The Hanging of Hosni Mubarak
Hosni Mubarak faces death by hanging. Though today’s newspapers are full of breathless reporting via al-Ahram, the state owned newspaper, Mubarak’s foreordained destination was always the gallows, known at least since April of last year. His sons Ala’a and Gamal, along with six police officers are also on trial for corruption and premeditated murder.
Mubarak’s gurney rolls from his hospital prison cell into the Cairo Police Academy courtroom. He suffers variously from stomach cancer, circulatory problems and a heart condition. Since September, Egyptian television no longer offers live coverage of the trial, though Cairo and much of the Arabic speaking world would flock to the nearest TV set to watch the proceedings, old men screaming epithets at the screens and the erstwhile beneficiaries of Mubarak’s largesse shuddering quietly, sucking philosophically on their hookahs, muttering prayers.
Born in 1928, Hosni Mubarak is an old man, old enough to have flown Spitfire fighters. We’re pretty sure Mubarak fabricated most of his record during the 1973 war with Israel. Mubarak became Anwar Sadat’s toady and mouthpiece and everyone found excellent reasons to tolerate this Devil We Knew ever since. Mubarak’s grinning phiz appears alongside every US president, secretary of state and minor US functionary in the region.
Mubarak was a devil and the USA was entirely complicit in much that he did. With the exception of one year and six months beginning in 1980, Egypt has been under emergency Law 162 of 1958. Constitutional rights were essentially nil, nothing was published without government censorship, street demonstrations and political donations were forbidden. Kifaya, the Egyptian Movement for Change, says as many as 30,000 political prisoners were in prison under the mandate of Law 162 in 2005.
Abdel Harith Madani, a lawyer for Islamist detainees, was tortured and murdered in Egyptian state police custody somewhere between April 26 and May 6 of 1994. Egypt’s Lawyers Syndicate attempted to obtain the autopsy report. Security forces surrounded their building, teargassed and stampeded them into the street where many were injured and subsequently arrested. Many human rights groups called for an investigation. Naturally enough, it was all covered up.
On October 26, 1994, President Clinton visited Cairo, uttering these stern remarks:
Our countries share a commitment to promote economic growth in Egypt as well. At my request, the Vice President met with President Mubarak when he was in Cairo in September, and they initiated a new partnership for economic growth. Earlier this week our two countries agreed to establish new committees to support this partnership. The Vice President will be saying more about that in the next few months. I believe he’ll have the opportunity to come back here.
Again, let me thank President and Mrs. Mubarak for their gracious reception. And let me thank President Mubarak especially again for his leadership in this process. I am confident we would not be where we are today had it not been for him.
Early last year, Matt Latimer, Bush43’s wordsmith observed
It was easy for U.S. presidents to bash regimes with which America did not have productive relationships—easy marks like Iran, Syria, and Cuba. But when it came to confronting dictatorships with which we shared common interests—China and Russia, for example—the language we used was more careful, our actions more forgiving. This was especially true in the Middle East, where Bush frequently castigated the human-rights abuses in Iran and Syria, but seldom shined a spotlight on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Egypt.
Egypt was a particular concern for Bush. Early in 2008, Bush told an assembly of the presidential speechwriting staff that the Mubarak regime was his biggest disappointment. Bush had hoped that the country, with its educated, productive populace, might lead the way for democratic reform in the Middle East, but a crusty apparatchik stood in the way. Nothing was likely to change in Egypt, Bush said, until Mubarak was gone.
Sympathetic reporters touted Bush’s speech as bold and brave. They had no idea that the Egyptians had cowed the most powerful nation in the world to go against their better instincts.
….snip…
Noting that friendships required candor, Bush would go on to press Egypt to live up to its promises of political and economic reform, and warn of the consequences if they shirked them. We knew, as well as anyone, that the Egyptian people were not enamored with those who ruled them. “The change the people in the Middle East have been looking for is before us,” Bush would say. “The only question left to be asked by the leaders and intellectuals of this region, and in this room, is this: Will you be left behind by this change—or will you choose to lead it?” And then the great moment: Bush would stand in Egypt and call directly for Mubarak to send a message of “goodwill” to the world by ordering his guards to go to the prison where dissidents were held, open the door of the cell where his nemesis was held, and set free one of the world’s most famous political prisoners: Ayman Nour, an Egyptian reformer whose only real crime was to challenge Mubarak in a “free” presidential election.
