Just over 17 years after the Railways Act (1993) came into force on April 1st, 1994, a movement is gathering steam demanding that the chaotic privatisation of the UK’s rail network be reversed.

The Bring Back British Rail campaign is a grass-roots effort led by disgruntled traveller Ellie Harrison to renationalise BR-that-was, and hopefully bring an end to the inefficient and often chaotic mess that, along with gutted former industrial regions,  remains one of the 1979-1997 Conservative governments most visible and enduring legacies.

The story of the privatisation of BR would befit a Shakespearean tragedy,  and is far to long to recant here, but perhaps the worst part is what happened afterwards.In the decades following the “Beeching Axe” the congestion, inefficiencies and social disruptions caused by road traffic became clear, and BR enjoyed a period of sustained investment and modernisation, most prominently the introduction of the HST on the newly created InterCity 125 services, the Merseyrail commuter network in Liverpool the electrification of the East Coast Mainline and subsequent introduction of the InterCity 225. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some line and stations closed under the Beeching Axe were re-opened, as were several new “Parkway” and airport links.

With privatisation, virtually all strategic direction for the network evaporated as the system fragmented into a myriad of companies and franchises with overlapping, often unclear, responsibilities, most with few tangible assets (the rail operating “franchises” don’t even own the rolling stock they use) and many with chronically unstable finances. BR’s electrification programme ground to a halt and maintenance became increasingly patchy, until a series of disasters caused by defective equipment forced the government to take back control of he track, but left the passenger facing side of operations in the hands of privateers as a fragmented, confusing mess.

Furthermore, the breaking up of British Rail Engineering Ltd. (the rolling stock design and construction department of BR) led to the fragmentation and draining away of a large amount of highly skilled engineering know-how. When this combined with the complete lack of orders for new rolling stock caused by the drying up of investment by the newly created leasing companies in their rolling stock, much of the industrial base that supporgted BR-that-was rapidly collapsed, taking thousands of jobs and suppliers with it. In just over a decade, the UK has gone from having a significant number of rail construction businesses located accross the country, to a solitary factory in Derby, owned by Canadian engineering giant Bombadier, whom are currently on the verge of pulling the plug on this solitary relic of an industry that in much of the world is enjoying rapid growth.

By the early 2000s the situation had deterioated to the point that even getting a comprehensive printed timetable for a route that had more than a single operator became a nightmare, as each company printed their own flimsy leaflets that often left out competing services, whilst fares became, and remain, completely confused, with a journey from Lodnon to Manchester costing anything from £8 to almost £200 for the same seat on the same train.

In such a chaotic situation, Harrison’s position seems not only understandable, but is possibly the only reasonable solution to a hastily conceived and badly implemented policy driven not by a reasonable assessment of the issues facing BR in the 1990s, but by an push to drive through an ideologically motivated action by a weak government that was haemorrhaging support.

And we wonder why we have a culture of “binge flying”! Eastern Airways, when I look at Virgin Trains, I remember how much I love thee!

A recent documentary on Al Jazeera English covered an interesting issue, that of usage rights to the waters of the Nile river system.
Nile water usage rights are complex, due to the river system encompassing many different countries, and also many different climatic zones, from equatorial rainforests through to hyper-arid hot desert. Rights to water usage are currently based on two agreements, the 1929 agreement (“Nile Water Agreement”) led by the British and Egyptian governments, and the 1959 agreement (“Agreement for the Full Utilization of the Nile”) between Egypt and Sudan. Both of these agreements are contentious amongst the “Upper Nile” states (i.e. those to the south of Sudan, plus Ethiopia) as neither agreement makes any provision for any nation except Egypt and Sudan in access to water. The 1929 agreement goes even further, in that it grants Egypt ultimate authority over Nile water usage, allowing Egypt to monitor any water extraction activities by other Nilotic states, and to veto any upstream dam projects (with the exception of a specific allocation to Sudan, drawn outside of the minimum flow period)

