while I thought SCAF would not want the world to see them as the ones destroying the transitional process in Egypt, from the above actions it has to be deduced that either the generals couldn't care less after all or were and are just too stupid to understand the impact their takeover has regarding their image in Egypt and the world.

As I write, Egypt is in a state of chaos. One week after the end of the presidential elections it is still not clear which candidate made the race. The SCAF controlled Higher Presidential Election Commission (HPEC) keeps postponing the announcement of the winner and rumours that Morsi won and Shafiq won run wild. Whatever the outcome will be, it seems certain that the win will be by only 1 or 2 percent, leaving the winner with somewhere around 51% or 52%. Which - obviously - means that the loser is having almost just as much supporters behind him as the winner. Egypt will be divided in two and the camps are lashing out at each other now already with full hateful force.

Currently, while everyone nervously waits for the result to finally be declared, it is almost firm belief that the win will have nothing to do with having gotten 49% or 51% of the votes. Instead it is taken that SCAF is feverishly working out behind the scenes what to them would be a more bearable outcome of the election on the long run - and according to that the winner will be announced. Period.

Not to mention, that rumours coming from army sources already are spreading that the president - whoever it is finally going to be - will only be a 'transitional' one who won't be in office for longer than a few months. After seeing that the democratically elected parliament was dissolved only a few months after it was elected - many think because the dominant role by islamists was not to SCAF's liking - it is not too incredulous to believe that SCAF will also dispose of the democratically elected president once they find a solution for the next political vacuum this would create.

Yesterday SCAF issued a statement justifying its latest power grab and warning the people of Egypt from revolting and disrespecting the authorities. "We will face anyone who will pose a challenge to the public and private sectors with an iron fist."

A coup by SCAF? I was sure they would not go that far. But seeing what they have done before the president is even announced and hearing the rumours of what could be expected after the president is declared, anything seems possible at the moment. The Muslim Brotherhood made clear it will not take the dissolving of the democratically elected parliament hands down. What that will mean in the end regarding a power clash with SCAF should Shafiq and not Morsi be declared the winner, is anyone's guess.

The catastrophe for Egypt is not near, it will have to wait, I wrote only 12 days ago. It seems as if years have passed since then. And no one at the moment can give any prediction as to where Egypt is going and what one will have to expect for the future. Only one thing is certain: the generals of SCAF hold on to their privilege with a might and force that can be deemed scary. And they show no scruples in disregarding anything a democratic society is made of. While they pretend to be the protectors of the revolution, in reality they have so far proven to be nothing less but its most dangerous enemy.

The truth about Egyptian State-TV ad - Really!

Egypt once more is in turmoil. State-TV aired an advertisement two nights ago that got people much disturbed as they had the feeling this video was going against foreigners, slandering them all for being spies and warning Egyptians to talk to them.

Now that of course is utter nonsense. In a country so dependent on tourism and foreign visitors no government in its sane mind would air an ad that portrays foreigners as dangerous spies. Egyptians clearly succumbed once more to conspiracy theories that abound on the internet.

Unfortunately the ad that was aired in Arabic got worldwide attention with reporting in major newspapers like the New York Times or the Independent. Those papers of course could not understand what was said in the TV-ad and therefore reported wholly wrong.

A version with the correct English translation to the ad (note that there is a sub-titled version on the internet that cannot possibly be taken seriously) has now been published and can be watched here. It shows clearly - as was expected - that Egyptian State-TV as always showed responsibility, was true to the revolution and voiced the grave concerns of the revolutionaries against the military rule of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces. All rumours saying otherwise are clearly lies.

Egypt's catastrophe is not near

Two weeks ago, when the results of the presidential elections were announced, practically everyone in Egypt was in shock. There was no winner but there were clear losers all across the political spectrum as no candidate managed to garner more than 25% of the votes. No matter who you sided for - be it Morsi (25%) or Shafiq (24%) or even Sabbahi (21%) - the bottom line of the result was clear: 75% and more of Egyptians had lost in the game. That is huge and not a thing to be happy about. Even worse, it is a result that put people in serious shock and scenarios of the catastrophe being near made the rounds everywhere. Should Shafiq win in the run-off elections on 16/17 June, the old regime would triumph back into place and the revolution would be over. All martyrs would have died in vain. Should Morsi win, the Muslim Brotherhood would take over the country in an islamist sweep, install sharia and head Egypt off to an Iranian future. Whether you belonged to the 25% of Morsi or the 24% of Shafiq voters (not to mention the 51% rest), so much was certain: Egypt was doomed. The run-off results would launch the catastrophe.

