So who’s responsible for the Maspero deaths?

More than 3 weeks after the deadly clashes that left 27 dead (so far) and hundreds injured on Sunday 9 October in front of the Egyptian State TV building, Maspero, there are still more questions than answers. The only thing that is clear is that the brutal attack against peaceful, mostly Coptic, protestors, marks a dangerous turning point in the ruling military council’s (dis)management of Egypt’s transition and sends a number of worrying messages.

First, although this is not the first time that protestors in post-Mubarak Egypt have been violently attacked, arrested and abused by security and armed forces, Sunday’s clashes were by far the worst, the deadliest and the most damaging in their long-term effect. In earlier incidents, anti-riot police forces were often at the forefront of the action and took most of the blame for the violence, thus saving the face of the military and allowing them later to protest their innocence. This time, however, it was the military that were clearly, and perhaps even defiantly, at the heart of the violent clashes.

Secondly, this is the first time that Egyptian Copts have been overtly at the receiving end of state violence. The Two Saints’ Church bombing on New Year’s Eve might have been masterminded by the Ministry of Interior. But no official statement has been issued until this moment to declare once and for all who was really responsible for the carnage. If successive regimes in Egypt played the sectarian cards with the aim either of intimidating the Coptic population or distracting attention from other pressing popular demands, they always did so in an underhand, non-confrontational manner.

Thirdly, this is the first time that State TV has been engaged in an open and shameless incitement against Copts. It did the unthinkable when it alleged that the army was being attacked by Copts and called on “honourable citizens” to come out to help defend the army, not realizing perhaps that it is the army that is supposed to defend citizens and not the other way round. This was tantamount to an invitation to extremists, bigots and racists to assault Copts on the streets.

When three days following the clashes a press conference by two of SCAF’s generals was announced, we thought that SCAF would admit mistakes and offer explanations and apologies. What we got instead was one denial after another. “We did not kill the Maspero protestors but we don’t know who did”. “It’s not our doctrine in the army to crush people under the wheels of military trucks”. “The Military police did not fire at anyone because they didn’t carry live ammunition”. But the ultimate in clarity and eloquence was the statement by one of the generals: “While I don’t deny that somebody might have been hit by a moving vehicle, I don’t confirm it either”.

Thus spoke Egypt’s generals at their first press conference and again as guests at a popular TV show on October 19. In both instances, there wasn’t a single word of sympathy for 20-year old Mina who was shot dead by a sniper bullet. Nor was there any compassion for Vivian Magdy whose fiancé, Michael Saad, was crushed to death under the wheels of an army vehicle before her very eyes. There was nothing but the cold, matter-of-fact indifference of the gods looking down with disdain from their altitude on Mount Olympus at the sufferings of dispensable mortals.

One cannot, however, miss the meaning of the coded messages that SCAF’s actions and words seem to be sending to various parties:

To the Coptic population: Beware of my wrath. This is just a foretaste of what I can do in the future. Don’t ever forget that you are citizens of the church and like a good, obedient flock you should follow the dictates of your leaders, which are ultimately my dictates.

To the Coptic Church: Please control your citizens, contain their anger and keep them in line. I will hold you responsible for their actions.

To Islamists: I can see you smirking with suppressed delight at what happened in Maspero. You may believe that you are now in my good books because you helped me quash dissenting voices and steer the revolution the way I wanted. But if you dare cross me, I’m going to do exactly the same to you. So mark my words. I have no friends. I’m my own friend.

To all Egyptians: Did you see what happened to your compatriots? Expect more of the same treatment in the days to come. You think you deserve freedom and dignity? You will see them in the dungeons of my security prisons if you dare disobey my orders. When I tell you that the sky is red, you will have to see it as such. I will teach you how to see through my eyes and hear only the words I speak.

To Western governments: You supported Mubarak even though you knew that he was a corrupt tyrant who abused his people. I expect no less from you. I know and hope that you will conveniently turn a blind eye to this unfortunate incident because we both know that it is in your best interest to keep Egypt under tight control. Only I can do that.

But the question is: can SCAF succeed in ruling Egypt through intimidation and propaganda as it is clearly trying to do? The answer is most certainly in the negative. Ruling Egypt with the mind-set of Nasser’s Egypt in the fifties and sixties, when news sources were severely restricted and the airwaves tightly controlled, is no longer a viable option. SCAF may control state media and monitor private channels. But the internet is awash with testimonies and videos contradicting the official narrative. A few days after the clashes, thousands of protestors surrounded the State TV building shouting, “Here are the liars!” in condemnation of its role in propagating state-sponsored lies.