In recent years the upstream states, led by Ethiopia (by far the biggest and most powerful of the upstream states, and with aspirations to be the wider regional powerbroker) has challenged the legal foundation of the agreements, claiming that they are a colonial relic, and thus invalid. It is argued that the time of both agreements, many of the upstream states were either subject to direct colonial occupation, or had puppet states or suzerains forced upon them. These administrations, the upstream states argue, failed to defend their interests, against those of the colonial regimes (primarily British) whose own interests dictated that most water go to Egypt to drive her massive cotton and sugar industries, which kept  sure and steady supply of raw materials to European industrial interests. To press their claims, these states formed the Nile Basin Initiative, and invited Sudan and Egypt to take part, to negotiate a new treaty that allocates water to the upstream states, and also aims to establish a framework to harness more of the basins water supplies. Egypt has responded by refusing to sign any new agreements, and defending the existing acts, insisting that negotiation may only proceed on the basis of dealing with “green water” (rainfall entering the Nile system) completely separately to Egypt’s existing allocation, which would not be touched.

However, this has now been thrown into chaos by the imminent arrival on the scene of a completely new upstream state, South Sudan.
Firstly, South Sudan can legitimately and reasonably claim not to be subject to any existing treaty, as the state is an entirely new creation. It was not only not properly represented in prior acts by silence on the part of puppet or colonial governments, but literally was not in existence, with not even a “colonial stooge” at the table to represent them. Furthermore, the entry of this new state onto game board can be pointed to by both South Sudan, and other upstream nations, as making the forming of a new treaty essential, otherwise, South Sudan would be technically free to do anything with the river it pleased, being bound by no treaty.

Secondly, South Sudan’s relations with the North are unlikely to be good, given  recent events in Abyei province, on the soon-to-be border with the north, and the decades long conflict between the two nations. Thus, the south may regard allying with other upstream states in demanding a new treaty as a good way of pressuring Sudan (who like Egypt, rejects the reviewing of existing arrangements) into concessions on issues like Abyei and access to oil refining and export facilities in the north, upon which the south is dependent for its economic survival.

Thirdly, once the South does secede from Sudan “proper”, this may trigger a crisis in the north, possibly bringing down the government, Egypt’s key, and indeed, only, regional ally in its aggressive “just say no” position.
Finally, Egypt is very much trapped between a rock and a hard place. Egypt is under increasing pressure to agree to negotiating a new treaty, but in practical terms, cannot afford to do so.

Lake Nasser at New Kalabsha Island, Egypt – photo by the author

On the first issue, although the South demanding a new treaty gives an additional lever to the upstream nations to apply against Egypt (and Sudan), it is unlikely to make much difference. Egypt has successfully managed to not blink first in previous challenges, and in real terms there is actually not a great deal the South can do to actively interfere with current usage patterns. The course of the river through the South is predominantly flat swampland, with pastoral grazing as the main non-oil related economic activity. Large dam construction here would be almost impossible, and there is no need nor any supporting infrastructure with which to back up such a project. However, one ace the South does have is its ability to scupper Egypt’s current negotiating position of maintaining the current allocations, and co-operating to increase Nile flow, and distributing the benefits of the new flow more “equitably”. The biggest increase to the Nile flow, and those only clear and easy way of doing so, is by construction of a new main channel for the White Nile to divert it from the Sudd swamplands. Approx. 20bln m3 of White Nile water is lost to the swamps each year through evaporation (compared to the total annual allocation to Egypt of 55.5bln m3). Diverting it would release much of that water into the lower river system, where it can be used productively, or so the theory goes. Such a scheme was started in the 1970s, known as the Jonglei canal.  However, the population of the South is against the scheme, fearing it will turn the swamps, on which they graze cattle, into desert, and that the project was an attempt at Egypto-Sudanese colonisation of the South. The SPLA, one of the main political forces in the South, targeted (and completely halted) early work on the project at the beginning of the 2nd north-south war. As such, not only can the South block the only real way to significantly increase Nile flow, but has done so before, and can do so again. Thus, the South could effectively block any attempt at renegotiation that includes Egypt on terms it can accept.