Really?

After the first waves of shock expression died down, people started to get into hefty fights not only over who would be the right candidate to elect in the run-off but also over whether to vote or to boycott was the right answer to the disturbing results of the first round. As always in Egypt, lots of emotions thundered down like a tidal wave across the political scene. People slandered each other as traitors to the revolution to an extent that did serious damage to social contacts with friends turning away, despising each other for their choice both in the first round or the upcoming second. It seemed, Egypt could no longer contain the stress it had endured in the last 15 months since the toppling of Mubarak and was spiraling down into chaos and hate. There was not much to be hopeful for regarding the future, especially as both candidates in the run-off elections were bound to incite even more emotions if they would be elected.

At this vulnerable point the two candidates - Ahmed Shafiq (former Prime Minister under Mubarak and a remnant of the toppled regime) and Dr. Mohamed Morsi (Chairman of the Freedom and Justice Party of the Muslim Brotherhood) - unwillingly did something to calm down the situation: they talked publicly in press conferences and on TV. And many now think that at least in their own interest they perhaps better shouldn't have. But for Egypt no doubt their attempts to publicly explain themselves came like a band-aid to an open-wound. It soothed the pain. For suddenly it became clear: the catastrophe was nowhere as near as feared. Not with these candidates anyhow. Both were talking such a lot of nonsense that the pictures of the demons on the wall began to dissolve and slide down to the floor into little heaps of miserable nothings no one could seriously be afraid of.

To put it mildly: both lost any credibility as to their capabilities of both ruining or running the country, both clearly showed they lived in dreamlands far away from the reality of Egypt's miseries and both demonstrated that they were anything but invincible to a strong, politically minded Egyptian movement - as the revolutionary movement with all its flaws undoubtedly is.

One might argue that a fool in the wrong place - especially if it is the highest one in the country - can cause a lot of damage. True. It must be argued too however that a fool is never as uncontrollable as a sound minded, cold calculating dictator - as Mubarak quite clearly was. He knew exactly both what he wanted and how he was going to get it and ruled Egypt as all know with the famous 'iron hand'. Envisage an iron hand and try pin it to either of the candidates of the run-off and the idea will only scare you if you never heard them open their mouth.

What I am saying is not that both in their function, intention and illogical thinking can not be of danger. But a catastrophe needs a bigger cause than this and these two - even with the backing they have - are simply not made of such caliber.

The Shafiq scenario

Let Shafiq win the game and become president of Egypt. Then the political scene will become very lively (and I mean 'very'). The Muslim Brotherhood, dominating the parliament, will give him hell at every street corner he turns up at and foil every attempt of his to get the rule back to the good old days. Never ever will the Muslim Brotherhood forget what they endured under decades of dictatorial rule in the prisons of Mubarak. Should Shafiq as much as try to fail on his promises to build the new Egypt he rants (to little credibility) about they will confront him and his government in the most serious ways. And although they then would have lost the presidential elections, it is to be taken they will still have managed to secure almost half of the votes of the electorate - plus having 47% that got them into parliament. Say what you want and fear what you think, but no Shafiq will overlook the power behind the Ikhwan and simply pretend they don't exist.

If Shafiq in any way is dreaming of installing the old regime - although of course for elections sake pretending the opposite currently - he will not succeed. The parliament is a much too strong force to reckon with, not because of its legislative powers but because of its possibilities to fight Shafiq and his cronies publicly in a never heard of way. Times have changed, media has changed, if State-TV shuts off, others will broadcast and never ever will this now empowered Muslim Brotherhood take it lying down should the old regime try to oppress them again. In addition, the Muslim Brotherhood has the connections on the ground which it build in decades of social work. Shafiq, belonging to the rich elite that never cared for the plight of Egyptians, lacks these contacts. The Muslim Brotherhood will clearly use this to its advantage.

Then of course - as if this was not enough trouble for Shafiq already - there are the revolutionary forces in Egypt that, although unfortunately still not politically organized in an efficient way, will fight Shafiq with all their might. Sometimes side by side with the despised Ikhwan, sometimes alone as last year, when the Muslim Brotherhood failed to support the revolution many times for egotistic reasons. The revolutionaries won't care. They'll fight anyhow and they will have much possibilities to make themselves heard. And this time the Muslim Brotherhood, seeing the fight is too in their own interest, will not find it as easy to look away. - In addition, the revolutionary forces have four long years to finally and properly organize themselves and build bonds that will survive onslaughts and even the next elections. If they play it right. And why not believe they finally could. There is a learning curve to everything, even to revolutions.