Matt Latimer’s screed is well worth the read, I assure you. The USA lacks the conviction of its beliefs. Egypt’s revolution largely happened without us. When America had the chance to speak truth to power in Egypt, we didn’t. Dozens of dictators all over the world know we’re not serious about meaningful democratic reforms. Their calculus is simple: get a nuke. America doesn’t invade a country with a nuke.
Carrots and sticks we have in plenty. American foreign policy just doesn’t have to be like this. Perhaps this weakness is intrinsic to our republican form of government with its ever-changing cast of characters: presidents come and go, the dictators can outwait us. America is King Midas in reverse: all we touch turns to shit. Iraq smolders, four million refugees still displaced by ethnic/religious cleansing and worse is yet to come, mark my words. The refugees have returned from Pakistan back to Afghanistan after our invasion yet that miserable country still lacks any semblance of good government.
America has proven faithless to our erstwhile allies and faithless to the rights of man. We poured money, billions every year, into Mubarak’s dictatorial regime, buying peace with Israel. Billions more are showered on Israel, though we see no peace. Even Israel offers Mubarak asylum, remembering his role in keeping the cold peace: every time the nations of the region would shake their fists and go to war, Egypt did most of the fighting and dying. Dictatorships are expensive: Mubarak stole all that money to pay off his supporters and he used the money American gave him to do so. When, at long last, will America come to its senses and stop paying for false peace and undeclared wars?
In 1966, Egypt under Nasser hanged its most important philosopher, Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual father of the Muslim Brotherhood, thereby making a martyr of him. He wrote a little book named Milestones in which he said these words:
It is necessary for the new leadership to preserve and develop the material fruits of the creative genius of Europe, and also to provide mankind with such high ideals and values as have so far remained undiscovered by mankind, and which will also acquaint humanity with a way of life which is harmonious with human nature, which is positive and constructive, and which is practicable.
Democracy in the West has become infertile to such an extent that it is borrowing from the systems of the Eastern bloc, especially in the economic system, under the name of socialism. It is the same with the Eastern bloc. Its social theories, foremost among which is Marxism, in the beginning attracted not only a large number of people from the East but also from the West, as it was a way of life based on a creed. But now Marxism is defeated on the plane of thought, and if it is stated that not a single nation in the world is truly Marxist, it will not be an exaggeration. On the whole, this theory conflicts with man’s nature and its needs. This ideology prospers only in a degenerate society or in a society which has become cowed as a result of some form of prolonged dictatorship. But now, even under these circumstances, its materialistic economic system is failing, although this was the only foundation on which its structure was based.
The Muslim Brotherhood won the latest round of elections in Egypt. Lenin was fond of saying prison was the finishing school of the revolutionary and most of the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood has spent time in Mubarak’s prisons. Egypt’s revolution seems to follow the pattern established in most other such revolutions: a brief period of hysterical exultation followed by an instantaneous reversion to a conservative government intent upon executing the hated dictator and his cronies. Another revolution usually follows hard on its heels, tacking hard into the wind: the dictator becomes a martyr and the revolutionaries are executed. In 1661, upon the re-establishment of the monarchy under Charles II, Oliver Cromwell’s corpse was disinterred from Westminster Abbey, hanged at Tyburn, beheaded, his body thrown into a pit and his rotten skull stood atop a pike outside Westminster Hall for 24 years.
Egypt’s revolution will run aground and another nasty dictator will take Mubarak’s place. It won’t take long. Like the seed that fell on stony ground in the Parable of the Sower, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. The groundwork for substantive democratic reforms in Egypt has not been done.
The sun is rising on Egypt. Its problems remain as dire as ever. The newly-elected Islamists might make some headway at first. Egypt’s burgeoning population, especially the young people, the idealists we cheered in Tahrir Square, lack jobs and resources. The Muslim Brotherhood means well, I do believe, but there’s only so much they can do before they are coopted by the security apparatus which once jailed them. What will become of religious and political minorities in Egypt? The Copts are in serious trouble, as were the Christians of Iraq after the downfall of Saddam. Many Iraqi Christians fled to Egypt and they have not returned. They face an uncertain fate, as do many Libyans who fled into Egypt. The tourist industry, the backbone of the Egyptian economy, is on hard times.