This leads us in the second point. The south is vulnerable to northern pressure on its oil industry. The south is landlocked, and the export pipelines at present all run north through Sudan “proper” to the Red Sea coast. In addition, most of the refining capacity for Sudanese oil lies in the north. Given that the South has no other significant source of income,  and given the aforementioned craptastic relations between the two, then no one would be surprised if the South uses all the levers at its disposal to ensure that it gets the access it needs to these facilities. And, the biggest lever it has is the ability to block projects like Jonglei that both Egypt and Sudan need in order to both exploit their existing allocations, and free up “spare” water to use as in negotiating a new settlement. The south is doubtless also aware that the Egyptians will likely hold the North responsible for “reigning in” any Southern action, possibly including the latter using its “new state” status to put pressure on Egypt and Sudan to join the NBI bandwagon. The south also knows just how dependent the north is on good relations with Egypt. If it were not for the latter’s sheltering of the north from the full force of the west, in return for toeing the line on the Nile, a peaceful southern frontier, and forgetting about the Halib triangle dispute. Omar Bahsir has doubtlessly had a good run. If it were not for Egypt, he would already be well used to Dutch prison food.

Which leads into a quiet concern, but one that is doubtlessly very prominent in the minds of Egypt’s strategic thinkers – the collapse of Northern Sudan. When the South secedes, the North will be deprived of a significant chunk of income, and also a significant amount of her strategic worth to China, whom has bankrolled the north for some time, as well as providing the technology and expertise necessary to develop the oil industry and military. It is no secret that this is in exchange for a guaranteed flow of oil back to China. With much of that oil now lying in the South, the North may well find the cash pipeline shut off, or at least much reduced, and the many of the engineers packing up their tools and jumping on a plane to Juba. It is for precisely this reason that the North was fought so long and hard to prevent the South from separating in the first place. Egypt is doubtlessly aware of the fact, but has limited options. There is little money to throw at the problem, and the oft repeated rhetoric about a military solution to defending water rights is precisely that, rhetoric. There is little appetite either in Egypt or amongst her Western friends for the government to make good on said rhetoric, and it is doubtful in any event that the military could sustain such a stabilisation or “nation building” exercise for any length of time, especially in a nation which has a (very, very) long and troubled history of Egyptian military intervention.

As a result of all these factors, it would seem that Egypt is left with few alternatives to joining the table at the NBI, and agree to negotiate a new water usage agreement that covers all the Nilotic states. However, Egypt is backed into a corner domestically. With its current Nile allocation of 55.5bln m3, and just1.3bln m3 from other sources, Egyptian water resources total around 860m3 per capita per annum (putting it well into “water scarce” territory), and with population growth (and depleted fossil water resources) factored in, this is forecast to drop to 600m3 within 15 years. The Nile allocation represents some 96% of total Egyptian water resources. Clearly, then,  Egypt is in no position to relinquish any of its rights to Nile water. Also, it is clear that in order to meet the future needs of her population and agriculture, Egypt needs to drastically increase both the amount of available water, and the efficiency with which it is used, particularly in regards to agricultural use.

The only realistic way to increase available resources is to get the Jonglei canal project back on track. This means engagement with South Sudan, and that will only be possible if Egypt can offer the South something in return. Given that the South is largely dependent on oil income alone, which generates revenue but little employment or development potential, and given the lack of money Egypt can put on the table, two possibilities present themselves. Firstly, making it clear that the Jonglei project will mean more water overall. Whilst pressing hard for Jonglei, she should also find a natural alliance with South Sudan in giving them a voice in the NWI and other regional bodies, and in pushing for South Sudan to get its own dedicated allocation of surplus Nile water sufficient to allow for agricultural development, in return for South Sudan defending Egypt’s current rights, the Jonglei project, and an additional Egyptian allocation from the Jonglei water.

Secondly, Egypt can offer South Sudan advisers and engineering expertise in developing her agriculture, a potential source of significant employment and alternate revenue stream. Egyptian investors have made headway in establishing agricultural ventures in Sudan in recent years, developing farmland to produce crops for export back to Egypt. Utilising this experience for both domestic and Egyptian production would be of significant value to South Sudan, which is experiencing an influx of returnees from the north, but has few jobs or resources with which to absorb them.