Egypt’s generals may try to shirk responsibility for the Maspero deaths by blaming everybody else except themselves: radical Islamists, counter-revolutionaries or foreign hands. They may try to beat around the bush and use the strategy of “confuse and rule”. But as the wielder of absolute authority in Egypt at the moment, with legislative and consecutive powers combined, SCAF has absolute responsibility. Everything that happened on that fateful night or may happen in the difficult days ahead is, and will be, SCAF’s direct responsibility and one day it will be held accountable.

الحرية الأكاديمية غير قابلة للمساومة

اعتدنا بشكل دوري وبرتابة مملة عبر العقود الماضية أن تثور زوبعة مفاجئة حول تدريس عمل أدبي ما في قسم اللغة الإنجليزية، يدعي مثيرو تلك الزوبعة حرصهم بل وغيرتهم على القيم الإخلاقية لمجتمعنا التي قد يزعزعها بل قد يدمرها تدريس هذا النص. تهمة إفساد عقول الشباب تهمة قديمة قدم سقراط في القرن الرابع قبل الميلاد الذي اتهم بإفساد عقول الشباب فكان جزاؤه أن يتجرع السم ويموت، والآن يخرج علينا السيد محمد عبد الحافظ شاهراً سيفه الأخلاقي ليعطينا بوصفنا أساتذة الأدب الإنجليزي بالجامعات المصرية درساً في ما يجب علينا أن نقرره في مناهجنا الدراسية وما ينبغي علينا تجنبه وإلا فإن الاتهامات جاهزة التصنيع تنتظرنا، وما أدراك ما تلك الاتهامات.

أذكر من سنوات طويلة أن الدنيا قامت ولم تقعد حول تدريس رواية إنجليزية من القرن الثامن عشر عنوانها مول فلاندرز وتعتبر من أول رواية إنجليزية بمفهومها الحديث حيث تتناول من منظور واقعي حياة امرأة ولدت في السجن ونبذها المجتمع فتحولت إلى الرذيلة، الرواية تحتوي على نقد لاذع للمجتمع الإنجليزي في القرن 18 من حيث إساءة معاملة المرأة ودفعها دفعاً إلى الرذيلة وانتقاد شرس لكل المنافقين الذين يدّعون الأخلاق والأخلاق منهم براء. انصب الهجوم على تدريس هذه الرواية من منطلق أننا لا ينبغي أن ندرس عملاً تكون بطلته امرأة على هذه الشاكلة، بغض النظر عن سياق الرواية أو أهميتها في تشكيل الوعي الأدبي والثقافي للمجتمع الإنجليزي.

تذكرت هذه الواقعة حيث تثور الآن زوبعة جديدة على تدريس قصة قصيرة لطلاب قسم اللغة الإنجليزية، فالهجوم يأتي من نفس المنطلق الفكري ومن نفس الدعوة إلى سد الباب الذي يأتي من الريح لكي نستريح، المشكلة هي أننا لو سددنا الباب فالأرجح أننا سنصاب جميعاً بالاختناق. وفي هذا السياق أود أن أقرر بعض الحقائق التي قد تكون بديهية ولكنها قد تغيب في خضم الاتهامات الملقاة جزافاً والتهديدات التي قد يتعرض لها القائمون على تدريس الأدب وعلى وجه الخصوص الآداب الأجنبية في الجامعات المصرية:

1. دراسة الأدب بشكل عام تعني قراءة وتحليل ومناقشة شتى النصوص الأدبية بوصفها التعبير الصادق عن البيئة الثقافية النابعة منها. دراسة نص ما لا يعني على الإطلاق تبني وجهة نظر الكاتب أو شخصية من شخصياته أو التوجه الفكري للشخصية، وهي بهذا دراسة علمية لا يجب أن تختلف كثيراً عن الدراسات الإنسانية الأخرى مثل الأنثروبولوجيا أو علم الاجتماع أو غيرها من العلوم التي تعنى في المقام الأول بدراسة الانسان بكل نقائصه وقصوره وتجلياته وإبداعاته. وإذا كانت المثلية ظاهرة اجتماعية تتم دراستها من منظور علم الاجتماع وعلم النفس والطب فكيف يمكن لدراسة الأدب تجنب التعرض في نص أو آخر لمثل هذه الظاهرة أو غيرها من الظواهر؟