The Morsi scenario

But what if Morsi wins? What if the Muslim Brotherhood then holds both the presidency and power of parliament and position of its speaker? Will sharia not come over Egypt like a natural catastrophe that cannot be halted? Is there any way to stop them from building the next Iran? - Yes, there is.

Again there are the revolutionary forces and liberal political parties and movements that will fight any attempt to islamistically redecorate their living room. And the furor against turning Egypt into a deeply religious state is at least as intense as the one going against the attempts to reinstall the old regime. Besides - should the Muslim Brotherhood go ahead with implementing an intense form of sharia in Egypt it will face serious opposition even from within those groups that initially voted for them. Already now the miserable turnout of voters in the first round of presidential elections, slumping from once 54% in the parliamentary to now only 46% in the presidential, showed that the Muslim Brotherhood damaged seriously the trust the people put in them when voting them into parliament. Not few who went voting in the first round in addition voiced that they would not vote for the Muslim Brotherhood again given the poor if not even scandalous performance in the last four months in parliament. The fact that their candidate did not secure a solid lead in the first round but only came first with just one percent away from Shafiq showed to the Muslim Brotherhood too that their position can be vulnerable and ignoring the protests of the people of Egypt - both from the revolution and from within their own electorate - can cost them their political life.

Especially after decades of suppression, torture and incarceration, the Muslim Brotherhood will think in longer terms than just four years, not to endanger what so far they could achieve, and they will tread softly in implementing their true goals. The public declarations by Morsi to include opposition, copts and women in his government may sound incredulous. But once said and out there in the open will be hard to reverse. The powers Morsi says he wants to incorporate to bind them into his political ruling are clearly not only in existence but of big enough importance for him to take them seriously. They won't become smaller just because he breaks his promises and instead ignores them. They are strong forces the Muslim Brotherhood will have to reckon with in the next four years. And either Morsi sticks to his words and works with them - making another Iran impossible - or he will face stiff opposition that too in no way will allow him to implement an islamist rule as feared by many, should he be voted into office.

So given both scenarios, either Shafiq or Morsi coming out as winner of the run-off elections to presidency, the fear of immanent catastrophe looming over Egypt seems hardly realistic. Whoever wins will have to secure his political survival against strong oppositional forces. And the winner will in either case try hard to survive the next four years politically in the hope to come out better and more potent in the next elections. There is no room for catastrophes if they want to make it. And given the little intelligent determinational force that seeped through in their political explanations, seeing them running wild with iron hands is not a realistic expectation of the future.

And SCAF?

The question then only remains if the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) will take either of the above solutions hands down. Many who might follow on the reasoning so far still need a catastrophic scenario to prove their fears right and what better could supply this than the idea of a military coup?

Should Shafiq win, there is little need for such a violent act. Shafiq, an ex-military man, has made no secret of his love to the army and his respect to SCAF. Many - probably rightly so - suspect him anyhow to be the candidate of SCAF, who is said to be securing his position and backing up his candidacy. In all secrecy of course. Officially both have denied this. But should Shafiq become the next president of Egypt, SCAF will have no problems with him. Should the oppositional forces, foremost the Muslim Brotherhood, indeed confront the Shafiq government with serious opposition or even protests on the street, SCAF will be hesitant to be incited into taking over the ship. They will do anything to silently or intimidatingly support 'their' president and his government, but the need for a coup will not be there as long as Shafiq and his ministers hold the ruling powers in their hands.

Such a government would not endanger the interests of SCAF and neither would the protests of the opposition. SCAF will see no necessity to put itself into the huge trouble of becoming publicly the destructional forces of the democratic transition in Egypt. It would turn them into a pariah all over the world and confront them with serious and violent reactions within the country, both of which would tamper with their sole interest of securing their economical and financial advantages. A military coup with Shafiq in power is not feasible.

Should Morsi win, the enemy of SCAF will have made it to the throne, for in all the decades of presidency suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood the army was always the force behind it. No Mubarak, Sadat or Nasser decided on them alone, they were all military men. Nevertheless the SCAF will again be hesitant. Staging a coup just because a candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood made it to the presidency would ruin all credibility of the army being the guardian of the transition. If that was truly their idea, the huge win of the Muslim Brotherhood in the parliamentary election would already have been reason enough to act. Yet SCAF did not, and for good reasons too. With 47% of the electorate against you, you face an unbearably opposition staging a coup that can only be contained with serious use of lethal force. It would have - and will - destroy all hopes of SCAF to keep the billions in military aid from abroad and secure their posh life in secluded urbanizations with villas and pools and supermarkets carrying everything the ordinary Egyptian never gets to see. There is much at stake, and ruining it for the 47% power loss in parliament simply was not worth it.