At the same time, Egypt also needs to drastically increase domestic water efficiency. Agriculture accounts for over 80% of Egyptian water consumption. The vast majority of Egyptian fields are still irrigated by perennial irrigation. Drip irrigation, which can potentially reduce water usage by as much as 70%, is extremely rare, and is confined almost entirely to the largest and most industrialised farms on new land. Introducing this technology to small farms on old land could free up a massive amount of water. In addition, realigning agricultural policy away from water intensive crops such as sugar to “dry” crops such as wheat would allow for additional water savings, as well as providing greater food security for Egypt.

The challenges facing Egypt, both diplomatically in defending her essential interests, as well as domestically in introducing new technologies with potentially high financial and political costs is daunting. However, the existing policy of stonewalling the upstream countries so long as the status quo can endure may no longer be an option. South Sudan will soon become a fact, a political reality that Cairo will have to engage with, like it or not. Similarly, Egyptians are going to continue to farm the land, drink water, and have children. Cairo needs to win the argument that the basic rhythm of life in the provinces can only continue if entrenched practices of irrigation out in the governates can change.

Such challenges can be met. The current climate of relative openness, engagement and unity between the government and the people is a once in a lifetime opportunity to address an issue as deeply emotional as it is complex, and secure a lasting victory for Egypt. A victory that guarantees her rights to the Nile, the long term security of the agricultural heartland, and a diplomatic victory in the upper Nile basin.

The British newspaper the Daily Mail has a long and, well… notable… history of adopting hard-right positions, from support for the British fascist movement in the 1930s, right through to the present day, where the paper is famous (or infamous, whichever!) for its sensationalist headlines on immigration, welfare “spongers”, and crimes by ethnic minorities (Romanies being one of the more frequent targets). Normally yours truly tends to overlook the most hysterical headlines, but whilst browsing the major papers today I could not but notice this article, which was the front page in today’s (27/05/2011) print edition, though not the headline.

UK doles out more aid than any other country:

Despite the savage cutbacks at home,

we top world league in foreign aid

A typical sensationalist Daily Mail headline. How outrageous, that whilst the “squeezed middle” of the United Kingdom have to put off replacing the Range Rover they have been stuck with for over two years now (there is not a “squeezed bottom” in the British media, something which many socialists, feminists and readers of The Sun whose interest holds long enough to get to page 3 would disagree with) we should be funding such frivolous projects as disaster relief, health, education and sanitation in the developing world, and that we are (apparently!) the single biggest donor to such trivialities, despite the problems we have.

Well, no. The headline, as so often with the Mail, is misleading. As the article mentions further down, the reality is rather different. In absolute terms, the UK is the third largest donor, after the USA and the EU’s central aid agency. This the article itself tacitly admits this, insisting that the UK is the world’s largest contributor as a percentage of GDP.

Now,  that is, simply put, utterly wrong.  Sweden is the largest humanitarian aid donor as percentage of GDP, with a 2010 figure of 0.98%, followed by Norway at 0.88%, and Denmark  and the Netherlands both contributing 0.79%. Ireland comes in slightly above Britain, with 0.59% (source: http://www.cgdev.org/). These figures are visualised below. For those interested, the United States, although the largest contributor in absolute terms, is one of the minor players in terms of percentage of GDP, ranking 19th, with a contribution of 0.18%, the same as Italy, and one  rank below Greece (0.21%).

Top five humanitarian aid donors as % of GDP

In conclusion, whilst the ranking of Ireland (and Greece) may need to be revised in the coming year, in light of the “austerity” measures imposed by the joint EU / IMF bailout, it does nothing to change the fundamental point that the Daily Mail has misreported and distorted the facts to support a strongly politicised editorial line.

Does this surprise me? It itself, no. As already mentioned, that the paper has a decidedly right-wing stance is not – if you’ll forgive the pun – news. What does surprise me is that abuse and distortion of hard factual data to fit that line would be so blatant and transparent.  Once again, it brings into question as to whether or not the British mainstream media is actually fit for the purpose that it purports to fill – that of providing the general public with factual and reliable information on local and global events, from which they may make informed electoral and personal choices. Until such time as events like this cease to be such everyday occurrences that we no longer  notice – let alone care -  then I would suggest that it is not.

