Backwards or forwards?
The tightening US grip on Iraq, controversy over the Press Syndicate elections and a "revolutionary" letter from the leader of Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiya featured in Egypt's press this week, writes Aziza Sami
Click to view caption |
|
Farag in Al-Ahram depicts two recent graduates dozing off at the coffeeshop waiting for jobs
Raouf in Al-Ahali draws two conjoined twins also taken to the doctor: government and corruption
|
News of Iraq on different fronts took precedence in this week's newspapers.
On 5 August, the independent, often dubbed Islamist writer Fahmy Howeidy wrote an article in Al-Ahram entitled "conditions for sending Arab troops to Iraq", in which he argued that it was not fitting that Arab troops be sent to Iraq "to fight the Americans' battle for them". This hazardous course, Howeidy argued, would jeopardise the relationship of the Arab countries with Iraq even further, and would confront mainly Sunni Arab troops with a predominantly Shi'ite Iraqi population.
"The solution," Howeidy wrote, "is to send an Arab peace-keeping force within the context of a clear political agreement setting a time-table for the retreat of the American forces. This is what happened in 1961 in the case of Kuwait, when it was threatened with occupation by Iraq and its ruler Salem Al-Subah appealed to British forces to come to his country's protection. The Arab League's Council convened and announced that it would stand by Kuwait's right to independence. The League said it would contribute to protecting this right, on condition that the British forces withdrew before an Arab peace-keeping force was sent to Kuwait. This actually took place, and the crisis ended in a peaceable and dignified manner."
Expressing his doubts as to whether something similar could be implemented in current circumstances, Howeidy concluded with the question of whether the "Arab countries can adopt a similar stance today. The answer will show us whether history (in our Arab region) moves forwards, or backwards!"
Despite the announcement made in Al-Ahram's banner on 6 August that "Arab ministers refuse to send Arab troops to Iraq," conjectures of "pressures being exerted on Arab governments to send a peace-keeping force" continued throughout the week. The opposition daily Al-Wafd, issued by the Wafd Party, on 7 August reported that "the US has launched an outright attack on the Arab League for having ignored America's demands to support the Iraqi Interim Ruling Council formed by the occupying forces." On 9 August the paper reported that "the US has announced that it intends to exert pressures on the Arab countries to induce them to support the interim council, and that it will work with the Arab League in this direction."
On 4 August, the economic daily Al-Aalam Al-Yom published an interview with businessman Ismail Osman, former chairman of the Arab Contractors group and himself a major contractor. Referring to the opportunities that could be afforded to Egyptian companies in Iraq's reconstruction, Osman said that "many Egyptian companies are trying to work in Iraq's reconstruction, but unfortunately their work will be as sub-contractors for American and British companies that have totally monopolised the reconstruction 'map'." Osman said that in addition to the highly competitive conditions set by American and British companies for sub-contractors, Egyptian companies did not have the required work plans and data for working in Iraq, "where reconstruction has not been organised until now".
On 5 August, Al-Aalam Al-Yom reported that the US authorities have "prohibited" companies that are partially government-owned from submitting bids to operate three mobile phone licences in Iraq. "Critics," wrote the paper, "say that the step [which sets the condition that government ownership in a bidding company must exceed no more than 5 per cent] is aimed at giving American companies the upper hand over Arab ones. Companies such as the Bahrain Telecommunications company, which offered mobile services in Baghdad for a brief period after the war, will thus be excluded."
Meanwhile, the newly elected council of the Press Syndicate continued to create debate in the press. While a sizeable number of commentators saw the election results as signalling a healthy "democratic" manifestation in that journalists had opted for an independent candidate, others portrayed it as an insidious development signalling new grounds gained by the Muslim Brotherhood in its control of the country's syndicates.
On 5 August, Al-Ahram, reporting on the "formation of the new council", wrote that it [the council] "admonishes some writers and journalists to distance the syndicate from politicisation and from attempts at categorising it into factions and political currents. They should give the council the opportunity to concentrate on professional and national issues, on which there is a consensus in the journalists' general assembly," the paper said.