With this however the SCAF also ruined its chances to stage a coup once a president was elected - democratically elected for all the world to see - who too would come from the Muslim Brotherhood. If anything, SCAF waited to long for such a risky maneuver and will now not be able to explain this to anyone nor be successful at suppressing the forces it itself allowed to slip out of the bottle. You don't get genies of freedom and democracy back in, once they are out. And out they are. And no one in the world or in the country would take their oppression hands down.

With Morsi in power, SCAF will watch things unfold, as oppositional forces fight any attempt to islamistically refurbish the country. There will be a lot to watch no doubt and as long as the Muslim Brotherhood faces such stiff opposition in its own backyard, why should the army risk their riches? They might very well be trying behind the scene to broker (another?) deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, to not be held accountable for the crimes of the past and to be able to keep their accumulated wealth in return for not taking over by a military coup. The Muslim Brotherhood, hesitant (perhaps?) at first will probably and secretly agree to this deal, because they are - again - interested in a much more long-term goal, reaching the next elections without losses and securing their position in Egypt with even more voters backing them up. Think of them calculating easily in terms of 10 to 15 years when it comes to implementing their final ideas how it should be and you will clearly understand that they will not endanger their long-term success for a showdown with SCAF that they cannot possibly win.

A military coup?

So in both cases a coup seems very unlikely. SCAF simply has neither the power nor the interest to face the consequences of such a takeover. Besides, their aim has always been to be behind the scene, quietly taking over 20 - 40% of Egypt's economy and raking in the chips. You can easily get used to this and it is hard to kick a habit. Under Morsi the army officers retiring will most surely not see high positions in governorates fall to them automatically as in the past. But there will always be well-paid positions in the enterprises the army runs. And SCAF will have every interest to keep these profitable. Which can only be if the country comes to stability and stays quiet. Not little of the army's profits are made from tourist resorts that have taken a heavy beating due to numbers of visitors going down during the revolution. It is also in SCAF's utmost own interest that these profits return and they know this will only be possible if to the outside world at least the image of the new democracy of Egypt is not tampered with.

A coup would ruin everything and above that make the country uncontrollable. Not being able to contain the protests in Tahrir, Maspero and Mohamed Mahmoud street last year taught SCAF a lesson. Egypt has changed. You don't get the lid back on the pot anymore, not by violence, intimidation or blood-shedding. The pressure is on. And it stays on - as could be seen - no matter how hard you hit.

The beginning not the end

Sticking to this reasoning one can see that whatever outcome of the run-off presidential election will have to be endured, Egypt is not heading for a catastrophe but into a four year period of undoubtedly lively and interesting developments. If on the revolutionary side this period is used to organize, get over differences, form trustable coalitions and not simply continue to train the skills of rock throwing, the tables can easily be turned when the next elections come around. The candidate the revolutionaries wanted and were willing to accept was only four percent points away from making it to the top. Bundling all positive forces in the revolution can secure the win of him or a similar candidate in the coming years. Until then neither Shafiq nor Morsi will be able to push through with much of their agenda on their own in the face of the opposition and SCAF has no interest to take over, rather trying to secure their financial profits now and for the future.

There is a lot to be expected when on June 17 late at night the first freely elected president of Egypt will become known to the people. This time around the result can not be a shock to anyone because both options are well discussed and won't come as a surprise. For whatever it means, when either Shafiq or Morsi becomes President of Egypt so much is certain: it will be the beginning not the end. And Egypt's catastrophe will have to wait this time. It is nowhere near and fortunately not to be seen.

Men Do Hate Women, Dear Dima!

In the newest edition of "Foreign Policy" the columnist Mona El-Tahawy wrote an article with the title "Why do you hate us?" describing the problems women face at the hands of oppressing men in the Arab world. In the last 24 hours the article has ignited a firestorm on social media with people heatedly debating the issue and many lashing out at the author for the things she wrote. Many blogposts were written attacking her for supposedly being anti-Islam, depicting men in a bad light, shaming the Arab region in front of the western world and much more. Most blogposts transport the old thinking that the truth should not be told openly - most often considered a taboo - and that men aren't the way Mona describes them. The journalist Dima Khatib now too replied to Mona's article in a blogpost named "Love, Not Hatred, Dear Mona" - it is the first blogpost I find respectable, although I do not share her views. But I encourage you to read her post - and here is my reply to her.