A new era for the Merlion?

Exams here have forced my attention away from events in the wider world. The 2011 General Election marks many firsts for Singapore. The political landscape of the city has changed, but what it has changed to has yet to be revealed.

Opposition Contests

The first surprise came even before the election itself, when the opposition parties announced they would be standing in all but five seats (82 out of 87 elected seats). Even before the first ballot was cast, Singaporean history had been made. That on its own would have raised eyebrows, where it not for the fact that this was accompanied by an unprecedented break in opposition policy of heavyweight opposition figures  moving out of safe havens to contest for bigger electoral prizes. In this case, the spiritual heir of none other than JBJ, Low Thia Khiang (now head of the Workers Party), leaving the safety of Hougang SMC to contest Aljunied GRC, entrusting defence of the Hougang homeland to Yaw Shin Leong.

So, did this surge of opposition activity set the ballot boxes alight and jolt the system like a bolt of… dare I say, lightning?

Well, sort of…

Counting the Candidates

PAP won 60.14% overall, its lowest showing in the history of post-independence Singapore, and down 6.46%. However this needs to be balanced against the much higher number of seats contested, which denied the PAP the large number of walkovers it has previous enjoyed. Set in context, it would indicate that support for the PAP appears tougher when exposed to competition. Overall the PAP more or less held it’s ground, loosing just 1 seat, from 82 to 81

The WP share of the overall vote actually slipped by 3.51% to 12.83%, yet the strategic push into Aljunied GRC paid off, gaining 5 elected seats. This brings the WP from 1 elected and 1 NCMP seat to 6 elected and a further 2 NCMPs.

The NSP vote stood at 12.04% overall, but won no seats, whilst the SDP vote increased marginally by 0.76% to 4.83%, despite Chee Soon Juan being barred from running for being a very naughty boy.

The SPP also had a rough ride, loosing their sole SMP seat of Potong Pasir to the PAP, though Lina Loh Woon Lee’s narrow defeat there means she gets the somewhat lame consolation prize of an NCMP.

The fallout

In all honesty, the PAP should be patting themselves on the back. In the face of an unprecedented opposition push, PAP support was actually very solid. There aren’t many countries in the world where you can have pretty much every seat contested and still take ~90% of the elected seats, without literally putting guns to heads and your own hands in the ballot box. FPTP, MediaCorp, the judiciary, electoral stockings full of goodies, and gerrymandering all came through, so pats on the back all round, chaps!

Usual tricks aside, the results genuinely do show that many voters  put their tick beside the PAP,  and clearly did not feel the opposition understood their concerns and expectations (whether they do or not is irrelevant, the electorate were clearly not convinced). Nonetheless, the WPs tactical decisions certainly paid off for them, and no doubt the NSP will be looking very closely at WP tactics with interest, plus more than a hint of bitterness.

So, with this in mind, what the PAP did next is all the stranger…

PAP does something strange

Shortly after the dust has settled from the results, it was announced that both MM Lee Kuan Yew and SM Goh Chok Tong (former Prime Ministers from 1959-1990 and 1990-2004 respectively) will resign from the cabinet.

WE HAVE studied the new political situation and thought how it can affect the future. We have made our contributions to the development of Singapore. The time has come for a younger generation to carry Singapore forward in a more difficult and complex situation. The Prime Minister and his team of younger leaders should have a fresh clean slate. A younger generation, besides having a non-corrupt and meritocratic government and a high standard of living, wants to be more engaged in the decisions which affect them. After a watershed general election, we have decided to leave the cabinet and have a completely younger team of ministers to connect to and engage with this young generation in shaping the future of our Singapore. But the younger team must always have in mind the interests of the older generation. This generation who has contributed to Singapore must be well-looked after.

- Press statement issued by Goh Chok Tong on behalf of himself and Lee Kuan Yew. (source)

This will be the first time since Singapore gained independence that Lee will not be in the cabinet. Ultimately, this is an event of far greater significance than the oppositions largely blunted attempt to flex its muscles, and is a question that raises many questions as to where the PAP, and Singapore, go from here.

