The mechanics of sedition

Egypt will not be blown off course by the actions of a handful of extremists or the machinations of outside powers, writes Ibrahim Nafie

---

In the course of the sensationalist media coverage of Saturday's terrorist attacks in Cairo I could not help but recall a remark made to me by Venezuelan Vice-President Jose Rangel in the course of an interview last month. "We are not a banana republic," he said, commenting on the futility of outside designs to destabilise his country. That terse expression eloquently summed up both the pride Venezuelans feel in the achievements of their model of political and economic development and their confidence that they can resist any attempt to undermine the progress they have made.

Egypt is a pivotal regional power and as such its programme for reform and development has been targeted by outside forces. Egyptians have the resources and the resolve to withstand such pressure. In the 1990s Egypt was struck by a wave of terrorist attacks, carried out by organisations that imagined themselves capable of rocking the country's stability and overturning its system of government. Yet despite these groups' outside connections, and their ability to capitalise on certain aspects of the regional and international climate, Egypt succeeded in breaking these organisations and restoring peace and security.

Today the evil of terrorism has once more reared its head. In this case, however, we are speaking of no more than a handful of individuals, operating independently of any larger group or network. These people, motivated by the same perverted beliefs and seeking the same ends, were responsible for both the Taba and Al-Azhar bombings. Then, on Saturday, one of those implicated in the Al-Azhar incident threw himself off the Sixth of October Bridge detonating a rudimentary home-made bomb. Less than two hours later his sister and fiancée opened fire on a tourist bus in Sayyida Aisha.

On Saturday several bystanders were wounded, though the only fatalities were the terrorists themselves. Yet media networks swooped down as though an upheaval of inestimable magnitude were in progress. Suddenly we had round-the-clock live coverage and dozens of experts discussing the repercussions of these acts, not just on the tourism industry and the economy but on the political system and the future of reform. This intensive and tendentious coverage made it obvious that some satellite channels were pursuing agendas of their own.

I am not suggesting such spurious coverage is part of a foreign conspiracy, though I do not rule out the possibility. What one cannot help but note, though, is the connection between this and the fact that Egypt is pursuing a domestically inspired development programme that does not conform to the wholesale prescriptions of some global powers. Foreign forces have been manoeuvering for some time to infiltrate sectors of Egyptian society with the goal of promoting reforms that serve their own, rather than Egyptian, interests. Clearly, the closer Egypt comes to implementing an alternative approach the more desperate these forces have become.

We are not alone in pursuing an independent course. Latin American countries were among the first to reject alien models for change and development, and they have withstood many attempts -- by domestic forces or neighbouring governments working on behalf of major powers in exchange for self-advancement -- to sabotage their domestically-tailored programmes. Today Egypt faces a similar challenge.

If there is one lesson these powers, and their agents in the region, should learn it is that Egypt is not a "banana republic". It is an influential regional power that refuses to import prefabricated models for change and is confident of its ability to devise and apply the processes that best suit the needs and aspirations of its people. While Egypt cherishes its close relations with international powers, these relations must remain on a footing of mutual respect and non-intervention.

Israel, which constantly evades the obligations of the peace process, should realise that it bears the responsibility for the spread of chaos in the region. Through its continued occupation of Arab territories and the daily injustices it perpetrates against people under occupation it gives terrorist organisations a ready pretext to wage their operations. Washington's unqualified support for Israel, to the extent of absolving it from international agreements and conventions, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, only fuels the popular anger and frustration that breeds extremism and terrorism.

As for those governments that host American bases, where plots to sew unrest and instability are hatched and orchestrated, I would suggest they return to their senses, and quickly. The malicious glee at a cowardly terrorist act that struck a sister Arab nation was all too obvious. But they should not delude themselves into thinking that you are immune to such acts. Those who play with fire end up getting burned.

I stress, again, that Egypt will not bow to foreign dictates and it will not be deterred from implementing its own programme for change and development. Nor will it permit religious parties to be established. Such parties, by definition, and as the record of their advocates testifies, see democracy only as a route to absolute power.

They do not believe in political plurality. They cannot accept that the people should be the source of authority, or that all citizens are equal under law. Egypt is not prepared to entertain the suggestion, made by some in the West or else by their agents here, to make room for religious parties. To do so would be disastrous to Egypt's stability and security.