-------------------------

Dear Dima Khatib,

though I do not agree wholly with your euphemistic view of the situation of Arab women it can be said that this is undoubtedly the most sincere and constructive post dealing critically with the article of Mona.

Unfortunately Dima, I - as a man - have to tell you that the 'hate' you all get so heated up about and don't want to believe exists is very much inherent in many men around the globe. While you all naturally would love to see us men in a good light so as not to rob you of hope it has to be noted that very many men in the world - not only in MENA - are not only afraid of women but truly hate them. Why?

Because you make our blood boil, you make us lose our head, you incite us to do things we normally wouldn't do, you make us skip our friends over you and fall out on their friendship, you get us to show emotions (we hate that the most), you tick off a process in us that we cannot control, a sex urge that leads us to a point of no return - which we hate, because we men always want to be in control. And then we awake from the orgasm - which in men other than in women can be like cooling down high temperature in seconds - and suddenly we are back to our normal self. And then many men say: What was this? Why did I do this? Why did I react this way? Why did I lose my head, my control, my composure? I, a man who is always in control? What did this evil woman do to me?

Bewitched me, tempted me (shame on her), transformed me into a person without own will (hate you for that).

If it hadn't been for Eve then Adam would never have stumbled, would never have been expelled from paradise. It is women who cause all the trouble, because they lure us into sexuality where we do not know anymore what we are doing.

Grossly exaggerated? You wish. - I am not saying that every man reacts this way. Many in fact have learned to control themselves or to let themselves go in relationships, to even show emotions without dying from it - yes, to even learn to enjoy enjoying sex and not just working off an urge that needs to be removed from the system.

The sad fact - and I know more intimate details of men's thinking on this then any woman will ever want to learn - is that many men who do react uncontrollably fear you women like the devil - worse indeed hate you for producing such reactions within us.

And it is at this point that the whole critique at the word 'hate' Mona used is running empty. The salafis show in every inch of their behaviour that they do indeed hate women and for that reason suppress them. And if you want to know why - see above. Because they have a huge issue with sexuality that they do not enjoy but see as something devilish that drives them into an uncontrollable state. They don't want to ever lose control of themselves - you come and make it happen. They don't want to show emotions - you come and demand just that. They hate to not know what they are doing - you are the reason they get into such a miserable state.

I've been following up on the discussion about this article now for 24 hours and all I can say - it is a bitter truth, but swallow it. Many men - and many men in the Arab world (that is what Mona talked about) - do hate women and show it in all their contempt - starting from condoning female genital mutilation (if she does not feel something, he can finish quicker and won't lose control), encouraging teenage marriages (treat the young already as possession then they won't get ideas), denying fundamental rights so all will be in control. In the male control. Stuff the women who only cause trouble.

Then there are those you talk about - nice men, respectful, perhaps even worshipping women. But those are not the issue - neither in the article nor in the real life oppressing women. Mona talked about those men that DO oppress you. And she said bluntly and truthfully what is behind that oppression.

If you don't believe men can hate women, just go to Iran and see what happens there in forcing 9 year old girls into marriage, watch women get lashed 90 times in Saudi - for having been raped -, check teenage girls getting forced to marry rapists in Morocco, or acknowledge young women getting honour killed for having been abused by soldiers in Libya. You call all this love, and love will solve all problems?

What unfortunately you and all other women will have to accept is that it is hatred that is behind that and that men who torture, rape, beat, oppress and even kill women do this out of hate, not out of love. Obvious one should think, but apparently so hard to bear for women who would love to see the world be so much better.

Sorry for the truth, but it does not help oppressed women if we deny what cannot be denied. I am grateful to Mona she had the guts to say how it is. And I wish more women would have the courage to face the truth - and start thinking about ways to change from there. It would help you all a lot more than remaining in a state of wishful thinking - quoting you: "If only we could learn how to love again, so that men learn to love women without controlling them, and women learn to love men instead of loving to please men. How about we start from love, Mona, instead of hatred?" - and idealizing those men that lash, beat, force, deny and do even a lot worse to you wonderful women.

They don't talk love, they talk hate, Dima. That is a fact that must be faced. It's not easy and it needs courage, I know. But in overcoming oppression facing facts is a must.

The revolutionaries of Egypt play felool

Sometimes it is amazing to see how easily people are fooled. Even people who call themselves revolutionaries and fight a tyrant. When on Saturday the Presidential Election Committee (PEC) disqualified 10 of the 23 candidates who had applied to run in the elections for Egypt's presidency, people danced in the streets with joy - for next to the most dreaded Omar Suleiman - ex spy-chief of Mubarak - the just as much detested Khairat El-Shater from the Muslim Brotherhood was rejected by the commission. That was indeed good news. So good in fact, that no one cared to think about why the candidate El-Shater had been refused. The only thing that counted was his being ousted from the run for office - and what better thing could happen to Egypt than that?