2. دراسة الآداب الأجنبية سواء الغربية منها أو الشرقية تعني ضرورة الإلمام الكامل بثقافة مختلفة وفهمها فهماً دقيقاً حتى وإن لم تتوافق بالضرورة مع منظور الدارس أو المدرس، ولكن فهمها واستيعابها هو واجب لفهم هذه الثقافة، فهل كل من درس الإسلام اعتنقه؟ في حالة الطالب الذي يدرس الأدب الهندي مثلاً وكان هناك نص يتحدث عن تناسخ الأرواح فهل ينبغي منعه من دراسته خشية أن يتبنى الفكرة؟ واجب الطالب الدارس للثقافات الأجنبية أن يدرسها بعمق لا أن يتبناها كعقيدة أو توجه في الحياة. أما القول بأن أي تعرض لفكر مغاير لأفكارنا يمثل تهديداً لثقافتنا ففي هذا حط من قدرنا وإيمان بأن ثقافتنا هشة ضعيفة لا تقوى على المقاومة. مثال آخر: قام مترجم في ندوة ما بترجمة كلمةGAY بمعناها الحرفي وهو "مرح" بدلاً من "مثلي" حيث اكتسبت الكلمة هذا المعنى في العصر الحديث. مما كان مثاراً للسخرية حيث أدرك المستمعون أنه مترجم فاشل ولا شك أن دراسته قد توقفت عند القرن التاسع عشر عندما كانت الكلمة تستخدم بهذا المعنى. كيف لطالب أن يحقق الامتياز والاتقان في اللغة التي يدرسها بدون إلمام شامل بكل جوانب هذه الثقافة؟ ربما بدا هذا المثال سطحياً حيث يعتقد البعض أن بالإمكان دراسة لغة أجنبية بدون المرور بثقافتها وهذا كلام لا أساس له من الصحة إلا إذا كان الهدف من الدراسة هو أن يتعلم الطالب مثلا كيف يطلب كوباً من الشاي في مطعم باستخدام لغة أجنبية، ولكن لكي يكون الطالب مؤهلا ليترجم أو يتواصل باستخدام اللغة الأجنبية فلا مفر من قراءة شتى النصوص فمنها يتعلم ويتقن. ولهذا فلو قررنا التخلص من أجزاء من النصوص التي ندرسها سنكون بهذا نحرم الطالب من المعرفة التي هي ضرورية لكي يصبح كاتبا أو مترجما أو مدرسا متميزا ومتمكناً من أدواته.

3. جاء مقال السيد محمد عبد الحافظ "حرية: تدريس الشذوذ في جامعة القاهرة" المنشور في جريدة الأخبار 18 يونيو 2011 يحمل هجوماً شديداً على جامعة القاهرة وقسم اللغة الإنجليزية بشكل خاص. السيد عبد الحافظ مع كل تقديري لشخصه لا يمكن أن يكون قد قرأ القصة القصيرة (التي يصفها خطأ بأنها رواية) وإلا لأدرك أن هذه القصة تأتي ضمن مجموعة من القصص القصيرة تحت اسم "بياض الثلج والأحمر القاني" في إشارة لحكايتي سنو وايت (بياض الثلج) وذات الرداء الأحمر ويأتي هذا العمل ضمن إطار أدبي يقوم فيه الأدباء بإعادة قراءة الحكايات الشعبية والخيالية الشهيرة مثل "سندريللا" و"بياض الثلج" (وهي الإلهام من وراء هذه القصة) وإعادة صياغتها من منظور عصري جديد، وجميع هذه القصص تنضوي تحت عنوان أدب الفانتازيا أو أدب الخيال وتعتبر تعبيراً عن رفض الأنماط السائدة في المجتمع والتي كرسها المجتمع عبر قرون طويلة من خلال الحكايات الشعبية. القصة التي يعترض عليها السيد عبد الحافظ تعيد صياغة قصة "بياض الثلج" وليست عملاً واقعياً بأي حال من الأحوال. اجتزاء بضعة سطور منها للوصول إلى أحكام اخلاقية مغلوطة لا يدل إلا على سطحية الفكر.