In an apparent indication that the newly elected head of the Press Syndicate would not start by taking up "confrontational" stances, the council's statement added that "the council is careful to maintain strong ties with all official and civil institutions and to cooperate with all parties in order to resolve journalists' problems."
However, in the weekly magazine Rose El-Youssef on 9 August in a section entitled "dialogue of the week", Sulayman Al-Hakim, signing himself "a Nasserist writer", alleged that the "Nasserist" candidates in the syndicate elections, including those who had won seats, had distanced themselves from their Nasserist affiliation "in an unprincipled bid to court Brotherhood forces and win seats on the council".
In Al-Aalam Al-Yom on 9 August, Saad Hagras, apparently responding to an article written by Rida Hilal in Al-Ahram in which the latter had stated that "Hitler came to power through democracy", warned of the danger of undermining the meaning of the Press Syndicate elections by "those who claim to be liberals and believe in democracy, but who are now inciting, and trying to stop, the democratic process because it has yielded results that are not to their liking".
In the independent press, Sout El-Umma on 11 August took the opportunity to attack the Muslim Brotherhood, alleging that the "Brotherhood's Supreme Guide is ruling Egypt." This banner was accompanied by a drawing of Supreme Guide Ma'moun Al-Hodeibi, who, the paper alleged, is suffering from Alzheimer's disease, in the guise of a tarantula. An article elaborated upon the paper's view that all the candidates in the elections, and all the government candidates, including Salah Montasser, the most recent, had courted the Brotherhood's support in order to win votes.
This, the paper said, was testimony to the fact that the Brotherhood was the only viable political force in the country. "Playing with the Brotherhood is resorted to by all forces, weak, as well as strong, who do not know how to play their own cards," concluded Sout El-Umma.
The extent to which there is any credibility in the "review of thoughts" expressed by Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiya, which now claims to have relinquished violence and the takfir (denunciation as heretics) of their adversaries, was again brought to the fore by Makram Mohamed Ahmed, editor-in-chief of the weekly magazine Al-Musawwar on 8 August.
Giving the Gama'a the benefit of the doubt, and asking their adversaries to appreciate the fact that the group has been "able to develop its religious thought in the direction of rationality", Ahmed published a letter he had received from Karam Zohdi, one of the imprisoned "historic leaders" of Al-Gama'a. In the letter, Zohdi referred to the imminent completion of a book, co-authored by him and other Al-Gama'a leaders, entitled A New Fiqh for a Changing World: a Contemporary Outlook on the issue of Divine Governance.
Asserting that "a re-appraisal" of the process of interpretation (ijtihad) of the Qur'an and Shari'a was in order, Zohdi said that interpretations "must be suited to exigencies, and changing realities ..in the current case, the war on Iraq.. and the pressures being exerted on Arab governments from the powers of global hegemony". Based on this thought, Al-Gama'a was ready to "review" its relationship with Arab regimes, "since what is now at stake is national autonomy itself".
Zohdi said that the course followed by Al-Qa'eda network, which had formed a front to fight "Christians and Jews" had "brought nothing but loss to Islam and Muslims". He said that "governance in Islam means civilian governance, where a ruler must be held accountable and be liable to punishment. For Sunnis, there is no ruler who can give himself immunity and place himself as a mediator between man and God."
Zohdi added that the Western form of "democracy", with its political pluralism and multi-party system, must not be rejected just because it emanates from the West. "Islamic history is not a source of legislation," he said. "The fact that there were no 'parties' [in Islam's political development] does not mean they are to be prohibited."
In response to Ahmed's question on whether Al-Gama'a's denunciation of Al-Qa'eda was an attempt to "court the Americans", Zohdi responded that "we publicly rejected Al-Qa'eda's thinking a long time ago. This group's widening of the base of its enemies has resulted in a large international alliance, including moderate Islamic regimes, out to fight 'Islamic terrorism'. Al-Qa'eda has turned the whole world, including the Muslim countries, into a war-zone."