Well - justice perhaps? Because justice is nowhere to be found in the decision by the PEC on El-Shater's rejection. Nor, by the way, on the rejection of another candidate - Ayman Nour. Nour too was rejected by the PEC - and startling enough both for the same reason.

Two sides to a coin

Under Mubarak' dictatorship the ikhwan Khairat El-Shater was imprisoned several times for his political views that the regime deemed dangerous. Now that the dreaded Mubarak is gone and the dictatorial regime due to a revolution is supposed to be history, the imprisonment under Mubarak should not speak against El-Shater, on the contrary. He, who defied the dictator should be considered rehabilitated in post revolutionary times since the dictator is gone.

Yet the opposite is true. The PEC rejected El-Shater as candidate for presidency due to his earlier convictions and jail terms. These they are holding against him. And the revolutionaries, who are more than glad that he is ousted from the race, rejoice.

When the liberal Ayman Nour dared to become the first person to contest the dictator Mubarak in the elections 2005 it cost him his freedom right after the elections. Mubarak of course stayed in power and Nour was thrown in jail on charges of "forgery" many considered and consider to this day as trumped up to silence a liberal mind. Now that the dictator is gone, this bravery should speak in his favour and the revolutionaries would surely not hold this against him. Yet the PEC does, for it rejected Nour too with pointing out that he had had an earlier conviction and served jail time. He is therefore not eligible. The revolutionaries are disappointed about this and complain bitterly.

It is interesting and just as much scary to see how so called liberals and leftists, activists and revolutionaries look at the same context twice and show two different reactions - depending on whether they like the person in question or not. However not depending on aspects of justice or democracy.

Reason to rejoice?

Both Shater and Nour received the same verdict from the PEC: Because they were thrown in jail under the dictator Mubarak - they now cannot become president, because a presidential candidate may not have a criminal record. Since both served jail sentences, both - according to the PEC logic - have a criminal past and therefore are not eligible to stand for office.

While this decision in Ayman Nour's case is met with anger and criticism by revolutionary forces - the same decision in El-Shater's case is hailed as a victory for a democratic Egypt. And no one sees how bitterly the PEC is having them on, playing the old cards from the old system and judging according to the old way of thinking - that whoever is (or was) against Mubarak is an enemy to Egypt and must be ousted from political life. Is that the tune of the revolution of January 25? Hardly. Then what is the rejoicing about?

What the revolutionary forces of Egypt - the leftist, the liberals, the activist - don't get is that with this two-sided rejection the old regime is still in full force deciding on who is going to run for president and not. While this as such should not come as a surprise - one thing does: the fact that the revolutionary forces themselves in hailing the ousting of El-Shater now actively support such an unjust, flawed, dictatorial decision - and don't even realize that with this they are being complicit to the injustice of the old regime.

Food for thought

When you hail that El-Shater is not allowed to run for office because he was thrown in jail under Mubarak you are in fact condoning the felool way of thinking, you are supporting the old forces and you show them that they have nothing to fear from the revolution with regard to protesting for a free and just decision on who is going to become president of Egypt.

When you protest against the ousting of Ayman Nour you lack credibility, and the regime knows it. Either you accept that jail term under Mubarak for political reason was not a crime but something brave and a sacrifice of personal lifetime - then you will have to accept this for every candidate, whether you like him or not. If you only accept this for Nour but not for Shater, the only thing you prove to the old regime and yourself is that the demands of the revolution like freedom, democracy and justice were nothing more than empty slogans whose real values and dimensions you have not understood to this day.

If so, you will get the president you deserve. Then don't complain.

-------------------

In times of sadness, never lose love - Erich Fried

For over a year now we have been confronted with troubling news of people being arrested, beaten, tortured, killed. No doubt, if you want a revolution to happen you have to face up to bitter reality. But the amount of disturbing information coming out of the countries of the Arab spring can be overwhelmingly depressing. The deaths in Syria everyday, the conditions in Bahrain or Yemen, the fatalities in Egypt with no serious sign of holding anyone accountable - all that can sum up to a burden hard to carry, something to make the heart heavy and result in burnout symptoms or even stress disorders.

It is in such times that I almost cling to a poem by Erich Fried, an Austrian born award winning writer, who was one of the finest love poets of contemporary times. Though living in London he wrote all his works in German and was both famous and much hailed there for his wonderful poetry. In addition, his translations of Shakespeare or Dylan Thomas into German rank among the finest today.