What will become of Lee’s legacies – “Asian Values” (Neo-Confucianism), multiculturalism, the enduring nature of the Internal Security Act, and of government investment vehicles like Temasek? Are we seeing the end of Lee and Goh’s time in MM/SM roles, or are we seeing the end of these positions as a whole? Will Lee Hsien Loong have a SM portfolio to retire to?

It should be noted that whilst both MM and SM are resigning from the government, they are retaining their role as MPs for Tanjong Pagar and Marine Parade respectively. Thus, it would be foolish to expect any immediate or short-term changes. Nonetheless, it is clear that some attempt to break with the past is underway, either amicable or otherwise, and sooner or later the PAP is going to feel confident enough to pursue whatever it is that provoked this move.

It is tempting to see the gradual move of the PAP away from social democratic ideas toward a more neo-liberal ideology (“Hong Kong lite”) as the underlying force, concluding that matters have finally come to a head, perhaps pushed by the economic crises. However, the prime energy behind this shift was none other than Lee himself.

The problematic comments made by both figures during the run up to elections about Muslims, opposition figures and the “repentance” Aljunied voters would need to make if voting for the WP are unlikely to be the cause, as Chan Soo Sen noted. Lee has said unfortunate things before and not been touched by PAP.

It is possible that this is genuinely a case of a feeling amongst both Lee and Goh (assumably in consultation with the wider party elite) that the party needs new direction, though I strongly suspect otherwise.

Either way, Singapore is facing the most profound political changes since independence, and quite possibly the most profound socio-economic changes to accompany them.

Notes

For readers outside of Singapore, a few notes on the Singaporean political system are relevent here. The essential structure of government is that of a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president, with executive power vested in the Prime Minister (though the President has to authorise use of strategic reserve funds by the government) utilising a FPTP electoral system.

Since the PAP dominates electoral politics, at one point it was faced with the prospect of there being just a single opposition MP. Since any MPs motion requires a seconding, the system risked loosing all credibility on its claim to be democratic and accountable. Thus rather than risk proportional representation (what the “risk” was, and who it was too, I shall leave to you, dear reader, to decide) the government came up with the the Non-Constituency MP, a handful (originally a maximum of 6, now 9, though the number is usually significantly less, being 3 in the 2011 elections) of opposition partycandidates who narrowly lost the electoral race in one or more seats. The opposition party in question nominates a candidate to take the seat, usually the one who ran in the most closely contested seat of that party.

Another oddity is that former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong remained in cabinet after retiring from the position of PM. Lee originally became “Senior Minister” (SM) in 1990. With Goh’s retirement in 2004, Lee was then elevated to “Mentor Minister” (MM), whilst Goh became the new SM. There is no analogue for these cabinet positions in other Westminster based systems.

 Another interesting change that emerged from this has also been the dramatically heightened profile – and positive perception of – Al Jazeera in the United States, paticularly Al Jazeera English. AJ was one of the few networks able to maintain 24/7 coverage of Tahrir Square, often with journalists embedded amongst the crowd as well as in buildings with a vantage point of the square, even during supposed government bans on foreign media. In addition, AJ’s mastery of the “New Media” such as blogs, social networks, video sharing and real-time microblogs like Twitter allowed them to both continue getting footage and information out whilst mainstream broadcasting equipment was confiscated or could not be used, as well as collate and disseminate information and footage sent in by the protestors themselves.

So, to quote a famous South African American:

“Let freedom reign!” ;-)

]]> http://honourablerekhyet.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/all-change-please-this-government-terminates-here/feed/ 0 honourablerekhyet http://honourablerekhyet.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/obama-acts-diplomatically-conservatives-upset/ http://honourablerekhyet.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/obama-acts-diplomatically-conservatives-upset/#comments Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:46:17 +0000 Honourable Rekhyet http://honourablerekhyet.wordpress.com/?p=277 ]]>

At the recent G20 meeting of heads of state right here in London, not a great deal was achieved beyond a vague consensus that trying to lessen the pain of the Credit Crunch(tm) was “A Good Thing”. This is no surprise, of course. The G20 brings together diverse nations with wildly differing agendas. Indeed, the only unifying factor seemed to be a desire by 19 of the 20 to blame the other one (guess who) for starting the whole thing.