4. الدراسة العلمية للأدب (نعم العلمية) تعني أن نقدم للطالب الأوجه المختلفة للثقافة التي يدرسها فالأدب الإنجليزي أو الأمريكي أو الفرنسي أو الياباني (وقد يأتي ذلك كصدمة للبعض) لم يكتب من أجل الطالب المصري فهو يحتوي على ثقافة مختلفة وربما تكون أيضاً متناقضة مع ثقافتنا، ولكن العلم والمعرفة لا يجب أن يكون لهما حدود. فنحن إذا نادينا بمنع تدريس عمل لأنه يتناقض مع بعض الأفكار السائدة فسيأتي الدور على بقية العلوم فلا ينبغي تدريس نظرية النشوء والارتقاء لداروين أو النظرية النسبية لأينشتاين أو علم الأجنة، بل ودعونا لا ندرس الأنثروبولوجيا أو علم الإنسان الذي قد يحتوي على ممارسات مسيئة لثقافتنا بل دعونا لا ندرس أدبنا العربي الذي قد يحتوي على أفكار لا تعجب البعض. بل أكثر من ذلك دعونا لا ندرس الفلسفة حيث أن الميتافيزيقيا تتناول فكرة الوجود وماهية الانسان. الدكتور عبد الرحمن بدوي عندما كتب كتابه من تاريخ الإلحاد في الإسلام في عام 1964 لم يكن بالطبع يروج للفكر الإلحادي ولكنه كان يؤرخ لحقبة من تاريخنا الإسلامي، ومن واجب دارسي الفلسفة الإسلامية أن يطلعوا عليه ويفهموه كجزء من تراثنا.

5. استخدم السيد عبد الحافظ للأسف خطاباً مسيئاً يحتوي على التهديد والترهيب والتحريض، فهو يصف القصة بأنها "متدنية" و"منحطة" و"إباحية" وغير ذلك من الفاظ غير لائقة. ويقرر "وطبعا القصة صادمة وسيجمع كل من يقرأ هذه السطور علي أنها غير اخلاقية وإباحية". السؤال للأستاذ الفاضل هو: من أين لك بتلك الثقة العمياء أن الجميع سيجمع على مقولتك هذه؟ كيف لك أن تتحدث باسم الجميع كما لو كانوا قد عينوك حارساً على الإخلاق؟ هل تناقشت مع أي من الأساتذة حول المغزى من هذا العمل أم أنك بنيت موقفك ارتكازاً على رأي طرف واحد قد يكون مغرضاً أو جاهلا أو كليهما؟ وفي جميع الأحوال ألم يكن من الأجدر وأنت تذيل مقالك بكل تقوى وورع "ألا قد بلغت.. اللهم فاشهد" أن تجادلهم بالتي هي أحسن بدلاً من الوعيد والتهديد؟ أليس ذلك من مكارم الأخلاق كما تعلمناها؟

6. في لقائه التليفزيوني على أون تي في قام السيد عبد الحافظ باتهام اساتذة أقسام اللغة الإنجليزية بأنهم لا يجيدون العربية ولا يجيدون التعامل سوى باللغة الإنجليزية، وهو اتهام يثير الضحك والسخرية فأقسام اللغات كانت دائماً همزة الوصل بين الحضارة العربية وغيرها من الحضارات الأجنبية، وهل يمكن أن تقوم نهضة بدون حركة قوية للترجمة؟ أقسام اللغة الإنجليزية في مصر كانت وما تزال جزءاً أصيلاً من الحركة الثقافية في مصر فهل يمكن إغفال الدور الثقافي الذي لعبته شخصيات مثل عبد الوهاب المسيري ولويس عوض ورضوى عاشور وغيرهم الكثيرون؟ هذا الاتهام للأسف لا يرمي فقط للتشكيك في قدراتنا وكفاءتنا في اللغة العربية فقط ولكنه قد ينسحب أيضاً على ولائنا لبلدنا، أي أنه قد يدعو البعض للتشكيك في انتمائنا للوطن وربما لتخويننا بوصفنا نحمل أجندات تعمل ضد مصلحة الوطن لصالح أطراف أجنبية. ألا يصب ذلك في الحملة الغريبة التي شنها بعض الدعاة المتشددين منذ فترة وجيزة حملة شعواء على أقسام اللغات في الجامعة وطالب بإغلاقها بوصفها تنتج شخصيات "مشوهة فكرياً".