I had the great privilege of knowing Erich, working with him, having long conversations with him. He was warmhearted and energetic, a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, a bold political activist who often clashed with the political elite, and an undeterred fighter for humanity and peace. He was hated by the conservatives for his leftist views and frowned upon by his leftist friends for constantly trying to see the human in his enemy. When he died in 1988 of cancer it was a sad day. I loved him dearly and I still miss him today.

How wonderful though that his writings remain with us to give us courage and inspiration. One of his most beautiful love poems I translated here. It shows, that even the bravest political activist can have his downs, can tire and feel worn out and yearn for something to soothe the pain: Love and security and peace of mind.

May it be uplifting to all those whose hearts are heavy these days with the sorrowful news we have to bear daily.

----------------------

Words                                                  (by Erich Fried, 1921 - 1988)

When my words shed their syllables due to fatigue
and on the typewriter the stupid mistakes begin
when I want to fall asleep
and never wake to the daily sadness
of what happens in the world
and which I cannot prevent

then here and there a word starts to groom itself and hum softly
and a half thought combs itself and looks for another
that perhaps just now was still choking on something
   it could not swallow
but now turns around
and takes the half thought by its hand and says to it:
   Come

And then some of those tired words
and some typos that laugh about themselves
fly with or without the half and whole thoughts
out from the London misery over sea and plains and mountains
always across to the same spot

And in the morning, when you go down the steps through the garden
and stop and start to take notice and look
you can see them sitting or hear them fluttering
a bit cold and perhaps still a bit lost
and always silly with joy that they are truly with you


----------------------------------------

‘Paying the ultimate price’ - R.I.P. Marie Colvin

Today once more is a sad day for journalism. This morning, around 9 a.m., Sunday Times of London correspondent Marie Colvin and French photographer Rémi Ochlik were killed in Homs (Syria), when they tried to escape the rockets from the Syrian army. Both died instantly.

Last night, Marie Colvin had still given telephone interviews to the BBC and CNN about the horrors happening in Homs. She spoke of horrific scenes she witnessed, of people dying under unbelievable conditions while the shelling of the starved city was continuing without end.

"I know it's impossible to stay safe but please try" were the last words Anderson Cooper said to Marie Colvin in their phone conversation. - It was not to be. This morning she was dead. There is no 'safe' in Homs anymore.

Not for the 28.000 civilians and not for the handful of journalists that dare to make it across the border. Besides Marie and Rémi being killed, two other colleagues were injured in the attack: Paul Conroy, the Sunday Times photographer assigned to Marie Colvin, and journalist Edith Bouvier from Le Figaro.

As so often after the loss of life the question in journalism arises whether it was worth it, whether the reporting from the war zone justifies the immense danger, journalists and photographers put themselves into. Do we really need the pictures and the reports from the ground? Will it help to end any misery or is it not perhaps just a dangerous folly of overtly adventurous die-hards who have no respect for life and have fallen out of society, unable to make it in a normal world?

From all the reports of friends and colleagues we get, Marie Colvin was anything but reckless or without fear. She knew what sufferings the war zones could produce, she had herself lost colleagues to war reporting and paid tribute to them with their families and friends in St. Bird's Fleet Street in a commemorating service in November 2010.

It is here too that she spoke up and explained the motives behind her willingness to face danger again and again, knowing too well the deadly result it could produce.

Today that result has materialized. Marie Colvin was killed.

While thousands around the globe mourn her passing and many colleagues remember her in numerous moving articles and speeches since this morning, my tribute to her comes in the form of her own words. The words she spoke at St. Bird's on November 10, 2010 - and repeated at other occasions when people kept repeating the question: "Is it worth it?"

To Marie Colvin it was. It was worth it. It was vital. And, as she put it to a friend in a Beirut coffee shop only a week ago: "After all, it's what we do."

Read Marie Colvin's own explanation, why we need war zone reporting, and why there are some journalists and photographers who dare to risk their lives to get the truth out to us: the ignorant world, too often looking away, not showing interest, lacking empathy - but most of all, without knowledge we so desperately need.

I bow in deep respect to Marie, Rémi and the many others who were killed and thank them for every bit of truth they sent out from the horrific war places on this troubled planet.

Our gratitude is yours for ever. May you rest in peace.


Marie Colvin, St. Bird's, Nov 10, 2010

Your Royal Highness, ladies and gentlemen, 

I am honoured and humbled to be speaking to you at this service tonight to remember the journalists and their support staff who gave their lives to report from the war zones of the 21st Century. I have been a war correspondent for most of my professional life. It has always been a hard calling. But the need for frontline, objective reporting has never been more compelling.