However, despite the importance of having 20 of the worlds great and good together, regardless of how little was achieved, as far as the American conservative media, the whole event was summed up by 13 seconds of  video footage from a Spanish TV network of President Obama bowing before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

“The president shows fealty to a Muslim King!” shouted the right wing Washington Times (not to be confused with the mainstream Washington Post). From there it was only a matter of time until Fox picked up the story, though with somewhat less negative judgement.

“American protocol favors the extension of warm gracious hospitality and I put what he did in that context” they quote Lloyds Hand, protocol handler for LBJ as saying.

The reality is that Obama looks a little unsure of the best thing to do, and more than slightly rushed, as if he were very self conscious. However since perception is as important as action, it is being seen in this light, and so it’s wise to treat it from this perspective.

As such, I think the “Alleged Bow”  should be seen in the light of Obamas commendable efforts to rebuild goodwill, trust and diplomatic bridges between the US and the Middle East. During the Bush Jnr. years, the hawks in the US government managed to alienate even the strongest diplomatic ties. The House of Saud and the US had some of the strongest personal diplomatic ties in the world, dating back to Ibn Saud and FDR. Although Bush made an attempt to patch over the damage his policies caused, the wilful disregard of the US for Saudi diplomatic advice, and ignoring their concerns, led to a rift that has cost the US dearly in terms of goodwill and diplomatic influence with an ally who is a key voice of moderation and reason in collective Arab foreign policy.

Obamas attempts to engage productively with the Middle East will likely come to little in the long term, but in a region where sincerity and goodwill can go a long way, Obama is doing the right thing in showing common courtesy and respect, even if King Abdullah himself may like things a little more westernised. His gesture will likely go down well with the Arab public, and show to diplomats and citizens alike that Obama wants to soothe over the wounds of the past, and try to build relationships of mutual respect in the region, another “A Good Thing”.

President Obama’s optimism for the region may be a tad unrealistic, but he is on the right track.

By Abdel-Rahman Hussein

First Published: January 21, 2009

CAIRO: The inauguration of Barack Obama as the first black American president was a historic moment for the United States, but disparate political forces in Egypt are more interested in what he will do rather than what he says or symbolizes.

In his inauguration speech the new President did sound words of warning to dictatorships and those who rule their subjects with an iron fist.

He said, “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” he added.

And while it appeared that he had left an opening for dictators to renounce their ways, some believe that it is American support for dictatorships that help prop them up.

Gamila Ismail, wife of incarcerated former presidential candidate Ayman Nour, told Daily News Egypt, “I hope these are not just words and are transformed into genuine actions and policies. We don’t ask from American administrations or their representatives anything except to stop supporting dictatorships in the region and to be more interested in their principles rather than their interests.”

“This has to be reflected in their public and private support for them,” she added. “He [Obama] really has to stop backing dictatorships in the region and in Egypt must show he cares more about the people than the rulers.”

An indication of this, continued Ismail, will be whether the annual March visit of President Hosni Mubarak to the US is resumed after a hiatus under the Bush administration.

“That visit will be an indication. Receiving dictators in the White House after years of not receiving them will be interpreted as an indication that all this is just talk,” she said.

Obama’s inauguration speech did address the international community, making a specific reference to the Muslim world. In his speech the new President seemed to stress the point that under his tenure things would be done differently from the administration of his predecessor George W. Bush.

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake,” he said.

“Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please,” he added.

And while that was repudiation of the Bush doctrine, what it will mean in practical terms is still a matter of conjecture.

“Optimism and pessimism about Obama which we speak of here is controversial,” editor-in-chief of the Coptic Christian Watani newspaper Youssef Sidhom told Daily News Egypt, “because it is wrong to judge his actions in the emotional way we often do here. It is wrong to assume that a president’s personality is the basis for the country’s policy.”

“For those who think that American policy will now change comprehensively, they are wrong, because American interests haven’t changed,” he added. “The research institutions that formulate American policy are still the same.”