Mubarak isn’t dead yet. Hanging will make a martyr of him and martyrs can only die once, as Sayyid Qutb only died once and lives on in the hearts of many, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor of al-Qaeda. We haven’t seen the last of Egypt’s military aristocracy, not by a long shot, and America’s options are limited. Obama and the State Department are talking to the Muslim Brotherhood, a good sign. But the Muslim Brotherhood remembers its days in prison, when America’s leadership said and did nothing to help them. Mubarak’s fall and America’s subsequent abandonment of the Devil We Knew is even more instructive: America’s friendships never last.
We’ve got Blaise writing here? It’s about time!Report
Now we just need North and Mike Schilling (who has, apparently, fallen off the face of the earth).Report
I was just thinking the same thing the other day, when Leaguefest came up. He and Mike Farmer both.Report
I’d have to write more regularily to merit a spot on the League’s slate. I’m not good, it seems, at writing my own initial posts.Report
There is a rumor that I have heard but cannot substantiate with a few minutes of googling that deals with some of the new and improved more religious folks in power discussing whether to destroy the Sphinx/Pyramids as being un-Islamic.
This is one of those things that would strike me as an obvious slur if it weren’t for stuff like the Buddhas of Bamiyan (which has pushed me to merely hoping that it’s a slur).
If this happens: the remaining tourist industry will disappear, like, entirely.
My question: this is a slur, right? There’s no truth behind it… right?Report
It’s Rumors R Us in Egypt these days. Nobody knows anything for sure. The Muslim Brotherhood is perceived as a bunch of old Fuddy Duddies for whom Islam is the Answer (that’s their slogan) for everything.
I’m not as fearful of the Muslim Brotherhood as it stands today. Let’s see how they behave when their promises aren’t kept. They were great at running soup kitchens. Not so sure how well they’ll run Egypt in toto.Report
France’s bread riots won’t be as bad as Egypt’s, in the books of history, I suspect.Report
“America doesn’t invade a country with a nuke.”
Well, as Osama bin Laden Fish Chow demonstrated, quick invasions are ok..Report
Yeah, the Muslim Brotherhood are the moderate ones as far as the non-secularists go, there’s a whole nother party (the #2 winner in the parlimentary elections IIRC) that’s pure Salafists.Report
Egypt’s revolution will run aground and another nasty dictator will take Mubarak’s place. It won’t take long. Like the seed that fell on stony ground in the Parable of the Sower, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. The groundwork for substantive democratic reforms in Egypt has not been done.
I hope and pray that you’re wrong here, but I fear you’re absolutely right.
Incidentally, my sister lives in Rabat in an area where there have been scattered protests. She asked some local friends if they believed there would be a revolution like there was in Egypt and their response was no, because they believed that Egypt differed from Morocco in that the Moroccan military has guns and they believe the Egyptian military does not. She found that more than a bit revealing about Moroccan politics.Report
The Egyptian military has guns and plenty of them. They’re certainly capable of using them. See, here’s the problem faced by the generals and especially by the mukhabarat: it’s the same one faced in Pakistan by the way, the military can only survive if the country itself survives in one form or another.
The military will let these little Islamists run around and try to make things better for the ordinary folks, as long as those Islamists don’t try to boss the military around. The Egyptian Army and the mukhabarat, (they’re not the same btw) have their own problems, internally. Mubarak just wasn’t good for business. Again, it’s the Asian and African Dictator joke: if Egypt doesn’t get its act together, those crowds will stop turning up in Tahrir Square and take to jihadist attacks, the same sort of medicine applied to Sadat back in the day, and the generals remember that well enough.Report
… yo, trader, you run the numbers on Egypt? How long’s she got?
My friend the expert (on what? younameit) says that Egypt ain’t got long to live, and she’s the breadbasket of the entire region. Agriculture is dying there… Middle east is gonna go bust, sooner or later.Report
Hard to say exactly when the honeymoon will end for the Muslim Brotherhood. The fellahin will love them for a good long while, but not overlong.
