US shifts towards caution on reform in Egypt

CAIRO: The US approach to political change in Egypt has shifted in favour of those who advocate caution to keep Islamists out of power until they clarify or modify their policies, diplomats and analysts say.

Another school of thought, pressing for rapid change regardless of consequences, appeared to be in the ascendant earlier this year but has since lost ground, they add.

In their public statements, US officials have advised the Egyptian government to take specific steps such as ensuring free presidential elections in September, allowing international monitors, giving the opposition access to the state media and preventing violence against peaceful street protests.

But the officials have thrown little light in public on how fast they think change should happen and whether they are really willing to see the departure of President Hosni Mubarak, who has worked closely with US presidents for a quarter of a century.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in March rejected the argument that political change could lead to instability, saying the region was not stable anyway.

Washington would speak out for “freedom” without offering a model or knowing what the outcome would be, she added.

She had been asked whether the United States was worried that democratization could lead to electoral victories by Muslim “fundamentalists”.

Analyst Mohamed el-Sayed Said said the Bush administration quickly started to reconsider this policy of what he called “constructive instability” on the advice of people in the Middle East, including the Israelis and their supporters in Washington.

“Instead of asking for substantial change, they were convinced to be content with limited reform,” said Said, deputy director of al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.

“It’s clear that pro-Israeli groups are advising caution on Egypt. The idea of calming down the fears in the region came from people close to the region,” he added.

Tarek Heggy, a liberal businessman and writer who has close informal contacts with the Bush administration, said US policy-makers were still split between the impatient and the cautious.

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: He linked the first group with prominent sociologist Saadeddin Ibrahim, a dual-national Egyptian-American who has argued recently that the Muslim Brotherhood should play a part in the Egyptian political system. Heggy disagrees.

The Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in the country but the government denies it any formal political role on the ground that it is based on religion.

“They (the Americans) are very much undecided. There are people who say ‘Open up immediately even if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power’. Others say the opposite. Many in sensitive positions know nothing about the Muslim Brotherhood,” Heggy said in an interview.

But he added: “As someone in the (White House) National Security Council told me, ‘We were all fans of Saadeddin six months ago. Now we believe in your approach.’.”

Diplomatic sources in Cairo said the Bush administration expects Mubarak to win a fifth six-year term in elections in September and is now thinking about how to open up the political system in time for the next elections in 2011.

One diplomatic source said the United States was concentrating on what he called “managing the change” and thought it unrealistic to expect dramatic reforms within months.

Judging by the few official comments on the subject, the United States has not yet formulated a policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood, which is hostile towards US policy in the Middle East and towards US ally Israel, the source added.

But the United States believes the Muslim Brotherhood needs to make the transition from a religion-based movement to a political group with practical policy proposals, he said.

Mohamed el-Sayed Said said the shift in the US approach came before Mubarak sent his prime minister, Ahmed Nazif, to Washington last month to defend the slow approach to reform.

A hint of the shift was indirectly evident when US first lady Laura Bush, on a visit to Egypt, praised Mubarak for offering direct presidential elections with more than one candidate and said that change had to take place slowly.

Her remark disappointed many in the Egyptian opposition, many of whom see US pressure on the government as positive, even if they disagree with American policies.

“The Americans ... have two standards. They apply democracy in one place but not in another. So we do not rely much on intervention by Bush,” Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Mahdi Akef said in an interview.—Reuters

Speaker’s analogy of the military horse

LAHORE, June 9: The 372-member Punjab Assembly has completed half of its constitutional term but, so far, it is not clear who the parliamentary leaders of the PPP, the PML-N and the MMA are. And there is little possibility of the million-dollar-question finding an answer during the remainder of the assembly’s term.

The reason is that the three leaders who claim they are heading their respective parliamentary parties have not been able to convince Speaker Afzal Sahi about their credentials. Neither is the latter divulging what should be done to settle the issue.

The problem is that not many people know that Mr Sahi’s understanding of constitutional matters is as profound as that of the veteran Sharifuddin Pirzada’s. Maybe, in some respects, it is said, even Mr Pirzada is dwarfed by the man chosen by the Punjab chief minister for the coveted job.

The very controversy was behind the opposition’s noisy protest which marred the finance minister’s budget speech. But the speaker neither gave in nor gave up. His inflexible attitude made it clear that he was willing to sacrifice his office, if it should come to that, but he wouldn’t allow anyone to undermine the Constitution.

The question of the credentials of parliamentary party leaders in question arose when, convinced by the performance of the present government and the leadership qualities of those at the helm, members of the opposition parties started changing loyalties. About half a dozen lawmakers from the three opposition parties had joined the ruling PML when opposition leaders started worrying about defections .

They then set out to file disqualification references against the turncoats with Speaker Sahi, requesting him to forward the references to the chief election commissioner, the only competent authority to decide such cases.

It was then that the speaker questioned the opposition leaders’ locus standi, and asked them to prove if they indeed were the leaders of their respective parliamentary parties.

MPAs Qasim Zia, Rana Sanaullah Khan and Asghar Gujjar claim to have produced various documents, including the official notification in which the speaker had mentioned them as parliamentary party leaders. The speaker, however, was not convinced by any such evidence, and refused to forward the references to the CEC. The opposition parties, realizing that the budget day was the right time to strike, raised the issue again on Thursday, as a result of which the budget speech was delayed. Some three quarters of an hour were spent advancing arguments and counter-arguments by both sides. But the dispute remained.

Meanwhile, the speaker told the house that he had sought opinion from the Senate chairman, the National Assembly speaker and speakers of the other three provincial legislators on who the parliamentary party leader should be. But none came up with a point of view different from his own. He said while the leader of the house and that of the opposition were mentioned, there was no definition of a parliamentary party leader.

It was then that the opposition legislators accused the speaker of being partisan.

Law Minister Raja Basharat stoked the situation by condemning the attitude of the opposition parties and praising the way the speaker was handling the matter. He alleged that the problem with the opposition parties was that they sought instructions from their exiled leadership and acted only to please them.

As the opposition lawmakers fumed, the speaker gave a go-ahead to the finance minister to read his budget speech. Thus provoked, the opposition members started shouting slogans against the turncoats.

The budget documents were torn to pieces and tossed in the air. Some pages of the finance minister’s speech were then used for making boats and ships, which were subsequently flung across the house. Because of the noise created by the opposition, the finance minister’s speech remained inaudible.

After doing that for some 20 minutes, opposition members walked out of the house, with the finance minister heaving a sigh of relief, and completing his speech.

As the speech concluded, the speaker reiterated that he would adhere to the Constitution and the rules of procedure, no matter how disruptive the opposition chose to be. Many saw a veiled threat in his remarks when he said:”I have the courage as well as the power to run the house smoothly”. This ostensibly implied that the opposition lawmakers should beware of the presence in the house of the sergeant-at-arms, who remains at the speaker’s disposal. The speaker adjourned the house for Sunday after explaining his conduct by quoting an example of a military horse. The analogy, for what it is worth, ran as follows:

‘A hungry horse kicked open the door of a military stable and ran to a nearby millet field. The owner who used to shoo the birds off the farm tried the same method to scare the intruding horse away. ‘When he failed, he brought an empty canister and started beating it. He took it close to the ears of the horse, assuming that the noise would make him leave the place. But he did not.

‘A passerby, who was watching all this, told the man that military horses could not be scared away even by gunfire, leave alone an empty canister.’

Later, many in the lobby were heard conjecturing on who the military horse was in the house.