Shoura Council member and Secretary of Youth at the ruling National Democratic Party Mohammed Heeba said that American policy would not change and that Arabs should focus on themselves more than waiting for hope from any American administration.

“US policy is based on projections that extend for decades, the people may change but the ideas are constant. Administrations might differ in their methods but the goals are one,” he told Daily News Egypt. “Arab countries should think about uniting in their stands so that it should not matter who is in the American administration.”

“However, if we keep dealing with the US separately then we will remain as we are,” he added.

In his speech Obama said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.”

He also said, “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

Head of the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc Hussein Ibrahim told Daily News Egypt, “I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic about him, but I hope he undertakes serious efforts in regards to reaching out to the Muslim world, at least more than the Bush administration did. He did say he wants to reach out to the Muslim world and I hope he is true to his word.”

Sidhom said that just because Obama had Muslim roots, this did not mean a diametric shift in American policy in the region.

“Let us not talk of the naiveté that because he has ‘Hussein’ in his name then he must be a Muslim. If we have a deluded street that measures everything and everyone by how Islamic they are, we in the media should not propagate that,” he said.

“Obama has a lot of goodwill at the moment so maybe he can make use of it. We must not expect miracles but I don’t think there will be talks with Iran or a solution to the Palestinian issue during his reign. And we are not the priority as his statements made clear; he has an economic crisis that will take up most of his time,” Sidhom added.

It’s been two days, and thankfully the “Obamagasm” is already over in the Middle East – North Africa, or at least in Egypt.  Having read and watched what some people had to say, particularly in Palestine (desperation, perhaps?) I was surprised, and disturbed, by the naivete of much of the commentary surrounding him, reflecting in many ways what some of his more worshipful followers in the States had been saying, though usually with some reference to his being Muslim thrown in. I am glad that at least some in Egypt have put this fairytale aside.

As far as the MENA region is concerned, THERE IS NO “CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN” COMING FROM THE UNITED STATES. Obama is not an absolute monarch, his word isn’t law, no matter how nice those words might be.

As Sidhom points out in the article, behind the face of Obama and his appointees are the same institutions and lobby groups upon which any president is almost entirely dependent for his survival. Obama spent over a billion dollars getting into office. That money came mostly from large groups and institutions, most of which also poured money into McCain’s campaign (just to be on the safe side). They want a return on their investment, otherwise, re-election campaign funds may not be so forthcoming.

For Egypt, and the whole region, whoever won it was always going to be “McSame” as far as America was concerned. Egypt is waking up to the new same old reality, which pleases me, for she is less likely to be seduced when sweet talk is seen as just that.

As for Heeba’s comments about Arab unity. It’s a common response to attempt to bring, dare I say it, change (?!) to the region, but it is not something history likes. There are reasons for this. Are Egypt’s interests truly the same as the interests of the UAE, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia? Where they are, then yes, there should be maximum unity, but the differences are also clear, and pretending that these other states will always support Egypt and her interests is to fall into the same trap some have with Obama. Ultimately, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh do not border Gaza, Egypt does. Abu Dhabi and Riyadh do not find their economy disrupted by US cotton subsidies and grain prices. Egypt does.

Habib Haddad for Al Hayat (Pan-Arab newspaper)

]]> http://honourablerekhyet.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/i-aim-for-the-stars-but-sometimes-i-hit-london/feed/ 0 honourablerekhyet press02 http://honourablerekhyet.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/egypt-blogs-america/ http://honourablerekhyet.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/egypt-blogs-america/#comments Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:39:45 +0000 Honourable Rekhyet http://honourablerekhyet.wordpress.com/?p=263 ]]> An interesting project from the Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research and the American University in Cairo, who have collaborated with US-AID to send eight Egyptian on visits to the US during the election campaign to produce a joint blog covering the event.

According to the Egypt Daily News, the eight were chosen for their dedication to professional blogging, interest in covering the US Elections and availability to travel rather their political views of the grand circus, so it makes for an interesting read.

It’s a good project, and a good example of journalisitc co-operationbetween “east” and “west” we don’t often see, so it’s a welcome change.

http://egyptblogsamerica.blogspot.com/