التدخل في المحتوى الأكاديمي لما يدرّس أو ما لا يدرّس هو أمر مرفوض تماماً تحت أي ادعاءات اخلاقية. تقرير ما يدرس أو لا يدرس هو أمر يضطلع به أهل الخبرة في هذا المجال وهو مجلس قسم اللغة الإنجليزية، وما قام به السيد عبد الحافظ يدخل في نطاق السب العلني والتحريض الصريح ضد مؤسسة عريقة مثل جامعة القاهرة ويحمل تشويها متعمداً للحقائق ويرمي إلى الترهيب الفكري ويعود بنا إلى محاكمات الرأي والتفتيش عن النوايا. الحرية الأكاديمية يا سادة غير قابلة للمساومة وإلا فلتغلقوا الجامعة إذن وتسدوا هذا الباب المزعج الذي تأتي منه رياح الحرية.

Who's afraid of Mohamed El Baradei?

It seems that Mohamed El Baradei, the soft-spoken Nobel Peace Prize winner and
prospective Egyptian presidential runner, is a man to watch out and fear. Why else would Egyptian state TV ban his appearance on one of its programs?

The Mubarak regime had a long list of personalities who were banned from appearing on state TV. The list included outspoken critics of the regime as well as Islamist clerics of various persuasions. It was clear that El Baradei was a persona non grata, for he never made an appearance on state TV. After the revolution, the ban seems to have been lifted. Islamists became regular guests on TV shows and the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide was given ample and celebratory airspace.

When it was announced that El Baradei was scheduled to appear with popular preacher Amr Khaled, who had been banned himself from appearing on state TV, we thought it was meant as a gesture of inclusion after so much exclusion, an acknowledgement of his right as an Egyptian citizen to appear on national TV which is paid for by taxpayers’ money.

But the news arrived that El Baradei was not allowed to appear. The question is: what exactly is threatening in El Baradei? Could it be that he is advocating the dangerous message that all Egyptian citizens are equal? It’s a subversive view to be sure, one that might destroy the very foundation of society.

There are reports circulating now that El Baradei might still appear on the Amr Khaled show after all. To the decision makers who, in the span of a few hours, allow, then ban and later re-allow, all I can say is we “must just pray that when your head's finished turning, your face is to the front again.”

I spy with my little eye

The arrest by the Egyptian authorities of Ilan Grapel, an American-Israeli spy, dominated Egyptian news yesterday. The authorities alleged that he was actively fomenting trouble, stirring sectarian conflict and recruiting agents for Israel. On Twitter, however, the issue was treated with skepticism and biting humour. Under the quickly created “elgasos” (spy) hashtag, there was an endless stream of cynical comments:

“To be honest, if this man were a spy for real, he must be prosecuted on grounds of stupidity”.

“As a matter of fact, if a spy managed to do all that, he ought to be declared innocent and we must arrest the whole Egyptian people”.

“Is this man stupid or what? He comes to Egypt to spy at the time of security vacuum? Isn’t Israel worried about its spies?”

“The spy was arrested because he worked illegally and didn’t obtain a work permit”.

Spontaneous, off-the-cuff humour never ceases to amaze me.

Can the Muslim Brotherhood learn from history?

In his autobiography I was President, Mohamed Naguib, Egypt’s first president (June 18, 1953 to November 14, 1954) chronicles the events following the successful coup that overthrew King Farouk in 1952. The book charts the path taken by Egypt’s military leaders from promises of establishing a civilian democratically elected government to the disbanding of political parties and autocracy. Naguib indicates quite clearly the direct role played by the MB in destroying Egypt’s aspirations for democracy. By siding with Nasser against Naguib, they mistakenly thought that they were securing themselves a distinguished place in the nascent political system. They little understood that they were digging their own graves:

During this period, the MB represented the one force that was capable of tipping the balance in favour of either of the two forces competing for power at that time: Nasser’s power and mine. Nasser had to win them to his side. But as soon as he secured their support against me and won the battle, he turned against them and got rid of them. This was what happened.

The MB made a strategic mistake. They had imagined that the disbanding and destruction of political parties would be to their advantage because it made them the only existing political entity. They simply did not realize that a single stick was much easier to break, a conventional wisdom we were taught as children and still teach our children.