There’s Cairo and everywhere else in Egypt: two separate dynamics. The Egyptians call Cairo “Masr” which is the word for Egypt itself, but there’s more to Egypt, especially in the countryside. Things are very, very bad out in the sticks. Egyptians will start expecting results soon, though, and I don’t see how the Muslim Brotherhood will be able to give them much except for platitudes.
Report
Blaise – FYI I fixed some funny spacing in the formatting. Easiest to do that in the html editor. Welcome.Report
Yeah, the composed text came over from my editor with much cruft aboard and wouldn’t paragraph correctly. Thanks for straightening that out for me. Took me a bit to work out the More HREF too.Report
I hate the idea of killing Mubarak, though not because I find him to be anything less than contemptible. But there’s something unseemly and a little too Jacobin about the idea.Report
Nothing good can come of hanging Mubarak. It would be better if he was sent to Israel to live out his days. Such would be a fate worthy of him, to die in Israel, mourned only by his erstwhile enemies.Report
Hell, considering the extent of his health problems they might not get the chance anyway.Report
When America had the chance to speak truth to power in Egypt, we didn’t. Dozens of dictators all over the world know we’re not serious about meaningful democratic reforms. Their calculus is simple: get a nuke. America doesn’t invade a country with a nuke.
So very true. My sense is that American foreign policy is very often based in decisions made many years ago, with little regard for conditions today. The Cold War saw us making friends with all sorts of dodgy regimes. We can debate whether that was a good or bad strategy for the time, but one thing’s certain — when it ended, we were stuck with them, and we were far too slow to cut them loose.Report
Did you check out Matt Latimer’s article on DailyBeast, link above? He lays out a damning case for why America just keeps on repeating this pattern.Report
I did: “George, or Barack, or Jimmy, you may not like us, but you will hate the alternative.”
Which is possibly true. It’s too soon to tell. But I’ve repeatedly seen pictures of American-made tear gas canisters used in Tahrir Square, and I cringe anyway.Report
Sadly it’s behind a paywall, but I found this article in the New Yorker quite good:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/12/19/111219fa_fact_hessler
Report
Just wanted to say I really like the phrase “military aristocracy.” Never heard it before, but it sounds like it fits for so many third world (and even some “first world”) countries. Would you also argue that the Egyptian military is a sort of “state within a state”? I hear that phrase a lot. I’m also wondering when we see our first genuine stratocracy, “rule by the military” (though I guess Burma–sorry, Myanmar–sort of fits that bill.)Report
There’s a whole big book waiting to be written about the dynamics of a Stratocracy. I’ve lived in several: Niger Republic, Egypt for a while, Nigeria to some extent, and of course Guatemala.
Is the military a state within a state? Insofar as the military reserves goodies for itself, and it does in Egypt, yes. But Egypt’s military is well-respected internally, by the ordinary folks. Though Mubarak was an autocrat, he kept a semblance of civilian control in place. He needed that veneer of civil authority, though as he aged, the barracks plotters grew more numerous. That’s the problem with a Stratocracy, political pressures arise in the barracks, the young officers scheme incessantly. When Mubarak needed the military to act during the Arab Spring, they wouldn’t.
Mubarak should have ceded power to younger men and gone off to a life of sybaritic luxury. He couldn’t though: his mukhabarat’s entire reason for existence was to keep an eye on those barracks plotters. He was riding a tiger, much like the Soviet premiers rode the tiger of the KGB.. No sooner than one plotter would arise,off he’d go to prison: the leadership Mubarak needed to replace himself never gained enough traction.
While Egypt faced external threats (and was a threat all on its lonesome) Mubarak could bluff and roar and bare his teeth. Faced with an internal threat to his own power, the military didn’t feel particularly threatened by that threat and stood aside. Notice no military figures are on trial with Mubarak.
No, I don’t think the Egyptian military is a state within a state. At best, the military was a creature of the state, without which it couldn’t continue to thrive. Egypt’s military is a parasite, but a subtle one: it won’t try to kill its host. The USA fed that parasite with billions of dollars in military aid. Perhaps we should quit paying tribute to those military aristocrats. That’s what Obama’s threatening to do, anyway.Report