Covering a war means going to places torn by chaos, destruction, and death, and trying to bear witness. It means trying to find the truth in a sandstorm of propaganda when armies, tribes or terrorists clash. And yes, it means taking risks, not just for yourself but often for the people who work closely with you.

Despite all the videos you see from the Ministry of Defence or the Pentagon, and all the sanitised language describing smart bombs and pinpoint strikes, the scene on the ground has remained remarkably the same for hundreds of years. Craters. Burned houses. Mutilated bodies. Women weeping for children and husbands. Men for their wives, mothers children.

Our mission is to report these horrors of war with accuracy and without prejudice. We always have to ask ourselves whether the level of risk is worth the story. What is bravery, and what is bravado?

Journalists covering combat shoulder great responsibilities and face difficult choices. Sometimes they pay the ultimate price. Tonight we honour the 49 journalists and support staff who were killed bringing the news to our shores. We also remember journalists around the world who have been wounded, maimed or kidnapped and held hostage for months. It has never been more dangerous to be a war correspondent, because the journalist in the combat zone has become a prime target.

I lost my eye in an ambush in the Sri Lankan civil war. I had gone to the northern Tamil area from which journalists were banned and found an unreported humanitarian disaster. As I was smuggled back across the internal border, a soldier launched a grenade at me and the shrapnel sliced into my face and chest. He knew what he was doing.

Just last week, I had a coffee in Afghanistan with a photographer friend, Joao Silva. We talked about the terror one feels and must contain when patrolling on an embed with the armed forces through fields and villages in Afghanistan...putting one foot in front of the other, steeling yourself each step for the blast. The expectation of that blast is the stuff of nightmares. Two days after our meeting Joao stepped on a mine and lost both legs at the knee.

Many of you here must have asked yourselves, or be asking yourselves now, is it worth the cost in lives, heartbreak, loss? Can we really make a difference?

I faced that question when I was injured. In fact one paper ran a headline saying, has Marie Colvin gone too far this time? My answer then, and now, was that it is worth it.

Today in this church are friends, colleagues and families who know exactly what I am talking about, and bear the cost of those experiences, as do their families and loved ones.

Today we must also remember how important it is that news organisations continue to invest in sending us out at great cost, both financial and emotional, to cover stories.

We go to remote war zones to report what is happening. The public have a right to know what our government, and our armed forces, are doing in our name. Our mission is to speak the truth to power. We send home that first rough draft of history. We can and do make a difference in exposing the horrors of war and especially the atrocities that befall civilians.

The history of our profession is one to be proud of. The first war correspondent in the modern era was William Howard Russell of The Times, who was sent to cover the Crimean conflict when a British-led coalition fought an invading Russian army.

Billy Russell, as the troops called him, created a firestorm of public indignation back home by revealing inadequate equipment, scandalous treatment of the wounded, especially when they were repatriated - does this sound familiar? - and an incompetent high command that led to the folly of the Charge of the Light Brigade. It was a breakthrough in war reporting. Until then, wars were reported by junior officers who sent back dispatches to newspapers. Billy Russell went to war with an open mind, a telescope, a notebook and a bottle of brandy. I first went to war with a typewriter, and learned to tap out a telex tape. It could take days to get from the front to a telephone or telex machine.

War reporting has changed greatly in just the last few years. Now we go to war with a satellite phone, laptop, video camera and a flak jacket. I point my satellite phone to South Southwest in Afghanistan, press a button and I have filed.

In an age of 24/7 rolling news, blogs and twitters, we are on constant call wherever we are. But war reporting is still essentially the same - someone has to go there and see what is happening. You can't get that information without going to places where people are being shot at, and others are shooting at you. The real difficulty is having enough faith in humanity to believe that enough people be they government, military or the man on the street, will care when your file reaches the printed page, the website or the TV screen.

We do have that faith because we believe we do make a difference.

And we could not make that difference - or begin to do our job - without the fixers, drivers, and translators, who face the same risks and die in appalling numbers. Today we honour them as much as the front line journalists who have died in pursuit of the truth. They have kept the faith as we who remain must continue to do.

Marie Colvin, 1956 - 2012

------------------------------------------------

Her last report out of Homs for the Sunday Times shows the horror the city's civilians are facing and proves the outstanding quality of Marie Colvin's work. We shall miss her reports badly. We shall miss her telling us the truth.

‘We live in fear of a massacre' - Sunday Times, Feb 19, 2012

------------------