… Through my representative Mohamed Riad I made clear my views regarding the necessity of putting an end to military rule and the return of the army to their barracks. I explained the importance of the establishment of a democratic, parliamentary life, the return of political parties and the lifting of censorship on newspapers. But the MB objected to all that and demanded that military rule stayed in power. They also objected to the return of political parties and parliamentary life as well as to the lifting of martial law. They wanted the status quo to continue unchanged. They wished to keep me as sole leader while removing Abdel Nasser and the rest of the revolutionary council from power. They wanted the prospective civilian cabinet to include MB members but reserved the right to approve its formation. They also wanted Rashad Mehanna, one of their members, to be given the post of Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. A secret consultation committee should be set up of military leaders loyal to me and an equal number of MB members. The committee should ratify all laws before being passed and approve the the government. It was as though the MB wished to have total control over the government without bearing any of the responsibilities.

When Mohamed Naguib refused their offer, they had no problem in supporting Nasser and military dictatorship. The rest is of course history.

Tweet

Did God punish Egypt for the sake of the Muslim Brothers?

Did God punish Egypt for the sake of the Muslim Brothers?

This is what the Supreme Guide of the MB recently asserted. When Gamal Abdel Nasser persecuted the Muslim Brothers in 1954 and 1965 Egypt was miltarily defeated in 1956 and 1967 respectively. So according to our Muslim Brother, Badie, the fight was between Nasser and the MB, with God taking the side of the latter. The question to ask is: and where, pray, do the Egyptian people fall in this equation?Unfortunately for the MB the Egyptian people do not exist. This is no great wonder. A former Supreme Guide openly expressed his disdain for Egypt when he said “Egypt can go to hell”.

An open letter to Israel (written after the flotilla disaster)

It was with a mixture of admiration and awe that the world heard of your valiant attack against the aid convoy headed for the Gaza Strip on 30 May 2010.

As you have invariably and tirelessly pointed out in similar situations in the past, you acted here in legitimate self defence. Although the activists on board the peace ships were still in international water when your soldiers attacked them, they were clearly in breach of international law. You had strong reason to believe that they came in bad faith and with malicious intent to foment trouble. And of course they attacked your commandoes first, without the least provocation. Your men who only boarded the ships to welcome them and steer them safely to the shore found themselves under a vicious and unexpected attack, which naturally forced them to retaliate. The unfortunate exchange occasioned the death of no more than nineteen and wounding only fifty, though the toll is still rising. So all we can say to the so-called freedom loving activists is that they deserved what they got.

The activists’ most heinous and unforgivable crime was to try to bring food and supplies into Gaza, which you have managed to turn into the vastest human cage in history. Your achievement in enforcing and maintaining the blockade on this troubled area is truly worthy of the Guinness Book of Records. No similar model exists or has ever existed before. Later generations will no doubt remember and appreciate your actions, and the annals of history will proudly record how you helped prevent little children from growing up to become terrorists. Depriving them of food and education, and leaving their souls to fester in hate and loathing, is only a means to an end. Machiavelli must be dancing in his grave to see his principles so religiously applied and so enormously successful.

Your detractors may allege that your actions represent a crime against humanity. But the answer to those unfounded claims is simple: human rights are for human beings and not for sub-humans such as the one and a half million Palestinians who are in fact terrorists, either actual or potential. Even if Gazan children obstinately held on to life and refused to be exterminated as a result of this blockade, they would become so psychologically devastated that they would be rendered totally harmless in future.

By keeping an army of occupation in the West Bank and putting Gaza under total siege, you have not only redefined colonialism but have also re-invented it anew. Your Lilliputian state may be just as diminutive as its eighteenth-century counterpart but it is, one must admit, far more ruthless. With your arsenal of top-notch weaponry which you no doubt use with discretion to discipline and punish, you have turned into the greatest and most honoured bully in the world, with the blessings of your friends and supporters in high places.

But will the world listen to your pleas and stop the aggression of Palestinians and their activist supporters who are bent on disturbing your peace-loving nation and threatening its very existence? Is it not possible for you to enjoy peace within your legally acquired, ever-expanding borders? Let us just hope that the world continues to slumber on while you fulfil your mission of love and humanity, a taste of which we have just seen in the waters of the Mediterranean!

Western leaders must stop kissing the hands of Arab dictators

The topography of autocracy in the world today shows a marked concentration of brutal, despotic regimes in the Arab world. No Arab regime, whether monarchic or republican, can claim to be exempted from the pattern. While it wouldn’t be fair to blame the rise or longevity of those despotic regimes on the West, it would be blatantly unfair to deny the role played by various Western governments in aiding Arab tyrants, boosting their images and facilitating their robbery and abuse of their people.

A combination of internal factors such as poverty, poor educational infra-structure and prevalent paternalistic traditions have no doubt contributed to the emergence of tyranny as a recognizable structure in Arab societies, allowing those home-grown dictators to hold on to power for decades on end virtually unchallenged.

But Arab despots in fact survived and thrived under the guidance of western governments/leaders and with their blessings. Western leaders, on their part, seemed only too willing to oblige their autocratic counterparts and had surprisingly few qualms in displaying their partiality in public, often referring to them as staunch allies or forces of stability and of good. Most shocking of all, however, was the footage showing Berlusconi kissing the hand of Gaddafi. To dismiss this gesture as the momentary aberration of a man with questionable attitudes, to say the least, would be to misunderstand the symbiotic relationship between these despots and their Western allies, the bond between organisms that survive by feeding on each other.

Western leaders in fact have been kissing the hands of our brutal, blood-thirsty dictators, both literally and figuratively, for many decades now. As prime minister, Tony Blair accepted a Christmas holiday paid for by Mubarak in 2001, and more recently French Prime Minister Fillon also had a taste of lavish Egyptian hospitality. Did it occur to either of them that these holidays were actually sponsored by the citizens of a country where the minimum monthly wage was less than USD 50? This is hardly likely.

But paid holidays are perhaps only the icing on the cake of booties and we may yet to learn the full extent of this exchange of gifts, for how many spoonfuls of sugar were offered to make those unpalatable regimes go down? Equally disturbing is the complicity of various Western institutions with autocratic regimes, particularly academic establishments of the caliber of the London School of Economics which had no scruples in accepting a gift of 15 million pounds by the Libyan regime. Did the venerable establishment know that Gaddafi in one of his amazing speeches ranted against schools and universities as “a corrupt western invention” that he wanted to replace with some form of traditional home schooling? If such were his views of western academia, why on earth was he keen on securing a Ph.D. for his son from LSE? And why did LSE oblige?

Western governments have helped, and still continue to help, Arab despots to hold on to their power. Led by the US, they supplied Mubarak, as well as other Arab tyrants, with their arsenal of weapons, which included riot gear, tear gas and electric batons, although they must have been aware that these implements would be used against unarmed civilians. Particularly obnoxious is the supply of fancy, state-of-the-art torture gadgets that had been ingeniously invented to be used by security services against dissidents. Were all these part of the aid package that the US sent to Egypt? Had they been funded by American tax-payers? Are the American people informed about these deals? Why do Western governments which claim the high moral ground turn a blind eye to the brutal practices of their accomplices and strongmen? These are pressing questions that still need convincing answers.

In allowing their banks to become secret treasure boxes for Arab dictators, Western governments are also guilty of partnering with them in the theft of their people. By withholding information on the fortunes amassed by the Mubaraks and Gaddafis of the Arab world, they have made it possible for those rulers to operate with impunity, away from the gaze of their impoverished population.

The inevitable question is why western banks should accept to deposit huge funds which they know could not have come in a legitimate manner. According to Egyptian law, for example, a president should not engage in any form of business and should not make any financial gains out of his position. This in fact renders illegal all the wealth that he and his family have accumulated over his thirty years in power. This wealth is in fact the property of the Egyptian people. It should therefore be returned without fuss or mess, and without unnecessary legal wrangles that are only intended to confuse and divert attention.

I believe it is the moral responsibility of the countries where the personal fortunes of international heads of state have been deposited to disclose all their details. It is also their ethical duty to return all the money either stashed away in their banks or floating in their financial institutions. This should apply to unseated tyrants as well as to those whose seats are shaking at the moment. I realize of course that in the ruthless world of business where money and power are Siamese twins, such views will easily be dismissed as starry eyed, naïve and impossible to implement. But I am certain that the majority of the population of western nations would not approve of such shady collaborations if they were given the proper information.

Western governments must stop kissing the hands of dictators. If they did, there would not be any need to bomb those very dictators later. I hope that Western leaders realize that the transition from hand kissing to bombing is as absurd as it is morally outrageous. I sincerely hope that the free people of the world would stand and speak against the complicity between those magnificent despots and their western accomplices.